Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive17

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <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>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

It's only a troll but ...[edit]

I know this is only a trollance but it's managed to get the learn together seal of categorisation. Susanpurrrrr ... (counting down to deletion 05:31, 12 December 2007 (EST))

Your suspects are founded, Helpjazz must be an avid reader of RW. Editor at CP 17:22, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Where did I find that North America article mentioned? Was it in WIGO or WIGO talk? Anyway, HelpJazz likes us very much. Hi, Helpjazz! Update: Karajou doesn't read us instead.Editor at CP 17:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Oops, sorry, guys. Didn't know this was covered here. I included North America's updates, hope you don't mind. --Sid 18:02, 12 December 2007 (EST)
My fault to cover it here. It's just that by pure coincidence today Helpjazz in CP improved or discussed three articles that RW pointed out earlier today or yesterday. One of them was North America, someone pointing out, in WIGO or here in the Talk page, that North America is full of empty headers. Editor at CP 18:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Nope: this one's still there! Susanpurrrrr ... 17:39, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Right, but under the vigilant scrutiny of HelpJazz, who passed the whole morning (afternoon/evening/night) googling AND yahooing our Eadric. Editor at CP 17:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Well spotted Ed @! Heh! Heh! Susanpurrrrr ... 18:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Depsite Helpkazz's skepticism, that user isn't backing down. [1]. He's got an answer for everything. Unverifiable, likely false answers, but answers non-the-less. Does CP even have a "it's got to be more important than some unknown user's maybe grandpa policy"? Lurker 02:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Strangely, if (as suggested at [1] above) you put Eadric Widdecombe into Yahoo (no quotes) you get 5 or 6 results - no connection except they're both in "least liked brits" list. In particular: "1000-1100: Eadric Streona (died 1017) King Aethelred II's chief counsellor betrayed his country by switching sides when the Danish king Cnut invaded England in 1015." Think there's a flaw in our troll's argument somewhere. Susanpurrrrr ... 04:43, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may well be right Susan but surely it's not our job at RW to find it out for them. Helplurk can do his own searches. Anyway Andy often seems to have access to facts that are unverifiable to the rest of us so it's not surprising that others have the same ability. Kenservative 07:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)

BUGGER! When was the dirty deed done? They've removed Eadric of Widdecombe - sneaky bastards. Susanpurrrrr ... 22:27, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Alas, poor Eadric. :-( --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 22:41, 15 December 2007 (EST)

They deleted all my articles when I got a 5 year ban for posting an edit that Karl Marx wrote a poem "To the Creator Spirit"- which is true. However I completely made up 10th century chronicler, Eadric of Widdecombe and the Battle of Basildon, whilst claiming him as my earliest ancestor and that of totally made up Antarctic explorer, Sir Farnaby Widdecombe, unfairly accused of cannibalism and putative father of Ann Widdecombe (his love child with Hattie Jacques). All complete bollocks. Does that count as trolling ? 13:17, 27 February 2008 (EST) (yes tis I !)Streona 13:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)


Andy still doesn't believe there's a competent liberal teacher somewhere and makes weak points, puts his fingers in his ears and uses his hypocritical open-mindedness line. — Unsigned, by: NightFlare / talk / contribs

It would have been hilarious if Andy had contacted the teacher like he said he wanted to. Andy call teacher in the middle of night... "Hi, One of your students tells me he got 34/35 on my exam and credits you, a liberal teacher! I just cant believe that! - Icewedge 01:44, 14 December 2007 (EST)
"The truth shall set you free. It's worked wonders for me and everyone who gives the truth a chance."--Aschlafly 21:06, 10 December 2007 (EST) First one has to be able to recognize the truth. Then one has to be able to admit it. From all experience at CP, I can't find much proof there Andy can do either, unless it narrowly fits within the scope of his very narrow political/religious beliefs. Greg Larson, he will be missed. RIP. --TK/MyTalk 02:15, 14 December 2007 (EST)


It's juvenile, I know, but this made me giggle. --Kels 19:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Lol, from a guy who loves to criticize others for their spelling too. We have another good example of Andy's incompetence with the English language around here somewhere but I cant find it right now, tis a shame.(Although I am no one too talk on the topic of competence with the English language I admit.) - Icewedge 01:26, 13 December 2007 (EST)

It's like a virus![edit]

Has anyone else noticed that Andy has picked up Ed Poor's propensity to link every other word in talk page comments? --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Gawd, I edited this to remove the red links, but it's more work than I feel like doing right now. humanUser talk:Human 23:40, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Decoding Andy's message[edit]

From this edit summary:

renived sukkt kubjs

It looks like Assfly was hitting the wrong keys and not looking at the screen. Specifically, his right hand was hitting keys one position to the left.

What he was trying to type:

removed silly links

What a silly bunt. --Imroy 01:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)

It was just a little plaque in a blood vessel in his brain breaking loose. He passed it now. --Edgerunner76 08:36, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Hmmmm. His right hand wandered to the this a breakthrough? DickTurpis 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Andy's article on homeschooling[edit]

Has anyone read this article yet? Here are some benefits of homeschooling:

  • a better education and more opportunities
  • freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools
  • a more flexible daily schedule
  • conflicts with public school officials
  • more time by parents with their children in formative years
  • avoiding objectionable vaccines, mental health screening (???), and questionnaires

-Shangrala 02:20, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Also, all but one of the examples were basically homeschooled in the pre-depression era.Shangrala 02:24, 13 December 2007 (EST)

The one I like most? conflict with public school officials. I mean, Andy's homeschoolers are lucky to have a sensible, understanding, quiet, open-minded teacher, aren't they? (I'd be really curious to assist to one of his lessons. What happens when a student by error uses his head and makes an evil/liberal/atheist/close-minded remark?) Editor at CP 03:17, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Actually I quite like "more time by parents with their children in formative years". That is no doubt a benefit. Of course, speaking as a parent, it might have its downsides! Ajkgordon 03:42, 13 December 2007 (EST)
The "more time by parents" bit is not that great an advantage if the parents are nutcases like Andy who teach that anybody who disagrees with his values is a filthy liberal atheist on whom love is wasted. Or Ed "Anybody who shows evidence for global warming is just a liberal who tries to make politics with his lies" Poor. Or Philip "The Bible is 100% correct, any my interpretation of it is the only valid one" Rayment. I support parents spending time with their kids, but not if that time is simply used to indoctrinate them with "Only trust NewsBusters and CreationOnTheWeb! Everybody else is a liberal in denial!" --Sid 06:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)
  • The only one of those points that I see as actually being a benefit is the more flexible schedule. Yes, its a different education environment, but of course it depends on who is doing the teaching whether it is better or not. I find it hard to believe that any set of parents would be well versed in all of the major subjects taught in public schools. Also, does he not realize that most people have real jobs? Jobs which require parents to leave the house during the day? Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no liberal or atheist bias in public schools. No more so than reality has a liberal or atheist bias. --BillOhannity 10:02, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah but Bill, women are supposed to stay at home and look after the kids anyway. Ajkgordon 10:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Ajkgordon is right. Isn't that a major basis of Huckabee's run for President? --Edgerunner76 10:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Right, I forgot about that. But since we're going back to live in the 1800's, wouldn't that also require us to stop educating women altogether? And if that's the case, how are they supposed to homeschool their kids?--BillOhannity 10:55, 13 December 2007 (EST)
You don't stop edjumacating them altogether--you teach them the Bible, and that's what they teach the kids. Everything anyone needs to know is in there: morality, history, science/math, law, etc.--WJThomas 11:12, 13 December 2007 (EST)
History? Do they cover up to World War II, or do they stop at I? Science/math? Sad to say, if we only used scientific "knowledge" that was found in the bible RationalWiki, along with all other wikis, computers, the Internet, cars, electricity, the automatic goat milker, and a few things I'm forgetting would not exist. Law? Doesn't the bible say something about stoning to death any children who are disobedient? And something else about not trimming your beard or sideburns or something along those lines? And dozens of other ridiculous things like that? --BillOhannity 11:22, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, but as has been pointed out at CP, right-thinking folk (ie, not liberals) understand which parts of the Bible God really means (homosexuality bad, Creation good), and in which parts God is just, you know, kidding.--WJThomas 14:58, 13 December 2007 (EST) (also, on that subject, you might like this)

I'm not going to jump down Andy's throat here too much, because there are some legitimate advantages to homeschooling (when done right, not when indoctrinated by Andy). I'd say the biggest one is one Andy leaves out, probably because it has a perceived LIBERAL BIAS, and that is small class sizes. With a competent teacher, you will get a better education with a 1 to 1 student/teacher ratio than with a 35 to 1 ratio. Of course, that's what those evil liberal teachers unions and NEA have been saying, so Andy certainly isn't about to agree with them on anything. The biggest disadvantage of homeschooling is lack of social interaction (which can be remedied, but not too easily) and the fact that almost no one is qualified to teach math, biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, world history, US history, economics, literature, language arts, foreign languages, fine arts, music, plus a selection of electives at a high school level. Certainly not Andy. The fact that Andy tries to politicize math of all subjects scares me. DickTurpis 11:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Who is User:Patrickl2393 ?[edit]

Sorry to out a sock: block me and my ip/16 range if you feel necessary. But I couldn't pass on his wonderful, comprehensive, well-edited article on wrist watches, 8th version. Again apologizing, Editor at CP 03:54, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, it seems we have another reader in PJR. Now the article is truely encyclopedic. But I like Patrick's version more. Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 05:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Wow. Edited like a true Super-Best-of-CP Editor: Dead end, unreferenced, and uncategorized. --Sid 05:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)
I wouldn't be too hard on PJR over that. Who's going to reference a definition for a watch? Categories aren't too useful for things like that either. I guess he could have thrown a few links in there for god measure. DickTurpis 12:29, 13 December 2007 (EST)
"For god measure?" Best Freudian slip ever.PFoster 12:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Normally, I wouldn't be too hard on the references/categories. But CP recently went "YAY WE ROCK" because they (read: mostly non-sysops that spent their free time for basically nothing and are most likely still not treated as serious editors by now) had categorized ALL articles, so creating uncategorized articles is bad. Keep in mind that these are CP category names: "Alternative Rock Bands" (30 members - didn't know that CP loved pop culture that much...), "Anti-pornography activists", "Arguments for the existence of God" (irony: the article of the same name is not in this category), "Best President Ever", "Blind black musicians", "Christian Conservapedians" (only 44 members, and Andy isn't one of them...), "Creations of God" (one member - God must've had a slow week...), etc etc. Tons of categories already have only one member, so it's not like creating another category would cause a major uproar.
And here's a VERY useful category: Chronographs or Chronometers, or, if you want more mundane categories, use Clocks or Watches.
The reference part is mostly an indicator that the current definition is basically just a dictionary definition. In fact, it IS pretty much exactly the dictionary definition, so it would've been possible to reference that, for example. Fact is that a sysop effectively created an article that is so terribly lacking that it simply creates more work for others, who once again have to clean up behind him.
The basic problem is that CP sysops simply encourage ultra-short (and ultra-useless) articles because they love to boast with the article count. For example, "S-type asteroids" simply consists of the Solar System template and has NO other content. Still, it's not marked as a stub, and it counts as one of CP's "educational, clean, and concise entries". And don't even get me started on mainspace articles like "Microeconomics Terms X" and things like that... --Sid 06:30, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Stephen Baxter's Titan[edit]

Not really a topic for this page but reading this again the other day really brought home to me how many people from the likes of CP would actually find the US political backdrop to this book perfectly acceptable and a "good thing". *shudders* Ajkgordon 10:53, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Years (and more) since I read it, remind me. Susanpurrrrr ... 11:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Tail end of the Shuttle programme, China send up first astronaut, Shuttle crashes, Shuttle programme cancelled, NASA sidelined, religious right Presidential candidate tops the polls, group of engineers and astronauts put together plan for manned mission to Titan (Saturn moon) as last hurrah, build and launch against wishes of USAF, new prez is elected, US exits UN, NATO, etc., USAF takes over NASA and closes everything down including Titan resupply mission, China gets worried over US aggression, Taiwan declares independence, crew on Titan mission slowly lose sanity and astronauts, US introduces religious police....
Brilliant book. But very depressing reading it now. Ajkgordon 15:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Oooooh yes. Now I remember - rather nasty - but almost credible (unfortunately). [Excellent precis!] Susanpurrrrr ... 16:23, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Just Wondering[edit]

I live in Colorado, so this Shooting has been big news around here..... Has anyone else noticed that the weapon used in the shooting was an ASSAULT RIFLE...... Didn't the Andy's of the country claim that assualt rifles are rarely used in violent crime as they're too hard to conceal? Just a thought SirChuckBCall the FBI 20:18, 13 December 2007 (EST)

The thing about assault rifles is they're not really well-defined. Was the weapon fully automatic? DickTurpis 20:51, 13 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, but you see in the world of Andrew Schafly guns in the hands of liberals are not guns at all, they are SATANIC LIBERAL WEAPONS OF ATHEIST DISTRUCTION so you see we only need to outlaw SLWAD's and not firearms. 01:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)

They're getting good - & fast[edit]

It didn't last long but:gravitation brought up to date. To save you the trouble, here's the meat: String theory also replaces the current theory of gravity, substituting instead a theory of intelligent falling, stating that things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, is pushing them down. Good try someone. Susanpurrrrr ... 22:12, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Funny. You can't go doing that kind of thing right off, though, 'cuz they watch the new users like a chickenhawk. Make a dozen or so serious edits first, so they stop paying attention, then slip in the humor. Personally, I liked his addition to the Huckabee article.--WJThomas 22:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Creationist killing[edit]

This story might be worth a mention on CP if anyone is inclined...] — Unsigned, by: Matt / talk / contribs 05:44, 14 December 2007

What's the point? The Creationist killer was judged to have killed his fellow tourist either accidentally or in self-defence, hence the verdict of manslaughter. It wouldn't last five minutes on CP as a serious case to demonstrate a Creationist wacko. Nor indeed anywhere else. IMHO. Ajkgordon 04:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)

fair use?[edit]

Our friends seem to have almost exclusively 2 "copyright" statements on uploaded pictures. Apart from government sources they almost exclusively use "fair use". As I understand it there are several definitions of fair use: "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" [2]. I assume that CP relies on the teaching and scholarship elements but unless they can show some learning or find some scholars I think they're pushing it. How says anyone? Susanpurrrrr ... 07:10, 14 December 2007 (EST)

If CP were used exclusively as a resource for His homeschoolees, they could probably get away with it, but as a general-access website pushing a particular agenda, not so much. CP's current claimed standard would allow for any and all reproduction, which is obviously a no-go. Of course, He has said in the past that it's only a copyright violation if the copyright holder complains. I suspect that CP is relying on said copyright holders A) not finding out, and B) not caring very much.--WJThomas 08:39, 14 December 2007 (EST)
CЯacke®To CP "fair use" simply means "'Fuck U' we're using it, dumbass, if you didn't want it mass distributed you wouldn't have put it on the web."
Which, to be honest, is my own personal WWW copyright policy. PFoster 10:51, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Their "fair use" is lame excuse for lack of morals. Auld Nick 14:13, 14 December 2007 (EST)

creations of god category[edit]

Technically, going strictly from their point of view, shouldn't every single article be in this category? Making the category completely redundant? P.S. has anyone seen their God article recently? They have about as much on the big guy as they have on apple pie . --BillOhannity 10:00, 14 December 2007 (EST)

That article (God) is clearly, and inexplainably, deficient. They don't even mention how God regularly reveals Himself by means of giant handpuppets in the sky. This is most surprising. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:53, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Well, if we're strict, man-made objects shouldn't go there (even though Man was created by God, so anything Man does could be considered to be God's work by extension), but I was surprised that "Earth", "Universe", or "Kangaroo" weren't in there. (AK - Sinfest?) --Sid 14:38, 14 December 2007 (EST)

A trolling we will go[edit]

Yes it is used. No, not by the eighth circuit except in quoting Mr. Justice Thomas in his opinion in Mitchell V Helms. CЯacke®

Interesting. Upon further research I also found this quote from dissenting Justice Ginsburg: "Oh noes! The Christian fellowship violated teh establishment clause!!!11!!!one!!! Teh prisoners gots PWNED!" DickTurpis 13:27, 14 December 2007 (EST)
All your Supreme Court are belong to us.PFoster 13:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Andrew Schlafly is A-Number-1 big Christian American Joe. --Edgerunner76 14:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Mark 7:15[edit]

Is it really about pooping? --Edgerunner76 14:41, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Yes. Yes it is about "pooping". CЯacke® 17:31, 14 December 2007 (EST)
I like this quote from the article: "Many of the sweeping changes in Christianity can be directly attributed to [Jesus]." Oh, so that's the guy what did all that Christianity stuff! As for the first part of Mark 7:15, "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him," I don't think we'll be seeing that quote in Ken's Homosexuality and the Bible article. DickTurpis 15:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Hey, give credit where credit is due.... conservapedia finally made a correct statement regarding religion.... Many sweeping changes in christianity WERE the result of Jesus..... That is true.... That fact that it was physically impossible to BE a christian before Jesus shouldn't come into play SirChuckBCall the FBI 15:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)

If these guys were really interested in being Christians, wouldn't this pronouncement raise some interesting questions? Some of the laws in the Old Testament are made null and void by Jesus, but which ones and why? Christians (and for that matter, most Jews) no longer seem to have any issue with Usury, but many Muslims still do. On what authority does Jesus reverse these laws? We can see that from the New Testament that while Jesus was alive he and God were operating as individual entities with their own ideas and opinions. Just because Jesus said something, that doesn't seem like good evidence that God endorses it where we have direct contradictory evidence from the horse's mouth as it were. Surely God doesn't make mistakes, and doesn't change his mind? --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 16:09, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Well, Jesus is sort of God as well, so... plus there's the whole thing about Old and New Covenants - so you could say that, yes, God does indeed change his mind from time to time. Oh, and Mark 7:15ff is not really about pooping. Sorry. :-( --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:44, 14 December 2007 (EST)


From the CP article: "Reagan...was the fortieth President of the United States of America from 1981 to 1989...". Huh. I don't recall there being such a high presidential turnover rate during the '80s, but if it's on CP, it must be true!--WJThomas 21:18, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Eh. Simple syntax error that many people would make. Barely makes a blip compared to the truly grotesque manglings of English that those people engage in. Researcher 21:23, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Grammar doesn't matter in heaven; therefore, why bother abiding by grammatical rules whilst on earth? Ah, the logic of a CPian. --Ζωροάστρης 21:25, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Because in Heaven, we'll all speak Celestial, and there will be no more grammar. Researcher 21:27, 14 December 2007 (EST)
If you can make it down to the Soviet Union section (2nd para), that's where it starts getting really painful. Awful prose. --Robledo 21:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
My favorite "CP English" article is that of Condoleeza Rice. It's gradually getting better as the article gets vandalized and repaired, but it still contains clunkers like this: "She was helping George W. Bush for his victorious campaign for President in 2000, a later became a key advisor. She said in departure from the failed Clinton policies of the 1990s and an articulation of a new Bush plan at the convention speech '“...America's armed forces are not a global police force. They are not the world's 911.'" Yipe.--WJThomas 23:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Gun control[edit]

A new take on Andy logic:

There are 500 times as many civilians as policemen. Basic logic dictates that arming the public will yield many more offensive uses of guns against the police, plus the matter of deterring the police from attempting to enforce the law against these odds. If everyone were armed, then policemen would be outgunned 500:1. The logic is inescapable, and proven by studies. DickTurpis 00:18, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Arms control[edit]

Extrapolating AS' (and by extension Trent Lott's) ah...."logic" maybe we should oughta arm ALL nations of the World with nukes? (Hell, we [the good ol' US of A] could even supply them, with fully loaded missiles and MIRVs...for a small profit.) Any one nation foolish enough to use them will get wiped off the face of the earth. Hell, I feel safer already! CЯacke® 21:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

It arguably works/worked, see wp:Balance of terror. -- 11:12, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Yeeesss, but... the problem is that the more actors with nuclear weapons you have in the system, the greater the risk that one of them will act on the basis of false information, or even by accident. Balance of terror works, but it is not particularly stable. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:21, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Plato on Atheism and Laws[edit]

Its a pain trying to track down where that Plato quote came from. I eventally tracked it down to Laws. This went back some ways till I found a scanned book at Google[3] which was published in 1860. I do not necessarily consider this the best translation. In the Benjamin Jowett translation available on

Unfortunately, I can't find atheism in there at all. The word was not used in there using a modern translation lexicon.

The next thing to realize is that Plato likes reduction to absurd and strawmen arguments. These will be posed by the character of Socrates (in Laws, its the Athenian Stranger). Quote mining Plato can be very misleading... Take this quote from the Meno (one thats much easier to read and understand)

Man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the, very subject about which he is to enquire.

Which is part of:

Soc. I know, Meno, what you mean; but just see what a tiresome dispute you are introducing. You argue that man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the, very subject about which he is to enquire.
Men. Well, Socrates, and is not the argument sound?
Soc. I think not.
Men. Why not?
Soc. I will tell you why: I have heard from certain wise men and women who spoke of things divine that-

So, the problems:

  1. I can't find that passage in the Laws
  2. It could be one of the strawmen arguemnts that Plato poses
  3. It could be mistranslated

I did find one instance of the word 'atheism' in the Laws, you'll love this one...

Such studies gave rise to much atheism and perplexity, and the poets took occasion to be abusive-comparing the philosophers to she-dogs uttering vain howlings, and talking other nonsense of the same sort. But now, as I said, the case is reversed.

Here that Ken? Plato called you a she-dog. Feel free to use the modern lexicon. --Shagie 04:40, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Openmindedness Test[edit]

Haha, that's totally awesome! Basically Andy's definition of open minded is "agrees with me in all ways", what a surprise. The guy's totally gotta package his original stuff and put out a book, it'd be a classic of political humour. --Kels 18:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)

This "openmindedness test" is the most apalling example of pseudo-intellectual masturbatory behavior that I have ever seen. Also note that Andy shows his closedmindedness by rejecting the perfectly reasonable theory that humans were intelligently designed by extraterrestrial beings. GrandSoviet 18:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)

What amuses me is that I'm perfectly willing to answer that any of those things are possible, but many are incredibly unlikely. An omnipotent God could easily cause any of these things to be true while causing the evidence to appear otherwise, but why would a just God choose to lie? Likewise, one could assume that God created the entire universe last Thursday. Stile4aly 18:39, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Or five minutes ago. --Ζωροάστρης 18:42, 15 December 2007 (EST)
This is just... I don't have words for it... NightFlare 18:43, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Indeed, I like the Berlin Wall one the most. Did you think it impossible for the Berlin wall to come down... er, no. It was built by humans, and thus can be dismantled by humans. Of course, I know exactly what Andy is driving at, do you think Reagan asking for it made it so? Er, well, no and I think history backs me on that one. Then there's the ridiculous ones like the one about inverse square law, I know he's driving at the universe being somehow "perfect", but he completely fails to understand what inverse square law means in terms of actual physical systems. --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 18:46, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Do you think that if my LQ (Liberal Quotient) is high and my OQ is Low, that I am worthy or not? Probably not worthy I'm guessing. DogP 05:54, 16 December 2007 (EST)


Dang, I tried to email him (?) but they don't have an email address. Maybe they will see this here? "I spent my early childhood in New Hampshire and the rest of my life in Ireland."

Interestingly (to no one but me) I spent my early childhood in Wales and (most of) the rest of my life in New Hampshire. Maybe we are doppelgangers! humanUser talk:Human 18:22, 15 December 2007 (EST)

He's a strange one: does he mean Eire or NI (he elsewhere claims to be in the UK)? He's definitely weird anyhoo - studying to be a priest - I rather fancy it's your mirror image - not a doppleganger. (D'you know what they call a Welshman who can swim? - An Irishman! ) Susanpurrrrr ... 18:32, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Somewhere on his page he says (I think) that they moved to Dublin. humanUser talk:Human 18:53, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Surely a Scotsman is the opposite of an Irishman? --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 18:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I think you're thinking of changelings, rather than dopplegangers, human. --Kels 18:50, 15 December 2007 (EST)


Am I the only one who can't wait for Ken's obsessions to merge and give us "Homosexuality and Homeschooling"? --Kels 19:48, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Surely homoschooling is closely akin to pædophilia. One Imagines ken with a hands on approach to teaching little boys. Sorry - that was naughty! Susanpurrrrr ... 20:06, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Currently fighting the urge to sock up and create the Homoschooling article the red links demand. (scroll down to "Genocide") --Robledo 20:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
I don't know what's better; the fact that the links are still up, or the fact that the 'o' is on the opposite side of the keyboard from 'e'.-- Offeep 12:02, 16 December 2007 (EST)
You know what's even better? Two more "homoschooling" redlinks anyone on Conservapedia, and it'll be a most wanted article! UchihaKATON! 10:28, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Atheism Quotes[edit]

Apparently when you create an article called atheism quotes you're not supposed to put any actual, umm, quotes from atheists, unless they are talking about how evil they are [4]. --BillOhannity 20:44, 15 December 2007 (EST)

And of course, the article needs to be protected immediately (and presumably forever). Of course, all after through discussion with Andrew "Yeah, sure, whatever; just go away..." Schlafly. Also, I love how literally anybody gets quoted, notability be damned. As long as it makes atheism look bad and wrong, it's notable and completely relevant. Just look for the quote by "Source Unknown". --Sid 22:56, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Looks like the same BS when he was revert-warring TK, talking about mailing Andy that's purely hearsay until he actually TELLS them the email/discussion. NorsemanWassail! 23:02, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Those were the good ol' days, eh? It'd be fun to ask TK about those revert wars, reminisce and laugh at Conservative... OH WAIT.
:-( UchihaKATON! 02:29, 16 December 2007 (EST)
I believe that few people here will join TK's pity party. He's had more than enough warnings and requests to stop, but they were apparently ignored. I have no grudge against TK (quite on the contrary, even; my stay at CP was ruined by trolls like Ed and Rob while TK acted more or less okay), but after looking through his contribs, I can kinda see where the reasoning for the block came from.
Also, from what I've read, TK was just the loud voice of the general sysop consensus. If Conservative believes the other sysops actually support him, he's in for a surprise. --Jenkins 07:34, 16 December 2007 (EST)


Dear god, mountains have liberal bias too [5]! --BillOhannity 20:50, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Well, not all mountains. For example, Mt. Ararat is a conservative mountain, to be sure, while almost anyone would agree that the Grand Tetons are Liberal to the core.--WJThomas 21:31, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Well the Grand Tetons are known sluts that will harbor any old glacier that happens to build up there. Mt Ararat is so old the only vowel they had back then was the "a". 21:37, 15 December 2007 (EST) CЯacke®
uh oh. --BillOhannity 21:48, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Surely any mountain that leans to the left suffers from liberal bias? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:36, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Newton's Law of Gravity[edit]

I'm not too sure where to put this, but I found it from WGO so this will probably work.

In quantifying openmindedness Andy questions whether the second power in Newton's Law of Gravitational attraction could be a 2.00000001 instead of a 2, and then uses this to judge whether a person is open minded or not.

However if my memory serves my correct (and feel free to ignore this if I'm wrong) Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction was not obtained through observations but through mathematical derivation. For example when we obtain the half life of a radioisotope we do so by taking measurements, and so in this case we could be wrong (depending on the sensitivity of our equipment), however when we obtain such a simple formula mathematically we cannot have the same problems due to equipment precision, and as such it will be wholly accurate (I hardly think Newton made a mistake because he rounded too early or anything). So in short Andy could probably save hard disk space by replacing the line with "Do you think it is impossible for 1+1 to not equal 2" and use this to question someone's open mindedness. -- the.ip.guy/69 Talkroute 22:57, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I think (although I'm not positive, it would make the most sense) that Newton obtained his law based on Kepler's work on planetary motion. You're right, it can and has been obtained through mathematical derivation and has been done so by a number of different methods. I have never actually heard of anyone questioning whether or not the value is exactly 2 or if it really has the extra .00000001 on it. It is also fairly insignificant since going to that level of accuracy is never done except in computer models. For example, using r squared, the force of gravity between the earth and the moon at perigee (the closest the moon gets to the earth) is about 2.2215015e26 N, and using the 2.00000001 the force is about 2.2215012e26 N. Not terribly significant on an astronomical scale, which is the only scale where the law is ever really used in that form.
You might also note that he omitted "Do you think it is impossible that the bible is not 100% truth and that anything that can be perceived to go against it is automatically, by definition, wrong?" as one of his questions to measure open-mindedness. --BillOhannity 23:41, 15 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, come on. There's open-mindedness, and then there's just plain CRAZY TALK.</sarcasm> --Gulik 00:11, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I think you're kind of missing what he's driving at here. You have to view all the questions through the lens of "stupid things Andy believes." One of the things he believes is that our universe is created perfect, and that God put in all these magic numbers like the "golden ratio" (cough, splutter) so that we might know him. The problem with this question is that it's more idiotic than Andy's usual level of mental function. In a 2-sphere type universe, the relationship can't help but be an inverse square, it comes directly from formula for the surface area of a sphere. This is what I'm getting around to eventually in A mechanistic and hand wavey derivation of the inverse square law from first principles. (Edit: Damn, this is what I get for writing articles at 3AM, I named it wrong.) --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 06:51, 16 December 2007 (EST)

As a mathematician, I feel your pain. I swear, if one more person tells me the Golden Ration is divine....- 13:07, 16 December 2007 (EST)

A Scary, Scary Thought...[edit]

Reading what Schlafly has to say about the role of an armed populace in keeping the crime rate down, I have to wonder: is he packing heat? Are we okay with the idea of a narrow-minded religious zealot walking around with a gun? What are the conceal-and-carry laws in his home state? Nervously, PFoster 11:51, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I'm quite happy that he's on another continent. (To be fair: Andy's not the only case, though.) What freaked me out the most was his "reasoning" that we'd all be better off carrying guns in airplanes. Okay, and the implied idea of Mexican standoffs being the best option to deal with armed criminals. Sure, let's teach people that the best way to get through a firefight is not "Take cover!", but rather "Join in!" - let's nominate him for a Darwin Award. --Sid 14:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)
In order to qualify for a Darwin Award he'd have to die (I doubt the planet will be so lucky any time soon), and in a way it's to late as he's already (*shudder*) reproduced. But his ideas are wacky. While there is some logic to having a certain amount of guns in the arms of law abiding citizens (I'm sort of middle of the road on gun control, with allowing for rifles and shotguns, hand guns with permits and not allowed everywhere, and fully automatic weapons banned except in very limited circumstances), the idea that metal detectors at airports make people less safe in the air is just absurd. Can he really think that? I also love his idea that more kids carrying gun in school would make them safer. Sure, maybe there's be fewer mass shootings, but how many daily fistfights would turn into daily gunfights? DickTurpis 14:41, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Technicality: You can qualify for a Darwin Award if you just can't reproduce after the incident. But you're right, my suggestion was silly since the poor idiots following his advice would get nominated instead of him. But maybe they'll give him a bonus price for setting things up...
In general, I can agree with qualified people carrying guns (assuming that we can't have an utopia without guns of any kind), but the "What makes them qualified?" issue is the hard part. I don't have a patent solution, but I think people should consider the general idea. --Sid 14:52, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Come on people, we all know that the bible says every man, woman and child should have at least 2 handguns on them at all times. "And the lord said 'thou must packeth heat at all times, and thou must have always an extra pistol for thy brethren, should they not have their own.'" --BillOhannity 15:07, 16 December 2007 (EST)

The sad reality is that there are far more conservatives gun owners than liberal gun owners. That has to have some effect on the political climate of the nation. :) GrandSoviet 15:11, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I don't know how or where from the baddies get em, but here (UK) only a minority of them & a minority of the police have guns. The baddies seem to be slowly (1 or 2 a week in a bad week) removing innocent kids from the scene. The impression I have of the US is that everyone contemplating any breach of law carries a gun as a matter of course. If the baddy pre-emptively shoots it won't matter how goodies are armed. We see (reality) tv programmes with traffic cops being shot and shopkeepers faced with rapid fire automatics. What to do about it I don't know, but I prefer our situation. Susanpurrrrr ... 15:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Indeed. I live in France now where all national police and Gendarmes carry guns. But it's still a shock flying into Heathrow and seeing an armed British policeman. But, you know, different perspectives and all that. And there is some correlation between increased gun-control = more gun crime in US states that have gone that way. Makes it very difficult to argue the case for more gun control in America even though it seems inescapably logical to us goddamn foreigners. Ajkgordon 15:36, 16 December 2007 (EST)
There are certain problems with the whole gun control issue. Since gun laws are enactd by states, no state will really be able to cut down on the proliferation of guns as long as neighboring states don't. New York has some of the more strict laws on handguns, but as long as someone can drive to Virginia (or some such state; I'm not sure of the specific laws by state) and buy a shitload of handguns legally and sell them in New York, there will still be may handguns on the streets of NYC. Even enacting New York style laws throughout the nation would make guns harder to get, but do little to get guns out of the hands of "baddies" who already have them. And, of course, they will always be available to some (organized crime and career criminals will have their illegal sources), although stricter controls on certain types of weapons could well reduce those shootings by disturbed individuals with easy access to guns. DickTurpis 16:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Featured article[edit]

I like how they changed it from "article of the month" to "feature article." Guess they just couldn't keep up with the demands to produce one complete article per month.Shangrala 14:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, the suggestion is to increase the pace! See here for details. --Sid 14:34, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Taking bets on whether or not they'll all be about homosexuality.Shangrala 17:27, 16 December 2007 (EST)

"and the solution to the overall integral becomes obvious"[edit]

This is a real gem for those who appreciate mathematics. [6] Barnaby 15:37, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Whoa, since when does Conservapedia include lengthy integral stuff in encyclopedia articles? What happened to the "Make it friendly for the young children" stuff they boast with? --Sid 15:54, 16 December 2007 (EST)
The obviosity is staggering! (doh!) Susanpurrrrr ... 15:58, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Ahh...the benefits of being homeschooled by someone who doesn't know the material he's trying to teach. I guess if I were to say that the integral of secant is NOT equal to tangent he would be able to go and change it since he reads this site so religiously (pun intended). Perhaps he was thinking about the integral of secant squared, which actually is equal to tangent. --BillOhannity 15:59, 16 December 2007 (EST)
A more honest man would have said "The solution is left as an exercise for the student", at least that's a more traditional dodge for not having the slightest clue what the answer is. --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 16:05, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Andy fails at copying out of a textbook. The second line after "the volume then becomes" doesn't even close all of its parentheses.Shangrala 17:27, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Didn't he graduate in electrical engineering or something else requiring, you know, calculus? NightFlare 17:42, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Are you implying that the son of a prominent political figure didn't completely earn his way through college?????Shangrala 19:11, 16 December 2007 (EST)
rdrr? Stile4aly 19:31, 16 December 2007 (EST)
A thank you would not be completely out of line here Andy [7] --BillOhannity 19:38, 16 December 2007 (EST)
Shall we tell him to remove the comma before the dx in the next to last line, too? humanUser talk:Human 22:38, 16 December 2007 (EST)
You know, for a site that he refuses to publicly acknowledge the existence of, we sure help them/him fix a lot of their articles by pointing out mistakes. --BillOhannity 23:26, 16 December 2007 (EST)


Oh man... followed this from wigo:

When did we start this hilarious practice? humanUser talk:Human 19:35, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I noticed it a while ago :-) but didn't want to expose it to light just yet... for fear that Schlafly would (1) blow a gasket or (2) try to get it pulled, but I think it's time.-αmεσ (advocate) 19:41, 16 December 2007 (EST)
ahahaha, was [[User:ASchlafly]] on this site actually Andy?— Unsigned, by: HalifaxTroll / talk / contribs

May have been, he was litigious enough. We'd uninstalled checkuser by that point so I don't think we ever tried to verify.-αmεσ (advocate) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (EST)

hahaha, I vandalized his user page as a random IP, he wasn't too happy about that. That man is so full of hate, especially towards liberals and atheists. I really haven't figured out what makes conservatives tick --HalifaxTroll 00:59, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Fear of the unknown, is my guess. It's a popular motivation among humans. --Gulik 01:40, 17 December 2007 (EST)


Surprised they're even considering a new contest, given that the last one nearly caused the whole project to implode. I was thinking someone should send a sock over there to suggest one (knowing Andy just can't refuse), thinking it would spell the end of Conservpedia. Good to see I don't have to. As well as having our fantasy league, we should bet on which longtime contributor will be banned or quit in a huff over the ensuing hijinx. DickTurpis 00:51, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Try to get Karajou to quit, he and TK have range blocked most of my IP addresses. 360,000 and counting. I could probably still access Conservapedia from the city library though hahaha, thats about the only place though --HalifaxTroll 01:09, 17 December 2007 (EST)

One suggestion for the next contest - forum spamming! --Shagie 13:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)
They need a new contest, they clearly don't have enough 2 line/copy-pasted articles, and the last one was such a huge success for them. TK tried to recruit me for the last one, and looking back I wish I had participated, considering that the few articles I did create in my time there had more substance than anything I've ever seen produced from one of their contests. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:14, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Was there even a winner of the last one officially declared? What with Andy getting all pissy about how the points were unfairly distributed and TK taking his ball and going home, I do declare I missed any official announcement with all the excitement. --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 18:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)

The way I remember it TK said that his team forfeited. If I'm wrong maybe he can step in and explain what happened. That is, if he isn't "retired" again.--BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:25, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Contest 3 Talk - Contest outcome has the judges appointed after the fact says "Despite the point adjustments noted above, the overall winner remains the same. Congratulations to Team Supply Siders!" which was approved 2-0 --Shagie 18:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Oh well, shows what I know. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:47, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Liberal Biased Mountains[edit]

Is Andy full of cheese about _all_ mountains having limestone deposits? I'd think volcanic ones would be less likely to, at least...

Volcanoes are a liberal hoax. There are no volcanoes in the Bible. -- 03:24, 17 December 2007 (EST)
If they are a liberal hoax, then what are the things that we call "volcanoes"? THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VOLCANOES IN THE BIBLE TO MAKE THEM EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Cheers,Ryanǂ wuz here ǂ 01:16, 19 December 2007 (EST)
That's silly talk. Of course there are volcanoes in the Bible. Remember the ones that catapulted the animals to other continents after The Flood? ;) (Yes, I still love that idea) --Sid 08:00, 17 December 2007 (EST)

PJR and evolution[edit]

Here PJR apparently stated that because something isn't designed with a purpose, then selection can't be a part of the process that forms it (ex. natural selection played no role in evolution because it wasn't meant to result in modern life.) Did i miss something here? It's pretty late so it's very likely I did.

I think you pretty much got it. Because YECers have to warp most sciences and maths in order to maintain their fairy tale, it ruins their ability to ever use such science or maths in any area. I like how he simply states that the odds of life forming randomly (without a "designer") are exactly zero. humanUser talk:Human 19:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)
He doesn't just simply state that the odds of life forming randomly are exactly zero, he says that you can use probability to show it. He's not going to tell us how because presumably it's a YEC secret, but he makes it clear that it can definitely be shown. I'm guessing that it just requires a little bit of twisting of the basic principles of probability and then you'll have it. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 19:28, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Presumably he's starting from the base assumption that the way life is right now, at this moment, is the way life had to be right now. If you start from the Big Bang looking at everything that must occur exactly right in order for the universe to have ended up the way it is right now (with everything from planets being where they are to you reading this sentence), the probability is admittedly so minuscule that is would effectively be zero. This is how YEC's argue that life is too complex to have formed randomly. They start with an assumption that the way life is at this moment is the right way and the only way it could be.
It's like someone hitting a golf ball and another person looking at the ball after it lands and saying that some omnipotent intelligent designer must have created the ball in that exact spot because the probability of a ball starting from a tee and landing in that exact spot are far too minuscule for it to be a random occurrence. They ignore the fact that the ball could have easily ended up a whole lot of other places too. --Brian 19:46, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Interesting question for conservative[edit]

"Mr.Conservative, have you ever met a Homosexual? Just curious. " [8] If I had to guess, the short answer will be "no". --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)

"Mr. Conservative" has probably met as many homosexuals as, say, this guy has.PFoster 18:33, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Conservative has indeed taken a 'wide stance' on many issues, it's true. DogP 04:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I'll wager that Mr Conservative has met more homosexualists (British humour - see Richard Ingrams) than he thinks he's met. Susanpurrrrr ... 04:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)

the homskulling kandidate khoice[edit]

[9] Let's see here...Poul = Paul, Collage = College, Giulini = Giuliani, Micheal Farris = Michael Farris...Did I miss any? Not to nitpick about spelling, but I do think that it is relevant when the subject relates to a specific educational system and the, for lack of a better word, "products" of that system. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 21:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, man, that was too much. Who needs parody? humanUser talk:Human 21:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Wait a minute...[edit]

"Is it just me or is this the worst statistical reasoning you've ever heard?". In that link, Ajkgordon is mocking the schlaflyesque position that all crooks are atheists. At least, that's how I read it. And he's asking good questions. Did I miss the point? humanUser talk:Human 21:41, 17 December 2007 (EST)

No, I'm pretty sure you're right. And in the "gun control greater than less guns" link, he was clearly saying "gun control leads to less guns." Clearly not WIGO-material. GrandSoviet 03:45, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Indeed to both. I'll delete those two WIGO entries. Ajkgordon 05:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Yup! Susanpurrrrr ... 05:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

While you're basically right, Ajk is using some 'really wacky math, as far as I can tell. I think he's trying to point out flaws in Andy's logic, but by using some calculations even Andy isn't stupid enough to argue for. 2% of Americans are in prison, 10% are atheists, ergo 20% of atheist are in prison? That make no sense on so many levels. Or am I missing something? -DickTurpis 12:10, 18 December 2007 (EST)

That's the point! Ajkgordon 12:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I obviously phrased it rather unclearly. I'm trying to be subtle and creep under "you're a darn librul" radar. By being gentle, I'm trying to figure out if the basic belief is simply atheist = baddy therefore most crims are atheists. But then show that it isn't as simple as that even if technically it should be. Same with the arguments that the US has more anti-Christians, more pornography, more gambling, more violent sport than anywhere else meaning that they have more crims. It patently doesn't. I want to see further arguments from them why the only unique US thing, i.e. lots and lots of guns, isn't what causes more gun crime. Ajkgordon 12:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)
The presumption is that bad people deviate from God, and since Atheists are as far from God as possible, they must also be the worst of people in general. And given Andy's terrifying stupidity when it comes to statistics (or pretty much anything else), it's little wonder that they believe this. Also, as we all know, for every 1 criminal there are exactly 100 law-abiding citizens who could NEVER use a gun in the heat of the moment, or have a gun-related accident, which means that we should arm everybody so the criminals are totally outgunned. In fact, a PKM on every street corner and school crosswalk would mean no crime whatsoever! Of that, I'm 98.37562 percent sure. AdamNelson 12:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Based on the above, I am now more than 96.29543% convinced that you also support classroom prayer. Keep up the good work. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)
But, because you're posting on RW, there is a 100:1 chance that you go/went to public school, are an atheist, gamble, watch or even make pornography, are a gay, an immigrant, give meaningful looks to goats, and don't support the War on Terror. You're probably in Al Qaeda. Or worse, a Democrat! Ajkgordon 12:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I was the one who originally posted both of these so let me explain what I was going for.... In pointing out the statistics, I was just putting it out there.... As for the other one, my bigger point was that he ignored typing it out of using an equals sign or any of the hundred other ways to use the mathematical symbol for greater than ">" and seeing as how Conservapedia is always going on about their mathematical powers, I found it funny. SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Ah. I was using > as a follow sign rather than greater than, e.g. A > B > C. My bad. Ajkgordon 16:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
You may have been looking for the → character. But I think most people knew what you meant.--Bayesupdate 16:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks, I've changed it. Ajkgordon 19:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)


CP sysops are always claiming that American liberals are basically toned-down communists, and how liberalism inevitably leads to socialism. I find it truly ironic that, with CP's great purges, massive censorship of information toward anything bad for the "state", the cult of personality around Andy, and the sheer veracity of its adherents, they have essentially created a new Soviet state, and are in fact far closer to Soviet-era communism than any of their opponents. Thoughts? AdamNelson 09:17, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I've been saying that for months. Mind you, it seems to me that most authoritarian groups look a lot alike from the outside, no matter what they claim to believe in. (Nitpick: "Veracity" is probably not the word you want there. "Vehemence", maybe?) --Gulik 09:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Or maybe "voracity" XD -- 10:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
In Soviet Conservapedia, sysops block you!
No, wait, that doesn't sound right... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 09:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

In Soviet Russia, Conservapedia wandalizes you?-αmεσ (advocate) 10:06, 18 December 2007 (EST)

In America, sysops conservapedia truth? CЯacke®
I think we should all just be glad that they don't have the ability to enslave a fifth of the world's population. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 11:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
That is true. This may sound extreme, but if characters like Andy and his ilk were ever in control of a nation, they could make the Inquisition look like gosh-darn bleeding-heart Lib'ruls by comparison. Anybody who can easily generalize about over 150 million people the way he does could easily make the step to actively oppressing them violently. I mean, Andy is convinced that all Liberals are bad and not worth compassion over. Poor GregLarson was pretty much asked to pack his bags because he mentioned that he had a Liberal teacher that he liked! And notice that as soon as the Liberal teacher thing came up, Andy went from congratulating the poor guy for his exemplary mark to implying that foul play got him those marks, and then asked him to recant or leave! Obviously if he were in any sort of position of power, he would become one of the most oppressive men who ever lived. AdamNelson 12:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)
p.s. yeah, veracity wasn't the right word LOL
Well put and good point, but... sadly... we actually have "people" like Schlafly in high government offices (and running for Pres.) here in the benighted states of vespucciland. humanUser talk:Human 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Re:Cracker's comment, I kinda like the use of "conservapedia" as a verb. As in "When I totally ignored, oversimplified, or cherry-picked all the evidence suggesting the sky is blue and insisted that it is in fact orange, I completely conservapedized the situation." Or something like that.--Bayesupdate 13:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Anybody else see this analysis:[edit]


I've been following discussions here and on the other place for over a year (I happen to think both of you are as bad as the other) What I find amazing is the amount of hypocrisy dripping from the ceiling of this place.

The site owner, Schlafy, yaps on about open mindedness 24/7 yet when someone declares he/she may be a Liberal, he goes off on a hissy fit. I've heard some truly ridiculous things coming from his keyboard; 'I'm sure even Liberals don't believe the deceit they spout' (True saying)

Conservative is very much up the closet. Own up pal.

Karajou is a decent man, but has scary beliefs.

Philip is sound, the kind of respectable person with annoying beliefs you can respect; mainly because of the intellectual way he persues them. He is completely unlike the rest of you ignoramuses.

TK, although he is gone, was easily and quite obviously here taking the piss.

Ed Poor is a clown who doesn't understand basic logic.

I could go on and on, but really there is no point. You will write this off as trolling, Liberal Deceit etc. etc. because the capacity of your small little minds is quite frankly overwhelming. Open-minded? You are me whole. Goodnight, and goodluck. User:Gingrich|Gingrich 18:20, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Didn't last long. Susanpurrrrr ... 14:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I'm impressed! But how could someone have been watching CP for a year?-αmεσ (advocate) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Well, it is theoretically possible - they've been up almost 13 months now. But how would that person have heard of CP. And "that other place"? If it's us, RW1 was born in Feb, I think, and of course RW2 in late May. humanUser talk:Human 16:08, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Congratulations, Friends at Liberapedia[edit]

Apparently LearnTogether supports your right to an article on CP. Congratulations to you and your founder, Michael Moore. UchihaKATON! 15:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)

YAY! ~Elassint, Sysop at Liberapedia
There's no principled way of distinguishing between RW and LP as far as it's "not vandalism" to post about it on CP... it's just that they hate us :-(. How sad...-αmεσ (advocate) 15:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, but there is one very important difference. To the Conservapedians, Liberapedia is just another bunch of lib'ruls. RationalWiki, on the other hand, is much important because we have so much history together - you could say is part of their creation myth. We're the great beast, the opponent who was cast out in a great cleansing following a lengthy battle, and who even now continues our evil plottings against them. It's actually quite epic, when you stop to think about it. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:16, 18 December 2007 (EST)
"They also serve who only stand and wait."--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 16:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Simon tries to start a forum…[edit]

…but nobody cares. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:29, 18 December 2007 (EST)

A CP sysop I've spoken with is actually suggesting the same, so it's possible. I for one would like a forum where we could talk with CP and disabuse them of their myths about our evils. And debate freely without bannination.-αmεσ (advocate) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Come on, it can't be that hard just to FTP a folder to the server to try it out… I set up ours on a whim in about 5 minutes, excluding upload time. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry, Ames, but I can't imagine having any common ground with Schlafly- I'd even be prepared to doubt his membership of the Human Race (Sapiens?). The rest are only variations on a theme. No! No! No! Susanpurrrrr ... 16:43, 18 December 2007 (EST)
"And debate freely without bannination." <-- That would require not one CP sysop being admin on that board. Remember, there is no actual reason to ban people for discussing on the wiki. It's all the arbitrary 90/10 rule that is selectively enforced whenever a sysop is starting to lose a discussion. So a CP forum would most likely be the same thing all over again: "You can discuss, but only as long as you don't disagree with our declared truths too much" (If they actually make a forum without arbitrary bans as seen on the wiki, then kudos to them. But until I see it with my own eyes, I'll assume the worst.) --Sid 17:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Ames, remember what happened with the open letter? The powers that be of Conservapedia have no desire to dissuade - and indeed it is counter to their goals - their user base that liberals are not evil. You don't indoctrinate someone by exposing them to multiple points of view and open minded people that are actually people (rather than caricatures of evil). It is hard to say "Atheism is evil, see look at Hitler" when an atheist says "yes, he was evil and that has nothing to do with what I believe or how I live and act." There is no desire by CP types to enter in a debate/forum where there is a chance they will lose an argument or be asked awkward questions without having the ability to stop the conversation. That said, Simon should ask about the already existing CP forum. --Shagie 17:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I think you're right. Our other attempts at finding common ground have failed wildly as a result of their inability to trust anyone. No reason to suspect they aren't still infirm in the same way. Man can dream.-αmεσ (advocate) 17:26, 18 December 2007 (EST)

With all due respect, given this, why should they trust you? Bohdan 17:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I, for one, would rather they didn't trust me under any circumstances, 'cause I despise everything they stand for and would hate to be tainted by their trust. Susanpurrrrr ... 17:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Bohdan, I think we've openly disavowed vandalism in recent times, at least several times in the last month.-αmεσ (advocate) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Right, like they will trust you when you say that. How do they know you aren't just lying, and its all part of this "information war"? If you have really "disavowed vandalism", then why don't you delete that page, or move it to a different namespace? Bohdan 17:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Butting in here for a moment: We can't please CP. If we deleted that page, they would gloat about how we want to cover our tracks and pretend it never happened. Followed by (most likely) Karajou saying how he saved it and forwarded it to the FBI, along with all of RW1. ;) Almost anything the entity RW does becomes a Catch-22. No matter what we do, it will almost certainly be twisted to look like just another bad thing. --Sid 18:40, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think we delete things that easily, I guess that's about it... besides, it has historical value, and we're not willing to change the Wiki's content in any way just to get an chance to talk to Conservapedia on a level field. They're just not that important.-αmεσ (advocate) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Then don't complain about them not trusting you. Bohdan 18:06, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Bohdan, you're merely proving our point. You don't want to trust us, and in actuality that is contrary to your goals. Conservapedia's very existence -- an encyclopedia from a single specific viewpoint -- shows that you do not want to expose people to different points of view; rather, your site is like a bomb shelter from ideas you find inconvenient. You have also been brainwashed into vilifying everybody that Andy doesn't like, without ever stopping to question why. But considering how little influence Conservapedia actually has (regardless of Andy's trumped-up sense of self-worth), it's not too much of a bother that you don't trust us. Here's a tip: check some facts through sources other than WorldNetDaily or the Discovery Institute, like a real encyclopedia volume or something. You'll find that it isn't liberals, but reality, that has a "liberal bias". AdamNelson 18:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Here is a tip: stop saying things like "your site" and "You have also been brainwashed". And this site has a viewpoint right? Does that make it a bomb shelter also? Bohdan 18:14, 18 December 2007 (EST)
No, because we allow dissent. --Linus(plot evil tech) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Bohdan, the thing is that they don't trust anybody and almost instantly assume that everybody is a RW sock. See (for example) the issue where any editor becomes suspect just because he happens to live in the same city (...or country) as a core RW member.
Conservapedia sysops assume bad faith. If something isn't quite the way they expect it to be, they think it's some liberal in disguise. If everything is exactly the way they expect it to be, they also think it's some liberal in disguise. The end result is always a ban, unless somebody stays low to the ground for a few weeks and never speaks up.
Also keep in mind that most RW1 core members were kicked out of CP (for high crimes like pointing out that some book about the Bible had a typo or for doubting Andy's "abortion causes breast cancer" assertion) before RW even existed, so the trust was gone long before any of us started socking.
CP sysops become openly hostile (read: they start insulting and banning) as soon as somebody challenges their assertions. At the same time they claim to have an open mind. Somehow, this doesn't quite compute. --Sid 18:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)
For my 1/6 of a bit (roughly 2 US cents) -- the "Information Warrior's Handbook," while interesting and occasionally funny, doesn't contribute much good. (Hence the snarky tone of my Information War entry.) But it doesn't make sense to get rid of it entirely; putting it in Essay (along with the other craziness) is a good compromise. Otherwise...individual CP members may be reasonable, and attempts to talk to them sound like a good idea. I think it should be pursued. Researcher 19:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)
"No, because we allow dissent. --Linus(plot evil tech)"
That's exactly right. Conservapedia does not allow any sort of dissent from the basic points that Andy puts out. This is ironic, because Conservapedia was allegedly created because they felt there were two equally plausible viewpoints -- left and right -- for every issue. Conservapedia's editors do not allow anything that directly challenges what they believe to be true. Argue with andy over his "abortion causes breast cancer" assertions? Warning. Cite well-respected journals showing no correllation between the two? Ban. Suggest that Conservatives are equally capable of violent crime and even such petty things as "deceit" as Liberals? Definitely a ban.
Y'see, this is a perfect example of Conservapedia's parallel with an authoritarian government. There is a cult of personality around the leader (do not "make Andy wrong", to quote Karajou), where all dissent is stamped out by cutting it off at its source. Further, dissent is actively vilified, and it is promoted that all bad things originate from the opposition, while all good things originate from Conservatives. Such black and white reasoning is incredibly dangerous and shows a real mental deficiency in abstract thinking and deductive reasoning.
As for saying that RW has a viewpoint, you are correct. But the sysops here don't ban dissenters, preferring to rebut their points instead of effectively "killing" them. The viewpoint here is that anything can be figured out and understood, and that if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, tastes like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's most likely a duck. Conservapedia, on the other hand, says "even though it REALLY looks/sounds/acts like a duck, I read in an infallible book that it's actually a mule, so that's what it is. Suggesting it's a duck? BAN!"

</rant> AdamNelson 19:38, 18 December 2007 (EST)

"Conservapedia was allegedly created because they felt there were two equally plausible viewpoints -- left and right -- for every issue." <-- Where did anybody ever say that? Conservapedia was created because Andy claimed that Wikipedia has "liberal bias" (which just happens to be the wrong bias), so they didn't even start with "There are two plausible viewpoints" - they started with "There is only one plausible viewpoint, and it's Andy's". --Sid 20:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Andy's claims of liberal bias stem from his (originally) supposed belief that everything in life must be balanced between the left and right, a sort of "well now that we've heard from the Liberals, let's see what the Conservatives have to say" idea. Therefore, for every explanation "from the left", there must also be one from "the right" (a false presumption, resulting from over-politicization of pretty much everything). His original claims were that Wikipedia's entires on certain viewpoints were unbalanced, with the views of the "left" dominating those of the "right", hence Conservapedia, allegedly an attempt to balance the scales, so to speak. However, the reality is more austere and quite frightening, as he now actively spins facts so that they make sense to his worldview. Sorry if my previous entry was poorly-worded. AdamNelson 20:22, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Ah, no, I now see the finer difference you pointed at. My bad, it's kinda late here.
Yes, I agree that it would have worked out if they had stuck to that rule, but they quickly reached the point where their view is the only valid one. Pity, really.
What was it Black said in the Daily Show? "[...] part of the trend by conservatives to turn what they see as left-leaning, unfair, biased media into right-leaning, unfair, biased media" --Sid 21:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Moving IWH?[edit]

Well, in fairness I do agree with Bohdan that the Information Warrior's Handbook should probably be moved to the essay space. Stile4aly 18:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Agreed, though I doubt it'll make them trust us more. NightFlare 18:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)
And so it has been done. I am not sure why. But it has. True, it was a bit verbose, acerbic, even. But it did and does go to the heart of RW, combating (willful) ignorance, like no other article on the wiki. To move it w/o discussion is a step in a wrong direction. I'm very open to moving it after discussion though. Since it's been moved just keep it there for now . CЯacke® 19:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Can't remember my password, but anyway - I think Bohdan is making an excellent point, and rhetorical knots aren't going to solve it. Essay or no essay, you publicly talk about disinformation campaigns, subterfuge, etc... and then wonder where the trust is or, even worse, accuse the other side of lacking the ability to trust? Epic fail in my book. 19:02, 18 December 2007 (EST) (Aziraphale)... not that you asked to read it...
I think Bohdan is merely trying to shift blame (not sure if it's intentional or not, though). Socking existed before this (Sometimes used even by Conservapedia sysops against RationalWiki, for example when they used their secret group to discuss the infiltration of RW1), and so did the forms of vandalism discussed in there. I just read over this oh-so-terrible document, and I gotta say I'm underwhelmed. Nothing in there is new. I've seen TONS of this stuff on Wikipedia and on Conservapedia before even RW1 existed (the silly Octopus entry was pretty much the infamous archetype there).
Bohdan (possibly consciously) confuses action and reaction here. It's not "CP doesn't trust us because we have this document". RationalWiki was founded because the constant distrust and hostility of CP sysops drove us away. And that hasn't changed one bit since then. That bad faith and lack of trust led to us forming RW1, it led to Karajou and others infiltrating same RW1, it led to open FBI threats, it led to the Night of the Blunt Knives, it led to RW2 being rebuilt in the open in protest. Only then did we have this InfoWarrior thing, but now that is the reason why CP doesn't trust us? Give me a break.
Note that this isn't about my opinion about the InfoWarrior document. Personally, I don't see the point of the document, but I'm not against having it. Having info like this in the open also teaches people what to look out for, after all. And we all know that CP sysops check our site on a regular basis and frequently use our hints and pointers to improve CP.
I appreciate a discussion about having this article and about trust, but last time I checked, Bohdan wasn't even a CP sysop anymore, much less an authorized speaker for CP, so it would be foolish to assume that deleting this article would change anything or that things would be better if we had never written it down. --Sid 20:53, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I really don't actually care if they trust you, or you them. Bohdan 20:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I don't trust Bohdan. ΓδλεσςΛιβεραλ 20:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)
  • What a surprise. Bohdan 21:00, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I don't trust you, either, but you're entertaining at least ;) (Then again, I don't really trust anybody, so that's not a terribly strong statement...) --Sid 21:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)

My random comment on this[edit]

There has been nothing in the way of the people who lurve they's CP from discussing issues on a "level playing field" with "the likes of us". The frickin' reason for CP is that they don't want to. That's why Andy started it!!! Have you seen the nature of major CP players when they turn up on various open forums? It's no different, they just can't ban people.

Sitting here as RWians worrying about talking to CP sysops about, what, evolution? atheism? homofreakinsexyuality? just seems utterly silly.

If you think about it, this is the level playing field - they have their wiki, and "we" have "ours", although our membership is much more diverse. They say what they want, we say what we want (and then some), third parties can read both. humanUser talk:Human 20:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)