Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive171

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <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)

Andy on AAPS

This isn't CP per se, but the quack rag JPandS for which Andy does something or another for has a wonderful article by him. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to tally the number of CP devices used by Andy. Cheers! Corry (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As an Illinois lawyer who handles health law issues here and there, I regret reading this horseshit. He's managed to cornhole complex issues into his own brand of pat cunting twattle. I've said this before privately, I'll say it again publicly: everytime that twerp opens his mouth makes me wonder why he's a member of the bar. 05:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More Schlafly/AAPS for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSskkmeJIVM. I wonder if he keeps a suitcase full of cash around just in case he has a brain tumor one day.

Claiming something may happen in the future is Atheism

According to Andy, stating the Andromeda galaxy will merge with ours in a few billion years is "atheism masquerading as science"[1] How does that work?? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that too. It's probably because it implies accepting the scientific framework for astronomy, which would mean admitting that the universe is more than 6000 years old. Either that or we have stumbled onto a new Andy Insight™. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

athiests deny the Bible . The BIble clearly says that Satan will rule the earth for 1000 years and the Jesus returns to establish his Kingdom . (something like that anyway) Therefore in less than several thousand years Gods Kingdom will be established and so on .... blah blah. There will NOT be millions of years for any galaxy impact thing to happen. So simple... hehhehehehehe Hamster (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish RSchlafly was around more often, he seems the only person that challenges Andy without risk of blocking for doing so. I could have honestly used his help. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't have the gonads to block Roger. Thanksgivings in the Schlafly household would be just awful. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note that he's consistently saying "liberals/atheists/idiots/whatever say that the andromeda galaxy will collide with earth...", he's not saying "andromeda galaxy will collide/merge with the milky way galaxy" or "our galaxy" or even "earth's galaxy"; he's saying, very specifically, "earth", which probably sheds light on his opinion of astronomy in general, frankly (yes I love commas. Love them to bits.) X Stickman (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of waiting to see AndyPandy state that the Earth is the centre of the Universe after all, and any claims to the contrary is just atheism. Let's face it, there is no more corner for AndyPandy to paint himself into (astronomically wise) unless he adopts a geocentric point of view.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that Christmas would come early! -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 01:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I got to wonder if Roger is honestly trying to improve CP, or, being a little brother, simply likes to yank Andy's chain because he can get away with it? Of course, as my boss said to one coworker who got picked on a lot, 'If you hang your chain out there like that, they are going to yank it.' - Ravenhull (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Methinks Rog is the elder brother. cf CP's own roger schlafly page...Andy was bored in 1961, if Rog is younger then he must've gotten his PhD (1980) when he was but a boy. CЯacke® 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This was truly one of the finest pieces of Conservapedian insight I've ever seen. I have twittered it and now all my friends' heads hurt too - David Gerard (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the dinner talk is like at the Schafly household after Andy's latest piece of insanity... I mean at least Roger accepts certain key scientific principles, but Andy sounds more and more like a small petulant child clapping his hands over his ears and whining about how much he's not listening to such evil concepts as the Andromeda Galaxy. Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Milky Way has just learned that a certain Andromeda galaxy in regards to a collision may at some point be colliding with the Milky Way in the near future! It appears that the Milky Way is very popular among residents of the Andromeda galaxy who are rushing toward the Milky Way with haste! Stay tuned for further developments! - Ken

Insight!

Ah, a new Andy insight. And it ain't even Sunday!--WJThomas (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WIGO'd. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please help me understand what the hell Andy's talking about? My liberalness must be clouding my abstracting ability. – Nick Heer 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No bloodey clue. I wonder if all this "unseen" claptrap really means "faith". Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it means, conservatives presuppose certain things, so liberals get confused because they don't do the same. Therefore, to win the argument. tell them that they must presuppose these things. If they don't, then they are librul denialists who would also deny that 2 + 2 = 4. Or something like that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not! the trick is that if we assume that every decidable propositions he has in the list can be reproducibly validated, he will pull out a Soul directly from Hell (and stain it for you to see it) every time someone asks him why he thinks hell exists. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The things that Andy deems the best ideas of conservatism are fairly strange. Andy believes they rely on a higher degree of abstraction to be understood. For example, the Laffer curve is an economic thought experiment only partially based in practical reality, so it's midway. The Invisible Hand of Conservatism is a theorized social effect on broad segments of societies caused by an institution whose attributes are fairly difficult to measure.

Andy does a few useful things here. He reveals that when something is extremely difficult to prove or absurd on its very face, he doesn't consider either of these flaws in demonstrating veracity. Rather, he just believes that makes them more abstract. Additionally, we can also see where he goes off the rails of mainstream conservative thought and into the bushes of that-weird-guy-at-the-party nonsense. It's right around the halfway point on the scale.--^talk 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he tries to shoehorn it into a scale in the first place is a bit weird by itself. Is he, *gasp*, implying that some liberal thoughts aren't as bad as others? I thought all liberalness was evil. X Stickman (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All liberal thoughts are evil. Some of it are easier to argue away than others. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly writing lesson one: Introduce terms that you are almost certainly using incorrectly. Do not define these ever. Include a chart that is based on statistics you made up about the thesis you still haven't explained. Finally, list one example. Do not demonstrate how this example illustrates your thesis. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some liberal thoughts are more equal evil than others. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy needs to cut back on the Scotch. And I say this as someone who sees the same debilitating effects of alcoholism in myself as I see in his writing. ħuman 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Liberal Inability To Abstract--^talk 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're the man, AD. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This also qualifies as a Schlafly Definition. It's been added. Junggai (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's views vs Mama's views

Okay, I don't have the stomach to sit down and research Mama Shaftley's views and comparing them to Andy, but I'm sure some of you have. How close are Andy's and his mother's views? I know she had some really out there views on feminism, which Andy parrots, or even magnifies, but what about the other batshit stuff? And what does this say about Andy vs his siblings? - Ravenhull (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Mama Schlafly brainwashed, I mean tenderly educated, Andy to believe all that she had to say. This is a woman who believes there is no such thing as marital rape after all.--Thanatos (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Thanatos on this one. Phyllis is just as insane as any other CONservapedian, if not more so. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When you read some of the stuff that Assfly writes, assuming he actually believes it, you really do have to wonder how he has possibly got like that. Hatred of atheists is common among religionists, but some of the things assfly writes about 'liberals' are just incredible. His 'anyone who doesn't have exactly the same views as me is not a conservative' and the bile with which he attacks anyone different to him are so disgusting it's unbelievable. If he was raised to have actually think that non-rightwing-christians are like he describes then I feel genuinely sorry for the fucking little cunt. (I think I came to my senses towards the end there) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I always envisioned Andy's childhood being a lot like the movie Mommie Dearest sprinkled with goodnight stories about how he shouldn't get out of bed because there "...are LIBERALS in the closet..." and that they'll "...get you and rape you and make you an atheist by tearing you away from God's voice. Can't you hear him? Can't you hear God talking to you now? Do you want to lose that?" "No mother." "Good boy." The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am the only person I know who's ever read anything by Phyllis Schlafly. Truth be told, although I know that some people must have and are reading her, I've never heard even people like Ann Coulter (who wrote the foreword to one of her books) admit to reading her. This is not surprising - her books are a terrible, odious slog. But her policies are pretty much the same as Andy's. It's their writing that has differences: (a) somewhat less sane, (b) much narrower in scope, and (c) not overburdened with jargon.

(a) Andy has opinions on everything. His mother might have opinions on everything too, but her notion of relativity will never be published. We might assume it's similar to her son's or that she'd just cede any judgment (as a woman, she's not fit to do science). But we don't really know.

(b) While Phyllis clearly had a strong influence on her son, with lots of crap about how men and women aren't equal, and that the Creator intended them to have different roles, she just far surpasses him when she says that a wife can't be raped or the like. Andy has never spoken about a lot of his mother's more controversial statements and beliefs, and I think this is because he cringes at them, too. It's one thing to think women are worse at math, and quite another to espouse some of what Phyllis says. She doesn't mince words.

(c) Andy was trained as an engineer and a lawyer, and his writings reflect that. He loves new "discoveries," and creating new terms and whatnot. Phyllis tends towards the ponderous in her writing, without any marginalia like CP footnotes or the like.

They are ultimately very similar, though, with Andy inheriting his mother's obsession with activist judges, feminism, education, and marriage..--^talk 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

She's not a religiony as he is, she's not a yeccer. She's also a lot more focused, so probably not quite as insane. ħuman 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out "Smoking Bans and Air Quality"...

From the rag AAPS touts as a Journal, Phyllis asks if the airlines are saving bundles and denigrating the public health by having (cigarette?) smoking bans mandated into law. Yeah, open a window @ 30,000 ft, there Phyl. CЯacke®

Not as hatstand as you might think. Stephen Fry: "Well, the question is . . . It was almost certainly a bad idea, erm . . . It was a lousy idea, in fact, 'cause when smoking was allowed, the cabin air was completely replaced with fresh air every three minutes, and now, the airlines save money . . . they save up to 6% of their fuel bills by using a mixture of fresh and recycled air--" Also Times ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He's ba-a-ck

CP's resident prof returns. as do I--Psygremlin말하십시오 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Abstraction Insight

The way he keeps using that word... I do not think it means what he thinks it means. None of the examples he's put up on that page are an example of abstraction. He's got a scale out to the side which at first glance I thought meant the levels of abstraction, but no, it just seems to be Andy assigning a difficulty level of whatever it is he thinks he's talking about. Just as an example, a one layer abstraction of Socialism would be Economic System (and even then levels of abstraction are subjective).

I'm wondering if he didn't just read a single sentence on philosophical abstraction (the idea that objects can have generalized properties outside of the existence of the object) and then determined that it was the same as cognitive abstraction, similar to that old information entropy == thermodynamic entropy mistake that creationists make all the time. Even then, his examples still don't make sense. You never fully grok it until Andy touches something you have knowledge in, but this man really just pulls these things out of his ass. HumanisticJones (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't read books, he writes them. As such, he is not burdened by knowledge of such liberal definitions that try to make people reject God and the Bible. Open your mind! Then you too can make up shit as you go along! --Sid (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

ARGH THE INCREDIBLE SARAH PALIN (new conservative term to replace "retarded") WAYS HE SCREWS WITH LOGIC AND RATIONALITY IN THAT ARTICLE, IT HURTS THE BRAIN! Damn, Andy outdid himself. I don't even know how to talk about this article, there is just so much wrong with it. This isn't just a brainfart, it's like spraying brain diarrhoea! And worst of all, like HumanisticJones mentioned, I don't think he actually knows what an abstraction is! And he still thinks atheists don't believe in things which can't be seen (like radar!)! ARGH MY BRAIN! --GTac (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the best Insight yet, for this gem alone: "Is there any logical difficulty to experiencing Hell once the five senses stop working?". We can sum this up as "Hell is real for those who've taken leave of their senses", I think. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again Andy displays his ignorance about the Laffer Curve. It's a curve and not a straight line because it posits that there is an optimal tax rate which will generate the most money for the government. Andy (and a lot of other conservatives) always assume that current tax rates are towards the high side of the percentage range - it may be that the rates are on the low side. Laffer himself never put a scale on his curve and it is als possible that it is asymmetrical in shape. I know that some Liberals like to bash the Laffer Curve but in essence it's common sense - 0% tax and the government generates no income because they don't collect anything; 100% tax and nobody bothers to work and earn, the correct rate is somewhere in between and will probably vary depending upon where the economy is relative to the financial cycles.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay, Andy's found another way to state his opinions on things. Andy should just condense his "insights" down into one sentence: "gun control, socialism and gay marraige aren't good, but liberals think they are because they can't add up, use logic, make abstractions, teach phonics or understand linguistics". And then everytime he has a new insight he could just add a new word at the end of the sentence, like "read theology", "translate the bible" or "avoid pissing on their shoes" Bil08 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen

I was surprised that it was Andy who put that up on mainpageright. I love his cooky insane insight stuff but this just repulses me. Such hate. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me in the least, Andy's always taking stuff like that ridiculously out of context to his own selfish political ends. Such an appalling human being. SJ ^Debaser 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

there seems to be a bit of sympathy expressed "This is another unnecessary loss" , but pardon me if I miss the Gay link here. His friend and mentor kills herself after diagnosed with cancer and his mother dies, possibly removing two valuable influences and he kills himself. Hamster (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He was GAY! Therefore everything he did was a direct result of his HOMOSEXUALITY! How can you not see this insight? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it was hate. Andy is just a blind moron who uses every chance he has to prove how right he or his bible is. (And if there's no chance at all, he makes something up). But every criticism of homosexuality is not hate-based. I can't see hate in that particular comment also. Just stupidity. (And tactlessness). --Earthland (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm fairly new at this, but why do we have to mention this at all? Yes its wrong for Andy to use someone's death to push a viewpoint, but shouldn't we just leave it alone? --Sean^talk 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought along the same lines before writing the WIGO, Sean, but I really think that it epitomises Andy to an extent that can't be overlooked. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Sean^talk 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't even been confirm that he did commit suicide. Jaxe (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in this context it's not hatred, it's just a disgusting lack of taste. It should be WIGOed, because people using tragedies to push their own views especially when said tragedies are nothing to fucking do with the views in question, is so sickening it needs highlighted. Although I would say this is not as bad as the time TotalKunt posted the story about the schoolgirl who topped herself after being bullied online with the headline "Liberal cyber bullies drive girl to suicide". What a cockend. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hate was indeed to strong a word to use. I don't see much sympathy in the phrase "this is another unnecessary loss" though, it seems to imply that this loss could have been prevented by simply not being gay. Internetmoniker (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's directed at "homosexuality" rather than "homosexuals", but since Andy explicitly detests his enemies rather than just their positions, it does come off as hate. At any rate, this article kinda pissed off the family and friends I showed, who are normally indifferent to my compulsive CP quotations. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No soup for you!

JPatt crows that the "primordial soup theory" has been rejected by some scientists but fails to notice that they've put forward an alternative. (EC with WIGO ) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"In rejecting the soup theory the team turned to the Earth's chemistry to identify the energy source which could power the first primitive predecessors of living organisms: geochemical gradients across a honeycomb of microscopic natural caverns at hydrothermal vents. These catalytic cells generated lipids, proteins and nucleotides which may have given rise to the first true cells" An obvious case of TL;DR. What an eejit. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Cut from its own section by me ħuman 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Primordial Soup

Does Andy even read the articles he links to. This one doesn't in any way refute ambiogenisis and has nothing to do with evolution. Mind you, fundies often get the two conflated. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Andy, it was actually JPatt who posted that. Keegscee (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Let's do science) When reading the article in question, I immediately had a feeling of having seen that before. And yeah, a few seconds on the other wiki led me to this: [2]. Scientific recycling, where would we be without you. Strelok (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Katy

Note: the very title of the song is profane and will not be rendered here.^img "I kissed a girl" is profane!

Profane

1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.

2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.

3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't!^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wasn't another one of Ed's misadventures. Vulpius (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes it is! Please, someone get on there and revert that profanity! (I'm blocked) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted & salted!^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What a Douchebag..... TK does understand that the ONLY reason most people ever visit Wikipedia and Conservapedia is for "Pop Culture" articles right? I mean, who's gonna want to hear Andy's crazy ass version of astronomy? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

edit: and I love this section of Doug's Talkpage... TK basically comes right out and says if Ed Poor makes a Pop Culture stub, it's encyclopedic and don't you dare touch it!!!! SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Protecting contents of archived page" indeed?! ħuman 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"there's a big difference between a stub and a trivia stub"!!!! Someone's being funny! ħuman 21:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

was it a chaste kiss or a hot wet liplock with tongue ? inquiring minds want to know . were there pictures , a video ? Hamster (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Game on then; let's see how many articles we can delete/get deleted on the grounds of being 'pop culture'. TotalKunt has set the precedent, although I know conservapedoes aren't big fans of consistency. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Even Katy herself^img is a Troublemaker/Troll now! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't stand the Kate Perry song, it's basically "tee hee, look at me being naughty, I'm not lesbian though since I was drunk" CRIPES KILL ME NOW! Much, much better is the Jill Sobule song of the same name. --Kels (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

IK remember thinking when I first heard the Perry song, whatever happened to Jill Sobule? If I recall, that song was actually controversial at the time outside of CP parodists. But that was before TATU. DickTurpis (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

terrorist-registration law

"The point of the terrorist-registration law is not that the anyone expects terrorists to comply; rather that they fully expect that they will not in any way comply with the law, and thus when ever a terrorist is caught in addition to the whatever terrorist accusations, they can also charge them with failing to register". That's the real point of the law, right? I'm not the only one who sees this, am I? Chasanidya (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fairly standard. Look at the history of stamp laws for drugs. For example Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/stamps.htm . --Shagie (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Should that be more like sex offender registrations where you are registered after being convicted? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Telephone message to TK and/or Kenny Baby

Your front page is glaringly lacking any reference to the big snow dump on the East Coast being further proof against Global Warming. That's really solid evidence. You can discard heatwaves being experienced in other parts of the world, as that data doesn't fit your theory. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"other parts of the world ?" This is AMERICA , there ARE no other parts of the world, cept maybe those foreign places , but they dont speak English so they dont count. What matters , and only a republican would deny that, is that its COLD here NOW ! Hamster (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hamster. See exhibit A. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe some places are bombed but incorrectly illustrated, and some placed not bombed but illustrated otherwise. Also you guys forgot Guam. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, forgetting Guam is the national pastime. DickTurpis (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Poland. You're thinking of Poland. 01:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

the map is correct, the USA never bombed Japan, they are friends, especially Toyota. Islands dont really count anyway, they are just too small, like guam . Hamster (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

World war II anyone? You have to date the map legends properly if you have to say "the USA never bombed Japan". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what's that whooshing sound I hear? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If only k61824 was wearing a hat, it would be a thudding sound.. --GTac (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add to the red telephone message with this... You know, a token "Rep. John Murtha passed away at 77." That's all.... If you can stop complaining about a professor being asked to stop preaching religion in a class that has nothing to do with it and comparing various figures you don't like to Hitler. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't expect us to believe that, do you? We all know liberals delight in deceit. No doubt the congressman faked his death in order to avoid a humiliating defeat in November. DickTurpis (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting things to right, TK! You obviously keep a notepad by your Red Telephone, a good habit. Now, Ken, surely you can find a way to get a nice Hitwin image up there closer to the top of Mainpageright? There's been a disappointing lack of attention to maintaining a proper presence of Hitwin and/or Darhitlins of late, slacking off un peu, non, ma cherie? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 08:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a Hitwin. Will a Obamasocialist do?^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

TK knows all- before the news gatherers

TK^img flags a shooting & pre-empts everyone with obvious inside knowledge that it was: "Another preventable tragedy due to gun control". Gaaaaah! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Going by CP's coverage (and sometimes, in a weird way, cover-up) of shootings, there are a few undeniable facts about shootings: (1) Shootings never happen when people (with "people" meaning "any human being physically capable of pulling a trigger, including children") are allowed unlimited access to guns. (2) Whenever someone goes on such a spree, it's the result of atheistic/anti-Christian/public school influences. --Sid (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I could care less about guns, but once in a while you also need to protect yourself from the crazy "Messenger of God". CGW - Conservapedians Gone Wild! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, thanks for that link Sid, that an amusing bit of classic CP. For a bonus point, which well known conservapedo said this?

• "If it was me, the dog would die quickly and the baby would not be hit by a bullet. I would hold the dog with one hand while shooting it."

(and no cheating by reading the link first!) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence tripped me up, too. Imagine my surprise when I skipped further down and realized who had posted it. --Sid (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Not only was it "professor values", but also evolution and biology^img that killed three people! Shocking. – Nick Heer 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

*facepalms* --Sid (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisY

• 01:41, 6 February 2010 DouglasA (Talk | contribs) blocked ChrisY (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Member of a website supporting vandalism: Poor use of repeated chances)

• 22:16, 7 February 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for ChrisY (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Poor use of repeated chances; socking. Adding email block)

It's so much fun to imagine the discussions behind closed doors at CP:

Andy: Why isn't anyone contributing to my new bible? Oh, I see, one of the last contributors got blocked. Tk, what's that about ChrisY? I need him! TK: Okay....

• 22:32, 12 February 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked ChrisY (Talk | contribs) ‎ (unblocked per senior admin discussion)

All admins: Oh, I wasn't asked, I'm not a senior admin after all...

Future dialog:

TK: See, I unblocked ChrisY, but he is not contributing - he is just an ungrateful liberal after all. Andy: You were right from the beginning...

But maybe the reason of ChrisY's silence is just:

• 22:19, 7 February 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 69.248.120.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: ChrisY)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Half an hour after this entry:

• 01:34, 13 February 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked 69.248.120.0/24 (Talk) ‎ (unblocked per senior admin discussion)

Glad to be able to help! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

...you're a senior admin on CP now? Sweet! :D --Sid (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

TK has a dark room full of mannequin heads on spikes. Every time he blocks an IP, he writes the number on one of the heads in tiny writing. Every now and then he's been known to enter the room and engage in animated discussion with the heads, only emerging once he has reached a unanimous decision. This counts as "senior admin discussion." X Stickman (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a "senior admin"? I can't find anything setting "admin" apart in the rules over there. 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A senior admin is one who can't remember what he was doing ten minutes ago but is sure that there must be some reason why he's an editor at CP and can block people. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Senior Admin" is (to the best of my memory) a term TK made up on the fly when Andy gave Block/Edit and especially Sysop powers to some "new" (post-2007) people. Mostly because TK has all the other active first-gen admins on his short leash (and drove away the ones he couldn't control, like PJR), but has trouble keeping the new guys under control. So he was suddenly in a situation where his equals would be able to argue against him and promptly declared himself and his loyal henchmen to be Senior Sysops who have the power to overrule normal Sysops. Which in turn completely devalued the Sysop position because the majority of active users are Senior Sysops who would still be able to shove you around as they pleased. --Sid (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Excactly right Sid, Senior Admin was basically a power grab by TK so he could still boss people around and be a general dick. The real funny thing was that, after he was depowered and banned for years, he came back, got his banhammer, and was calling himself a SA again after about 3 months, claiming power over people who actually outranked him. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Conundrum

So TK just posted a Mainpage link to a story about a man who pled guilty to injuring his girlfriend's child. TK found it relevant because the guy was playing a video game at the time, ergo it's another case of "video game violence"^img. (He also found it important enough to create a whole new article on Reno, Nevada, where the assault occurred) But wait a second...the infant was injured by shaking, and Andy doesn't believe in shaken baby syndrome.

So here's the conundrum: When two of Andy's bugaboos contradict each other, which one wins? Any predictions as to whether or not Schlafly will let this stand? My guess is that the story will be gone by tomorrow, as Andy has a vested interest in denying SBS. Or am I too cynical?--Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also bet on the story being removed tomorrow. That said, who knows to what lengths Andy will go to suggest it was the child's atheist, liburral upbringing, or similar. It's bad when he's this predictable. Related: SBS talk page^img. – Nick Heer 06:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already been "archived". ħuman 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Mama Schlafly shook Andy when he was a kid. That would explain so much....Keegscee (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me, I haven't used my favorite name for Andy recently: Dr. Babyshakes. I'll have to remedy that. DickTurpis (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A follow-up: TK made some insignificant edits to the SBS article to push it into the Recent Changes page. I'd swear he was a parodist if I didn't know for a fact that he's just fucking with us.--Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Merde!

Obama is a Muslim... no, he's Stalin reincarnated. No... he's Robespierre^img and he's going to guillotine us all!. According to this moron's blog (the socialist-liberal jihad? Really?) which is clearly a newsworthy source for TK. --PsygremlinTala! 11:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious. Just from the headline alone I smell Poe. Anti-government lynch mobs? He just described the teatards. I think those guys are on the other side. DickTurpis (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, a quick look shows^img that that site has been used here and there in the past. TK seems^img to like^img it especially, and even the good Professor Jensen approves. --Sid (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection against recreation

TK manages, with no input from any other senior admins, manages to come up with the single-most weird protection reason yet. Maybe he's hinting that Ed and Ken need to use condoms more often - TK's keyboard keeps getting glued up. --PsygremlinSiarad! 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn Obama and his socialist hyphen rationing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Was drifting away from CP

But Andy's statements that "liberals have difficulty with abstractions(Example: Hell)" and Andromeda will "collide with Earth" have pulled me back in. Oh, Andy, you dunce. Stellar parallax is "pro-liberal junk science"! The Universe has no future, Jesus will be coming back towards the end of Sarah's second term. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

B McP

You're an atheist! Sez Andy^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's even worse than Andy's views on relativity: And Andy gets so worked up, not only does he post in bold letters, he is to excited to sign his comment...

B McP, can't you see: there haven't been millions of years in the past, and there won't be billions of years in the future. It's God's symmetry. Deny this, and you loose all credibility! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally want Andy to declare that every star we see is less than 6000 light-years away. It's always so amusing when Andy opposes something that Creationists and "evolutionists" agree on. --Sid (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking to the RAPTURE, Andy^img: "It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future" ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Astronomy á là Aschlafly: Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far^img away.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The grammatical errors in Andy's post are hilarious. Viva la writing class. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

B McP pisses me off. Why the hell would he keep trying after so many incidents like this? Just stop so that the stupid website can die.Senator Harrison (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it's stuff like this that highlights their belief system. You have to be awesomely unaware of the universe to believe it's not staggeringly, mind-bendingly huge. You have to disbelieve that galaxies are made up of stars and stuff, because if they weren't light-years away gravity would have pulled everything together in one big black hole large ball of matter. It must be easier living in an area where you can't see much of the night sky. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual S&M. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to support your ludicrous claims MaxAlex?! Where is the evidence that the stars aren't painted on the inside of a big balloon only a few miles off the surface off the Earth? Huh? I have stick-on glow-in-the-dark-stars stuck to my ceiling and at night they look millions of your stupid 'light years' away when i squint my eyes up and take my glasses off. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Andy's really going off the deep end with this one. Someone wanna sock up and ask him how far away true Christians think Andromeda is? Junggai (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If somebody does sock it up, can they please email BMcP and tell him to come over here? I'd love to hear his take on the wackiness. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Andromeda_galaxy&curid=21674&diff=753457&oldid=753450^img
http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:BMcP&curid=93407&diff=753456&oldid=742969^img
http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:JacobB&curid=92897&diff=753455&oldid=746702^img
http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Andromeda_galaxy&curid=100244&diff=753453&oldid=753449^img

Hope bruvver Roger's reading. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)^{[he's read it: see later in thread]}

And BMcP's Parthian^img See here. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially when it was Roger's addition^img that was the first bit on galactic collision. --Shagie (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Andromeda_galaxy&curid=100244&diff=753465&oldid=753453^{img — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it was suggested I should come here. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How did you stick it so long? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that much of what I did was beneath Andy's notice and the other admins generally were fine with the articles I wrote as long as Andy's attention weren't drawn to them. I think secretly some were supportive although they could never publicly admit it. The real reason is that I stayed so long is that I hoped I could reach one person with some real astronomy facts and maybe get them interested in the science.

I'd be happy to answer any questions, it was one crazy adventure. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You took the red pill. Marvelous, welcome! Internetmoniker (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What is really funny is currently watching JacobB systematically censor every article I have made over the months and removing so much information as to make them useless (and written by a junior high kid). Wow. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The general consensus here is that he's a parodist. 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.^img Seems pretty clear-cut. Also: And remember that it is for ever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. Everything that you have undergone since you have been in our hands — all that will continue, and worse. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. BMcP and his heresies will live for ever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon and yet they will always survive--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BMcP, did Andy ever email you or anything explaining his objections to distances greater than 6000 light years? I thought even YEC couldn't deny that. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

He never did. Form the closest I can tell from our conversation on my old Talk Page there, he wanted to make the claim that such a distance is based on an assumption, that assumption being light moves a a constant speed through a vacuum (I think he hoped I would say it is an assumption). I think he worried that the distance I wrote placed the actual explosion occurring longer then 6000 years ago. Since we recorded that event in 1054 AD, it would mean the event would have happened sometime between 4,100 BC and 6,900 BC (based on the distance of 6,500 ± 1,600 light years) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems Andy does not know that light years is an unit of measure for distance not time. Why would far-away galaxies contradict the Bible? -- diego_pmc

If something is a billion light-years away then it would have to be a billion years old to be visible to us. I imagine some YECs get around it by saying that the Earth is 6000 years old, but the universe is older. Not sure how that jives with the Bible. DickTurpis (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, god created all the stars in the sky on the fourth day. Light was already around from day one though. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What's his issue with something happening billions of years in the future though?

Well when he objected to me over the idea of something billion of years in the future he also accused me of taking people away from the Bible and God. I would hazard to guess because the idea of a time-line that long suggest no great Biblical Apocalypse occurring. [3] --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me if light was on the first day, stars on the fourth, why couldn't Andy just say, ok, here's something 2 million lightyears away, whose light was created en route so we'd know about it? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, but that would open god up to the accusation of being deceitful, as the information the light imparts is of an event that never happened. It's interesting watching the likes of Andy squirm if they allow themselves to be drawn into discussions on this subject. Also note how he makes no mention of what stellar/galactic distances are, only what he "knows" they are not. Remarcsd (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To be a little bit hyperbolic: JacobB's spree of deletion reminds me of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan. Yes, it's Andy's property, he can do what he wants with it, and I can stand only at the sideline while beauty and knowledge is destroyed. But it really irks me. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that does hurt some, I will admit that. Because I honestly put forth real effort into trying to make those articles as informative and accurate as possible. It sucks so much information is being censored away, but I knew that may happen once I walked away. It probably would have happened even if I didn't, and I'd just be kicked for trying to reverse it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do you feel that JacobB is quite possibly, even likely, someone here?131.107.0.103 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno to be honest. While I was there, the thought had crossed my mind a few times. He doesn't seem like the infamous parodists that were there. I have spoken with him privately from time to time, and I think perhaps he is sincere, just seems to be completely under the spell. However I think more likely he does what he does because he wants to be an Administrator on CP and he feels the best way to achieve this is to "play ball" and suck up to Andy, since that is the name of the game. Right after I left, he pretty much took Andy's dislike of age, distance, and size of various astronomical objects to heart and removed all mention of them, in all astronomy related articles. This goes back on the compromise he and I reached earlier. I am guessing because he hopes this will win brownie points with Il Duce by showing total loyalty. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of your content remains. Only material which contradicts a Biblical literalism understanding has been removed. YourEnemy? (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andy and Jason Lisle would get along. They could gang up on Roger. Hamster (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) Enemy: CP doesn't have a de jure "Biblical literalism understanding" and you will find no such thing stated anywhere in its policies - JacobB's purge was ultra vires.

(b) JacobB: this isn't good parody, it's gutless toadying. You don't make fun of people by becoming them. You're a sniveling shit. The more people you piss off over here the shorter your days at CP. 21:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Andy goes along with all these pagan names for constellations, galaxies & stars. Where are the conservative Christian constellations? All we have is the Southern Cross. Why no tablets of stone or burning bush, leviathon or behemoth, big fish or donkey?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.}

And Roger chimes in^img. In a somewhat conciliatory tone but requesting "openmindedness". Andy almost replies^img but not quite. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

JimR took the plunge and blocked himself for infinity and beyond for being a relativist. You have fans, BMcP!! Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I told JacobB privately, people need to take a stand against Andy when they know he is wrong, especially the Admins, but that'll never happen. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Too true, the CP admins are - to a man - a bunch of spineless curs. You see, they know Andy giveth and Andy taketh away, and seeing as being a CP sysop is the greatest thing they're ever going to achieve, they aren't going to rock the boat. Of course, being surrounded by his own personal echo chamber means that Andy can spout his insanity for our amusement, without being challenged. --PsygremlinSermā! 09:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

More Ed on WP

(I know it's not CP but ...)

Ed creates Template:Lxs which consists solely of [[{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}{{{2}}}]] with this explanation ^[!] on the talk page:

I'm planning a series of linking templates like this, with the following convention:

s - use this as part of the link and show it

x - exclude this from the link, but show it

h - use this in the link, but hide it

If anyone objects, stop me now. But don't worry, I'll introduce these templates only slowly and gradually.

This will be my first technical project at Wikipedia since creating the {{tl|age}} template, which is now in tens of thousands of biographical articles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 13:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't ya just love him? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good show, someone. 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You Harry, Nutty? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

No 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that (he's been hyperactive today). Love the mandatory "I'm important!" masturbation.

The template is a good idea on paper (he used it in an article to convert [[interlaced|noninterlaced]] into {{Lxs|non|interlace}}d, so it's basically just a prefix-chopper for links), but it's too technical and specific in my eyes. How often will you have to link to an article while the linking word is exactly the article name plus a prefix? And even if you encountered such a case, you would have to remember this template (which has exactly zero other uses, ever) and its exact call. By the time you looked it up and/or experimented by previewing, you could have simply created the usual link. It saves nothing.

Gets even worse because it's now pretty much too late to introduce such fundamental templates. Back in Wikipedia's early days, this might have been accepted better because it had been easier at that point to shape the way people write articles. Now, Wikipedia has more than three million pages and more than eleven million users.

Practically nobody knows about it -> it won't be widely used -> practically nobody knows about it. It's the circle of obscurity. Trying to break out of it is doomed to fail unless Ed comes up with some brilliant marketing (convincing many people to adopt it) and/or initiative (inserting it into hundreds of articles). --Sid (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Hadn't noticed that he'd used it. How many keystrokes did it take to change the link? Wot a wazzock! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

While writing my comment on the WP talk page^img, I discovered that Ed has created similar templates on CP:

• E_s^img ("exclude first word from link, but show it; show and use second word")
• H_s^img ("hide first word, show second")
• H_h_s^img ("hide first two words, show third")
• S_h^img ("show first word, hide secnde")

Usage example:^img He replaces [[Obama]] (which redirects to the BHO article) with {{h h s|Barack|Hussein|Obama}} to basically create [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]]. Really, the more I look at it, the more I ask myself WTF Ed was thinking. Does he really expect people to use such a cryptic template when it's so much more mental work than just writing down the link or using a redirect? --Sid (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, he's user #188 so everybody takes him very seriously. Etc 02:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dumb question: Why doesn't he use {{h s|Barack Hussein|Obama}} instead of {{h h s|Barack|Hussein|Obama}}? And does he want to create {{h h h s}} to use it with {{h h h s|Johann|Wolfgang|von|Goethe}}? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What he should really do is make a bot that creates ever-longer iterations of {{h h h ... h s}} until he gets topic-banned from templates the respect he deserves as founder and lead programmer of Wikipedia. Makes me wonder whether he knows a single template can take multiple kinds of arguments, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 08:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Went and stuck the template on TfD because of the aforementioned complexities. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Our Examples of Bias in Wikipedia are only two away from totaling 200.

Well, that's "news". What's that in hex, Andy? ħuman 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

0xBORING 128.211.182.157 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More creepy Uncle Ed

two more Ed Stubs, giving us an insight into his mind. The only notable things about Jessica Biel are that she played the "wayward daughter^img" and was in a film called "Easy Virtue^img". I guess we know what keeps Ed up at night. --Psygremlin話しなさい 14:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon?

social vices harm can be caused without [[materialism]] by destroying the mind, and that "victimless" crimes do have victims. What is he on? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, but after re-reading that statement about fives times trying to understand it I think I might need to start taking something. Am I the only one who thinks Andy is sliding closer and closer to Timecube territory with every edit he makes? - --Tygrehart (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Tygrehart

Attempted translation: "Hollywood values (sex, drugs, gaiety, etc) are said by liberals to cause no physical harm under any circumstances; however, they rot the mind in some way (note: the mind is not physical, shut up). Also, whenever liberals say something is a "victimless crime", they're wrong." I assume this is only "abstract" because it's hard to tell who/what he's talking about. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that none of us can understand what he means just proves his point. Keegscee (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the predicate. He speaks English fine usually. This isn't an example of him doing it poorly. He's still daft, but speaks. 01:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Lemme try:

(Social vices) causes harm (in a setting where we deny materialism) because it destroys the mind. and the victim of such settings are the one involved, so there are victims.

Does that look clearer now? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's scary when someone for whom English is not a native language can express Andy's "ideas" more clearly than Andy can... Nice work, K#####! ħuman 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Human makes me look like I just pwned Andy. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

University of Alabama shooting

Apparently, this is all due to professor values. Clearly, fundamentally liberal professors are clearly all murderers, and THIS IS PROOF. Webbtje (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not just professor values, but values of a professor trained in evolution^img--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A professor who was also trained in evolution at Harvard. Can we assume then that all Harvard grads have a tendency toward murder, as Andy assumes all evolutionists are? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

the news has dredged up the accidental shooting of her brother by her when she was 20. A shotgun to the stomach. Hamster (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Andy graduate from Harvard?--Justme (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence AbNoise's comment above. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's bringing out the big guns. It wasn't just biology and evolution, but socialism and liberal denial^img that killed her. Wow, so many fingers pointing at so many things! If only there were some sort of system by which they assessed what really happened. – Nick Heer 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy...

...use the fucking Preview button, Ken.^img --Sid (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To Ken the preview button is like onanism. Changes you cannot immediately commit to is a mortal sin. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just took a quick peek at the Atheism article (that's all a normal person can manage without pain) and was amazed to see he stuck a section on anti-atheism blogs smack in the middle of the thing. Shouldn't that just be a subset of "external links"? Especially since the non-notable Marino takes centre stage. --Kels (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can people STOP linking to that "article" please. I've just skimmed^{[TM A Schlafly]} the thing and I'll ave to go and lie down with my copy of Keats for a while. The writing "style" is even worse than I remember. Ken shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a keyboard until he's taken a course in writing in English. It's probably the worst screed I've cast my eyes on since infant school. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the article is marvelous: it has ten in regards in it - more than Keats used in his whole lifetime, I suppose! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken can do Andys writing course, that will fix everything Hamster (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On CP, there is this great (though unspoken) rift between pupils and teachers: teachers are Ed Poor, TK, and of course Aschlafly - they don't have to listen to anyone. They write the books. Pupils are for instance every new editor: they should come to listen, not to talk (talk, talk,...) Though the pupils are said to be the core of the project, they are only the junior partners (and junior sysops). Conservative is a teacher, therefore he can't listen to anyone else - and that's a pity, as he is perhaps the only person in the universe (including us bloody foreigners) who could profit from Andy's course --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A short praise of pibot

KBs added to WIGO-talk per month

While I get all exited over the abuse of pibot by TK, I just marveled how much pibot helped to manage this pig, i.e., Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?. This is our most popular page, and the number (and size) of the comments to it is enormous.

5000 first rev	5000 rev Jan 2009	5000 current rev
In the beginning, archiving by hand wasn't that problematic: roughly once a week, someone had to tame the pic	This time last year, the pig had to be trimmed twice a week, and no one liked to touch it...	Smooth operations, nowadays. Lovely!

So thanks, pibot! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And thank you, once again, Oh Grand Wizard of the Sun, Eastern Dragons and Awesome Graphs. --PsygremlinSpeak! 13:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks:-) Here's the whole picture. Some observations:

• in the very beginning, the thread was archived roughly once a week and didn't grow over 100K
• the thread peaked on Feb 20, 2009 with more than 217 K
• in Jan 2009, the thread was manually archived ten times: a maximum
• in May 2009, Pibot was put to work - that's very obvious in the pic
• afterward, it never became bigger than 164 K
• in Aug 2009, the thread reached length 0 - a result of our troubles

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your brain on acid! --GTac (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bye-bye Weekly Toon

With Karajou having plumbed the depths of his creative well and faced with yet another "evilushun on the blackboard" or global warming cartoon, Andy pulls the plug, replacing it instead with a bit of what-the-fuckery^img of his own.

Conservatism beats obesity? Can't wait to see the advert on the Home Shopping Network (Um... and since when is obesity an addiction?) --PsygremlinKhuluma! 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why you see all those skinny folks in Texas. --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And why Rush Limbaugh is looking pretty svelt and had never been addicted to painkillers. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I predict the Weekly Toon going on the "do-not-talk-about" blockable offences list. Innocent user: "Karajou, what happened to your Weekly Toons? I very much enjoyed reading them, they were most comical." Karajou: Block, revert, oversight. SJ ^Debaser 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, now I can't get rid of the mental image of Andy as a snake oil salesman, pushing conservatism through the medium of singing a catchy jingle and pointing a cane at bulletpoints. Vulpius (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Try Mr. Schlafly's miracle elixir, it'll get you thin sir, true sir true! Barikada (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably not much), the most obese states in America are largely (hehehe) Republican. That said, I'm betting it's pretty much a coincidence. – Nick Heer 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Therefore they're likely to be nearer to meeting their maker, hence the gODbotheringness. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Likely. Correlation does not imply causation. "I'm thin because I support gun control!" is as silly as "I'm thin because I support the death penalty!". --Sid (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's more "if you're obese, you're more likely to be Republican", but it doesn't work the other way around. – Nick Heer 01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

More likely, a lot of those Republican states tend to be poorer, and poverty is often linked with obesity (inability to access healthier foods, etc.). So it is possible that some Conservative economic policies have an impact. --Kels (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"The powerful personal benefits of conservatism often include defeating [...] anxiety, depression and other time-wasters" (emphasis mine) - WHAT? Anxiety and depression are mere time-wasters now? --Sid (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are, atheist scum! All that time spent on your shrink's couch could be spent reading the Bible or talking to God... who, un.like your shrink, doesn't charge by the hour... or talk back, for that matter. --Psygremlin말하십시오 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And a new edit of the article features the #1 reliable source on CP: Andy's vague anecdotes.^img --Sid (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I'd read that "statistic"^{[TM A Schlafly]} is that "Conservative" women are as likely to die early as the men resulting in an equality. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That anecdotal evidence from a conservative conference in early 2010 of a "nearly" 100% remarriage rate for widows doesn't seem to include Andy's mother, who was an organizer. 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I switched to conservatism and gained two inches where it counts. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I gave up my liberal ideas and became a conservative, my hernia vanished. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 08:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I got pregnant thanks to conservatism. Webbtje (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

After I switched to conservatism^TM I have gotten mind-blowing epiphanies on a near daily basis. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism^TM cured my rickets! 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Say it ain't so! More "quim" please. Jimaginator (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Phase II

that is all. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Fit y'on aboot, loon?DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you frae furry boots city? CS Miller (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the TROLL ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how he can no longer bring himself to say certain words, so just gives the initial letters. I'm sure at some point he'll stop being able to even do that and will have to mouth the words at people, because he clearly can't say you-know-what or refer to the winkwink nudge nudge. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Have we been in Phase I all this time? I bet something really exciting is on its way in March! Bondurant (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ides, no doubt (well it's well 'idden^[sorry]). Also: 12, yes TWELVE, edits for this^img triumph of reportage. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what's the Phase to Level ratio here? Jaxe (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI)This is the reason Kenny is just using the letters A, E and H. That is on the website of mr Turkel/Holding. Ken even got a shout out here: (may 2 2009). The rush he got from that acknowledgment has been lasting for quite a while. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's links from each (A,E & H) to CP's articles, teh Turk must be hard up for sources. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the amount of response (zero) he's had on that talk page from the celebrated Mr T. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Turkel hasn't been all that active for quite a while. Hey TK, I think it is time to do this, at this page. Time to move on. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Should not someone point out that, of the two most prominent youtube creationists, one is going out on the street and the other is receiving treatment for mental problems? EddyP (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no need to go ad hominem on people who provide such weak arguments. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Ken really expecting a response from someone whose entire editing history of 4 edits, covers a period of 6 minutes getting on for 2 years ago? Even if it is the real Turkey?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Saint Valentine's Day, you dirty liberals!

Andy wants to keep the "Saint" in "Saint Valentine's Day".

Of course, no one knows who the real Saint Valentine was, and the Catholic Church hasn't celebrated it as a Feast Day in over 40 years, so I guess Andy knows better than those whacked-out far left liberals from Vatican II. MDB (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Given most of CP's target audience are evangelicals, do they even recognize Catholic saints in the first place? --Kels (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that particularly matters what their audience is, or that Schafly himself is Catholic to the best of anyone's knowledge. It's the idea that evil secularists are trying to remove the religious connotations from something that is religious in origin - similar to the war on Christmas. It doesn't matter if it was a Catholic, Islamic or even Scientologist in nature, it's their way of fighting against perceived secular behavior more than defending the actual religosity of the issue. ^gnostic 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Goat is back

I see that someone re-created cp:Goat but has now been locked by Karajou after he inserted the taxonomy template.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Croc

His contributions just petered out. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now 5 months since DeanS's last edit. I know he lost his wife, but he did come back sporadically after that. Can we expect his demotion for inactivity? Of course it may be that he has also died; one of the problems with an internet persona is that nobody knows if you are still alive unless a relative decides to make it known, which presumes that they even know that you edit at a crank site.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He has a blog, but it's restricted to invited readers only. Kind of expected, since it might disclose some raw emotion due to his loss. There's also the possibility he's kept in contact with Andy outside of Conservapedia, -or- it's just favoritism and bullshit "meritocracy" that we've all come to laugh at. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) In any case, hope he's doing well.

I sent him a mail a few months ago to his usual e-mail addy and it was bounced back undelivered. Maybe he's just cut all ties and gone back to hawking dodgy coffee. (or was it chocolate?) --PsygremlinTala! 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

tempting fate

ban countdown? [4] HoorayForSodomy (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do they feel the need to live blog every little thing that pops into their minds? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

JacobB's monologue about Ed is priceless. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed should try making something that other people don't have to undo. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shocking news

Link

A youtube athlieist has called something the book of 'revelations' instead of 'revelation'. This is a gloatable offense. Webbtje (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the minister and the Sunday School leaders at the church I attended as a kid must be undercover atheists, then - they often referred to passages from there as 'Revelations' whatever. I guess Ken can't understand that the precise name of something isn't always the same as what it's popularly known as or commonly referred to in passing. 92.22.84.228 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Provided link. Took him a half dozen or more edits, what great irony in one diff. Hey, Conservative, you can't even spell Thunderf00t's name correctly. Next time you try to do a public exposition on a user of YouTube, Rationalwikians suggest you first learn the name of the user on YouTube! (Basically switched words in his last sentence) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, in only nine days TF's video has seven times the hits that NephilimFree's vid took almost a year to get! Thunderf00t must be so much more accurate, according to Ken-logic. Now I know which one I should watch, thanks Ken! --Kels (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Ken, Nigel of Half Man Half Biscuit does clearly warn about this in the lyrics of Shit arm, Bad tattoo -

If you’re going to quote from the Book of Revelation

Don’t keep calling it the Book of Revelations
There’s no “s”, it’s the Book of Revelation

As revealed to St John the Divine

Although I would like Ken to explain exactly where else TF has embarrassed himself, I certainly don't recall him doing such with Ray Comfort (I do remember an excellently succinct lesson in speciation though) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just checked, he doesn't say "The Book of Revelations", he just says "in Revelations", which actually is a common conversational shorthand for the book. If he wasn't trying to use the formal name, then I doubt even Nigel would have a problem with it. --Kels (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's common, but it's also wrong. The correct shorthand term is just 'Revelation'.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

TerryH

Did this slip through the cracks? I just took a look at TerryH's last 100 contribs^img - and they fall neatly into four categories:

1. Bible Translation
2. Using his blog as a news source on the main page
3. Minor edits and reverts
4. Using his blog as a reliable source in mainspace articles

Now, I expected the first three, but the last one was definitely news to me. See here^img and here^img and keep an eye out for articles by "Hurlbut, T." -Sid (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With that creepy stare, he can be reliable a reliable source if he says so. Why wouldn't someone tell him that picture is awful before he puts it on the web? Is that the quality of xtian fellowship we've come to expect from our faithful? 15:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Examiner format: Tabloid.This little section provides some insight...

"When then someone clicks your link you earn revenue (similar to ehow etc.). Examiner.com was abused in that way, and there were more similar reasons regarding promotional edits."

Does this mean our little racist TerryH is linking to his own articles for revenue gain? He's basically doing three big no-no's (linking to his own articles, linking to a blog/tabloid site, and possibly getting paid to do it!) at once. Impunity is a bitch. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that had been mentioned in the past, but Terry might actually be the only person who actually profits from CP. After all, he apparently gets money based on pageviews. This would also explain why he is so aggressively linking to his articles on the mainpage. --Sid (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU-! Sid beat me to it, but I didn't get an edit conflict and posted before him! WTF! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about great minds. :P (And my edit started with a linebreak, so I guess that made the edit-conflict check trip up.) Didn't occur to me to check WP's blacklist, though. Nice find! --Sid (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And he now got a second title, too!

Introducing... the Creationism Examiner! --Sid (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's one intense icon. I can't imagine what someone with, say, a copy of Photoshop could do with that. --Kels (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So what the flippin' fuck does this:

A serious student of politics and political philosophy since his Yale (1980) days, Terry A. Hurlbut analyzes current political events from the perspective of some of the finest political theorists of the Western world, from Locke to Paine to Tocqueville to Rand. He has been a resident of Essex County for over eight years, long enough to have "seen it all."

...have to do with CREATIONISM? An interest and education in politics gives someone the authority to refute science? And just what in the blue fuckin' blazes does eight years in Essex County prepare you for? Can one really "see it all" from one location like that? I feel an anuerysm starting as we speak... I'm going to go lie down for a while. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox news

The WIGO about Obama's and some other guy's height is a bit shit, but in the CP article it links to I noticed Andy had a column in the chart of possible republican candidates called "Fox news exposure". Is Fox news really this important to rightwingers in the States, such that it warrants being listed next to pros and cons of each candidate? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. If you're a Republican and you get bad-mouthed on Fox then you might as well kiss your electability goodbye. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people who here that aren't even that far right-winged will only watch fox news. My boss won't even listen to NPR because of claimed liberal bias. `Fox82 (talk)

I also found it funny that he put the column as "allowed" on fox news, like they are all begging to be on all the time. Fox82 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Fox's ratings far outstrip other cable news networks in the US. Republicans most certainly need Fox's support if they want to get elected. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To me, FOX News is a little like Conservapedia. I watch it because they are so crazy that it makes for good entertainment. I would imagine at least some of their viewers are people who want to see how stupid people like Hannity and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are. Keegscee (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to all the time. News is the only semi-interesting thing that's on in the morning, and watching FOX is like reading mainpageright. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If only mainpageright were as interesting. That was one of the google news links today under 'spotlight'. --23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Two girls; one vibe. Now that's interesting! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be on mainpageright, it has a religion aspect: "using a vibe religiously...". Hmmm, I wonder exactly what that entails... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably a lot of chanting and singing, maybe a little holy water, and one HELL of a confession the next night. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 09:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Does "Oh yes!, Oh yes!" repeated ad infinitum, count as chanting? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This can only go well…

I just edited CP's main talk page^img to ask for a mention of the latest Gallup poll showing Obama's 6-point approval rating increase, just for kicks. Let's see what happens. My bet is either a) "Gallup is a libburral company" or b) 90/10 rule… BAN! – Nick Heer 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd bet c) "Member of a vandal site". Of course I'm only betting that since I'm the one that's piloting TK this week. HumanisticJones (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bingo^img. Though, I find it ironic TK (or for that matter, most sysops at CP) are criticizing anyone for misreading polls. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 06:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they also banned me for something they say they won't ban people for. But as they're "conservatives", I suspect it's not a double-standard. At any rate… – Nick Heer 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought the current line was that they don't block people merely for editing here. Nick Heer didn't break any rules with that post. 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Last thing I heard was that they never block anybody for comments elsewhere... but that they do block people who are active members of sites that oppose CP. But in the end, it doesn't really matter because all rules basically grind down to "If the Senior Administrators like you, you're doing fine. If not, you broke the rules and will be politely removed." Because it's not like CP ever applied its rules consistently or transparently. --Sid (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WIGO numbering

I was about to lambast someone about the numbering, then I found it was I wot dun it! Sorry! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We need automated numbering really. -- =w= 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice, it would make things a lot easier. Does anyone know how that could be done? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-100-What is going on at CP? -- Nx / talk 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly not all our BON contributors can read. -- =w= 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Foxy counting goes awry

From the Fox report quoted here on the woman with 6 kids in a house:"But the gain comes with pain: Europe’s higher taxes and bigger government lead to slower job growth and higher unemployment." Sorry Foxy old son: ain't true:

Country	% unemployed	Date
France	08.00	2009 (September)
Germany	08.6	2009 (November)
United Kingdom	07.80	2009 (September)
United States	09.7	2010 (January)

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pish posh. You're bringing actual statistics into this discussion? =) – Nick Heer 18:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WIGO times two

How come the "TK reads between the lines" WIGO is in there twice in there twice? MDB (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's a quick fix because the counting went wrong somewhere. So with the duplicate at the top, the next one to use the "votecp nextpoll=wigo" tag will let the count resume properly again. But I just took a quick look at things myself, so I might be wrong. --Sid (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's time for my TK impersonation. *ahem* --PsygremlinSermā! 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

*deletes entry*

• No there isn't. There is clearly only one entry and your feeble attempts to pour liberal scorn on Mr Schlafly's project will not succeed here. It might work in Jonesboro, Kansas, but here we resist liberal attempts to discredit us. TK_Admin

and block.

Poor Ed

What the fuck is this source for Barney Frank being a "balf faced liar" about? I'm too afraid to make the Time Cube angry to read it. 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't for the lack of softcore porn, I'd say it's the inside of RobS' head. --Kels (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Ed found us a new article of the weak. - π 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as we were thinking of ditching it for "featured new article".... ħuman 00:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TK Fails 'liberal maths'

Quite ironic. He says that $272 Billion has been spent and ~595,000 jobs have been created, giving about $450,000 per job. This is correct, if all the money had been spent between October 1st and December 31st 2009. However, he misses that there was another 634,032 jobs created or saved between February 17th and September 30th 2009. So, using the exact figures, that gives 1,229,305 jobs created for £272.2 billion, or $221,425.93 per job - still a bit high, but less than half what TK was claiming. However, if you even so much as read the 'about the Act' part of recovery.gov, you realise that only part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was about directly creating or saving jobs (although I would agree it's probably the most important part), so the actual figure for 'money spent per job saved/created', if you only include the money actually spent directly doing this, is actually even lower than this. I would actually work out exactly how much lower, but, frankly, TK's shenanigans aren't worth the effort. 92.11.8.129 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TK reads this page but he won't respond to this. He knows he's wrong and a deceitful piece of shit. Even if he turns out to be a parodist I won't hate him any less. UGH I can't express how badly I hate him with words Senator Harrison (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, YHBT. Congratulations TK; you've done it again. Fedhaji (Talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

JeffT

Funny little guy.^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Classic Andy, classic Ed Poor. One writing plan, one malicious insult from Jinxy and one TK banhammer away from being a perfect representation of CP. ^{— Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.82 / talk / contribs}

Ahahaha! Ed "don't be a dick" Poor being a bully, Andy trying to dodge like a 600 pound sumo wrestler, this is great. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yesss... TK has involved himself. This is perfect. I love how Andy says on the same page that Marc Lepine should be removed because he is not a "young mass murderer", then goes on to defend keeping Amy Bishop. He says the entry is about murder, then goes on to defend keeping manslaughter. He says that changing it to public school would cause more inaccuracies when every one of the people listed went to public school (and most of them weren't really young anyway). This man is the most ad hoc thinker ever. LOVE IT. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding one of the classics: User page deletion to declare that the "user is on probation" (and apparently is not allowed to recreate it?) --Sid (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I really love how Assfly can say something that is patently wrong (51 is not young!), then staunchly refuse to back down. It's also a great example of how his minions rally around to defend his stupidity. No wonder the only new users who don't get pissed off and leave (and/or blocked indefintely) are parodists. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That talk page was a riot. Someone posted when she was born ('65) and yet Andy keeps throwing an age in the 50s around. Which is it? What's funny is, as you guys are saying, it was a perfect melange of everything that is wrong with CP. ħuman 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Ed is apparently^img just as bad at math as he is at critical reading skills^img. To wit: Bishop's DOB is 4/21/65; her brother was shot 12/6/86. That makes Bishop how old at the time, children? Did you say 21? You did? Well, congratulations, you're smarter than Ed Poor, who takes the word of the the Huffington Post, fershitsake.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

assfly

Do a google news search for "Andrew Schlafly". Go on, I dare you. -- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean this? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's juicy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it wrong that it's funny to me that this involves Andy and a town called Kermit? HumanisticJones (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not wrong! Kermit rocks!!-- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy, nationally renowned lawyer and defender of the downtrodden *hand over heart* well done Mr Schlafly , America stands behind you . Hamster (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all 43 pages of lawyer jibberjack (yeah I said jibberjack, wanna fight about it?) to find the good tidbits. If someone could translate it into American, that would be appreciated. :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems likely Andy is helping this doctor because he believes these uppity women nurses must be raging liberals to file complaints against their natural better, the jackass quack practitioner. Fox82 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My series of posts on the texas nurse case sums it up in not too many words, but these nurses who blew the whistle on a quack got fired and prosecuted by the good ole boys, and the only major org behind the doc and against the nurses was AAPS, and coincidentally assfly represented the quack in a tangentially related matter in NY. ASchlafly, defender of quacks. It's glorious.-- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone will add this to our Andy page. I'd do it myself but I'm about to hit the sack.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Butbutbut, that means he's siding with an elitist expert! Shouldn't these medical jobs go to the Best of the Public anyways? --GTac (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This week's featured article

... is another hotch potch of half-inched PNG files. The barrel-scraping is clearly audible. Nothing underlines the site's moribund condition like their inability to come up with one decent page a week.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's less them not having any better articles (by their warped standards, they have plenty of great stuff) and more a reflection of a broken process of a broken community. They regularly drive out people who want to join the community without mindlessly repeating Andy's mantras, and they locked out people from the selection process by only giving committee members a vote and banishing everybody else to the talk page. And the existing committee members will either show favoritism or suggest their own pet articles or things they find fitting for the time (like seasonal or current events). --Sid (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom: Conservapedia Masterpieces Gallery. Someone needs to add the tumbleweed animation. – Nick Heer 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of those images are tea-leaved citing 'fair use' (the one that don't simple don't state any source whatsoever). Do images like this fall in the public domain? CP seem to think that stating 'fair use' gives them carte blanche to nick whatever they like. What exactly is the definition of 'fair use' in the States? PS. It is also an very shoddy effort for article of the week. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See here for a good article on what constitutes fair use. Using an image as window dressing on an article doesn't count. For example, here Joaquin Martinez stole an image of the Art Institute of Chicago from a mom and pop stock photo company I contacted to let them know of the unlawful use. The image is used solely on the Chicago page, which mentions once that "The world-renowned Art Institute of Chicago houses both a museum and a school." Here and here are Joaquin stealing 2 more images from the same mom and pop outfit for no reason other than to dress up the Chicago article. Aren't these at least a little troubling to CP? I doubt it. He literally stole them solely because they were represented by the author to be of Chicago street musicians. Why not steal an image from the Chicago Reader of the Uptown Theater when the article doesn't even mention it. In other words, not only is there no even tenuous attempt to reference the subject matter of the photo, it's just put up as window dressing. These aren't remotely fair use. The images themselves aren't being discussed. Rather, they're used to dress up a reference to the subject matter of one photo (and purely as a window dressing as to the other 2 images), which is exactly what is contemplated to be prohibited by the law. Here's an image RJJ stole from the Chicago Tribune to dress up a reference to the Chicago Olympics bid. Where' the commentary or parody? There's none. Likewise a completely unlawful appropriation by CP's resident copyright expert, a fool who would get any more visible website of a more commercial nature than Conservapedia sued. In many instances you'll find that even if there is some colorable claim that the stolen material is properly used for criticism or parody of the image itself or teaching the subject matter of the image (which may be permitted), so much of the material has been stolen (i.e. it was taken at the same resolution and size as the original) in such a manner as to completely interfere with the copyrightholder's market for the original work. Just look at the above Chicago musician and Art Institute images Joaquin stole from http://hazel.forest.net/skjold. There's no excuse for this. 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as they're dealing with art created in the nineteenth century, the chances of it being in public domain are almost certain. Yes, there are exceptions, but as a general rule, they're fine. They like to cite Fair Use whenever it allows them to circle-jerk over something mundane though, when the image is actually protected by copyright. I can't be bothered to dumpster dive right now, but I had a couple of examples in my history last night. – Nick Heer 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The photograph isn't, though. If I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, the photo is my property, not PD. ħuman 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has pretty accurate summaries of copyright and fair use guidelines, and they disagree. Basically, if your photo does not add any value to the artwork, and the work is in the public domain, by default the representation of it (photo) is also in the public domain. – Nick Heer 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeabut...I had a short discussion with this exact matter with Karajou here (see Barnstar Header). His comment seems a bit out of place since the link goes to a recreated page, I think I questioned his use of a picture of a statue (or something). 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Damn, I knew I should have used Venus de Milo as my example. How about if the photo isn't "accurate"? At what point do lighting and film choices (say) create a new work? How about photographing only a detail or part of the piccie? ħuman 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Of particular intrest for this will be BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). As I read that decision it states that if the resulting image is a reproduction of a public domain work, then it is too in the public domain. Transformation of media (sculpture to print isn't enough (item #36)). The key to getting the copyright on the reproduction would be to make some identifiable original work. Choice of lighting and film on a photograph of the Mona Lisa aren't enough. --02:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I will correct myself quicly on the 3D->2D transformation is not addressed by the case. http://www.funnystrange.com/copyright/bridgeman.htm is a good read about the case. http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html also is a good read that looks into the case. --Shagie (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lenski in the News

Lenski just got named co-director for a $25 million NSF center for the study of evolution in action. How long until Andy goes nuts over it? Kaalis (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's .4% of the proposed annual budget of the NSF last year if my calculations are correct. 18:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency" <-- That means Andy will likely go down the "THIS IS TAX PAYER MONEY! CONSERVAPEDIA DEMANDS ALL THE DATA! OF EVERYTHING! AND ANYWAY, WHY DID HUSSEIN OBAMA WASTE MONEY ON THAT? HE COULD'VE USED THAT MONEY TO PRINT BIBLES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN INSTEAD OF FORCING EVEN MORE ATHEISM DOWN OUR THROATS!" road with this. --Sid (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

could Andy be goaded convinced to write a letter to the NSF ? Hamster (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt he could be enticed. Perhaps with a little prodding. I'd do it, but (see TK exchange above) there's simply no way my ban will be removed. – Nick Heer 18:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TK uses proxies to post on RW. Does that help you address your moral dilemma? 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if we don't get a letter out of it, I hope Andy will at least notice. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting news item

Tory Shadow Minister gives the Republican Party a smack in the mouth regarding their attitudes to gay rights. Countdown to AndyPandy going nuclear. Sorry, nucular.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments after the article seem quite insightful and shed another light on the matter. Don't be too hasty. — Pietrow ☏ 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was pointing out that this is the kind of thing that presses all of Andy's buttons:

• A 'liberal' European (and nevermind that the Tories don't consider themselves European) lecturing Republicans (the only real Americans in Andy's eyes) about how to behave and act
• A 'conservative' organization (actually libertarian, but we all know that Andy's definition of conservative can be flexible when it comes to faux outrage) inviting an openly gay man to address it.
• An outsider pointing out that the Republican's attitude about homosexuality could end up keeping them out of power further down the line when 'everybody' knows that it's the Republican's attitude about homosexuality and abortion makes them eminently electable to the moderate, floating voter.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Barilko

The article Bill Barilko was recently deleted when a new user pointed out that the article was simply the lyrics to the Tragically Hip song "50 Mission Cap". The article remained on Conservapedia for over 2 weeks prior to deletion. ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.192.108.69 / talk / contribs} 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter, the user who pointed it out was blocked (along with her IP) Kettle o' fish 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor funny

Gee, I wonder who this could be. Heh heh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably some more Bestest of the Public TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy showing respect?

Andy passing up a chance to criticize liberals? For once I can say, good show Mr. Schlafly--Thanatos (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was amazed when I saw that. But I think he realized that it could have been parody because he can't trust the poster. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA

Rob's now moaning: about the NASA budget^img. I'd have thought it was just the sort of central Government spending that'd have annoyed them. You can't tell which way they'll go until a Dem does something & then they'll go for the opposite. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The only consistent position Rob holds is "anything that looks bad for the Democrats". Actually most of conservapedia is anti-liberal/democrats rather than pro-anything, even Andy's list of Conservative benefits is things that Conservatism guards you against, rather than what it promotes. - π 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the latest New Scientist it states that although govt. NASA funding is being cut, more of it is being opened to the best of the public private sector. Something CP surely should support. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Space doesn't exist, everyone knows that. ħuman 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The free market can't handle space. Health care, on the other hand... --Kels (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is, this "post-partisan president" gutted NASA cause Houston is in a Red state that didn't vote for him and he has little chance to win in 2012. Obama is putting pressure on Sens. Hutchinson & Cornyn. It's a miscaculation. How do you suppose this looks to trekkies and techheads outside Texas? He's willing to scrap the US's technological leadership in the name of partisan vindictiveness and a vendetta. The space race gave us things like, oh say, the computer, for instance. Progressive trekkies that supported Obama may begin to think twice about this. Sputnik was a shot in the arm for US basic scientific research. Government backed Student loans & Pell grants were created to recruit young people into science and technology, and this, under a Republican president (Eisenhower). Obama's leading us back into the dark ages of ignorance -- and all over a partisan and vindicitve attitude toward the City of Houston that did not, and will never, vote for Obama. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Dark ages of ignorance? Like the bible? Don't make me laugh Rob! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, such ignorance as "do good to them that hate you." Praise God that Darwin and science have enlightened us. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And, on the subject of Texas, dids you see this, Rob? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd think he could find a terrorist to defend rather than some controversial figure like edjucated in medical schools. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, Rob, I'd spell and grammar check any contributions that have the word "edjucated" in them. (Or are we just puppets on your strings again?) Junggai (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And, I'm sure native residents will correct me if I'm wrong, but in fact Houston did vote for Obama. Certainly Harris County went Democrat in 2008 for the first time since 1964, and the voting patterns suggest that it was in fact the precincts inside the city were those that voted for Obama. So I think the City of Houston pretty much did vote for Obama. It's the rest of Texas that hates him :) Worm^{(t | c)} 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, and all of South Texas. Junggai (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Houston just elected a gay commie lib mayor. Whatever happened to Tom Delay's town. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... This is a great insight into the mind of a raving lunatic. Rob, how do you function? Is everything a poltiical conspiracy to you? Instead of the obvious answer, the space program is eating up millions (billions?) of taxpayer dollars and we're not really seeing a result. At a time when we're increasing the national debt and running a record deficit, it doesn't seem very intelligent to (literally) shoot your money into outer space. But nooooo, this is obvious some strange Obama tactic to punish Texas (even though NASA headquarters isin DC, the training facility is in Alabama, major research is done is Florida, testing is done in New Mexico, need I keep going?) This is just amazing. How does your mind come up with these things? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 10:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all a Maoist^img conspiracy. Reds under the beds, Rob? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC

I find it suspicious that article was created on Kim Jong-il's birthday (North Korean time). --Swedmann (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

America could use a President like Kim Jong-Il. We haven't had a President with hair that good since Reagan! MDB (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Rob, this is some constructive criticism. 1. Obama is not the real power in the white house; like all presidents, he is the public face of a political society (the Democrats' elites). 2. If the Democrats wanted to win over Texas, then they would EXPAND NASA's budget as a bribe. 3. The Democratic elite do not need to win over Texas, because most of them, being anonymous to the voting public, will jump ship and join the Republicans' elite. The same thing happened to John McCain. 4. America's technological edge doesn't matter, because globalization is nearly complete and the world's space agencies will be united under a single aegis; NASA can focus on specific projects instead of trying to do everything space-related at once. 5. Sputnik was not a shot in the arm for 'basic research.' America was already spending millions (billions?) on research in the years before Sputnik launched and had abducted German scientists after the war to accelerate the process. Sputnik was used in Western propaganda to make massive budget increases for alphabet soup agencies (NASA, NSA etc) palatable to the public. 6. Eisenhower was centrist, and the Democratic/Republican parties stood for different things in his day anyways.--74.15.52.86 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Good points and analysis, and most of them I agree with. Especially the part about Obama being a stooge and front man for the New World Order, something I've said all along. RobSmith^{don't bother me}

So not only are you a raving lunatic, but you have poor reading comprehension skills as well. Good to know. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 02:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone (Helpjazz? Ames?) had a conversation with Rob on a CP talk page (though I can't remember which) where they kept inserting things like "You haven't read this far, have you?" or "Say something in your response if you've read to here" in the middle of their posts. Rob never noticed. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be so rude to Rob. His comment does not show that he is a raving lunatic; everything that I said is a friendlier way of referring to the 'new world order' (the process of globalization which is driven by global elites). If I had wanted to be an alarmist then I could have said 1. Every President is a puppet for the NWO 2. Democracy, even a corrupt nepotistic one, does not and has never existed in America 3. The left-right divide is a fraud meant to distract the uncritical, emotional masses 4. America is not exceptional, it has always been a pawn in a global chess game and 5. All new post-WWII agencies in the US were founded by Nazis. Rob, do not be upset! America has always been a huge lie, so you are losing nothing except the illusion of a free and equal democracy. Remember that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were not signed by all men in America; they are legal contracts and thus only apply to those persons who signed them, and their political successors. America has always been a democracy reserved for the few illuminated elite, the rational superiors of all men. You would think it was pretty great if you were part of that club!--74.15.52.86 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess who

So, anyhow, I er ... found this fact ...^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia loses credibility by a hair. lol--Thanatos (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WIGO'd. Ed "Stubby" Poor is awesome. – Nick Heer 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I say, I say, I say. Why is Ed Poor like the tortoise? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They both taste good in soup?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Slow and steady? (ew...) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you tip him onto his back, he just lies there flailing his arms & legs helplessly? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding TK's liberal airline passenger

Nicholas D. Heer Quick question for you Where in http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/15/report-romney-threatened-flight-vancouver/ is the attacker a liberal?

[…] Irrelevant banter removed.

terry.92270 it is obvious someone reacting the way the other passenger did, turning violent at being nicely asked to move his seat to the upright position, had to be a liberal

Nicholas D. Heer Oh. The way I see it, it's extrapolating from no information at all on the passenger's political orientation. Hypothetically, if the passenger turned out to be a conservative, would it affect the CP news page?

terry.92270 no conservative would have tried to hit Mitt the "news" page, as I have publicly repeated a hundred times, isn't encyclopedic, but is by design supposed to be provacitive and spur interest

Nicholas D. Heer I understand that, however on the basis of correctness, would the page be affected?

terry.92270 if the passenger was at some point shown to be a conservative?

Nicholas D. Heer Yes

terry.92270 would I make some special correction notice?

Nicholas D. Heer Perhaps not, but just change "liberal" to conservative, or remove it altogether?

terry.92270 i have done so dozens of times

Nicholas D. Heer Would this be an applicable time? Further, is there enough basis to assume he would be a liberal, and would his political affiliation be important to the story? Finally, is it not equally possible that he could be a die-hard Catholic, for example, and be attacking Romney because he's Mormon?

terry.92270 all possibilities however it suits CP's political agenda to use our common sense, and say he was a liberal like I already said, the news items arent by design supposed to be encyclopedic

Nicholas D. Heer But should they, at least, be correct?

terry.92270 it isnt incorrect, as u have failed to provide anything that shows it is it is merely what it is supposed to be, provocative

Nicholas D. Heer However, assuming one possibility until proven otherwise could also form the basis of being incorrect. There has been no evidence to prove that he's a liberal.

terry.92270 thats wikipedia drivel we do not stive for NPOV

Nicholas D. Heer I disagree. It isn't about NPOV but rather correctness.

terry.92270 we reject political correctness

Nicholas D. Heer I'm not referring to political correctness, but rather neutrality and correctness regarding the facts present.

terry.92270 look at RW for anecdotal proof of the violence of liberals we do not strive for neutrality, quite the opposite where are you getting these weird ideas about what CP is supposed to be?

Nicholas D. Heer But CP does strive for factual accuracy, correct?

terry.92270 in our encyclopedic articles not the news column

Nicholas D. Heer Therefore the news articles can be as fictional as an editor deems interesting?

terry.92270 newspapers supposedly strive for factual accuracy, yet still publish letters to the editors and their own Editorial POV, right?

Nicholas D. Heer On a page clearly labelled "Opinion", yes. However, the news pages are of factual accuracy, to the best abilities of the editors and company.

terry.92270 CP's main page is self promotional

Nicholas D. Heer Understandably

terry.92270 your argument would have more clout if you ever objected to anything remotely dealing with liberal deceit, Nick

Nicholas D. Heer I do object to any form of deceit, yes. Regardless of the originator of the deception being on any portion of the political spectrum.

terry.92270 but to come to me, a political professional, only to complain about CP's imagined slights, and never once standing up on, say, RW and calling bullshit, deminishes your cred. ;-) to me, RW and their sysops, act no differently, in reality, than those on CP

Nicholas D. Heer But it doesn't diminish the underlying reality that that particular headline is a work of fiction. No doubt RW's editors work along the same lines, however RW never claimed to be encyclopaedic at all. But I'm not aligned to RW. I have no allegiance to that site, or any site for that matter.

terry.92270 well, your reasoning lacks logic, inasmuch as I have already told you, and posted publicly, and most people seem to understand, aside from you, that the news column is supposed to stir thoughts

Nicholas D. Heer However, would it be more productive and support a conservative movement to stick to just reporting on facts, rather than having to make assumptions? Agreed, the liberal media is in the wrong with regards to this, so perhaps it would be best to rise above that with factual (not neutral) reporting?

terry.92270 lol....you need to drink more, and argue less ;-) we have an old saying here...."the squeeky wheel gets the grease"

Nicholas D. Heer I'm not arguing, I'm just looking for a solid answer from someone who seems to have only the best intentions of CP at heart. I just wanted to know whether it's best to report fiction and be called on it, or report fact and be able to defend your point?

terry.92270 I think saying reporting fiction is hyperbole

Nicholas D. Heer But it isn't reporting fact, either.

terry.92270 95% of the item was demonstrably factual

Nicholas D. Heer If you'd not prefer "fiction", how about extrapolating the unknown?

terry.92270 my assumption was the perp was liberal

Nicholas D. Heer Assumption is good too, but the best news, the news that you can defend, isn't based on assumption but on knowlege.

terry.92270 one item out of ten I put up ni the last two days

Nicholas D. Heer knowledge*

terry.92270 we counteract liberal propaganda, with our own, at times....thats how politics works, mate hate the game, not the player

Nicholas D. Heer Would it be in your best interests to rise above that, though?

terry.92270 no it would be in the liberals best interests if we chose not to get into the gutter with them....thats what they count on thats why i am so hated by them i can and will do exactly what they do

Nicholas D. Heer Why not? You could have an honest news feed that shows liberal propaganda for what it really is. Unfortunately, your news feed, as you put it, is in the gutter

terry.92270 well, the gutter would be sex and sin, and I don't do that

Nicholas D. Heer Oh, OK. I thought you were referring to the propaganda only. At any rate, you'd think it best to report on assumption rather than sticking to fact?

terry.92270 putting up what I believe to be true isn't fiction it is my belief

Nicholas D. Heer OK, thanks

terry.92270 that doesnt make it wrong

Nicholas D. Heer I never said it did.

From an IM conversation tonight. Nothing really new, but take from it what you want. – Nick Heer 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I love it when TK pretends to be a "a political professional". He is so transparently full of shit. I wonder what the Canadian PM would think.....What do ya reckon TK? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"95% of the item was demonstrably factual" Well, if that's TK's standard for truth: TK is a tomato who happens to also be a sysop at Conservapedia and an much maligned editor at RW. Barikada (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was supposed to be in Reno, not Cali? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 11:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TK used to be in CA I believe the 92270 refers to a former ZIP code. A cursory Google search will also reveal a familial property dispute in Los Angeles and that he currently lives about 60 miles away from Reno in a small town that is well-known for it's political connectedness. However, I may be wrong about that last bit. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that not only does the article not say the attack on Romney was politically motivated, it doesn't even indicate the attacker even knew who Romney was. And considering it was a flight from Vancouver, there's at least a reasonable chance the attacker was Canadian, making it even less likely he'd recognize Romney. (And considering the source is Fox News, if there was any evidence it was politically motivated, they'd be playing it for all its worth.) So, all you can really say from the article is "Mitt Romney was seated next to an asshole who got violent". MDB (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But if he was Canadian then it's certain he was a liberal socialist heathen, so TK is right after all. DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, TK should save himself some effort with his news stories and just transcribe his local police blotter and put the word "liberal" in front of everyone who was arrested. DickTurpis (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you have to use conservapedian logic when dealing with stories like this;

• There are only two types of people in this world, 'conservatives' and 'liberals'. Anyone who doesn't perfectly fit conservapedia's extreremly narrow idea a of 'conservative' (hardline rightwing and YEC etc) is, by definition, a liberal.
• Conservatives would never ever do anything wrong or bad.

Ergo

• Anyone who does anything wrong or bad must be a liberal.

QED. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not like it's a revelation or anything, but this is the essence of TK and Conservapedia at their "Trusworthy" best:

"But CP does strive for factual accuracy, correct?"

"in our encyclopedic articles not the news column"

CP News - "We distort, you decide". Or in this case, "We provoke, you deride". --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out, the guy is a liberal (read the last bit). Now, if only TK was in the studio with Sky Blu too... --Shagie (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Terry's new bullshit

Ho hum. Is it even worth writing about TehKunt anymore? Although, I guess it is an act of kindness, as reading his own name is the only way he gets to ejaculate. However, I see his new thing now is that editors have "asked" for their user pages to be deleted. LarryTheLibertarian did, even though his e-mail was blocked. Clever trick that. WesleyS also came out of 6 months' retirement, to ask TK to do the same. Terry, sweetheart, (whoops, he just came again) a word of advice. You don't need to hide behind bullshit like this - we all know what you're like and your friends at CP don't care, so just carry on deleting pages as per normal. Unless it was the voices that told you to do otherwise... --PsygremlinZungumza! 18:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that. TK, I really don't see the point in making the effort to justify deleting the pages - no one's going to stop you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont get the way he acts. Doesnt he run a consultancy business? I would assume that would mean taking on new clients regularly, and who doesnt at least Google the names of people theyre planning to work with. What do they think when they find out what he gets up to at CP? ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.73 / talk / contribs}

Who knows but I am sure that a political professional who runs a consultancy firm but spends every waking moment on CP can't be doing to well on the business front. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Mr McWicked has hit the nail firmly on the head. I also wonder why he bothers making excuses for his actions? He's already helped decimate Andy's army of Bible wreckers, and the only way I can see for TK to up his game at this point would be to find a way to start messing with Ed or someone else of similar stature. TK, block the mexican bandito and see what happens! --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand TheKlepto's modus operandi. He may be a sociopath but he relies on keeping a few harmless allies in reserve in case something goes wrong. Just like Geo.Plrd who managed to wangle him back, JMR10 JM presents no threat to TK so he keeps him sweet so that in case he fucks up with Andy he can call on a stooge to plead his case then lie through his teeth, "Oh I'm just a silly, gullible, old man."  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

staying young

I don't care if it has been brought up before, it needs to be brought up again. This is a goldmine. Andy has now claimed that "young" refers to maturity, which he allows only himself to judge. Some of the best Schlafly I've seen in months. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know if the cp:User:MarcusCicero who was talking on that page (in 2007) is the same guy? Looks like he wrote an Ireland-related article, so I'm guessing yes. Seems they had the right idea, he got three blocks in his four days there, the last of which was infinite. --MarkGall (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

hah, yeah, I saw that. Looks like his style. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy

No CP news story on the latest episode of Family Guy?

Which was? 18:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

[5] Behold my powers of finding things. -- =w= 18:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mei II is super cute! I mean... yeah, this link helps too. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also this, I guess. Silly Palin. X Stickman (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But see I didn't want to link to the full story in the hopes that TK would do a Schlafly Scan and CP would fall into the same pit as Palin. Oh, and the show is on the same network that employs Palin. I guess they really are Fair and Balanced.

Interesting

No comment. EddyP (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweddman? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's the emaciated pork chop.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

JhC saves soldier.

Great WIGO. This kind of shit from religionists really pisses me of; if anything good happens it's because of their all-powerful god, if anything bad happens its, erm, not.

"He's alive for a reason"

Yes he is: because his armoured helmet (so effective thanks to extensive evil atheistic scientific research end engineering) did the job it's been designed to do . Twats. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't find any statistics about headshot survival rates, I'm going to assume it's less than 50% even with a modern military-grade helmet. Therefore, it could not happen without divine intervention, which obviously means Jesus.^{[citation NOT needed]}

On the other hand, whatever TK says is false. Science did it after all. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. The FSM stretched out a noodly appendage and absorbed the greater part of the impact on the soldier's helmet. Anything else is blasphemy.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. JC sends someone to an early afterlife if He likes that particular individual. Obviously JC doesn't like him as much. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I see the light now! What's that behind the light? Mmmm, tall, thin, striking bearing. Yes, it's JC. John Cleese himself. Strange, I didn't think he was dead.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. --Horace (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That maxim, strangely one that the marines continue to use for their own despite its patently immoral context, seems to apply more recently only when we're talking about killing infidels, not by the older meaning that anyone martyred during the crusades by hostile or friendly fire would be rewarded in heaven. It pains me that this is what things have come to in this country. 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How can it apply only to killing infidels? Certainly, in the Arnaud Amaury sense, it can only really be applied to a situation wherein one is slaughtering a mix of friend and foe indiscriminately. It remains one of my favourite quotations as it is a perfectly logical extension of a faith-based world-view. --Horace (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I always love the reasoning that something with low odds succeeding must mean it's a miracle. "The chances to win the lottery are one in a million, and out of a million people I am the winner! It beats all odds, what a miracle, praise God!" NO, THAT IS EXACTLY ACCORDING TO THE ODDS, DAMNIT. --GTac (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

People don't understand probability. Just wander around a casino for a while. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that...

... CP has yet to add the big story of the day to their "In the News" section, the guy who crashed a private plane into an IRS facility in Austin.

Perhaps that's because his suicide note/mainfesto contains rhetoric straight out of the teabagging movement? MDB (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised it took this long for it to take effect. But this guy isn't a domestic terrorist, he...uh...had mental problems. There is nothing wrong with Tea Party rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with Tea Party rhetoric. ChrisY (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's wrong to exploit tragedy to make an ideological point. --Sean^talk 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Only when you think it's wrong to exploit tragedy to make an ideological point. ChrisY (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

dont forget he burned his house down too. It made me feel safe when they put up two fighters to patrol the area AFTER the crash occured Hamster (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this better? We're here making jokes and laughing at how CP wouldn't dare mention the crash. --Sean^talk 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no ideological point. He had personal and financial problems going back two decades. It's nothing to do with teabaggers. it's just a disgruntled postal worker type thing, but with a plane. Move along, nothing to see. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing I do notice: his age is younger than Amy Bishop, the newest proclaimed "Young Mass Murderer" on CP. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And? --Sean^talk 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

... And that's it. I'm not making jokes, or laughing. Since this is a talk page concerning Conservapedia, I thought I'd stay on topic. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing ideological about the guys letter - just an anti-tax rant. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I ain't joking about either the incident or CP not mentioning it, but there is a clear thread of hypocrisy running through CP over this. If the pilot had been Muslim, or a professor, then CP would have this splashed over their front page within minutes of the information being discovered, and there would already be articles under construction. But because the apparent suicide note mentions the grievances that the pilot had with the IRS Conservapedia hasn't put up even a bald statement-of-fact news article about this and, as with every other kind of disaster, CP hasn't asked for the prayers of its members for those injured and caught up in this incident. That kind of behaviour stinks of the kind of dishonesty, insincerity, and moral cowardice one has grown to expect from CP.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. I think the closest you could come to connecting this to the tea parties is that perhaps his already deranged mind was pushed further by their rhetoric, and even that's unprovable and unknowable. But you know damn well that if the pilot in this case had given the slightest sign of liberal beliefs, CP would be trumpeting it to the high heavens. MDB (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But this is trumpeting that they're not trumpeting! Couldn't we just have left it completely? --Sean^talk 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't trumpeting that they're not trumpeting. This is trumpeting that once again the 'goodmen' of CP are a bunch of hypocritical, two-faced bastards and their behaviour regarding this news item compared to their coverage of Amy Bishop or the Army Base shootings highlights everything this site has claimed about CP.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he largely railing against those who bypass reasonable taxes , particular mention of the Catholic Church, and businesses who warp tax legislation for their own ends? His beef with the IRS seems to be that it doesn't work right, not that it's basically wrong. Note the last two sentences. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

CP isn't the only one conveniently ignoring this. AON WorldNetDaily's top headline is "give us $9.95 and we will send a copy of the Constitution to Obama, followed by some space object being a sign from God, followed by four special offers, and then finally the guy crashing a plane into the IRS. After that there are seven article regarding Muslim terrorism. They seem to be framing the story too. - π 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Update:In the "evening edition" it has fallen to the bottom of the page and the number two story is on the chance of you being killed by Al-Qaeda. Nice to see they are reporting the "real story".

Well it is a conundrum isn't it? He did something bad, so he must be a Liberal, but we know Liberals love taxes so he cant be a Liberal, but... [head explodes] ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.121.56.100 / talk / contribs}

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if this letter is brought to Andy's attention, he'll be able to add the guy to the liberal column without a speck on his conscience. First of all, he criticized Bush, and second of all, he uses the F-word and a high word-to-substance ratio. This is a no-brainer, obviously. Junggai (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The bush-bashing and the final two sentences that seem to imply communism is better than capitalism are more than enough to label this guy a flaming liberal. It would be piss-easy for CP to frame this up nicely. "Liberal nutjob flies plane into building". It's certainly on a par with that "Liberal nutjob attacks Romney on a plane" headline. Go on TK. You know you want to. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who saw Schlafly Jr. take down TK's post about it? 193.200.150.152 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt's already started the "No True Scotsman" defense. Regardless of what the guy's own note said, he's just a secret Godless liberal waiting to be outed by the conservative spin doctors truth squad. This is what folks were predicting last year, as the tea party types and ultra-right wingers were dialing up the anti-government rhetoric to where it's almost indistinguishable from hate speech. This guy's going to wind up in the same category of people who kill abortion doctors - they martyr themselves to the cause they've been pulled into with emotion rather than reason, and the leaders of the movement get to wash their hands sayng "well, we never meant for anyone to go THAT far, of course...". --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lord, did Jpatt's phony bravado make anyone else throw up a little in their mouth? Junggai (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, guys, Andy exploiting a tragedy for personal gain goes something like this: Guy kills self. Guy just happens to be gay. Gayness kills! Now in this case people are saying: Guy flies plane into building. Guy states that it's because he's a tax protestor. So...maybe all that panic about right wing extremism actually has some grounding. Now from reading the note, it seems to me that the guy was really a mixed back of loony - if he can be defined ideologically I'd say it was much closer to anarchist than extremist-libertarian (yes, there's a very important difference). So we can't really say that this is a clear result of irresponsible propoganda from any particular side. But there's no objection here from some principle along the lines of "if someone commits a terrorist act then their motivations aren't worth examining". Bil08 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)