Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive173

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <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>, (new)(back)

Is TK serious?[edit]

TK says that Ronald Reagan Jr. 'doesn't sound like an atheist,' citing this source. Did he even read the answer to the first question? Keegscee (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is TK we're talking about. I doubt he' serious. But if he is, he probably means that little Ronnie has "conservative values" even if he doesn't have faith. Tetronian you're clueless 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is pretty funny for a liberal talk radio (ex-)host. I miss the hour of him I used to get on KTNF that went away when AAR crapped out. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, by posting this I'm probably feeding the troll. Keegscee (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"BTW, he prefers Ronald P. Reagan as his moniker." Funny, he never uses that as his name. It's usually "Ron Reagan" or "Ron Reagan Jr." ħumanUser talk:Human 01:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

TK's implication is clear. Ron Reagan Jr. does not sound like an atheist, because he also worships at the church of Ronnie: He was just a very warm man, and he worked hard to impress upon his children the value of kindness. He was biologically incapable of gossip. There was no smallness in him. Junggai (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives are so narrow-minded that they can't accept the possibility that the spawn of Reagan could be anything other than a perfect clone of Reagan. ONE / TALK 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
He's just trying to get a rise out of you dirty liberals. The thing is, I don't believe it's worth it for him to look like a total jackass, but to each his own. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice quote from the source: "If you are going to call yourself a Christian -- and I don't -- then you have to ask yourself a fundamental question, and that is: Whom would Jesus torture? Whom would Jesus drag around on a dog's leash? How can Christians tolerate it?" SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
ahem...

TK
That should do it. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The implication is that Ron Jr. can't be an atheist because he has that characteristic, according to TK. Not even he believes that. He's pulling your chains. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
TK's parody is moving into its final stages. A few days ago he posted an article that contradicted Andy on the commies-don't-win-medals debate when TK said it supported him; now he's posting a link that says Reagan Jr isn't an atheist when the link has Jr saying "I'm an atheist". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a pity Andy doesn't read WIGOCP. (At least I assume he doesn't - TK'd be dead in the water if he did) SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You assume that Andy doesn't keep TK around to do exactly what he does, or that the tradeoff for wanking like this Reagan thing and intimidating users is that TK provides a valuable service. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Andy keeps himself largely aloof from the day-to-day wiki. Apart from his pronouncements "ex Cathedra" he just sticks his oar in if he notices a load of vandalism or if one of his pet (i.e. anti liberal) articles is edited. He probably thinks TK is doing a good job and doesn't realise what a total fascist bully he is. TK = Wormtongue. SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)TK isn't a parodist or an evil genius, he's just a power-mad asshole. Andy has to know this, but as long as his mad dog is keeping the new editors in line, he doesn't care. My guess is that TK isn't even that political, he just realized that Andy was an easy source of power. The biggest mistake Andy ever made was bringing TK back, but he doesn't realize it. Due to his hubris, Andy thinks he can control TK. To pull out the nerdiest reference I can imagine, TK is the General Kefka to Andy's Emperor Gestahl. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I regret looking that up, sir. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean Phunbaba is Ken? :D AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 21:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

prime doublethink[edit]

I love Andy. He believes that 1.26 microseconds can change the climate but 6.6 billion people and the billions of livestock we're raising can't. I want to wear his rose-colored glasses. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The actions of man can never have more effect than the actions of gOD (which the Chilean 'quake undoubtedly was). SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Plus, it's easier to deny something you don't understand. Tetronian you're clueless 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Damn homosexuals. Not only do they dress better than me, they also cause the global warming that isn't happening! I'm going to burn my Queen collection. ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I loved this bit of the article "1.26 microseconds is an unfathomably short period of time. In the time it takes you to read one word, it will have passed.", which seems to imply 1.26uS is of the same order of magnitude as reading a word. I wonder if next time someone kills themself out of fear of climate change Andy will accept blame? — Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.101 / talk / contribs
How long before one would have to reset a clock? If it were digital, 30 seconds would have to accrue to make it "wrong" at least half the time, which would take, let's see. 4 days is roughly 5 uS. 200 x 4 would be one millisecond. 1000 x 200 x 4 would be one second. Times 30 to throw the digital clock off. 3 x 2 x 4 x 10^6, 2.4 x 10^7 days. That's like next week, right? Order of magnitude looks like 100,000 years to me. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's almost "millions and millions." It must be wrong. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hehe. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Naughty![edit]

Please improve the quality of your edits or please move on to a different site.img I had to revert your last edit concerning [[Fidel Castro]]. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 17:23, 5 March 2010 (EST). Just because the poor innocent thought Castro wasn't dead.img SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet another newbie runs slam into the AndyWall... Ravenhull (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the user is hardly a newbie, since their talk page has a 2-year-old note left by AlanE (remember him?). Junggai (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I assumed (insert the classic joke here) that anybody who didn't see that AndyWall out there had to have been a newbie... Ravenhull (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You know what's even really really dumber about that? Sunda's edit was to the talk page, not the article. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is Ken doing?[edit]

Ken appears to be "liveblogging the whole internetimg and sticking anything he comes across on MainPageRight. SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I figure there are a few options. He's a bot that's stuck in a for loop, he has no idea how to preview, or perhaps this is but one small part of his plan to improve the page rank of the shit that dribbles from his brain via his fingers. The least he could do would be to post something to confirm or deny the possibility of a medical condition that would explain  K e n  D o l l . Right now I feel a little guilty in criticising him since it could be exploitation.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Eh, that may be 700 edits to MPR, but it was only four news "items", right? And one was rather long I think, so took a lot of edits to perfect. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

February 2010 at CP[edit]

edits and editor's rights at CP Feb 2010
edits and editor's rights at CP Feb 2009
edits and editor's rights at RW Feb 2010

February 2010 saw only 6778 edits - less than half of last year's February with 14,555 edits. More than sixty percent of these edits were made by only ten editors, one of those without special rights.

edits vs account creation at CP Feb 2010
edits vs account creation at CP Feb 2009 - a more diverse picture
edits vs account creation at RW Feb 2010

cp:User:CollegeRepublican's return with a striking single edit stresses conservapedia's character of a meritocracy, as does cp:User:JacobB's promotion to Ueber-Sysop. On the other hand, cp:User:RJJensen should be tread careful: He made only five edits last month, and three of those were talk, talk, talk... That's sixty percent - and new watchdog cp:User:JacobB knows that this is nearly ninety percent...

Contributions of RJJensen
Indeed, for me the most interesting thing is the silence of RJJensen. After the deletion of his article on American Jews - and the unfolding discussion on Andy's talk pageimg, he became very quite...

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, CollegeRepublican edited? That is almost timeline worthy. - π 10:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There were a lot more than 14,555 edits last February, you just can't see them any more because the pages they were made on have since been memory holed. This is why I maintain an archive of old page histories. :) Mountain Blue 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
How I miss the heady days of a constant stream of wandals and arguments. The place seemed so much emptier after Bugler left. EddyP (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
For those of you wondering what CollegeRepublicans contribution to the project was...it was a Mainpage Right news article! Andy must be so proud. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+Edits left in February 2010 at Conservapedia
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 1633 4062
2007 4332 3463 45329 44395 33894 21625 33309 21547 15646 16008 14687 12671
2008 16989 10028 16846 20633 13846 16414 7564 10709 13989 14473 21454 19640
2009 15730 14555 13648 10892 9382 9748 7112 9115 6697 9513 8916 13718
2010 10405 6778

That's the table of edits left in Feb 2010. Dear Mountain Blue, could you give us a table of the numbers of edits made? larronsicut fur in nocte 13:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, LArron's graphs and charts give me a knowledge hard-on (in a manly, non-sexual, purely platonic sort of way). AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I second that. Tetronian you're clueless 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, mate, I'll knock up a table in the morning. In fact, I'd be happy to provide you with the entire archive. I seem to remember it's just about 12 megs if you tar and bzip it. The format is trivial: one plain text file for each wiki page, one line for each edit, one timestamp and one editor ID on each line. I'd cheerfully throw in the scripts I use to update and analyse this thing, if you're interested. They're somewhat crummy and need lots of babysitting though. Mountain Blue 14:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer! I once thought about monitoring recent changes myself, but I'll stick to a monthly inquire: I'm just interested in the percentage of missing edits at the moment... larronsicut fur in nocte 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I added the calendar of edits for RJ Jensen: until now, his longest time of silence was the week that never happened. But now, he is awfully quite, IMO larronsicut fur in nocte 09:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
My archive documents 14,317 edits for February 2009, i. e. a lot less than the 14,555 you are seeing; color me disconcerted. I know my archive isn't really complete; my first snapshot dates to some time last June and a lot of February edits would have been gone by then. Still, it should be more complete than what CP is still owning up to right now. Could it be the interface you use still includes edits that have been oversighted away in its totals? Do you have any alternative explanation for what might be going on here? Your help would be much appreciated. Mountain Blue 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Arg! My old Joaquín Martínez/ Joaquín Martínez problem: ever since Conservapedia wracked their character encoding (once, it was UTF-8 consistently, but during some update - in the week which never happened - they messed it up), I have problems with good old JM: generally, I check it, but this time, his later edits were counted twice. So, it's entirely my fault! larronsicut fur in nocte 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Revised Table

+Edits left in February 2010 at Conservapedia
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 1633 4062
2007 4332 3463 45329 44395 33894 21625 33309 21547 15646 16008 14687 12671
2008 16989 10028 16846 20633 13846 16414 7564 10709 13989 14473 21454 19640
2009 15730 13936 12899 10153 9109 9331 6936 8944 6199 9513 8916 13718
2010 10405 6778

I checked, and now, no revision number occurs twice in my list. A propos revision number: Here is a list of the difference of the highest and the lowest revision number in a month. I'm not entirely certain about the significance: each edit has its unique revision number, and these grow monotonously. I just don't know whether there are jumps in this sequence other than those generated by missing edits - any input anyone?

+Span of revisions left in February 2010 at Conservapedia
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 1781 4502
2007 4825 4445 61262 59427 47388 29027 42726 26763 20564 21546 19699 16326
2008 21263 13499 21429 25720 20159 20891 9729 13762 18781 19432 27244 24540
2009 18677 15868 14304 11542 10276 10927 7814 9700 7761 10589 9554 14778
2010 10934 263

larronsicut fur in nocte 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits and Revisions at CP
Edits and Revisions at RW

Just to illustrate my babbling about revision numbers larronsicut fur in nocte 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

anything worth doing is worth overdoing[edit]

Thanks for finding the bug :) Turns out my own numbers weren't completely accurate either; there were some redirects my scripts had failed to count. Anyway, here's the table I promised. It's crude but it should answer your question:

+Edits still visible as of February 2010 (V) vs. edits we actually have on file (O)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 V 1633 4062
2006 O 1871 3895
2007 V 4332 3463 45329 44395 33894 21625 33309 21547 15646 16008 14687 12671
2007 O 4442 3629 47042 45564 36738 23419 36152 22178 17128 17337 16372 13645
2008 V 16989 10028 16846 20633 13846 16414 7564 10709 13989 14473 21454 19640
2008 O 17592 10663 18263 22142 16506 17646 7754 11574 15667 16998 23656 21228
2009 V 15730 13936 12899 10153 9109 9331 6936 8944 6199 9513 8916 13718
2009 O 16305 14344 13287 10606 9608 10268 7450 9304 7623 10375 9297 14108
2010 V 10405 6778
2010 O 10416 6910

Oh, and could you check your December 2006 number again by any chance? It seems off. Mountain Blue 12:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize again that my archive is not complete. I ran my conservaspider about once every other month, i. e. an edit would have had to survive for an average of one month for me to be able to document it. Everybody knows that articles with actual encyclopedic content have a half life of a handful of days and the median talk page comment gets oversighted as a matter of hours. Mountain Blue 12:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I integrated the numbers in this pic... larronsicut fur in nocte 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone remember Andy's prognostications that "the Castro is dead"?[edit]

Andy failimg, double sourced. Big surprise I know ... --Opcn (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Any bets on how long before Andy declares this just to be another case of commie, I mean liberal, proproganda? My bet is within 3 hours - Ravenhull (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Andy will simply pick up Jacob's idea: It's a body double!img --Sid (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Karajou: Bible quote FTWimg Agahs (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are indifferent about anything, YOU WILL GO TO HELL! Internetmoniker (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I see something on CP that's very interesting. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)see
May I suggest that if you see something very interesting at CP, then you post it here. (That's why this page is called TALK:What is going on at CP) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Peonimg makes the correctionimg. Awaiting for the block of lulz in 3... 2... 1... ThiehLooking for potion recipes 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What the fuck? Don't do that, K61824. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Best New Conservative Words[edit]

Distribution of the Best Conservative New Words

This is a constant fountain of joy, IMO. I'd like to move my Essay:Best New Conservative Words to Conservapedia:Best New Conservative Words: at the moment, it concentrates on showing how Andy's law of conservative insights doesn't stand closer scrutiny, but with Andy's new definitions:

  • A word that expresses a conservative concept is conservative. (like ambulance chaser)
  • if I did a search on Supreme Court opinions and found that conservative Justices used those words more often than liberal Justices do, then you would you concede that they belong on the list?

perhaps we can have a look at the words themselves? I wonder - for instance - if we take a sample of English words - perhaps all the nouns in an article of the New York Times, would their dates of creation follow a similar pattern than those of Andy's conservative words? I suppose so.

Jeffrey Shallit quotes some of Andy's idiocies in his blog. In the answers, there is a link to the essay above, and I link to one of my blog entries: it's just a version of the essay which I wrote and mailed to Andy: I got no answer, yet :-)

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I argued with Andy about a related issue once. I did a quick estimate of the total number of new words invented by century (not very carefully -- no point in spending time on this when he'd already made up his mind), and it grows even faster than the 1-2-4-8 of CP's law. So the proportion of conservative words out of all words is actually decreasing. Amusingly, the list of liberal words on that essay also had faster growth, which would be problematic for CP's law as well.
One might expect this to at least give him pause and do a bit more careful analysis, but instead he decreed that the total number of words of any political bias type must be decreasing as a proportion of overall words, so the libs are still doomed in the end. Of course it's probably a fair argument on his part, but it's impossible to argue about this since nobody has any idea what a conservative word is. --MarkGall (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Correction: Andy knows what a conservative word is. That's why he finds this particular muse so attractive: he can shoehorn whatever he wants into the definition of a "conservative word" to fit he predictions. Tetronian you're clueless 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That's so amusing: Andy gets the numbers right for the centuries - but he fails to do so for subdivisions of centuries, as he hasn't thought about them... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
He might start thinking about it as the list gets bigger and bigger. Eventually, though, I think he's going to try to write some kind of conservative dictionary. Tetronian you're clueless 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice graph! Amusingly, it looks like Conservatism peaked in the 1950s era, and has been in a steep decline ever since, except for an uptick during the Reagan era (1980s). ħumanUser talk:Human 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Jeffrey Shallit is wrong, FOX news is much mre like real news and Conservapedia is like anything resembling a wiki, let alone wikipedia. --Opcn (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The distributions for the decades does appear more quadratic that exponential. Interesting. Andy'd better get on conservative words form 1650-1750. What's that you say? Enlightenment? Clearly a CONSERVATIVE ideal! --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hang on let me just try and parse Opcn's wordsalad:
  • Jeffrey Shallit {is} wrong

[in that:]

  • Fox News {is [much more] like} real news

AND

  • Conservapedia {is like} anything {resembling} a wiki,
  • let alone wikipedia (????????????)

Well I tried ONE / TALK 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox news resembles real news more closely than Conservapedia resembles a wiki based encyclopedia project. --Opcn (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I wrote Andy an email:

Dear Andy Schlafly,

I looked a little bit deeper into the statistics for the years 1600-1999: While the words seem to observe the geometric law for the full centuries, the pattern cannot be found in subsections of the centuries. The easiest explanation for this is that you (consciously or subconsciously) looked for words to fulfil the greater pattern, though the underlying distribution does not. Have a look here for an elaboration: http://cpillustrated.blogspot.com/2010/03/best-new-conservative-words.html

Best regards

Judging form his entries on most prolific periodsimg, he seemed to have read it (though he never answered) - and looked up my pics :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 06:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is EdPoor trying to harm CP?[edit]

Ed's stub articles are getting more and more ridiculous by that day, and in fact, one of his latest doesn't even belong to a project that aspires to be an encyclopedia. I've also seen some others in whihc the entire content of the article was a two-line quote somewhat related to the subject.

Surely, he can't think he's actually helping the project, does he? Or maybe he just has a quantity over quality philosophy and is trying to raise CP's article count. What do you think? -- diego_pmc

You have to remember that Ed fancies himself a computer expert. When he posts these random bits of tech advice, he seems to genuinely believe that he's helping people. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't explain the creepy film stubs which any wiki would be better off without. He doesn't seem to understand that one high-quality, thorough article counts for more than a thousand stubs containing very little info, that when people look something up on a wiki they probably want more than two lines of text. If anyone stumbled across one of his stubs, they would read it, think 'this is useless' and go to Wikipedia, which would have a far more thorough article, thus discrediting CP and giving WP another follower. EddyP (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ed's always made a big thing of the number of articles he's created at WP, and he has a very long history of stubs, albeit not as esoteric as his recent attempts. I truly believe that Ed considers his articles to be useful, and perhaps in a more populated wiki there'd be keen editors popping in to finish writing them, but that's just not going to happen at CP. One common theory is that Ed has resorted to live-blogging his life. His Because I'm A Girl article is inane. As a citation for a music video, he links to the lyrics rather than the video. Odd? You betcha. If he were a new editor he'd have been banned pretty sharpish, but CP is stuck with him. Good thing really, since that useless monkey could be doing damage elsewhere. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, first, @Eddy, I doubt a single person on the planet actually uses CP as an "encyclopedia". And to echo CR, yes, Ed thinks he is seeding the project with wonderful starts of things for other people to make coherent. Ed has been liveblogging his random musings as "articles" on CP and WP for many years now. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ed wants to contribute, but doesn't have the intellectual stamina to actually write up an article, so he is outlining a weird, creepy, off topic encyclopedia. I suspect that he would actually be appreciated somewhat if two conditions were met. 1) He met the reasonable man test as to what goes into an encyclopedia. 2) There were still editors on CP to come in after him and put some meat on the articles bones. Does Andy still have a class to set to work building CP? --Opcn (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
CP certainly has changed since late 2006/early 2007 when it did aspire to be a family-friendly, conservative, Christian encyclopedia. Back then the homeskolars used to help out but its aims seem to have shifted since then. Students like Benjamin, Sharon & Bethany have disappeared and even a lot of the parody that was entered was basically hidden in general knowledge articles. Sysops like DanH, Learntogether & JessicaT who were more general have been forced out. The only recent generalist of note has been RJJensen and he seems to have gone off in a huff thanks to those intellectual heavyweights TK and RobSmith. Now the project is unequivocally Andy's blog with just political and ideological points being made agains liberals, gays, and non-Christians and has become a pit of ordure with Ed Poor, TK, RobSmith and Ken rolling in it like deranged swine snapping at anyone who gets too close, with only Joaquin trying to make it look pretty with a coating of pilfered images.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the above message. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Beautifully put. ONE / TALK 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, Lily is wise. Makes me wonder how long the site can last? I created an account there, from an IP that to my knowledge had not been used by vandals, and was blocked as a vandal before I even had the chance to make a single edit. The irony is that I've no interest at all in vandalising the site. My intention was to fix typos and get some first hand experience as to what it's like trying to be a CP editor. I suspect that my experience is probably not a unique one. CP really has become a ghost town, seemingly populated by an ideological reach-around club. There's probably a lesson in there for us. I hope we never end up in a situation where we all agree with each other.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A lesson there for us. It's a wonderful study in social sciences. You could probably compare the results with 1984, Animal farm and Lord of the flies. Editor at CPmały książe 10:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
@Lily: Excellent summary.
@CR: "Makes me wonder how long the site can last?" see WIGOs past about once a month for past four years.
SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The real beauty of Ed's '32-Bit Windows' stub is that is completely fails to provide the information that it seems to be trying to impart, in a really concise way - it's like an example of fail. 'Am I running 32-bit Windows? - open the System control panel by right-clicking Computer and choosing Properties' - err.....yeah, and then what? I don't claim to be an expert in IT (although I have a BSc in the subject) and even I know that is piss-poor documentation. Leave it to the experts for jeebus sake. Worm(t | c) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No, no, no! You are forgetting the sacred maxim of the Dear Leader: "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." Tetronian you're clueless 21:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A troublemaker and a prevaricator![edit]

Well, looks like I got kicked from CP. Apparently being "open-minded" means "agreeing unreservedly". Can someone help me identify the "insults" I was accused of? :P --Maquissar (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ello there. I was hoping you'd pop over. You committed the most heinous and polite insult of all. You failed to nod at the end of Andy's edict. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 01:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I did nod. A bit. You know, I didn't get much sleep last night. The problem is, when I woke up, I replied. --Maquissar (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Also you committed the major sin of editing here. Rather worse than sodomising a goat in their eyes. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This additional post is just out of relief for not having to respect any 10/90 rule anymore. Anyway... the fun thing is that I was really discussing with an open mind! I tried, but in the end I had to leave for preserving my intellectual integrity. Along with my neurons. --Maquissar (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you PS is here. SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Maquissar, This should be what they meant by open mind. K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 02:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a mind unfettered by the burdensome chains of logic and rationality, which for some reason they also like to call "liberal deceit" from time to time. I'm willing to have a very open mind, but that does not mean I am willing to prostitute it :) --Maquissar (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It is such a major sin to post here I got a personal email from JacobB informing me of my eternal banishment with an hour of doing so, and then I was blocked forever... twice --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
JacobB. Laf. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you dared question The Conservative Truth and hear out the other side by joining a website which criticizes Conservapedia is a clear display of your liberal narrow-mindedness. Had you opened up your mind more, you would have realized that there is only one Truth, and Andrew is its prophet. --Maquissar (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, except that JacobB is a near-open parodist whose goal at CP is to terrorize users, as he put it to me. He's being tolerated by management until he fucks up because he's adding helpful content while terrorizing users. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

TK Smash![edit]

TK hits Kendollimg for massive damage. Will Ken bend over and take it? EddyP (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got it? SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, but from the title and the author, you can guess what was in it: "Evolution causes genocide blah Hitler blah dictator blah evolutionary racism blah noted creationist claims blah half a dozen indented quote blah gratuitous blog links blah quotemining blah blah", complete with thirty images left and right with redundant essay captions "regarding the theory of evolution and genocide". --Sid (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Though looking at the surrounding logs and edits, it seems as if this had been created by a parodist/new user. Which... doesn't change anything regarding my guesstimated description above (that also contains the word regarding, back then regarding the content of an image caption regarding the theory of evolution and genocide). --Sid (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many articles left to be smashed... larronsicut fur in nocte 20:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Container box to abbreviate the list perhaps? my wiki-fu is weak. Speaking of which, do we need such article as Conservapedia:Summa Evolutio? K61824Ask me for relationship advice 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive. SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well done - should have thought of this myself! larronsicut fur in nocte 06:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be Summa Evolutionis. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Mulvey on LibertarianWiki[edit]

Alright, who is copying and pasting  K e n  D o l l 's homosexuality articles, A. Schlafly's and other CP garbage onto LibertarianWiki?

For example,

http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Homosexual_agenda&action=history
http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Liberals_and_friendship&action=history
http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Liberal_redefinition&action=history
http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Template:Liberalism&action=history even included this description, "This template was designed to make it easier for readers to understand what CP means when it assigns Category "Liberal" or the like, to an article" But here "Alvin" says that template is 100% made by him http://libertarianwiki.org/User:Alvin_Mulvey

Someone trying to sabotage LibertarianWiki, or someone trying to take it over, or just an overzealous copy & paster?

Then there is this Ed Poor-like stub. Quickly whittled down all Schlafly like. http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Propaganda&diff=prev&oldid=18328

And why TF would a libertarian be trying to push anti-abortion POV on a libertarian wiki? http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&diff=prev&oldid=18105

I put my money on this being a saboteur http://libertarianwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=17891 but it could even be TK NEED VICODIN NOW (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be laziness. As libertarians, they need to attack both the left and the right with equal vigor. What better place to go for liberal bashing than Conservapedia? Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes but if that were the case wouldn't they only use that CP material correlating with libertarian POV? CP's articles on homosexuality, abortion, foreign policy just to name a few are 180 degrees apart of libertarian views even where they bash liberals. And most of them are laughable to start with. Alvin's stub on WWII makes me think he's just a parodist, or maybe a parodist of a parodist, hard to tell. NEED VICODIN NOW (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Opcn has been marking them for deletion (More conservapedia trash). SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Face palm[edit]

look at the news template. Skyrocketing from 3X10^-5 to 5X10^-5 on Alexa! He must be a parodist. He also has creative ideas about what directly means. --Opcn (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He has been working for months packing it with CP articles. He has mirrored something like 12% of conservapedia for the looks of it! If anyone wants to experience giving CP articles what they need this may be your chance. --Opcn (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Planetary orbit thing[edit]

"the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years." I don't think Andy understands what that means. It means that we can only reasonably predict the orbit for about 5 MY, after that the math becomes chaotic, not the damn orbits. Amirite? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right. But of course, once the chaotic effects dominate the predictable effects, ie, in 5 million years, there's no way to know the orbits WON'T change dramatically - there's no way to know anything. However, if you're not a fundie, and believe that the planets have been orbiting more or less as they do now for five BILLION years, the inability to predict exact positions five MILLION years from now shouldn't cause concern that suddenly Earth will fall into the sun or something. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually they don't say they are concerned that the Earth will fall into the Sun. After all, I believe they trust God has arranged things somewhat better than that. But they use this very low probability to "demonstrate" that the Solar System cannot possibly be older than 4004 BC, and that's akin to saying that there's no way The Pope can be alive at his age if he's not blessed by God, because otherwise he should have died of measles at the age of 7. --Maquissar (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(Or also that the Pope cannot be 82, because the world's average life expectancy is 68.9 years, so the Pope must necessarily be younger than that. There you go, I've proved that the Pope lied about his age.) --Maquissar (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
... Or that Barack Obama must be a Muslim because fewer than 1% of Muslims leave the religion ...20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait... why is Andy even saying anything about it when the tribulation will occur within the next few thousands of years (at least they believe so, I have been told), as opposed to millions of years? K61824What is NOT going on? 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
He's implied it with BMcP and the astronomy debacle. He doesn't believe in "millions and millions" of years. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear christ![edit]

Ken ken ken..... I know you read this page... Please please please... Go to Youtube and look up the Schoolhouse Rock video "Rufus Xavier Sarsparilla." Screw it.... here's a link right to it. When you write shit like this we start thinking it's time to contact the Buffalo government and having them appoint you a guardian. PRONOUNS Goddammit, Pronouns. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 07:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

27,000 edits later... ħumanUser talk:Human 08:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Damn, the boy is modest.  K e n  D o l l , why not have one of the minions hype your articles? It'll seem less biased and there's also the possibility that two words could be written without the need for 33 separate edits. By the way, free market capitalists also assert that out of control government borrowing, spending, lax financial regulation, and bloody stupid wars are not so great for the economy. Needs moar Hitler! --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, this oneimg for sure won't last. Junggai (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Especially if you point it out on this page...--WJThomas (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This one by the same userimg will certainly get the job done... Ravenhull (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Lighten up, someone trying to sneak one past the admins wouldn't trumpet their defiance in the edit comment. But point taken. Junggai (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken always finds the best links to wingnut sites[edit]

I've gotta hand it to him,  K e n  D o l l  sure knows how to pick 'em. Liberal-Education.com, the site where being a Bill Ayers supporter will automatically give you an "extremely biased" rating -- somehow, they know magically that all 4286 (yes, they really counted them all up) professors are let their socialist dogma infect their teaching. Just look at any of the schools in Chicago. I found a couple of horridly socialist music and biology professors, by their rankings.

Also, by the way, according to their current lead story's headline, Obama picked a nasty "Anti-Constitution Berkeley Prof for the 9th circuit court. If you read the article though (not written by their website), he's praised by both parties. Do they even read the articles they pilfer?

Thanks for the solid hour of lulz, Ken. Junggai (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is that most folk (that's a number greater than two and less than ten, excluding RW) who read the entry won't read the linked article, they'll just take it as he says it is. SusanG  ContribsTalk
Yes, but those same 2-10 people would just take it as Ken says it no matter who he links to. Tetronian you're clueless 16:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy persistently trash talking judges he disagrees with[edit]

Judges and administrative officials having adjudicatory powers ought to be persons of integrity, competence, and suitable temperament. Generally, lawyers are qualified, by personal observation or investigation, to evaluate the qualifications of persons seeking or being considered for such public offices, and for this reason they have a special responsibility to aid in the selection of only those who are qualified. It is the duty of lawyers to endeavor to prevent political considerations from outweighing judicial fitness in the selection of judges. Lawyers should protest earnestly against the appointment or election of those who are unsuited for the bench and should strive to have elected or appointed thereto only those who are willing to forego pursuits, whether of a business, political, or other nature, that may interfere with the free and fair consideration of questions presented for adjudication. Adjudicatory officials, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism. While a lawyer as a citizen has a right to criticize such officials publicly, the lawyer should be certain of the merit of the complaint, use appropriate language, and avoid petty criticisms, for unrestrained and intemperate statements tend to lessen public confidence in our legal system. Criticisms motivated by reasons other than a desire to improve the legal system are not justified —NY Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 8, Ethical Consideration 8-6

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this relate to any specific edit(s) or page(s)? Just curious... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Competition[edit]

AIG some organisation is attempting to compete with Andy by making a video bibble 21:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

I get a laugh just reading the domain name, "I am not ashamed." Of course, I doubt they have Andy's level of lack of shame. Ravenhull (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Holy fuck! It's Answers in Genesis!! Un-freaking-believable. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Tetronian you're clueless 03:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Are they 'changing' anything a'la Andy's CBP, or is it just them reading it? - Ravenhull (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some everyday shit at Conservapedia[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Main Page.

I posted this on Conservapedia on Aschlafly talk page: "Despite Conservapedia's boundless arrogance it is a project that has by almost any measure failed. Every 5 days Wikipedia gets more edits than Conservapedia has in total. Conservapdedia has fewer articles than the Galician version of Wikipedia. Hell, Conservapedia has half as many articles as Wookieepedia. Conservapedia has been unable to attract enough talent to become a viable project in its own right which is why it runs on an outdated version of Wikipedia's software. And despite Conservapedia's pride in their popularity (currently #48,714 according to Alexa) most of that traffic is people who come to laugh at you. Which is why I am always amused to see gloating over a spike in traffic. This pattern is illustrated by the numerous restrictions placed by Conservapedia on editors because you attract more people who would rather vandalize your project than those who want to contribute positively to it. If you need any convincing of Conservapedia's inferiority you need only press the random page link a few times and compare the articles with what Wikipedia offers.

Your problem is foundational you saw a problem with bias in Wikipedia and aimed to correct it not by creating an encyclopedia that is less biased but by creating one that is far more biased. I often send independent friends I am trying to move leftward to Conservapedia they invariable return laughing at many of the patently ludicrous claims made. By the way I know this isn't a fair tactic as Conservapedia is not representative of the Conservative movement as a whole. This is not to say I'm against Conservapedia besides the entertainment it provide it also drains off the energy of a few editors that would otherwise be working to undermine Wikipedia.

I know you will most likely deep burn this comment and ban me but that should only be taken as an indication of your inability to address my comments head on.

- Jerome P Warric III "

What did they do? Deep burned the comment and banned me of course. — Unsigned, by: 24.22.49.209 / talk / contribs

Of course they (well, JacobB) did. You spake truth but in a rather hostile manner. You didn't honestly expect any other reaction did you. Almost any site would have treated you similarly. 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Would Wikipedia have deep burned the comment and banned me? Would Rationalwiki have?24.22.49.209 (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Who cares? And what does this have to do with the main page? - π 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
EC) No, but that was on Conservapedia. All rules are fluid. Don't be naive: you expected what you got & got what you expected. Andy will never even know what you wrote unfortunately.
@Pi: (Main Page): nothing but it's a stranger with his heart in the right place. 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
This seems to be neither funny nor an interaction... I'll give credit for "at Conservapedia" though. --MarkGall (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Bon, that might have been nominally interesting in 2008. As it is, it's just some old, tired shit. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moronic vandalism. Keegscee (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
TRUTH AND JUSTICE NEVER GET OLD NOR ARE MORONIC. That said, we're all quite accustomed to Conservapedia being a black hole of non-specific criticism. Pull up an account and become meta-jaded with us. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

State owned banks[edit]

This only goes to show Andy has lost all grip on reality. He is so focused on hating Obama he cheers socialist moves to combat Obamas socialist moves. Acei9 05:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Founding a new state-owned bank (as opposed to nationalizing a private one) is not strictly socialist, but Mr. Schlafly has overused the term enough that he ought to think it is. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree it ain't socialist, NZ has many state owned enterprises. My point was by Schlafly standards it would be socialist. Acei9 05:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As it is still public ownership, it is socialist. What is interesting is that, looking at Andy's response to editors to pointing this out, he seems to think that socialism isn't socialism if it is the local public which owns the institution. I guess this means that Andy is just against "big socialism". Maybe this is how he can think the early Christians, who were outright communists, were really good conservatives? Kaalis (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Bank of North Dakota is not new, it is not intended to combat the socialism of Barack Obama, who was born 42 years later after the Bank's creation, and it is by definition socialist. That being said, this is the best program I have heard of, on a local level, that dampens recessions. North Dakota currently is the only state that has close to full employment, with an unemployment rate of 4.4%. This program seems much better than temporary and targeted tax cuts or stimulus spending. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Served the environment[edit]

Lovely WIGO. The man's absolutely as a Hatter. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole CBP thing has made me think about "the death of the author," the idea that we should ignore the original intent of the author when analyzing a text, allowing each person to find their own meaning. (This was first explored by some French literary critic or philosopher, I can't remember who exactly.) This seems to be Andy's strategy here: he ignores the history behind the Bible and just looks at it in terms of his own political viewpoint. In a certain sense, Andy's insistence over what the Bible means is no different than someone claiming that novel Z explores theme X while someone else claims it explores theme Y. However, the analogy breaks down because Andy is not finding meaning in a piece of fiction - once the Conservative Bible is done, he is going to claim that it is the word of God and that everyone should live by it. There is also the question of degree: Andy's conclusions are mostly absurd rationalizations, while literary critics mostly base their conclusions upon their experience and reasoning. As for the WIGO...yeah, it was pretty funny. Tetronian you're clueless 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm a fan of that theory, but (by my subjective reading of his works) Andy really seems to hate it: The Bible, and pretty much everything else, means exactly one thing. Anyone who disagrees is misinterpreting it or lying liberal. But yeah...after that, he confuses his passing whims and desires with what the authors meant. Guess it's the same in the end, but he's pretty contrary about it.
I also enjoyed the WIGO. I still haven't gotten over his implications that all homosexuals are sluts. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 18:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) It's often occurred to me that Andy and Co's twisting of the bible (and facts in general) to fit their blinkered YEC worldview would not be possible without a dash of post-modernism (which they loathe). Think about it; their wild interpretations are based on the assumption that a) the truth is whatever we believe it to be and b) we can mold this truth to our will, by the act of interpretation. Junggai (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
@Kupochama: I agree, which is why the comparison only goes so far. When you really get down to it, all Andy is doing is claiming that he is possession of absolute truth - nothing new there.
@Junggai: I'm not sure I completely agree - for the most part, YECs don't claim either "a" or "b". They practice both of those, but then they deny it and attempt to "prove" that they possess absolute truth. Though I have heard the (false) argument by YECs that both creationists and evolutionists are using the same evidence, the YECs then proceed to say that evolutionists draw the wrong conclusions. (Note the difference between the YEC answer of "drawing the wrong conclusions" and the relativist answer, "both conclusions are equally valid.") Tetronian you're clueless 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right, they never claim that this is what they are doing, but the arguments they're making can only be convincing with the assumption that facts disagreeing with your premise are the result of bias. PJR, for example, keeps beating the drum over at ASK that scientists only see evidence for evolution because they believe that God couldn't have done it. Similarly, in an argument with Andy, someone can trot out facts that completely contradict his premise, and he just counters that those facts aren't valid, because they come from a liberal source. That's what I mean, these wingnuts can only argue what they're arguing by believing that facts are relative based on one's worldview. Junggai (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Or, in a word, doublethink. That's really all it is: they refuse to believe in evolution and rationalize away any contrary evidence. But what Andy's doing with the CBP is even more interesting - he's unsubtly modifying the book he believes to be literally true so that he can use the translated version as evidence that it is true. Such circular reasoning boggles the mind. Tetronian you're clueless 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Creeping things[edit]

Question: How does "creeping things" correspond to "reptiles" when "animals" (the previous term) includes reptiles (and birds too)? ThiehCP≠Child Porn? 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You lose double the points if you worship reptiles...God really hates being compared to them. I think it's quadruple if you actually make any reptilian idols. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It's straight to the inner ring of hell for you if you covet your neighbour's reptilian idol. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Andy descending (ascending?) to David Icke style crazy? Vulpius (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Floods = Earthquakes?[edit]

What is he on aboutimg? SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's AndyLogic™. Earthquakes = natural disaster, and I've found a source that claims that this one earthquake has altered the Earth's rotation. Floods = natural disaster, so that must do the same. Floods + earthquakes + 10,000 years + numbers I've pulled out my ass = unstable rotation of the Earth. Of course, even accepting the extremely flawed conclusions of AndyLogic™, that actually doesn't mean the Earth didn't exist more than 10,000 years ago, it just means it spun at a different speed. 92.20.154.75 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I think it's a reference to the Chile earthquake, which changed the Earth's rotation by a fraction of a second. Andy's basically saying that since earthquakes/floods happen frequently the Earth's rotation time is also being changed frequently, and if the Earth is old than these changes should have added up to something catastrophic (or at least measurable) by now. I'm not sure what the first few sentences of his post mean, though. Tetronian you're clueless 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I translate the first few sentences as, "I'm going to throw out some nonsense and random numbers and call it indisputable mathematics because I'm not really sure what I'm trying to say." -- VradientHit me up 17:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Translating... translating... stand by: This is disputable mathematics. In the past century, we've observed several different flood levels, with a certain variance. Over 500 years, more remarkable outliers will be observed, and over 1000 years, more remarkable outliers still. The same can be said for earthquakes. Furthermore, the effects of earthquakes are cumulative: since earthquakes each change the earths rotation a little bitEd: and since only a liberal would think these random fluctuations to the rotation would constitute random noise and not a directed effect to destabalize the world, it seems clear we can't possibly have had more than ~6000 years worth of earthquakes.HoorayForSodomy (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Lemme try: The mathematics is easy to understand if you have an open mind. Given the speed of light is way faster in the past and also second law of thermaldynamics, the earthquakes and flood in the past have to have a much larger magnitude than the ones occuring now (By the way, do you know that Earthquakes also causes flood?). Now if you have an exponential decay of the magnitude of flood and earthquakes, and extrapolate them back to 10,000 years ago, you'll find out that each earthquake changes the earth's time by hours or even days. and the flood will have similar magnitude to the global flood as well. Therefore the earth isn't stable in rotation because the quake will send the earth flying around. Deny any of these and lose all your credibility. K61824What is NOT going on? 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Naw, Hooray had it right. Yes, Andy is a moron, etc., he is extrapolating from the idea of teh "100 year flood" to the "1000 year flood" wihtout knowing what he is talking about and extending his "idea" to glo\bal catastrophe (because he's a moron). ħumanUser talk:Human 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kidding aside, Andy's thinking is harder-than-usual to grasp here. It seems as though he is going on several assumptions:

1)All earthquakes shorten the day, like the one in Chile did. Earthquakes can shorten the day by a barely-measurable amount when they involve one plate subducting under another which results in a phenomenal amount of mass moving slightly closer to the Earth's core. Thus the Earth's spin increases slightly, like a spinning skater pulling her arms inward. But this sort of thing can be offset, and is, by uplift where two plates meet and form mountain ranges, and by volcanism that piles material up farther away from Earth's core. There is not a one-way movement of material closer to the core, or the earth would be shrinking.

2)The farther back you look, the larger catastrophes you find, world without end, amen. This is also bogus. The biggest flood of the last 500 years may also be the biggest flood of the last 100 years, which is also the biggest flood of the last 10 years. I honestly don't know where he gets the notion that things only get 'bigger' the farther back you go. How would that fit in with the Creationist's notion of a world that is degenerating from a state of perfection, anyway? I have no idea how he could justify the concept that there is some geometric growth in disasters stretching back in time, such that earthquakes prior 6000 years ago must have torn the planet into powder over and over and over again. And by justify, I mean to himself, much less to us. He doesn't propose a geometric growth in liberal words with the exponent being 1/2 rather than 2, so there's no parallel for him there.

3)The fact that the day is not perfectly regular across all of geologic time means that the Earth can't be old. Uh, why not? We already have lots of evidence that the length of the day has increased significantly over the Earth's lifetime. Earthquakes-that-shorten-the-day seem to have been losing the battle to moon-drag-lengthening-the-day for just about forever. Over time, we expect the day to continue to lengthen until the lunar month and the day are the same length. No existential problems there. Heck, written records show that the Earth has slowed down over historical time, because the locations on Earth where early eclipses were been recorded are shifted spatially by almost 1000 miles from where they 'should' have been based on the current length of the day. Leap-seconds have been added to the year 24 times since 1972, for crying out loud. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Great post, but "leap seconds" have nothing to do with this. They are just the tiny fractions of the year's length (like the 1/4 day per year, plus a day per century, less aday per four hundred years, etc.). ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
They would have nothing to do with it if they were added on a fixed schedule, like leap days every four years except for years ending in 00 divisible by 400. But they aren't; they are added at irregular intervals, decided by committee, based on direct observations of Earth's rotational period. Because the Earth's rotation has sped up slightly since 1999, there have been fewer leap seconds added since 2000 compared with, say, the period between 1990 and 2000 or from 1972 to 1982. Because Earth's rotation rate is unpredictable, the need for a leap second can't be predicted more than six months in advance. I concede that I should have emphasized the unpredictability rather than the total number of leap seconds since 1974. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from. I stand corrected. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's a bald statement: Earthquakes and floods have severity in proportion to time periodsimg. Glad we were able to clear that one up. Given that the greatest earthquake in recorded history was the Valdivia earthquake in 1960 (magnitude 9.5), I'd be interested in hearing about the more severe earthquakes that Andy thinks happened, say, 500 years ago or 1000 years ago.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My translation was correct after all. ThiehEd Poor types in Chinese? 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a new Liberal ___ Article...[edit]

...but Andy didn't start this one: Liberal self-righteousness, by Jpatt. This thing has the undeniable reek of parody, but it's really hard to tell with Jpatt. At the very least, it's every bit as muddled as any of Andy's articles. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From dictionary.com: Self-righteous: confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others. Is it possible to describe Andrew Schlafly more concisely than that? Keegscee (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
JPratt is almost the definitive inverse Poe. So crazy that you think he's a parodist but no, he's an out and out loony.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of those publishing such articles are parodists. Some of them, however, have not yet realized it. --Maquissar (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! Another one for Conservapedia:Article_matrix! ONE / TALK 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Just scanning that article tells me the person that wrote it (Jpatt) is a retard. Apart from the article itself being a load of fucking bollocks, the writing style of the so-called "examples" is appalling for a grown man - so disjointed. "Liberals proclaim that Barack Obama inherited our nations' economic problems from Republicans so they were the righteous ones and not responsible. The truth is that his party helped create those problems." References? Nah! SJ Debaser 15:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to do a side-by-side but in every case (I think) I just countered with: "True premise: false conclusion" or "Non-sequitur". 15:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
It looks like some right wing authoritarianism calling out left wing authoritarianism...but as we know there aren't many left wing authoritarians simply because embracing change negates authority de jour. Should the US government swing back to a progressive stance (like it ever really had one), then the wings would switch sides, as it were, with the right-wing holding onto a "liberal authoritarianism" and the left seeking to nullify changes made. 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Some stuff I like about it:

  • Christian self-righteousness is a narrow-minded trait amongst christians to proclaim themselves superior to others. By definition, self-righteous individuals are convinced of their own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others.. ..But to many self-righteous christians, the word christian is a honour worthy of association. Proclaiming to pride oneself of being christian can be understood as a delusional belief system while using myths as supporting evidence. You know, it makes MUCH more sense this way!
  • A liberal believes they are responsible for electing the first black president, therefore they are not racist. I just love how awful the sentence is. It jumps from singular to plural, and I don't think it's actually saying what he wanted it to say.. Somehow it seems to imply that the liberals are wrong for their belief that they have a responsibility for electing the first black president. But that they are not racists is stated as a fact? It's one weird sentence..
  • Jesus believed in healing the sick therefore liberals proclaim to be doing the will of Jesus by promoting a universal health system for all. Hahaha, what? Which liberal ever used this argument? And even if they did, is this just jealousy of the right-wingers, who use the name of Jesus as an argument for EVERYTHING, from gun control to socialism? Hell, I'd say this ain't even that bad of an argument. "Jesus believed in healing the sick, so I think it would be a good idea to see if we are able to provide care to any sick person in our country who needs it." -"YOU DISGUSTING SOCIALIST SELF RIGHTEOUS LIBRUL!!!"
  • Liberal policies on national security have made America safer. JPatt apparently admits here that liberals have made America safer and uses it as an argument for liberal self-righteousness? Bravo.
  • The external link is a twitter search for the tag #thankaliberal which has idiots from the left and right spamming whatever.. Of course, Jpatt's twitter account featured twice on the page when I checked it..

So it's everything you'd want from a CP creation. Badly written mindless hatred with nonsensical links. Keep up the shitty work, JPatt! --GTac (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this, but uh...does JPatt read this page too? With that, it'd include just about every non-Andy CP member. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
He sure does, think he even posts now and then. Normally you get banned on CP for being a member of RW, but ofc the same rules never apply to the dear leaders of the magical land of CP, where random blog posts without references are considered to be fine sourcing material for your own "encyclopedia" entry. Try adding some more, JPatt! --GTac (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Health care[edit]

I know he does it a lot (!) but argumentum ad populum like thisimg really takes the biscuit. 21:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

The party line at CP is very clear: When the public says something CP's big thinkers like, they're wise. When the public says something CP's big thinkers dislike, they're misled. Because somehow, despite the world apparently being full of deceitful, lying liberals, the American public is made up entirely of good, wholesome, gawd-fearin' folk. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nowt special[edit]

But a good example of conservapedia. A new account is createdimg, then banned within 2 minutes for 'vandalism'.img Yes, it was a silly username, but to be banned for 'vandalism' without making an edit is good going. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin is a bit rusty when it comes to banning people. My guess is that he wasn't aware of the inappropriate name block reasons. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, does edits show after oversighted? I only know edits won't show on deleted pages. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
If they're oversighted, they're completely removed from the database. Gone; Vanished: No More: 04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Planets are still orbiting[edit]

I like edits like this oneimg which calmly shows that Andrew Schlafly has not the slightest idea of what he's talking about. So, how will our renaissance man react:

larronsicut fur in nocte 17:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"PhilG, I glanced 30 seconds at your post while translating part of the New Testament, and I can clearly see that your mind is not open. Please, try harder to open your mind. The truth shall set you free. Also, you should try to contribute more substantially to this encyclopedia." --Maquissar (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not blocked yetimg, as far as I can tell...
Unexpected variation of his theme: PhilG, you protest to muchimg What does this even mean? larronsicut fur in nocte 15:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Simple. Andy seems to have a strange definition of "open-mindedness" which only applies to other people. If other people bring up any sort of objection, no matter how well worded and how precisely sourced, then they are close-minded and they're irrationally protesting because they are so emotionally tied to their atheistic and liberal beliefs that they just refuse to see the truth. If, on the other hand, he dismisses the claim of someone else without even bothering to address their points and countering their arguments, or countering them with blanket statements which are not even drawn from any source - then "open-mindedness" magically does not apply.
You know, one of my first edits on Conservapedia was something that I considered to be a properly thought-out and worded critique of I don't remember which statement by Andy. I am not saying I was right; I am just saying I did my best to try to understand his points, and to refute those which I considered wrong, and that it took me time and effort to write that post. He read it and replied in less than 3 minutes, of course saying I was wrong. Either Andy is, in fact, a quad-core processor masquerading as a human being, or he didn't even bother to try to understand me. --Maquissar (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
PhilG is being really cautious here. Check out his edit history - he's making at least one mainspace edit per talk page edit, probably to avoid a 90/10. He's also smart enough to back out of an argument after awhile to avoid a block for last wordism. He's been going for over a month now, which is damned impressive. When they inevitably block him (and really, it's only a matter of time), I wonder what the reason will be? Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
...And BOOM!img Blocked by DouglasA for "Troublemaker / Prevaricator: talk, talk, talk" Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There you go. Indefinitely blocked, and the reason is "Talk, talk, talk". Incidentally, DouglasA has been real aggressive with comments and blocks - more than others, from what I can tell. I would not be surprised if he were a parodist. --Maquissar (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
DouglasA is almost as bad as JacobB, who is probably the lamest parodist ever (albeit for the mildly redeeming quality of somehow being more transparent than TK). These guys are painfully uninteresting. I hope whoever is behind the curtain is enjoying themselves, because it's no fun to watch. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
...And he's just been unblocked by DouglasA. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
...maybe he reads RW? :P --Maquissar (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
LOLimg larronsicut fur in nocte 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More Orwell[edit]

Andy sez: Orwell was a conservative, but pretended to be a socialist to turn the movement conservative from within. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 02:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for Andy to introduce his Unified Conservative Theory of History. If he's going to attempt to define every fiddly little thing by the standards of American conservatism circa 1980, he should just go ahead and tie it all up into a nice little bundle. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm waiting for an extension of Conservapedia's Law that explains how history is a progression toward conservatism that takes place at a geometric rate. Tetronian you're clueless 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My head is spinning, and it's not due to the scotch. Wow. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy's a simple man. If he likes someone, they're conservative. No matter their own viewpoints, because he's labelled them "conservative." If he doesn't like someone, they're a neosocialist fascist communist atheistic liberal. – Nick Heer 07:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, they caught SilvioB :P --Maquissar (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Maquissar, SilvioB didn't know that he were you. — Unsigned, by: Editor at CP / talk / contribs
I didn't know I was him either. See, the things you learn reading Conservapedia. Apparently, the fact that we share the same IP means we're the same person. Along with probably something like 100,000 other people in my region of Italy. --Maquissar (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a well known fact on Conservapedia that European trolls editors have no ability to understand American Conservatism™ and hence have no business on Conservapedia. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course. And anyway, we are all damn lie-beral atheistic communists, in Europe, as everyone knows. ... And we are SO unamerican! --Maquissar (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I live in both the UK and France. Does that make me communist, socialist, both, double, what? I get confused. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that makes you very fat. Most people fit in a single country! --GTac (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just big-boned. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hee! I'm Not Fat, I'm Just Big-Boned 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present now controls the past." If Orwell were alive and bothered with CP, he'd contact Andy either on/off site explaining to him that he's not a conservative, to which Andy would no doubt try and convince the man otherwise. Also, as Orwell went a bit insane towards the end, is his supposed conservatism not contradictory to "conservatism is strengthens mental health" or whatever other bollocks Andy sez along those lines? SJ Debaser 10:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

aSK, CP, RW, and CZ[edit]

Have you ever asked yourself whether there are more pages in namespace main at Conservapedia or at Citizendium? No - doesn't matter, this pics give the answer nonetheless (since Aug 2008, Citizendium has more pages) - and to other numerous questions no one will ever ask, like:

  • what the 10,000th most popular article at Conservapedia? cp:Algae!

But other disturbing facts are revealed - and there may never be an answer to

  • why is cp:wikipedia the fifth most popular article at Conservapedia and aSK:rationalwiki the fifth most popular article at aSK? Co-inc-i-dence? Just creepy?
articles vs. time
page views vs. rank

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: the log scale shows its virtue. 21:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
nitpicking: the log-log scale shows its virtue-virtue :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Doh.gif 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
How did the articles at CZ jump by 5000 inside a week? ONE / TALK 09:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That is the work of bots: you find similar jumps at wikipedia when whole libraries of outside knowledge are incorporated. In this special case, I think it was a so-called Subpagination Bot. The articles at citizendium are slightly different organized than on other wikis: they exist from a main article and numerous subpages. In this plots, the subpages are included, though this isn't true for all my pics - have a look at User talk:Tmtoulouse#Citizendium.
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dogs[edit]

Wigo is beautiful. Did he have his brain turned around 180o or WOT. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a good WIGO. I wish we had more quality like that and less quantity. - π 01:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Go tell the author on his/her talk page then. Praise where it's due! 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

(UI)What is the word for creating new breed again? Artificial selection or something? K61824What is NOT going on? 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article in particular makes me wonder how Andy can sit considering how much he's pulling out his arse... Ravenhull (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Man.. This is just one of these arguments which only seem to come from right wingnuts which just leave me completely flabbergasted. They just take a really strong argument against their positions.. and think they can use it for them? Dog breeds are a perfect example for evolution.. you.. you can't just say the opposite and believe that'll work? Just like modern day bananas are a great example of natural selection.. it goes completely against their Intelligent Design, yet that didn't stop them from using it! And being open minded is the complete opposite of how you're using it! Flabbergasted! --GTac (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely outstanding. The emergence of so many breeds of dog is a superb example of the power of artificial selection (as explained at great length by Darwin) and also, to an extent, of natural selection (Dawkins touches on this in Hiscapital intended new book). Is Assfly really that ignorant of biology/anthropology/history/general knowledge that he actually thinks that the current 'pure breed' dogs were roaming about thousands of years ago (ie when the universe started)? Fucking hell. Well the good thing is that as usual he has made a ridiculously incorrect statement, then rather than back down on it (even when questioned by genuine editors) he sticks to his absurd position, thus meaning that it's now a true fact in CP land forever, and all the other admins have got to back him up! Gentlemen (and ladies), start your socks... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
@DeltaStar: "Is Assfly really that ignorant...?" Yes. Yes he is. Corry (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, just before seeing the WIGO I read a chapter in Dawkins' new book explaining how dogs are proof of natural selection. Talk about good timing. Tetronian you're clueless 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I see the entry's been "amended" (although it makes it even less comprehensible) and the talk page Archived out of sight. 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Let me get this straight..[edit]

Kids in the US should be educated in English because that's the official language/language that the majority of people speak. But kids in Quebec, where the only official language is French and the majority of people speak French should go to...English school. Va chier, Andy. T'es vraiment con. Un vrai trou de cul. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, he really should go live in Hong Kong. He can't speak English properly, wants people to send their kids to English school, just like most parents there would do. Only problem is that he will get his ass smacked big time when he protests about gun control. ThiehWhat is going on? 04:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am largely unfamiliar with Canadian laws on this topic, but I thought everything had to be available in both English and French. What is the school situation in Quebec? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Only the federal level stuff have to be available in both languages. At the provincial level is a bit optional (especially if you ask for stuff in person) but most online stuff is in both languages. It is mostly optional in the municipal level. ThiehWhat is going on? 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
EC Since 1977, the official language of Quebec is French, and the only people who may send their kids to English public school are Canadian citizens who were schooled in English in Canada and a few other legalese exceptions. What Andy has his knickers in a twist about is a new attempt to close a loophole that allowed people who were not eligible for English public schooling--notably the children of our huge and growing immigrant population--to go to English private school. If the move works, it will make French schooling mandatory across the board except for, essentially, the kids of Canadian citizens who were schooled in English in Canada. For the most part, except for fringe Anglos who can't get over the fact that they don't run the show anymore, people accept the language laws as the way Quebec works--you don't like it, don't choose to live in an officially-French polity. You might debate the wisdom of the law, but poll after poll and election after election have shown it's more or less what the overwhelming majority wants. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Although I dislike the notion of the State telling people what (legitimate) private schools they can and cannot attend, and am skeptical about whether a multi-lingual country is the best idea, I have to say I support the public school part of the policy. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You should have a visit to Belgium, ListnerX. It's difficult when going from town to town to know whether to speak French, Flemish, Dutch or English. A wrong guess is met with hostility! (It's worth it for the beer though) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The flavors in Belgium are Dutch(Flemish), French and German. I think adding an English zone would make Belgium all the more confusing. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone in Europe speaks English. Even if they don't, all you need to do is talk louder. Bondurant (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All the parts of Europe that actually matter, at least.Strelok (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Many people support making English an official language in Finland. Enjoy this fact, Andy. --Swedmann (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Give me English instead of Swedish anyday. Editor at CPmały książe 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"Hergee berger snooger bork". (to coin a phrase) SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking English in Belgium is the one way not to anger the Walloons or Flemish by speaking the wrong language :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the most logical book ever written![edit]

I think that Andy's new main page message, about how Atheists suck and the Bible is great, is a little masterpiece. Who wants to help me compiling a small list of admirable Atheists and Agnostics of all times and of logical contradictions in the Bible, just for the sake of it? And if then we could manage to let Andy have it, it'd be great. --Maquissar (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh hai Maquissar! We got lots of that here. You should have a look around. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Atheists don't build hospitals, they just finance, design, construct and work in them. "Atheist hospitals" is one of my fave Andyisms. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I read a few days ago about an openly atheist woman, Baba Amte, who devoted all her life to helping lepers. I guess she must have been a closet Christian? --Maquissar (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone go over to CP and make an article about Baba Amte? If it's factual and it doesn't contain sarcastic remarks such as "See? Atheists can be good too" I don't think they'd remove it, even if they'd kick the poster for (obviously) coming from Rational Wiki :P --Maquissar (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, They'll think helping lepers are stopping the invisible hand from working, and thus are evil. K61824Insomnia? Masturbate till you pass out 22:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Google China[edit]

Why would the Chinese be Googling "Atheism" (in English)? Or perhaps they do, can you use Chinese with a keyboard? — Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.77 / talk / contribs 17:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly easy, but yes, you can use any alphabet on any keyboard. As for the Google part, I never really understood that either... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ooh! My specialty. There are several methods for entering Chinese on a standard keyboard. The most common is the pinyin technique, in which one types in the pronunciation of the character(s) and then selects the desired character with a numerical input. It's not nearly as hard as it sounds - most Chinese teenagers can type with startling speed. Some other techniques use the layout of the character - each key is assigned a stroke or radical, and the typist enters them in the order they would be written. These techniques are harder, but they have the advantage of being effective in the Cantonese regions.
As to Ken's claims: It is odd that all these Chinese nationals would be Googling "atheism" in English. In putonghua, atheism is 无神论 (literally "without the theory of God"). Type that into Google China and the results are slightly different. Poor Ken. If only Andy had let him commission those translations... Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

CP gone Pro-Palestinian?[edit]

Wow, they have a link on the mainpage to a video calling for the end of "Israel's illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, and Syrian Golan Heights."[1]img Usually religious conservatives of the CP variety are staunchly pro-Israel, especially in regard to building housing and occupying the aforementioned territories. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The pro-Israel stance among the Christian right is due to many of them being dispensationalists, who are trying to bring about Armageddon, which apparently involves a Jewish presence in Israel. Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic, so he does not subscribe to dispensationalism, as far as I know. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This happens every once in a while, at least, I've seen something similar three or four times in the past--it's ALWAYS Joaquin who will add some anti-Israel thing to the front page. He may be Christian/conservative, but he's not American, and so doesn't quite toe the party line on all issues...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Good way to piss off Bert? SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Catholics were the original anti-Semites; it was only at Vatican II that the Catholic Church officially declared the Jews not guilty of deicide. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Joaquin is an interesting fella, he seems generally much more level-headed then most sysops. I wonder how he get that job. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
They appear to have solved the problemimg. Don't worry, guys: an investigationimg is pending. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
...while erasingimg JacobB's contribution to the discussion...TheoryOfPractice (talk)
Maybe they didn't like JacobB's idea of "reaching consensus". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Listener has it right: the religious right's love for Israel has parts of its origins with a bunch of cranks called Christian Zionists. Christian Zionists believe there can be no Second Coming until the Jewish people have retaken their original homeland, ie pre-Diaspora Israel and Judah; note this would include what is currently the West Bank. The religious right, in other words, supports Israel to help bring about Judgment Day, the day that will finally see all those filthy Jews dispatched to hell where they belong. The faint whistling noise you are hearing is the overpressure valve on my tube-gauge irony measuring instrument. Mountain Blue 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't they have to rebuild Solomon's temple in Jerusalem or something? 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Wow. Now that's freaky. I wonder if Andy knows that this was the original reason or if he is just unconsciously pro-Israel. Tetronian you're clueless 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if he had any idea, what with being Andy and stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unconscious. In Andy's world of black-and-white morality you either side with Israel or you side with the Muslims, right? Also, since criticizing Israel is pretty much taboo in the US, everybody Andy ever hears doing so will either be European (Socialists!) or affiliated with the UN (World Government jackboots!). Mountain Blue 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WIGO[edit]

I have reworded the WIGO, it was voted down as it didn't make much sense with the difflinks provided. Now it shows perfectly how the head honchos respond when a sysop adds something slightly off-message and another sysop defends such diversity. I'm not entirely sure what to think of the Israel/Palestein fiasco, but this perfectly demonstrates what one should think of conservapedia. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty unlikely that Jpatt oversighted it, since he adds back Jacobbs edit minutes later. It was probably just a mistake, and then oversighted since they oversight everything. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Korea[edit]

On the conservapedia mainpage right now there's a section about 'conservative' South Korea's low unemployment. South Korea, while somewhat socially conswervative, actually has an extensive welfare system including public education and national health care. Anyone want to add it to WIGO? — Unsigned, by: 129.173.209.118 / talk / contribs 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is weirder that he asociated Christianity with South Korea's success considering "No Religion" is the largest group when it comes to religious affiliation[2] --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
They count the Unification Church to be Christian, and possibly conservative, I think. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
South Korea is very hard to compare to the U.S. It has universal health care, ubiquitous and mandatory public education, and so on. But on the other hand, it also has an extremely extensive tutoring system to supplement the schools (which strongly favors the wealthy), and almost no welfare programs - this last due to the extensive Confucian tradition of caring for your parents and sick relatives. You could take either side of the argument and make a compelling case, but I think the bottom line is that it's apples and oranges.--ADtalkModerator 23:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of life[edit]

I think he meant evidence for civilization, but that would still be arrowheads and pottery which predates way back. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 22:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But those aren't as old as the ebil athistic evilutionist consipiracy libuurals claim. Besides, Andy is always right. When Andy is proven wrong, remember that Andy is always right. Ravenhull (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken?[edit]

Is ken moonlighting as Priscilla? Just read the first sentence! SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Only if he would go on about someone not being able to write a coherent paragraph. (item #3) --Shagie (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts immediately wandered to Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and now I can't get the mental image of Ken in drag out of my mind. Thank you. Vulpius (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Tranny Ken! Might explain a lot. If only he'd come out of the closet, I'm sure he'd be happier. 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Compare and contrast[edit]

First and third "news" itemsimg:

Democrats hold a 38-vote advantage in the House, but already 24 Democrats are listed as being against the health care bill, with 80 (including likely "nos" such Bart Stupak) listed as undecided. The "Whip Count" tracking

And now the House Democrats line up at the instruction of their blind commanders for a final charge into glory as they battle to foist Obamacare on a country that neither wants it nor can afford it. ...

Is it just me, or are they saying almost exactly the opposite. 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Yes, but only because #3 is completely conjecture. #1 actually has statistics. Tetronian you're clueless 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Now my English sucks so bad...[edit]

I was never taught that "good" is a more difficult wordimg (remember "not dumbing down the reading level"?) than "righteous", and "Fall(sic) everything" corresponds toimg "For all that (is)". K61824CP≠Child Porn? 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy is illiterate in every language he "knows"; you just have trouble with English grammar from time to time. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No wigo about Elsevier?[edit]

Is there a reason we didn't WIGO about CP hating on Elsevier for demanding that their own publications follow some kind of ethical code and some level of scientific vigor? --Opcn (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What's this "we" business? If you think it WIGO-worthy, go to town on it.--WJThomas (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems none of us caught that at this point (barring misspelling) but you. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
WIGO aside, I think Elsevier has does enough to promote pseudoscience and other academic dishonesty that they probably deserve their own page here. Of course they publish many important and legitimate journals, but I think these problems merit mention. I'll throw something together. --MarkGall (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough Orac hadn't heard the news. --Opcn (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know nobody gives a shit anymore but...[edit]

...I never leave a country without cleaning out my drives and wrapping up any toy projects I'm not going to spin up again. So, one last time, as a kind of final report or something, bar charts:

E1003.png

U1003.png

No grand surprises here, I guess. The Bible Immolation Project has fizzled and the Colbert bump has failed to materialize, but of course we already knew that. Oh well. Mountain Blue 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice charts, but my real question is: when are you and lArron going to make out graphically? (geddit, cause you like graphs) --GTac (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There was some heavy petting just a few days ago, but I need us to take it slow. I've been hurt before. -Mountain Blue 10:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just a toy project of yours... What is all the babbling about leaving the country and wrapping up projects? I enjoyed them! larronsicut fur in nocte 10:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. Are "Lectures" "Homework" "Mysteries" and the like counted as articles or are they bunched in with essays and talk pages and such? I ask because there is no separate namespace for them. I'm not sure if Andy realizes that putting a colon after a title does not remove them from the articlespace, so I'm assuming whatever program you're running to compile this doesn't separate them either. Considering a good portion of the edits at times are on lectures and homework, the actual article edits are probably significantly lower. DickTurpis (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My program does separate them. Lectures, Homework, Answers, Mysteries, Conservapedia Breaking News Archives, and Bible Translations are exluded from counting as articles on account of not being encyclopedic. Law Terms, Budget Terms, Economics Terms etc. are excluded on account of not even being real pages. (Terms lists are part of what the chart legend means when it says "assorted meta content.") The filter consists in a simple regular expression and is trivial to tweak, though, so I can do charts for pretty much any definition of "article" anyone cares to propose. -Mountain Blue 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Guard Dog[edit]

Speaking of cleaning out drives, my collection of CP memorabilia includes GuardDoc.exe, the CP Guard Dog. It appears to be some kind of Windows program that observes CP's Recent Changes page and trys to autohammer suspicious users. The program and most of the crap it comes with would seem to date from early 2008. I don't know if it actually works (I don't have any Windows boxes) and I forgot where it came from. Feel free to contact me if you think you have use for this. -Mountain Blue 02:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably PJR's prog. It went mad & they shot it after PJR left & they upgraded MediaWiki. 03:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
It went mad? -Mountain Blue 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup! started biting* all and sundry without warning.
*=blocking 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Yup, 'twas frothing at the mouth and biting the neighbors' chilluns. Bad dog, no doughnut hole! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hereimg and hereimg. 03:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Awesome capturebot is awesome. -Mountain Blue 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait ... it was intended to "observes CP's Recent Changes page and trys to autohammer suspicious users" and it "started biting* all and sundry" ... sounds to me like it was working perfectly --Opcn (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It was interfering with TK's purview. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If this was PJR's pet, is he using it over at aSK? Ravenhull (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope! It was designed for the totalitarian regime a Conservapedia and isn't needed at the totalitarian site that is aSK. 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

I'm not interested in the actual code - just a question: I suspected it to use http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=100&hideminor=0 instead of http://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=query&list=recentchanges Is this correct? larronsicut fur in nocte 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so. The documentation doesn't say, but the binary contains the string literal www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&limit=. It doesn't seem use the API at all; the actual blocking is done via index.php?title=Special:Blockip. -Mountain Blue 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How very clumsy! And it explains why it went rabid: wikimedia changed the display of times and date, Guard Dog couldn't recognize them any longer and bit everyone. Isn't PJR some kind of software engineer? He should know better! larronsicut fur in nocte 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No, he is a train timetable scheduler. He wrote the program in Delphi to work with Internet Explorer, pretty much killing everyone's ability to use it bar the few who would be the least qualified to operate such a thing. - π 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, hadn't he sided with the enemy all along? He did walk out on Andy just in time, right? Deceitful liberal that he was he clearly did it on purpose. -Mountain Blue 12:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER Liberal _____ article[edit]

Liberal excuses, by DanielPulido. Knee-jerk reaction, relentless pandering, or sweet satire? Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point I honestly can't tell. Tetronian you're clueless 12:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Would an article evolution tree make more sense than the article matrix? ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DouglasA, JacobB, and PhilG[edit]

I suppose that all three are parodists. But the dishonesty of JacobB is just breathtaking: He archived the page of cp:Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1 erasing PhilG's comments, and Andy is left to look more foolish than ever, talking to a nonexistent editor (have a look at the section on earthquakes and on the stability of the solar system).

But my favorite is the following:

  • (diff) (hist) . . New! Joseph-Louis Lagrange‎; 14:30 . . (+778) . . JacobB (Talk | contribs) (Created page with 'Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) was an mathematician and astronomer born in Turin, (Italy) as Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia. He worked for over ...')
  • (Deletion log); 14:29 . . JacobB (Talk | contribs) deleted "Joseph-Louis Lagrange" (content was: 'Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) was an mathematician and astronomer born in Turin (Italy) as Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia. He worked for over twent...' (and the only contributor was 'PhilG'))

So, PhilG was the only contributor to this article, and JacobB recreated it - obviously using the same text! The history of the article is purged from PhilG's name, and JacobB unashamedly lists the article at his user page as Pages I've Re-written or Majorly Contributed To

Is this plagiarism? Or is it just theft?

larronsicut fur in nocte 11:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither. My contact at Hosiery Headquarters informs me that what we're seeing here is a parodist consolidating his toolbox of textiles, consigning some of his garments to retirement in the process. Perhaps he is moving to another country or something and wants to tie up some loose ends before he cancels his broadband. -Mountain Blue 11:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to JacobB, saving an article from oblivion at his own hand could be considered a "major contribution" to its existence. ONE / TALK 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Woot, I just helped Oxfam by refraining from hurling a brick through the window of their local shop. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait. When did JacobB become a sysop? I wonder if he has ZB access? --PsygremlinSiarad! 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
JacobB is either a superstar parodist or an incredibly dishonest prick. I try to see the best in everyone, so I'll go for parodist. Whilst other top parodists work by insulting and bullying others, JabobB's approach of being extremely dishonest right under the Assfly's nose is genius. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
JacobB is a parodist. Well known in fact. Acei9 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"Perhaps he is moving to another country or something and wants to tie up some loose ends before he cancels his broadband" nudge nudge --Opcn (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler WIGO[edit]

What the heck are they trying to get at? Does anyone understand it? Tetronian you're clueless 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that Obama is, for some weird reasons, worse/less competent than [the staff members hired by] Hitler. K61824Monitoring virgin birth experiment 22:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Obama isn't even as popular/competent as those horrible people, who come in just below jesus on the popularity scale ... read into that what you will --Opcn (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to get, nothing to understand. It's just TK, for chrissake, yanking your chain. --WJThomas (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Make Karajou Funny[edit]

moved to Forum:Making Karajou funny

Haha, that's funny, the forums were created to take the load off the SB, but it's perfectly applicable here too. Should there be a "conservapedia" category added to the fora now? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just did exactly that. Fairly easy, nice work tech guys! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Word Salad[edit]

Another incomprehensible word salad from Jpatt. As a journalist and a writer myself I feel shameful for his filthy habit. Acei9

Do you think English is a secondary language for JPatt? His use of punctuation (or lack thereof) makes that essay practically unreadable. Keegscee (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It is almost completely unreadable. Acei9 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, at least it started off "readable", but by paragraph three I found myself incapable of discerning ideas, thoughts, or arguments to process. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In one discussion I had with JPratt, he blamed his poor grammar of a public school education. It seems to be a handy crutch for conservatives to fall back on, especially as he's obviously never taken the time to improve himself outside of school. I mean, why do that when you can bleat about how hard done by you are. --PsygremlinParla! 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I gave up in the fourth paragraph. This... this is just a garbled mess. His "What I think atheists believe" extrapolation seamlessly turns into "What I think Christianity is all about", the sentence structure is a mess, and at least once per sentence, I simply asked myself "...what?" because I couldn't even see what he wanted to say. English is my second language, and I can't even imagine how long I would have to deprive myself of sleep to write such an incoherent mess. It's like the love child of Time Cube and Chick Tracts. --Sid (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps due to me being improperly educated in English, it seems [kind of] readable to me. 5 paragraphs of straw man atheism and 2 paragraphs of Jack Chick. But then again, it is difficult to imagine the author of any of these being white people. ThiehEd Poor types in Chinese? 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To JP's credit, though, he created that smorgasbord with just a few edits. Kenny woulda needed approximately 97 billion edits to create a piece of similar length. Plus, JP has coined CP's new motto: "There is a limit to our understanding, but no limit to our stupidity".--WJThomas (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I like this bit:
Atheist will just shrug their shoulders and nod in disbelief.
Since when has anyone in the history of mankind "nodded in disbelief" ? I don't think it's even physically possible ONE / TALK 16:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Stream of consciousness or what? It's like being in the mind of an inmate at one of Her Majesty's Secure Mental Establishments. So good they had to save it twice. 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
Perhaps JPratt was thinking about Bulgarian atheists.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: Ken had to stick his oar in, by linking to atheism. 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

Texas[edit]

Does Andy even read what he writes?
By a landslide 10-5 vote, "Texas education board backs conservative curriculum." It tosses out liberal lies like overuse of the word "democratic" and myths about America being founded on "religious freedom." ...
Now to me that reads that what is being kicked out are their lies and the myths; not the lies about democracy and the lies about myths. 10/10 for getting the point across, Andy. 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

What it tells me is that Andy spends his days saying how awesome America is, freedom of speech and all, and in this very sentence he's saying that America was founded with the intention of no freedom of religious worship. Terrible human being. SJ Debaser 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think he really meant "lies of (myths about america being founded on 'religious freedom')". Isn't that the same guy saying not allowing classroom prayer is being some atheistic censorship and religious freedom is at stake or something? Thieh"6+18=24" 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what he means but it's not what he says! 22:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
It sure is fun to guess which way to correctly parse his sentence when the author doesn't even know what he meant. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that elsewhere. The Texas Freedom Network live-blogged it. It's really quite amazing. One highlight is removing Thomas Jefferson from the part of the standards about the Enlightenment (and also removing certain references to the Enlightenment being the Enlightenment), and replacing him with...wait for it...THOMAS AQUINAS and JOHN CALVIN. Another highlight was bringing in a discussion about the right to bear arms - in a part of the standards dealing with the FIRST Amendment. 92.23.28.189 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(facepalm)--Thanatos (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
There's an ap smiley for that: Face.gif; or even:Facepalm.png. 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

See also http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#It.27s_over._They.27ve_won for non-CP discussion of horrible topic. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Incompetent Obama[edit]

OH NOEZ! Incompetent Obama has 915.000 hits on Google... to put it into perspective, here are a few other significant hits on Google.

TOFU FREEDOM - 575.000 hits. RENAISSANCE PORN - 713.000 hits. PIZZA BASTARD - 870.000 hits. OBAMA ORIGAMI - 1.720.000 hits. WATERMELON GLORY - 1.870.000 hits. MICROWAVE OBAMA - 2.450.000 hits. BEETHOVEN OBAMA - 9.580.000 hits.

...what significant insight on public opinion can be gathered from this? --Maquissar (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CONSERVATIVE RETARD: 1,920,000. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Conservative Idiot: ~6 million hits. K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 07:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
If you guys think you know more about the internets than  K e n  D o l l , then go ahead and take it by storm like he did. Are you #3 in China? Didn't think so. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Every time I see another  K e n  D o l l  rank wank, I see this Dresdon Codak t-shirt. HumanisticJones (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Gentleman Maquissar, has it occurred to you that the high number of hits for Watermelon Glory is because of Operation Watermelon Glory which is due to begin by the Ides of May? Operation Watermelon Glory will certainly be the Waterloo for atheism on the internet. Expect further developments as prominent Creationists including some who have published books and have many results when you search for their names on a certain search engine beginning with "g" will link to Conservapedia's articles on atheism as part of Operation Watermelon Glory! Stay tuned for further details! Kendoll (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Operation Wabid Wombat! Ravenhull (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bush antichrist" returns over three million hits. If that doesn't prove... something, I don't know what does! MDB (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CREATIONIST MOTHERFUCKER - 1,690,000 Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ken has undermined his own argument significantly in regards to Obama searches. His example of a paradigm wearing mighty thin, "obama is the chosen one", gets 3,110,000 hits. Even within his own reality he is wrong. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OBAMA EXCELLENT - 46 million. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Obama+Giraffehttp://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Obama+Giraffe

Compared to two-term president + one-term dad + governor brother: BUSH EXCELLENT - 26 million Bondurant (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And the shrubbery. And the anatomical meaning. DickTurpis (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, and the electronics manufacturer. Bondurant (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
They also had a hit with "Glycerine". Internetmoniker (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlafy AND Dingbat gets 1580 which is pretty good going Ian — Unsigned, by: 128.240.229.3 / talk / contribs 16:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama is great 131 MILLION! It is definitive.
mentions his wife quite often (forget her name - senilty hello!) She is credited as joint author on some of the stuff I believe. Prolly not a wikiholic like Bert. Or I can imagine her saying "Enough, already, time to move on"? 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalkaq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Also, 21 million hits. Back to the drawing board Ken.
Internetmoniker (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
PALIN EXCELLENT (including, one presumes, the genuinely excellent Michael Palin) : 7.4 million. Bondurant (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, a certain LucyJ has pointed this out on Conservapedia. I'm curious to see what they will answer her. And the news about Operation Watermelon Glory are truly distressing! We should plan a proper counter-operation. Step one, of course, is choosing a cool name. --Maquissar (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE. Apparently TK thinks that the mainstream media should cover the fact that "Obama incompetent" has about 900.000 hits on Google. Here's what he wrote: "News items are not encyclopedic. They are intended to convey to our audience thoughtful, often provoking, interesting news items not typically conveyed in the liberal MSM."
Dear TK, this is very well worded, but a bit inaccurate; so allow me to be a bit less diplomatic now, and rephrase the same message in a more blunt, but also more precise formulation. This is how I think it should read:
"News items are not supposed to have any correlation with the real world. They are intentehttp://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Obama+Giraffed to pursue our own agenda, glorify conservatives and discredit liberals, by showing facts and quotes taken out of context or distorted in some other way, something that the mainstream media somehow still fails to do satisfactorily."
Well, I am afraid that there is some lexical confusion here, TK. You see, there is a word for this type of "information", not meant to reflect reality but to convince people of something, whether it's true or not. It is called propaganda. --Maquissar (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
He! Google: Obama Giraffe: 518,000 22:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
Chaney Satan Less than you'd think at only 402,000. Obama satan a wopping 2.8 million. But spot the difference in the nature of the top links to each. Bondurant (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC),
Sorry Ken. but Obama good gets 140 million hits. EddyP (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So irrelevant is Ken's babbling here. All that searching Obama and evil does is show what sites/articles have the words Obama and evil on the page. To prove a point, a search of tea face returns over 70m hits, proving just how meaningless any of this shit is. SJ Debaser 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing google is good for (besides finding web pages about stuff you want to know) is the game of finding a search criteria that returns exactly one hit. Then the game site adds it, eliminating it and giving you 20 internet pointzes. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Googlewhackery is what really got Dave Gorman into the (UK) public eye. SusanGContribsTalk 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
KENDOLL ASSBAG - 2810 hits. Not too shabby! Corry (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bert[edit]

Having flogged the KAL007 horse to death, CP's resident OCD sufferer proceeds to resurrect the corpse in various new guises:

and that's just today's emissions. Seriously, I know he lost family on board, but the man needs counseling or something. At the moment he's making Andy's "0 mental illness" claims look dodgy. Oh wait, Ed and Ken have already blown that out of the water. --Psygremlin話しなさい

He is not just doing it on CP, he is quite active over at WP as well. For example, he is the reason the Wikipedia article on Boris Yeltsin has a section on KAL 007 that is almost as big as the section on his second term. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of people at CP I view with contempt because they're idiots and/or assholes, but Bert, I just pity. The man suffered a horrific loss a quarter century ago, and he still hasn't moved on. You're right, he needs counseling. MDB (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree on the need for counseling, but until then, could somebody at least make him read the basic help files? It's just strange to see Mr. Sysop Lite (edit/upload/block) with 1,800+ edits asking how to insert referencesimg when the CP Commandments even link to a dedicated help file. He's so obsessed dedicated and yet can't be arsed to even leave his "KAL007 KAL007 KAL007" path for five minutes to learn how his publishing platform works? --Sid (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've always basically ignored Bert, and never looked into his ramblings, but I just noticed he believes that KAL007 landed safely on the water and the passengers were hauled off to Soviet prisons, where they may remain til this day. He is certainly crazy enough for Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that maybe explains the not moving on part. If he thought his relative had been killed in the crash maybe he could have come to terms with that, but if he really does think there's a possibility that they're still alive somewhere then that's a lot harder to move on from isn't it? I'm sure most people would feel they have to do whatever they can to find the missing person.71.227.237.132 (talk)
Actually it is sometimes harder to move on if you don't have a body to bury. The families of soldiers who are MIA or whose children disappear can suffer extended anxiety as opposed to those who are able to complete their grief by knowing what has happened. That said, and without wanting to sound like a hard-hearted cow, it is interesting that it is Bert who is making all the running with the tragedy rather than his wife. Of course it may be his way of helping her although prolonging the hope in the possibility of life sounds rather cruel.  Lily Inspirate me. 02:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
So, in many ways he's a one man version of the people who don't want any kind of 'normalized' relations with Vietnam until they return all those living POW/MIA's there. Do gotta feel a bit sorry for him. Ravenhull (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
EC) He mentions his wife quite often (forget her name - senilty hello!) She is credited as joint author on some of the stuff I believe. Prolly not a wikiholic like Bert. Or I can imagine her saying "Enough, already, time to move on"? 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
I imagine it as more of a folie a deux. Burndall (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)