Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive174

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Houston Andy, we have a problem

Upgrade probs?^img 07:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

All the header and skin information appears twice and there is no close html tag, what a mess. - π 07:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Originally I thought that was just me and my Konqueror. Oh well, at least I now know it's their problem. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy trying to show us how he sees the world every day by 5p.m.? --⁠ (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bible in school libraries

Is the moaning idiot right? I'd expect every library to have a bible: it is literature a good fun book whatever your viewpoint. As part of the heritage it ought to be there. 07:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

In a subsequent post, he says RationalWiki is barred from his school computers. I am going to guess "parodist." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

the schools I attended had several versions of the BIble. There is no legal restriction on a school having them, or using them in comparative religion , social studies or english classes. I could understand a school not investing in them though if they dont use them much. Hamster (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Then someone would cry out loud that they should burn the books on evolution from school library as well, as a fairness issue. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have 5 or 6 of them. I consider it my duty to have them on hand. ħuman 09:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that anything that calls itself a "library" could possibly not have at least a few couples of the Bible. I mean, it's the book that had the greatest impact on Western culture and literature. --Maquissar (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Second greatest. You just can't beat "How to get Girls by Hypnosis". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have 6 of them. I consider it my duty to have screwed 5 of them together to use them as a doorstop and to have hollowed 1 of them out to hide the porn from my ex-girlfriend. 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have my trusty and infallible KJV. Tempted to pick-up an NIV. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he was only looking in the 'science' section... StarDelta (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose he could be right: anyone wanting to consult the Good Book would probably have their own copy. The same would be difficult for all the books on (e.g.) Evolution. They've probably just one copy that hasn't even had its pages cut. 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Ed's Momma

Wroted a booky wook^img. (Note the Edit comment^img) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I wonder if Ed's mummy dearest is an anarchist? The 4 day work week is a very typical anarchist plank. I guess if you're dumb enough for moonieism, them more or less any other movement that promises you free cake can count on your vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the article, I think it is the most productive thing I have ever seen come from Ed. ETA: It is of course a sub and needs to be re-written, but it's still a contribution. --Opcn (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything of substance to this man, or does he have to continue riding of the coattails of his ancestors? Right now the best purpose I can see him serving is to visit schools and warn children to do their best to avoid becoming Ed Poor. This would at least provide a welcome break from screwing the dead. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How dare you! maligning the personality^[sic] of user 188, the famous creator of the Age template at Wikipedia. Are these not qualifications enough for one man? 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Granted, that is impressive, although not as amazing as his one-man attempt to categorise movies featuring coaches with eleven year-old daughters. Still, I'm sure someone could use his kidneys. --^{Ask me about your mother} 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed's edit comments on the WP page for her are kinda funny. Corry (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the 4 x 10 hour work week in manufacturing, at least, is it screws up the "overtime equation". To get the magic time and a half (and the extra production mgmt needs) people either have to work really long days, or come in on Friday, a day they probably made plans for. PS, I improved the WP article, because I can. The CP article is still as it was. ħuman 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that Ed's Riva Poor article isn't too bad, in that Ed resisted the temptation add one of his "related to the WP editor, Ed Poor" notes. It made me think that if Ed had been born the n'er do well son of Caesar, he'd have spent his time wandering around the empire, scrawling "father of Edus Poorious" on any any monument raised to Caesar. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(@human) Perhaps the economy shouldn't be organized around the needs of the managers... — Pietrow ☏ 14:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The OT part is based on the needs of hourly employees. The 40 hour 4 day week fails both workers and employers. Now, the 32 hour 4 day, on the other hand... ħuman 22:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was given when talking about 4 day weeks? After 8 hours you just get tired and make mistakes (well at least I do). — Pietrow ☏ 10:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question on English

Is it lying low^img, laying low, or some other phrases? (I know that with Ken it should take more than 4 edits, but still) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Both technically make sense, and reference.com's aggregation stuff seems to recognize both in some way. That said, "lay" always sounds better than "lie"^{[citation NOT needed]}, and anything Ken writes is wrong by definition. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Chickens "lay." Everything else is "lie." So says Mrs. Practice's grandmother. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would try to make fun by saying "From what Mrs. Practice's grandmother said, people got 'lied', not 'laid'", but that'd be beyond my linguistic ability. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that "lay" means "putting something down"--laying an egg, laying pipe, laying a new floor, and "lie" is positioning one's self in relation to the ground....TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Granny G said something similar: you lay a table but lie on a table. 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

But a chick can also get laid on a table? --GTac (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Many times: many, many times." (UK oldies [Round the Horne] humour) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I'm going from memory on this. "To lay" means "to place". (I'm going to lay the book on the table) "To lie" means "to put yourself in a horizontal position". (I'm going to lie on the floor.) There are also various idiomatic and set usages. --Bob^{It's windy!} 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's lying down the law on the matter! ħuman 22:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of English, have a guess who wrote this belter: Barack Obama's diplomacy skills are substandard and members of the British government are displeased and some citizens of the British public are displeased. Three "ands" in quick succession, but not a comma in sight. It can be only one! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it boggled my mind when I read it. 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I only count two "ands". But it's still a wonderful piece of illiteracy, as were his next dozen edits to MPR. ħuman 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! How can I criticise someone's writing when my reading is just as shit. I'm blaming it on the repetition of "displeased" casuing my brain to fail. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously considering using Conservapedia as proofreading exercise in their English class (If anyone is teaching it)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Maybe that's the masterplan! Assfly is planning to teach an english writing course (whatever happened to that?), so maybe he diliberately gets his admins to fill CP with hideous abuses of the english language, and it's the homeskullers' homework to spot them? Boy, will we feel stupid then! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the INTERNET writing course has been delayed by snow. Too lazy to link, but it's on Aschlafly's talk page. ħuman 06:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask, and you shall receive^img. By the way, shall that be WIGO'd? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew US infrastructure is obsolete and fragile, especially as regards to small business internet connectivity, but... the fiber freezing shut? Can it be really that bad? Mountain Blue 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly the copper becomes superconductor and the electrical resistance screws up somehow at the local level if you call that the worst case scenario, I would think. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Views per Namespace

all name-spaces at CP	eight name-spaces at CP	pages in main space at aSK, RW, CP, and Citizendium
all name-spaces at RW	eight name-spaces at RW	all pages at aSL, RW, CP + wikifactor

Discuss (just a try :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thick me: what's "Rank"? 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

The pages are just ordered by the number of views they get. So: page rank n = n-th most viewed page larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Without going to the images, are the scales the same for both/all? ħuman 06:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. For a direct comparison, look here:

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! ħuman 07:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic! 07:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Thicky's back. What's a "wikifactor" 11:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)##

wikifactor is an rather obscure but useful metric for the impact of a wiki-site. It's based on the wp:h-index (The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the scientific productivity and the apparent scientific impact of a scientist. ) for scientific publications. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

top ten most viewed pages per namespace at conservapedia
Main		Talk		User		User talk		Conservapedia		Conservapedia talk
Main Page	6904629	Talk:Main Page/Archive 1	221412	User:Aschlafly	67464	User talk:Philip J. Rayment	35530	Conservapedia:Debate Topics	427214	Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog	72568
Atheism	4874276	Talk:Main Page	211870	User:Ed Poor	27307	User talk:Ed Poor	31670	Conservapedia:Commandments	276350	Conservapedia talk:Commandments	20996
Homosexuality	3491328	Talk:Barack Hussein Obama	118443	User:TK	22537	User talk:TK	18865	Conservapedia:Index	196373	Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics	14018
Barack Hussein Obama	1340723	Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	47302	User:Philip J. Rayment	20515	User talk:Aschlafly	18013	Conservapedia:Lenski dialog	140234	Conservapedia talk:About	9715
Wikipedia	878242	Talk:Homosexuality	31746	User:Will N.	17386	User talk:RobSmith	17172	Conservapedia:About	105512	Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia	6945
Sarah Palin	742611	Talk:Conservative Bible Project	28869	User:Karajou	16261	User talk:Jpatt	12752	Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia	65902	Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1	5400
Adolf Hitler	716529	Talk:Theory of relativity	27100	User:DeanS	14873	User talk:Iduan	11055	Conservapedia:Guidelines	33453	Conservapedia talk:Featured articles	5336
Liberal	669096	Talk:PNAS Response to Letter	27003	User:RobSmith	14505	User talk:Karajou	10746	Conservapedia:General disclaimer	29053	Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math	5134
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	648546	Talk:Richard Dawkins	25266	User:Iduan	12011	User talk:BethanyS	10317	Conservapedia:Privacy policy	28074	Conservapedia talk:Index	4716
John McCain	581377	Talk:Liberal	23539	User:DanH	11593	User talk:Learn together	9412	Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math	22993	Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage	4377

In the (hidden) table, the effects of the creative archiving of pages at conservapedia is shown. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused Jesus

"And to the married, I order this-- No, wait, it's not me, but the Lord who says this-- A wife should not leave her husband."

A moment of aberration, or a more calculated denial of trinitarian doctine? Perhaps it's just that voices are sometimes difficult to hear even when they're in your own head... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's 1^st Corinthians, meaning its Paul speaking, not Jesus. No contradictions there -- the earlier parts have Paul saying "its just me, Paul", but this time, he says "this is from God Himself, not just me." MDB (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaker aside, it was the "no, wait" bit that caught my eye. I'm not saying it's a contradiction - just a very odd turn of phrase which doesn't do much for the speaker's authority. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For another example of an odd, tin-eared, anachronistic turn of phrase, there's "You're allowed to do what I'm saying, but it's not mandatory." There's also "abstenance" at the top of the diff. Maybe one day we will build a machine that can check people's spelling. Cantabrigian (talk)

The "no wait" part was just stupid. Even if they're going for modern phrasing, something like "this comes from the authority of the Lord, it is not just my advice" would work far better. MDB (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

...especially since it's a capital-E Epistle, a solemn formal memorandum, methodically drafted as a document to be preserved for generations. Hard to imagine he'd have allowed himself to sound like a snarker on a blog comment thread. Mountain Blue 14:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You act as if DanielPulido isn't a parodist. 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, who can tell who is and is not a parodist at CP? Hell, I'm not even sure the entire site isn't a parody and "Andy Schlafly" isn't laughing his head off at the people who think he's serious. MDB (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a swim in my parody pool and place your bets ;) MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon about Phyllis Schlafly / Texas board of education

Is now at The saloon bar. CS Miller (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats kinda lame I don't get it. --Radioactive PIzza (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Subediting the Bible

I do hope someone's checking for typos. They might wind up with the Adulterous Bible if they're not careful. 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

They aren't - the "live" pdf version is full of them. ħuman 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice they haven't started on the song of Solomon yet. Isn't that the one with breasts as flocks of goats or similar? 06:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

"Come...blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits." Let's see what they do with that!--WJThomas (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The traditional conservative Christian response to Song of Solomon is that its an allegory for God's love for the Church, and its not about sex at all, huh-uh, no way, no how. Which is crap. It might also be an allegory, but its pretty clearly about intimate love.

There's one passage in there, though I can't remember which one exactly, that I managed to crack up a former pastor of mine by describing it as saying "why don't we go do it in the yard?" MDB (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Song of Solomon ain't got nothin' on Ezekiel 23:19-20: "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." --98.204.160.254 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The fun (or sad) part is that I wrote TK an e-mail telling him about the typos and misspellings in 1 Corinthians 1-8, and I wrote a list of corrections, saying that it's more fun to criticize their ideas than their ortography - but I guess he just doesn't read my emails anymore. But would they accept spelling corrections from a godless lie-beral anyway? ;) --Maquissar (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead guy goes on tour

Andy is absolutely certain that Kim Jong Il is dead, and that we're clueless for not believing his magnificently precise guess. But for a dead guy, Kim sure goes on a lot of tours recently.[2]--^talk 05:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Andy is certain that Felix the Castrator is dead. Please pay attention. ħuman 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't they all be dead? Crushed by the logic of the bible...--Opcn (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim appears to have only one anorak style jacket. (or lots of identical ones) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I guess when you're a brutal megalomaniac with the power of life and death over your subjects, fashion is what you say it is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heck, if you can make 2+2=5, you can make any kind of fashion statement you want. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia running stats 5, Kendoll's version

Has this been discussed (for some odd reason it starts at 2, and I can't find the one unenumerated one or the one with index 1) or does it require attention at all? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The one without index is here. Easy if you have a mirror on your local file system you can run find and ls on. :) I don't see how it requires attention though. Mountain Blue 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very important because we see how we liberal atheists are losing the battle. Every time I see those pages I weep. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that cp:User:Conservative knows which of his perhaps 100 sub-pages (here^img and here^img) are somewhat of relevance... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who are curious, Conservative has a more-or-less complete index of his subpages on his talk page. I guess those links are too petty and meaningless to put on his user page - they'd only distract from the important things like the list of every song he's ever heard. Anyway, his subpages are a hoot, especially the half-finished pages listed under "sandbox." This one's my favorite. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The fruit of the prickly pear cactus... is he talking about himself? Mountain Blue 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The in(s)anity of those subpages! Could anyone who was active here and on CP in 2007 explain what this^img is? Weird. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fucked if I know. Weren't there some experiments with obscenity filters once? mb 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say it was him trying to understand how wandals kept sneaking past the word blacklist. Such sysop experiments also gave us "Hot. Science. RationalWiki", after all. --Sid (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered about that one. What's the story there? DickTurpis (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then again, since he's CP's resident expert on anal sex, that might have been him trying to edit his own pet articles. --Sid (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot. Science. Sandbox.

Since the question about "Hot. Science. RationalWiki" came up:

• Ed tests^img "ifexist", resulting in "hot science"^img
• Andy stumbles in, showing us what he knows: Lemon Party^img and tub girl^img
• And finally: Rationalwiki^img
• The resulting page became a motto: Hot. Science. RationalWiki.^img

There you go, a handy history lesson. =P --Sid (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Those were heady days indeed. I still thrill to the fact that Schlafly wrote our best slogan. But not that he made me google LP and TG... ħuman 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Immature trolling or completely accurate?

Or can it be both?^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or quite possibly, both. CS Miller (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bold text--Radioactive PIzza (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) HAHAHA what a tool!!!

Oversighted already. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 09:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed always makes a morning better.

I started out a little sick, but I was laughing like crazy halfway through this wonderful comment. Tell me Ed, what exactly is controversial about your creepy obsession with.... Oh, never mind. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the second WIGO-T section with this diff. Stop pestering him. In the words of the great poet "Surfer Dude":

Ya need to wake up and smell the fresh air

and hear the seagulls calling

and the surf rushing to the shore;

feel the sand beneath your toes and more.

Ever questing for that perfect balance

between wave and board

Swimming out eager for a thrill

and riding happy homeward.

Internetmoniker (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone else mentioned this? Where at? I looked around, but I didn't see it. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor tidbit

I do like the delicious irony in the latest Ed Poor WIGO (and well done to the WIGO writer for not using the term "irony meter"), but my favourite part is the edit comment. How does Ed know that liberals hate pointless 81byte stubs about crap films? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concise, accurate, no-nonsense article. "The Celestine Prophecy" is, in fact, a movie. Ed got 100% of his facts right. --Maquissar (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that edit comment either, "liberal" moonbats are pretty much the target audience for that book & movie. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless Ed is getting self-referential and by "this sort of thing" he means his Ed-stubs and by "liberals" he means us, in which case, we don't hate them, Ed, we just find them a source of mirth (about as much as you calling Lara Croft "slutty"), coming from the much-vaunted user 188. --PsygremlinZungumza! 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So I just looked at CP's Tomb Raider article and noticed a few things. First off, it's complete and well written. Where did they steal it from? I looked into wikipedia, but I don't see it there. Second, about 95% of the article was done by Karajou.... Guess we know what the swabbie does when he finishes with the "girl in the yellow dress." SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not be a contrarian but I believe it was RobS who has a thing for girls in yellow dresses. Correct me if I am wrong. --Damo^Hi 08:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

This is just too perfect. If anyone here has an unused sock, now would be a great time to head over there and add some inconvenient facts to their articles. Nothing snarky, just add some genuine truths and see how long it takes them to get shot down. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

one more that might be added to the wigo as a PS. That whole story made my brains turn inside out. "Huffpo censors crazy ex-wrestler for being 9/11 truther!" Also, I was amazed at how many people everywhere can't parse "levels" of truthism - all Venture is questioning is why and how WTC7 was brought down, and he's basing his query on what might be a very legitimate petitiony thing. Big question I did not see anywhere: are some buildings built with demolition materials already in place, knowing none will last "forever"? Or not, ever? ħuman 03:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this petition, but Venture's claims are straight Trutherism. He certainly uses all their memes - thermite, free-fall acceleration, "straight down into their own footprint," the obsession with WTC7, etc. There may well be degrees of crazy among Truthers - say, between those who proffer conspiracy theories and those in the "government let it happen" camp. However, Ventura clearly falls into the "9/11 was an inside job" camp (he wouldn't have shown up on Alex Jones's site otherwise) so I think your concern is unfounded. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

JacobB now has a FBI all for him alone: Lagrange... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My God, he oversited that entire conversation. Jacob has been taking lessons from TK. Their deceit knows no bounds. Keegscee (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He's learning from a pro. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! he gets oversight handed to him straight up. The CBP has benefits! Even Ed and TK had to wait for their 'promotions' to oversight ability. Clearly the need for deceitful cover-ups over there has become great. Lovely to see Jacob oversighting people pointing out his own lies. Straight from the TK book of How to be a Cunt. Well done to Jacob for overtaking Bugler as Best Parodist on CP. --Psygremlin말하십시오 13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm still more of a Bugler fan. He operated more through hilarious ad-homs, whereas 90% of Jacob's actions are blocks rather than parodic comments/additions to articles. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In that respect I agree (altho I'm biased against Bugler, thanks to the sleepless nights he gave me over on CP). However, no other RW mole has managed to get oversight before. Maybe he can go for bureaucrat next. --PsygremlinZungumza! 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is odd that Jacob got oversight rights so quickly - perhaps he has had some private chats with Andy? In any case, it would be awesome if he becomes a 'crat. I wonder what he would do with it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK none of the current goon squad were given oversight at the time of their sysop promotion. Karajerk, Ed, TK and JPratt were all "promoted" to oversight last year, as Andy felt the need to cover up more and more.PsygremlinKhuluma! 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic how Andy repeatedly claims that "CP doesn't censor" in spite of his liberal (haha) oversight policy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think Bugler was the best parodist of all time, in that parody is supposed to be funny. Bugler's brilliant work made me laugh out loud many times, and I'm snorting right now just remembering some choice examples. JacobB, on the other hand, is occasionally funny, but he's far more akin to TK than to Bugler. Jerkishness for the sake of jerkishness isn't funny. And yet, I think a case can be made that JacobB is the greatest parodist of all time, for at least two reasons. First, no parodist has ever earned the rights he has. Second, his encouraging Andy to jump in with the CBP led directly to a lot of attention to CP from the outside, culminating in the appearance on Colbert. Not all of that is on Jacob, but he needs to get some credit.

If you're reading this Jacob (and I'm pretty sure he is), why not try taking more inspiration from Bugler and less from TK? Burndall (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Nicely put, Burndall! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. However, Jacob good at getting little digs in, like reminding us^img that Holy St Ronnie's wife consulted an astrologer, even though there's a special place in hELL for them. --Psygremlin講話 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gone.^img Burndall (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's back again!^img. JacobB is teasing TK again. This can't end well. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugler lived in a different time, a time when a bit of back and forth could go on. If anyone argued with JB about something JP,TK, or KJ would block then for arguing liberal points, and no digs would remain. He has to race to earn those sysop points. --Opcn (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're letting nostalgia (and your desire to make a point) tint your recollection of Bugler. His "Best of..." reel would have some serious funnies on it, but day to day his "cover" was incredibly asinine. This very page had loooong debates as to whether he was even a parodist or not before that became settled lore (and then of course he outed himself). Ask Helpjazz if you don't believe me. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not he was funny himself, what was undeniably funny was the fact that he was only "outed" when the Arsehole wanted to sysop him and he slipped up on his "name". Up until then he'd been seen as a epitome of all that was conservapedian. His arrogant manner was exactly suited to the atmosphere there and good old Terry K is no different. 14:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Er, yes. And the thesis put forward slightly above was that Jacob should emulate Bugler instead of TK because of the Bug-dog's joie de vivre or somesuch. So, despite the tone of your comment, I'll read you as agreeing with me. Cheers! 173.10.105.29 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS I can't remember if his handle was ever discussed, but has anyone heard the Podcast "The Bugle"? They call their listeners "Buglers" and a Bugler would be someone who might very well enjoy winding CP up... nothing conclusive, just occurred to me while swimming my dog at the lake a little while ago. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd never heard of 'The Bugle' until Bugler was well under way. Nor British BNP neo-fascist Dominic Bugler, or whatever his name was. I just thought Bugler sounded like a nice name. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Truly a thing of Beauty, part II

Sorry, Psygremlin, but I really couldn't think of any better title. Read Andy's new statement on censorship policy at Conservapedia. ... Just WHERE do we start? --Maquissar (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, some parts of that statement^img are true in a way: "Our rules are specific and their application is clear and almost never disputable." - Absolutely true when you consider that the various rules are tailored explicitly to favor sysops and that most people end up being banhammered for all eternity with mail disabled. Oh, and let's not forget that if you manage to contact sysops, they will show their true colors and will either tell you to accept that you're wrong by default or drop some more abuse on you, followed by a quick "I never said that! He's obviously faking these mails and is thus a lying liberal! Good thing I banned him before he could hurt the project!" if you expose said abuse. --Sid (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the WIGO again, but Ed Poor just called raised Andy with his statement^img "We have articles on every viewpoint, and I myself am particularly devoted to controversial ideas." Honestly, they're just begging for vandalism at this point. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand blocking for "liberal vandalism", but how can you block for "inserting liberal multiculturalism and world view" and say you do not censor anyone for their ideas? Really, people at Conservapedia... if ANY of you is reading this, please make a RW account and come here to partecipate in the discussion, because, I admit it, the logic of this keeps eluding me. I promise I will treat you fairly and not abuse you, censor you, or block you, but PLEASE, explain to me just HOW this works, from a purely logical point of view. --Maquissar (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I promise to block you, but never for more than 3.15 seconds --Opcn (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I and my sock (D something or other...) feel strongly that Andy recognized that he fucked up this bit of news right away, and then had to reinvent reality around his position. When Andy is wrong at least he is Definitively wrong.--Opcn (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reinventing reality seems to be a popular pastime at Conservapedia. The first rule of intellectual honesty apparently is: never admit you are wrong, unless you happen to be wrong about an inconsequential and secondary matter, in which case you can gallantly acknowledge your mistake and show the world how open-minded you are. --Maquissar (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Opcn is right. Notice that this^img comment has gone unanswered. Basically, CP would have attacked HuffPo no matter what. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems definitive: [1]^img DickTurpis (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That whole thread is IMHO a contender for the biggest load of shit that's ever been written by Andy. SJ ^Debaser 11:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed "Kill the" Poor

I just love it when Ed pops in his two cents to a discussion. He chimes in with his opinion on something or otherwise tells us about things which he's previously done on the incorrect presumption that someone/anyone cares; "I used to boast that I could "get any idea into any article" at Wikipedia, but when they started letting users game the system to censor unpopular ideas, I decided to spend more time here instead.^img" Snore. SJ ^Debaser 11:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Remind me about that when Ed next(?!) tries for office at WP. 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Heh heh, that quote is comical on so many different levels. Ed's problem is that people actually began reading the stuff he was contributing, and came to the unfair conclusion that the esoteric ramblings of a lunatic moonie/fucking useless monkey didn't really make for encyclopedic content. Moar women who wear pants, Ed!--^{Ask me about your mother} 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the bug that crawled up Andy's ass about relativity?

A Harvard Law Review article on modern physics and law, supposedly edited by Obama (of whom Andy is infinitely jealous). I haven't read it yet, laptop is dying, figured I'd post it before hunting for a power cord. --Opcn (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Soooo long. Anyone want to read it and sum it up in a paragraph? Keegscee (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what the fucking abstract is for! --Opcn (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Physics theories applied to none physics things usually equals postmodernist bullshit. - π 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Found a power cord! Did you read the abstract? I will load it on my kindle and read it this evening but from the abstract it seems like it is talking about the need to pay attention to the judicial footprint on the social landscape and using physics as an analogy. Which is valid. --Opcn (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Though the analogy is valid, I'm suspicious because the abstract used the words "paradigm shift" and "context," both of which usually indicate that the work is postmodernist. But I'll take a better look at it tomorrow when I am awake. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the analogy is not valid. As suggested above, it's postmodernist bullshit. By the way, Andy has railed about this article (it's a twofer! Obama/Law Review and relativity!) several times in the past. Gauss (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Using an idea from physics as an analogy is a valid thing to do, using a weak analogy is not. I have not read the analogies in this paper so I was not commenting on their validity, sorry for the confusion. If you poo-poo the idea of physics analogies for political things then you should expect a backlash (get it, because backlash is a physics analogy that has been universally accepted)--Opcn (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr - laws affect society, which in turn affect the laws society produces. 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

I think TSpencer owns an eighth-grade science textbook and is looking up buzzwords, because I don't understand what he's going on about^img. – Nick Heer 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the Creationist's kind of Second Law of Thermodynamics. (i.e. Bullshit due to lack of understanding of what the laws should be)

He is referring to the problem that since Mice can regenerate limbs before the mutation that disables such ability (which the mutation is in the set of mutations they referred to as "the Fall"), There is no such thing as "beneficial mutation" [that, or all mutation that occurs randomly are harmful]. Ergo, he argues that evolution is false.

Meanwhile, If deleting a gene gives the mice limb regeneration, that means If mice are created, one can GE the mouse to make it the state before the Fall (by combinatorial modifications) and thus The Fall isn't done by God because if God is anywhere near omnipotent, there should be ways to prevent mortals to reverse the process (otherwise God isn't in charge of everything or "sovereign" as they call it). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that no mutation can be beneficial it's that they all "loose information". Lensky found the his E. coli lost specificity in a sugar transporter and were able to take up citrate, if you were to have the mutation revert you would then find that the citrate transporter lost the ability to transport citrate. Evolve to grow wings? You lost the ability to not grow wings! Creationists have re-framed "loosing" to be something that sounds profound but isn't true, or something that is true but is not profound, and now they are trying to cram both ways of being into one spot. The typical "have your cake and eat it too" story. --Opcn (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, I'm a monkey who lost most of his tree-climbing abilities and shit-throwing skills. And my prehensile tail and the fingers on my feet. ħuman 00:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most widely misused scientific concepts around. It gets summarized as "disorder always increases" or other similarly oversimplified-to-the-point-of-being-wrong bumper-sticker catchphrases, but all you have to do is look around to see that that's not correct. For starters, the law only applies in a closed system. In an open system, where energy flows in and out, the second law is violated all the damn time. The genome of a mouse is not a thermodynamically closed system. If it were, there wouldn't be any, y'know, mice. Which means no Tom and Jerry cartoons. Which is just unthinkable. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

JacobB and TK

I notice that since JacobB has ascended the ranks, there's been some occasional, shall we say, defiance in his dealings with TK. Noted above is a good example - TK deletes an article and JacobB takes exception to this, :restoring it. No one else would get away with insubordination like that, but JacobB's rank now lets him get away with it. Does anyone remember any other such instances that stand out?

Now that JacobB has gained the same privileges as TK (c/d?), and that, despite his relatively recent appearance, he's probably a little more trusted by Andy than TK is (given TK's controversial history), TK must be feeling pretty stung that he now has to suck-up to someone who was formerly well beneath him. I wonder if he wishes he had banned him as the parodist he so obviously is, back when he could have gotten away with it? I wonder if JacobB will ever rise above TK and get cratship?

Whatever the case, I'm glad TK made this immense fuckup, because JacobB is a lot more entertainment than TK ever will be. And now he's here to stay. TK has ever so slightly lost his grip on the reins. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"reins" ħuman 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion log 09:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Thanks both, I thought i'd fucked that word up but decided to take a gamble. Edited. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And TK deletes again... "Unauthorized". --MarkGall (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt's new creative block excuses

• 20:28, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked Jaydon3987 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP is blacklisted in seven lists. )
• 19:20, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked NornamJB (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP blacklisted on four sites)
• 18:57, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked BenJ (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP blacklisted on four sites)
• 18:43, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked HenryC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP blacklisted on four sites)

"Blacklisted on four sites": Ooh, sounds serious! Pray tell, Jpatt, which websites would those be? Junggai (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

More Jpatt Twitter Stupidity

Anything to pass the time while I'm hot and bored here.
"Rape is no excuse to kill another human being" says the stupid one, who clearly has no problem with a woman being lumped with an unwanted child on top of the trauma of being sexually assaulted. Let's hope it's a situation he's never faced with.

However, taking Johnny's statement a bit further, it would appear as if several justice systems disagree with you, Johnny boy.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Or is it the Conservative double standard about "Aw, he's too tiny, Festus. Throw it back, we'll get it when it's big." --Psygremlin話しなさい 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Very ironic that a strong pro-death penalty conservative would be make such an extreme statement.... Guess we know how Jpatt stands on capitol punishment. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At least people who say fetus=human being are consistent when they reject abortions for rape victims. Certainly no one would condone killing a baby who was born from rape, and in their view it's the same thing. (The notion that they are the same is, of course, ridiculous, but given that they hold these views I can at least appreciate the consistency. This logic also seems to condone the murdering of abortion doctors.) DickTurpis (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does. I don't care about your brilliance nor your website. I am against capitol punishment, the person should rot in jail. The guilty put to death is nowhere near a crime. --193.200.150.137 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always wanted to say this: English, Motherfucker! Do you speak it? --PsygremlinПоговорите! 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't getting enough roughage today. Your word salad is just the thing I needed. DickTurpis (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh the agony of insults. You know if ou rearrange the letters in your name- it spells sick turd pi--193.200.150.152 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that JPatt wants to pull this out is that he plans to do exactly that in order to reproduce. I suppose Phyllis the elder has said the wife has consented to it so it till death or divorce do they part so it isn't called rape then. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know he is married with children. If all you are going to do is make vile and potentially slanderous accusations against CP sysops, could you please save us a law suit and not post here. - π 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment edited. But still that sounds like a plan to suggest people to act like that if not Jpatt himself. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Truly a thing of Beauty

From the ABC News Forums (they linkied to moi's blog! glee!). I'm not sure who Razmanian Devil is, but I think I love him:

“”Sadly, I know Andrew from my law school days and time has not mellowed him in any respect. He is still a collosal jerk from the looks of it.

--PsygremlinSiarad! 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to make comments about Andy without all the rabid hate you'll display. Something to ponder. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Is that an actual question? Megaten (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something to ponder indeed... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

^{Don't Feed} _{The Paranoiac}

20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ContribsTalk

Good blog post there, Gremlin. Yup, that poor son of Phyllis is having a rough time of it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Razmanian Devil might present a very unique opportunity. I always wanted to get an account of Andy from someone who knew (or knows) him outside of his little online kingdom. Might be worth extending Raz an invitation and seeing if Andy is indeed as unpleasent and ignorant as his online babblings suggest he is. - --Tygrehart (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Tygrehart

@Rob - I treat Andy with the same respect and courtesy he treats people he disagrees with. I've signed up on the forum, with the intention of chatting with RD and see if he will provide any more info on Andy. --Psygremlin話しなさい 11:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Psy. Keep us posted. Inquiring minds want to know. -Tygrehart

Well, it's pretty clear Andy isn't as loathsome in person as he is online (various first hand accounts point to that, and, in fact, no one ever is). Some information I would like to know that he may be able to supply is this: was Andy a candidate for President of the Harvard Law Review the year Obama won? I recall there were some inquiries made a while back, but we never got an answer. I think it would be quite telling indeed if Andy lost his bid for this rather prestigious position to Obama so many years ago. Apparently there were many candidates. DickTurpis (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's just it though. Andy always struck me as one of the those people who saw the world as being populated by two types: Superiors and Subordinates. Superiors are to be toadied and sucked up to, subordinates are to be used for his purposes or ignored. Take his appearance on the Colbert Report. He knows he is not the big fish in that pond, thus he tones down his usual craziness and goes along with the gag. On Conservapedia he is lord and master and all who edit there do so at his pleasure. This is where the more @$$holish nature comes out. From that PVP palace he saw fit to write not one but two curt, demanding, and arguably rude emails to Prof. Lenski with a vague threat to turn over "all the data" or be exposed as a fraud and huckster. Lenski, who has more training, experience, and even basic understanding of the mechanisms of evolution than he ever will was nothing more than a lowly peon to Andy who felt he could boss around as he pleased. This is who I believe the true Andy is. Given Raz's comment it sounds like they either had to work under or beside him (which, in his world translates to below) on something and I would be curious to know how he is when the cameras aren't rolling and he is not beholden to anyone. - Tygrehart

Geezuz Gawd. Would any of you describe the above posting as "Rational Analysis"? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You really should learn what words mean before you use them, Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What about you, Dick? Find any faulty structures in that posting? or are you so blinded by hate and ignorance, I bet your next step is to attack me, too. Huh? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Take your fucking meds. DickTurpis (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Amen, bro. Case closed. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob your complaints about rabid hate would hold more water if you yourself did not smear every person left of Rush Limburgh with rabid hate. - π 03:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And for the record I am a Rational Pagan. I realize that doesn't mean much to you, but please learn the distinction. - Tygrehart

Smear? Any particular example? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RobS and the Red Scare

(Broke this bit out into its own subsection because it really has nothing to do with the main topic above other than Rob's paranoia and trolling. -Tygrehart)

Hey, check it out! My Obama+mao entry is #1 on Bing! [9] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job answering your own question. - π 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of an idiot grin for us CP geeks? -- Mei (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Scarface said, I never screwed anybody over who didn't have it coming, or as Jim Hightower says, the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill (to wit, Sen. Ben Nelson is a good example). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you babbling about? Have you been drinking again? SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

EC Thanks Rob! This is going straight in my collection. I also love your work on talk:Communism (off the top of my head). Pure genius. -- Mei (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes! Memory lane. [10] Let's reword the commie protagonists words and substitute "Nazi" for "communist," the argument would read, "'We should not enact Nazi policies because past Nazis were evil people' is not really a rational argument."

Anybody here care to sign thier name to that gem of an argument? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob never change. -- Mei (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the choices under Obamacare, I'd choose the firing squad. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't stop! I can barely breathe! ħuman 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My girlfriend says that, and guess what, she's a communist. She says "you see commies under the bed, you need to keep the commies in your bed." RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop choking her with that red scarf! ħuman 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://blog.ronharris.com/?m=200902 is this your girlfriend, Rob?] Aceⁱ⁹ 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] She's a few years older than that. Her father was a commie union organizer subpoenaed before Congressional Committees(Communist activities in the Chicago, Illinois area, pre-Obama). She knows Ayers, Dohrn, the Meerpols, Kathy Boudin, and many others. An incredible wealth of information. And she remains an ardent left-winger. Right now she's leaving town to visit old friends in a vegetarian hippie commune in Las Vegas New Mexico were they debate if leaving the bathroom door open is beougois. I kid you not. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean she finds you, the cunning linguist, unmoving? Surprise surprise... --Opcn (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I am calling you out. I say "Bullshit". You would never spead your herpes to a lefty. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of herpes, any of you guys read this classic yet, Black Like Mao? Truelly inspiring. Check out Mao's quote at the start of the chapter, "Black World Revolution" on page 6. Til now I only had it sourced to Mao's Little Red Book in cp:Barack Hussein Obama#Early life and career, but now we got a piece of commie agitprop targeted at American blacks using the same quote. God is good! RobSmith^{don't bother me} 07:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So your fucked in the head then Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Um "Las Vegas New Mexico"??? Really? ħuman 08:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If Rob told me the Earth orbited the sun,I'd convert to Geocentrism. 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

If Rob told me the universe revolved around your girlfriend's left ankle, I'd fight you for the first chew on that bone. ħuman 09:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@Human: To be fair to Rob, yes, really. Strangely enough, it's close to San Antonio and Hot Springs, NM. Junggai (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not the Imus Ranch. These mountains are full of wacked out old communes. Must be something in the water after all the nuclear tests they did here. And it's not Madrid New Mexico, either. [11] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I think you should look into some support group. Maybe a Communist hatred therapy discussion or something. You seem to have some pretty serious commie paranoia issues. I don't know if you noticed, but there are NO communist states anymore. The states that do call themselves communist are either some strange socialist/capitolist hybrid with totalitarian leanings (China) or just a straight dictatorship (Cuba). You won, let it go. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 16:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Black Like Mao: Red China and Black Revolution published in 1999 (after the Maoist Obama/Ayers/Dohrn Action Faction purged CPUSA/Kremlin operative Alice Palmer from thier ranks), page 1, "It seems Chairman Mao has been enjoying a resurrection in popularity among the youth. His image and ideas consistently turn up in a myriad of cultural and political contexts. The Coup, a popular San Fransisco Bay Area hip-hop group, restored Mao Zedong to the pantheon of black radical hereos...." Interesting how liberal leftists rehabilitated the worlds greatest mass-murderer, ever. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Which liberal leftists might these be? The CCP? The Chiniese media? Just the Coup? All of us?

And personally I would have thought that the biggest mass murderer was God, what with the Flood, Sodom and the Crusades and that manner of jazz. EddyP (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a very good point there, Rob. Certainly the barometer for measuring social movements in the US is imagery promoted bu Bay area Hip-Hop outfit "The Coup". Reminds me of the adage "As The Coup goes so goes the Nation". Truer words were never spoken. DickTurpis (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Golly Gee Gomer! Lookie what we have here on page 34, "The authors would like to thank Henry Louis Gatges Jr. for proposing this article in the first place." Henry Gates of "Do you know who I am?" and the Beer Summit fame. [12] How were we to know Prof. Gates is the man who inspired Black Like Mao? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Beer summit.jpg

Evidence Exhibit #4755 in RobSmith's "Unified Theory of the Communist Infiltration of the USA."

What "article"? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea how incoherent everything you say is? TYFM! DickTurpis (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Page 34 here, top column left under Notes. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait.... So one black Academic suggesting an article means this is obviously relevant and current information? and by the way, you still overlook the fact that communism has lost. Mao was not a successful communist. China has never been true communist. They've been a weird totalitarian socialist society from the start. I think you're throwing out words you don't understand. Go to your nearesy community college and take a political science course would you? SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Buggery! It looks like you can't contact posters on ABC forums directly, so can't get hold of Razmanian Devil (unless teh stoopids haz me again). Anyway, I've posted the question on the board. --PsygremlinSpeak! 18:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it just the guinness...

... Or does the photo Ken is using for his new masterwork look an awful lot like a gathering of leprechauns? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things immediately strike me about this;

• The image has no copyright info at all, Ken hasn't even bothered to 'fair use' it.
• The following 3 pages link to this file:

Homosexuality Causes of Homosexuality Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality

The man's fucking obsesseed. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is now gone. Capturetags, people! ^{ONE / TALK} 09:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They weren't "desecrated" (by definition one)

It took me a minute to figure out this CP In the News bit.

My first thought was that Conservative was defending vandalism of atheist bus ads, which would be absolutely WIGO-worthy. Then I caught on that he was questioning the use of the word 'desecrate', whose first definition at Merriam-Webster mentions sanctity, which is close enough to "sacred". Of course, the second definition refers to general maltreatment, so "desecrate" is not an inappropriate word. MDB (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He phrased that news bit very carefully - he doesn't state his position on the issue at all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gah! Beat me to it. I love how only the definition that suits Andy's worldview is applicable. Btw, what's happened to his writing course? --PsygremlinParla! 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It will begin as soon as Ken has finished writing the course materials. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment made me laugh. Then it made me cry. --PsygremlinFale! 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked him when the next lesson would, and I think he said it was delayed by the weather, but coming soon. I got a chuckle out of the idea that something that everyone participates in without having to go outside being delayed by snow. Though if his power was out for a bit that would put a bit of a Spaniard in the works. ħuman 21:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO-Worthy, but good for a smirk

TK has The Knickers in The Knot because the White House hasn't posted the final provisions of the health care bill.

All of twenty minutes later... whoops! They posted it! Nevermind! MDB (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The best part is that he took the time to upload a pic for the occasion.^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One he obtained from Fox News via "fair use", a view I'm certain their attorneys would share. MDB (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he have to make it first? After all, everything he uploads was "made by TK". --PsygremlinSnakk! 18:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, its directly from Faux News. MDB (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think Fox News would go after Conservapedia, of all places, for using that image. If liberals were doing it somehow, then maybe. ^{ONE / TALK} 21:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox are known for going after people for ccpyright violations. I would imagine that sooner or later they will catch up with CP. And by the way I believe that's the exact reason TK is using the images. I really doubt very much their inaction has anything to do with politics so much as CP just aren't on their radar. I would guess anyway. StarFish (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox worrying about the threat from CP would be like the US worrying about the threat from Monaco. Same page ideologically, but a substantial difference in scale. MDB (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We couldn't make this up

At the blog We couldn't make this up, there is an entry on Conservapedia’s Zeugloden Blues chat room. It claims to be the original chat of some of conservapedia's sysops from Feb 2008 until Feb 2009 - and it surely reads like it. As usual, I looked for the mathematical highlights, and I was rewarded:

On Jan 4, 2009, cp:User:Conservative reports that a blocked user mailed him (of all!) and complained on two mathematical articles, cp:center and cp:decimal number. As Ken is out of his depths, he asks the big ones for help. And he gets the advise of a veritable expert, cp:User:Ed Poor states his credentials: "I think that a 760 SAT in math (in high school) qualifies me as a math expert and I am suspicious that hardly any one but me has been able to produce an error-free article on any aspect of math below the university level. He has no problems with the articles, so everything is okay. And so, still today, at least the article on cp:center is a fountain of joy: The center of a cp:geometric shape is a point that, on average, the points of the shape are cp:equidistant from. This point does not have to be on the shape itself. - how can points be on average equidistant? Oh, the marvels of conservapedian mathematics!

If the archives are true, well, it's everything one expects: Ed Poor is a pompous ass, TK is just an ass, Aschlafly chimes in with absolutely uncorrelated remarks, which get interpreted by his acolytes. Tim S. looks like an ordinary guy, struggling in vain to keep some decency for conservapedia... If they are faked - as TK will claim - well, it's fun to read.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They can't be fake. There's thousands of posts there, and it matches up with the timeline. Personally I'm astounded by how they let TK back in and Andy's complete lack of leadership. EddyP (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I briefly looked into it and found "How long are we going to tolerate TK?" (860/d0f1c0a9e00ee7da.html). And man, Geo managed to exceed my expectations when it came to failing as a parole officer:

PJR: TK has also repeatedly violated the "Civility" section of the Guidelines page, as I also documented a short time ago.

Geo: When did Andy specifically approve civility? It provides a stick for RW to hit us with.

PJR: Are you really suggesting that users don't have to be civil?

Plus other gems in the same thread, like Geo being against permanent bans and for rehabilitation of users... as long as "users" means "TK".

Oh, and if someone can supply a CSS file that fixes the horrible formatting, I'd be quite thankful. --Sid (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/ -- Nx / talk 13:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that's awesome! Thanks! =D --Sid (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Though it sometimes seems to remove short messages. :/ For example in "260/cb6952f5e2b70b6c.html". Guess it wasn't really made for this weird reason. XD --Sid (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TK might claim they're fake, but he released them... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. These aren't fake, but they're not real either - someone has messed with these, consistently, each page. Not sure what they're trying to cover up, but these aren't straight downloads. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

they fit PJR's tale of the events - and they remind me why PJR seemed so exceptional at CP: he was the only one to stand up against Andy, questioning his erratic behavior, and he didn't regard every editor at first as an enemy... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

628 - the battle over MYOB between PJR and Dean - is good. I've gotta admire PJR (and Tim) for standing up for the right thing in so many places, despite massive opposition. Also, check the Saloon bar for a proposal of mine regarding this. EddyP (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Geo just a kid? (no offence intended, young uns) Putting him "in charge" of TK is like puuting a sheep in charge of a hyena's diet. 13:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Which is probably why a couple of weeks later TK quietly removed his own parole restrictions and nothing more was said about the matter. Geo made about as effective parole officer as Mary Poppins would. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Geo's not as old as most other CP sysops. His user page says "While I am not yet in college", which gives you a rough estimation. And the MYOB discussion sums up CP in a single line:

"The liberals are taking advantage of our compassion": WHAT compassion?

Small wonder that Philip lasted as long as he did, really. --Sid (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Guantanamo discussion (same folder, it apparently triggered the MYOB thread), Karajou nicely sums up CP's double standards (emphasis mine): " I'm not going to tolerate any liberal individual who tries using force to control the content of the site." Man, this archive is a gold mine... --Sid (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I love you guys. What's a zeugloden? mb 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeuglodon --aSKTim 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Andy has said this before but I found this concerning why Andy keeps TK around despite his attempts at "harming" CP. He's never vandalized the site and his self-initiated "double agent" work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely that. It was not a sincere effort to harm the site. This is in folder 250, very bottom of the folder. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No dice, that's the plot line from Hairy Potter!--Opcn (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugh, Ed refers to the group of sysops(him included) as "The Talented Ten". (860, last one) Internetmoniker (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Think that's funny? Here is something hilarious: they have another special "more secret" sysop group called "Cp-Fab-Five" for TK's elite chosen sysops: ASchlafly, TK, Ed Poor, Geo and Karajou. They talk shit about the other CP sysops there. LOL. News flash: it's not as secret as TK would like, obviously. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a separate page just devoted to this. I've barely scratched the surface and I'm already floored by the insanity of TerryH. This is going to take up a good deal of my time for a while. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How about creating a project page we can use for discussion and ideas on how the conversations can be used? Kind of like a clearing house. The page could be messy, but we could archive or delete it once we're done picking through the conversations. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Completely in favor of this suggestion. There is just too much material to be restricted to this section. And do I read this correctly? At one point, Philip wasn't in the group, but KEN was? WOW. --Sid (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the Saloon Bar, I think that we should create a page pointing people towards the interesting messages so that they don't have to trawl through all 900. Also, would like to remind JacobB to start making copies of their new SDG. EddyP (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You crap lovers have nothing again. When will you learn that we move forward and nothing, nothing will stop us. Go ahead and read through all the glorious nothings posted. Liberalism is on the ropes so I understand why your pea-brains are interested. You're all a big joke that amounts to a circle jerk. Enjoy as you climax.--193.200.150.152 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 193.200.150.152. Anyways, since TK leaked these, and well AFTER he was banned and returned AND re-sysopped, doesn't this sort of give him away, totally? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TK's been given away (often by himself) many times before. This hasn't stopped him yet. EddyP (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TK also made the first SDG public way back then. Since then, he became a sysop (again) with CheckUser and Oversight rights and was allowed into THIS group. Basic lesson is that TK can do no wrong, no matter how much wrong he does. --Sid (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What's particularly amusing is the way that the sysops insulted him when he wasn't in the group - TerryH calling his actions 'T-R-E-A-S-O-N', Karajou declaring he would never be in such a group at the same time as TK - but now that TK's back they're all kneeling before him. EddyP (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

EddyP says, "Andy's complete lack of leadership;" Tygrehart up yonder says, "Andy always struck me as one of the those people who saw the world as being populated by two types: Superiors and Subordinates. Superiors are to be toadied and sucked up to, subordinates are to be used for his purposes." At least you're all on the same song sheet and probably make sense to each other. Thank God for Rational Analysis. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Get a fucking clue, Rob. Only at authoritarian wikis blogs like Conservapedia is everyone required to tow a single party line and is dissent crushed. Rational, indeed. Junggai (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Rob will shortly regale us with tales of how Andy's sterling leadership held the CP boat together at various critical times. Editors he's driven off? What editors? Problems he's ignored? What problems? EddyP (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tow a single line? How many times has TK said he's not a YECreationist? And me, I don't even have a view on the matter cause I know nothing about it. So, there are three different lines to be towed. Seems to me, your collective irrational hate of Andy clouds your collective judgment and opinion on things. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point, but our hate (if it can be called that - it's really closer to disgust, disdain, and pity) is far from irrational. For example:

• He believes the Bible has liberal bias
• He doesn't believe in relativity
• He thinks Obama is a Muslim

Need I continue? The point is, while there is some groupthink here to a small extent, Andy has definitely proven himself to be worthy of our disdain. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob... You and TK like to throw that one around don't you. Small differences like OEC/YEC are but a drop in the bucket. Anyone who doesn't toe the line on the bigger things is, shall we say, politely removed from the site?" SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, nobody is saying that everybody at CP believes the same things, but it's undeniable that CP will in the end say what Andy believes, period. We know Ed's an Old Earth Creationist. And yet Ed never seems to speak up against cp:Counterexamples to an Old Earth. I'm sure some people believe in General Relativity, and yet surprisingly few sysops voiced their objections against cp:Counterexamples to Relativity. Hmmmmm. Tell me, where were you when Andy declared Jesus' healing powers evidence against relativity? People who contradict Andy are wrong by definition because Andy's opinions are The Truth. Here, let me quote your fellow sysops (from 320/4fe9e7f404a424e2.html):

CPAdmin1: "What is CP? Is it an outlet for Andy's opinion? Is it a political attack machine with the goal of making liberals look bad and conservatives look good? or is it an encyclopedia concerned primarily with truth? That question has to be answered before we can proceed here." (and later) "However, if he wants the site to be based solely on his personal opinions, THEN HE SHOULD NOT ADVERTISE IT AS A FACT-BASED ENCYCLOPEDIA."

TerryH: (after some back and forth) "The answer to your question is: /both/. If Andy Schlafly does not base his opinions on fact, then what do you think he bases them on? If the site cannot be "based on his personal opinions" and "based on fact" at the same time, what does that make him? You have called him a /liar/!"

Oh gosh, memories... I think there were some judas comparisons thrown around too... --aSKTim 01:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On CP, you have the freedom to disagree with Andy's insights, but you should never actually voice them. People who break this simple rule are troublemakers. You know... like PJR, that darn liberal who kept defending darn liberals against stuff like "MYOB" and "If you were blocked, you did something wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been blocked." --Sid (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or how about the thread where Ed announced he had booted Philip from the list (360/a7a377bc9c5117a7.html)?

Geo.plrd: "Openly fighting with Andy in the Barack Obama article is rebelliousness. The posts here about bad decisions are insubordination."

DeanS: "I think Dan served as a good example. Dan really objected to the Obama article and left. He realized he wasn't going to change Andy's mind and decided he could use his time better elsewhere. Philip can do the same thing. He has crossed the line from disagreeing to insubordination and rebelliousness to Andy in public. Philip should either respect Andy's decision and apologize for his disrespect or leave Conservapedia."

Conservative: "As it stands now, if Andy is mistaken about a issue/fact in an article, it will stay no matter what. It doesn't matter how important or high profile the article is, the error stays as it is now if Andy wants it to. I do think this state of affairs is not desirable." (Yes, I just cited Ken as a voice of reason. Hell has officially frozen over.)

Geo.plrd: (again) "While it is fine for a Sysop to privately disagree with Andy, we need to present a unified public appearance."

Yep, totally not towing the party line... no, sir... --Sid (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In which Crazy Rob Drives off on some wild tangent

So, other than that, how did Jimbo Wales ever get his unofficial title as benevolent dictator and god-king? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody other than fringe Conservapedians actually think CP and Wikipedia have anything remotely to do with one another, so that comparison is pointless. NOBODY HERE IS SAYING WIKIPEDIA DOES ANYTHING BETTER (although a list of things that are done better there... nevermind), this is a discussion of Conservapedia in and of itself. Wikipedia has an autocratic leader who subverts the truth to his whim? Whatever. No clue if it's true or not, and it's not germane. So fine, they do. I take it you've just conceded that Conservapedia is, in fact, Andy's blog, since your only retort is "just like Jimbo," right? 67.170.6.1 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, plenty of people here are saying Wikipedia does much better. I am, for one. Obviously it's not perfect, but it is nearly impossible to be any worse of an "encyclopedia" than CP. I don't give a hit one way or another about Jimbo, but he does remain pretty far distanced from the day to day squabbles and goings on at WP. Rob, if you can find one example of Jimbo inserting his personal opinion into an article, and defending it against question merely on his say-so, I'll be shocked. Link the diffs, please; they don't oversight the way CP does. DickTurpis (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dick, I'd be glad to. And let's keep this on a the plane of a rational discussion. Jimbo Wales told Editor & Publisher magazine, "I don't consider Daniel Brandt an expert on anything at all." Let's examine this statement, (1) made to the premier granddaddy trade journal in the publishing business. (2) denies the notability of the subject article. (3) if the the subject is non-notable, why keep his bio? (4) Granted, Jimbo did not himself edit Brandt's bio, however 1300 sysop suckups adopted Jimbo's opinion about Brandt and refused Brandt's wishes to have it deleted.

There's more, but I'll await your response to these points. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh for shit's sake, Dick. Thanks for reminding me why I tell myself not to do this anymore. 67.170.6.1 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you ignored the request for difflinks. ħuman 04:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Brandt's bio has now been oversighted, but I do have a fairly accurate record of what occurred with endorsements from Brandt and others. Here's what Brandt said to me, "Did I ever thank you for your hard work (as User:RobSmith) on the articles about Chip Berlet and Wikipedia on Conservapedia? A bit right-wing slanted, I must confess, but nevertheless an important counterforce to the crap that passes for that "encyclopedia" we call "Wikipedia." [13] Here's what the WikipediaReview moderator credited with exposing Ryan Jordan as Essjay said of my version of events, "the version of the Essjay story is one of the more accurate ones I've seen." [14] It was over the Brandt's issue the WP:BLP was formulated, read the first editors comment, "I started this due to the Daniel Brandt situation." [15] This occurred in the midst of my Arbitrration and the Siegenthaler controversies, events that Brandt was directly or indirectly associated with. I am an eyewitness to all these events.

Now the point is, to address Dick's question, what other WP bio ever had the notable weight of Mr. Jimbo Wales being cited in WP, in comments Jimbo Wales made to Editor & Publisher, essentially calling someone a nutcase, alongside other highly defamatory smears placed by an editor who cites himself, which violates WP's own policies? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob...... You do realize that CP has a completely unverifiable PRIVATE DINNER CONVERSATION that may or may not have happened in the Early 90's right? No really..... I'm not joking..... Still don't believe me..... here's my proof. You must have a hard time finding underwear that doesn't cut off blood circulation, cause you have some huge fucking balls to sit here and complain about any kind of sourcing issues on WP. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Does Andy defame another human being in the link you provide? Does Andy say, "In my opinion, person X's complaints about how we enforce our policies is meaningless because, according to our own self published, marginal fringe and extreme editors with conflicts of interest and axes to grind, person X is a fascist holocaust denier based on guilt by association." Does Andy have an army of 1300 sycophant suckups on a top ten website to destroy a persons reputation? Did Andy ever tell CNN it is never the case false information is allowed to remain in a persons bio and then take a year and half to remove it after being notified? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 08:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Does rephrasing something as a rhetorical question make it more true? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite amused at how the subject switched from "What? CP sysops totally don't tow a single party line!" to "LOOK AT WIKIPEDIA!" the moment people made a good point. --Sid (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ, Rob, since when is saying "I don't consider Daniel Brandt an expert on anything at all" a vile, slanderous statement? Who gives a shit? You take that statement and extrapolate all sorts of shit from it. That statement, as you point out, almost reads like an endorsement to delete Brandt's bio, yet editors, without input from Jimbo, were not able to muster up a consensus to delete (at least not for a while). Now, instead of trying to show us how awesome you are with irrelevancies about Essjay and the like, why don't you show me some diffs wherein Jimbo inserts his opinion into an article as a fact? I could show you Andy doing it thousands of times, then reverting and blocking those who challenge him. I hear Jimbo is an ojbectivist; show me him trying to whitewash the Objectivism or Ayn Rand articles so they endorse his POV.

Now, while Andy obviously doesn't say "In my opinion, person X's complaints about how we enforce our policies is meaningless because, according to our own self published, marginal fringe and extreme editors with conflicts of interest and axes to grind, person X is a fascist holocaust denier based on guilt by association" in so many words, he repeatedly basically says "In my opinion, person X's complaints about how we enforce our policies is meaningless because, according to our own self published, marginal fringe and extreme editors with conflicts of interest and axes to grind, person X is a liberal who has not contributed meaningfully to this project." A bit better, but not much. DickTurpis (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You can begin following the diffs from here: cp:Wikipedia#Jimbo_Wales_chooses_sides_in_the_dispute. They are all footnoted. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, post something relevant or don't bother replying. I see Brandt/Berlet/Essjay is the new communism/Marxism/Maoism: all conversations inevitably lead to this point. I'm wondering if you're able to order a pizza without a reference to Stalin. All you've shown is that Jimbo dismissed Brandt in an interview, which is hardly surprising considering how critical of Wikipedia Brandt is. I remember the Brandt bio controversy, but purposefully stayed out of it as it looked loaded with idiocy on both sides. Brandt whined about his bio, and maybe he was treated unfairly, but WP does not delete articles on people because the subjects object to them. His bio did eventually get deleted, and I don't see any input from Jimbo in keeping it or deleting it.

Now, I asked if you could cite a single example of Jimbo inserting his POV into an article. It seems you can't. Fine. I think that alone illustrates a single major distinction between WP and CP. Obviously there are many, and CP is the inferior party in all of them, except perhaps in "conciseness" and reversion of vandalism (it's easier to oversee every edit when your site gets a few hundred edits a day other than a few million). DickTurpis (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Always amuses me when people from CP try to use the "double standards" argument. Ignoring how non sequitur and badly supported the argument is (quantity of foot notes isn't a measure of truth ya know), what are you actually trying to say, Robby boy? It's okay that the CP admins will censor anything and ban anyone which don't comply to the groupthink.. because someone at Wikipedia does it too? Bravo, you are 12! --GTac (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(A) Brandt did not become critical of WP til after it refused to take down his bio. Brandt was indeed working with WP editors at the time Wales attempted to discredit him in Editor & Publisher; (B) Wales imposed his opinion and shaped content -- slanderous content -- off wiki, with CNN & Editor & Publisher which then was cited in WP; (C) Wales influenced WP Admins in a similiar fashion in the cp:Wikipedia#The Wordbomb Saga; (D) as I understand it, WP now will allow subjects of some degree of privacy if the so express. Last I saw Chip Berlet was claiming the Brandt precedent to have his bio deleted.

The point I'm making is, the Brandt bio was created for one specific purpose only -- to maliciously slander Brandt as marginal, fringe, and extreme so that Brandt could not be used as a critic of Berlet. Jimbo Wales bent over backwards to protect Berlet who worked for the Socialist Workers Party while at the time WP's Reliable Sources policy specifically cited the Socialist Workers Party as an example of a partisan, marginal, fringe, and extreme source. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A is basically irrelevant. B you've shown no evidence for other than that Wales said he didn't consider Brandt a reliable source. I fail to see how that was slanderous. C I'll have to look into, but we're not talking about influencing ediotrs (which may or may not be benign), I'm asking you for examples of Jimbo inserting his personal views into Wikipedia and enforcing those views in a way even somewhat comparable to the way Andy constantly does on CP. And I fail to see what your point is with D.

Your second paragraph you've shown no evidence for, though I have little doubt certain editors did use Brandt's article as a platform for criticism of him (something I know Conservapedia never does). It always remained controversial, and the community was always split on how this tricky situation should be handled. But those who sided with Brandt, or supported deletion of his article, were not banned from the site and considered enemies of the state. And if the system was abused for a while, it eventually came through at least in this one instance, as Brandt's allegedly libelous article has been deleted. This is simply not comparable to the way Andy runs CP. DickTurpis (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I really care very little about the various pram/toy event s that happen on Wikipedia or elsewhere. However,I do find it hard to imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance that is required for anyone at CP to complain about any kind of bio. information on any other wiki being anything other than 100% accurate and verified, when they allow the train-wreck that is cp:Barack Hussein Obama to exist. Physician, heal thyself. Worm^{(t | c)} 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Context for (B). In a series of Arbitration cases, namely Rangerdude and Nobs01 and others, source material for Chip Berlets bio was discussed. Berlet responded wirth this diff to a quote placed in his bio, “Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”

Berlet outed the leftist writer whom the original source kept anonymous, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt," the first mention of Brandt in WP. SlimVirgin literally within moments created Brandt's bio using Berlet as the source.

SlimVirgin says here in the Rangerdude Arbcom case (see cp:Wikipedia#What is a reputable source?), "'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"93 ”

Rangerdude responded, “ the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?[94] "

It was at this point that Jimbo Wales intervened to save both Chip Berlet, and SlimVirgin's credibility with his comment to Editor & Publisher which was promptly placed, with WP:UNDUE Weight, into Brandt's bio. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a bio page specifically to attack someone's credibility in a debate? The audacity! Internetmoniker (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- I just created an article stub Conservapedia:Zeuglodon, where we can place our favorite snippets... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Rob, trying to follow your warped logic is always more trouble than its worth. You started out OK, then pulled a conclusion out of nowhere. You seem to do that a lot. Let me get this straight...

1) There is a debate over what is a reliable source, specifically: is Chip Berlet a reliable source on Brandt? Am I right so far?

2) So someone points out that extremist groups are not reliable sources, and Berlet is linked to such a group (the SWP), so therefore he should not be a reliable source. So far so good.

3) Jimbo makes some (apparently unrelated?) comment on a significant media outlet saying that he does not consider Brandt a reliable source.

4) that somehow directly ties into the previous discussion, and somehow not only condemns Brandt but exonerates Berlet, endorsing his views and declaring that whatever Berlet writes is fine? Not sure I follow. I admit, I may not have the background information I need to fully figure out what you're getting at. Or you could be nuts. Even money, probably. If Jimbo calling Brandt unreliable was put in Brandt's article, giving it undue weight, that's an editing issue, unless Jimbo added it himself (which I'm guessing he didn't). You really can't blame Jimbo if someone took a passing statement he made and prominently featured it in an article on another person. In any case, none of this has anything to do with what I was talking about, so I'm done. I have a wedding to go to this weekend, and I'm leaving town imminently. DickTurpis (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your close to seeing it. On (1) The question began over whether Brandt was a reliable source of criticism for Berlet. Brandt was never even cited directly until Berlet outed him as an anonymous source in the Chris Arabia article. Once Berlet outed Brandt, a hit piece in WP was created to discredit Brandt. Berlet cited himself (see img here) alleging Brandt was a fascist holocaust denier using guilt by association with Fletcher Prouty & the ihr. Wales granted sweeping protection to Berlet & SlimVirgin for these smears by alleging in the pages of Editor & Publisher that Brandt was not a credible source for anything other than himself. Editors who challenged Wales ruling, Berlet or SlimVirgins blanket protections -- despite standing written policies -- were barred, banned, dispatched, and slandered themselves. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By who? Those illustrious "1300 sycophantic suckups"? You do realize you are just seeing conspiracies wherever you look right? Care to show us how you got that number and the proof that they bow to Jimbo's every whim? Internetmoniker (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See WikiTruth's Brandt the Boogeyman for example. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're still seeing it from cache. That site is gone. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or Brandt's hivemind page.RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This one may be of interest, too. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Who you talking to buddy? 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to the question about WPs 1300 pimply faced sycophantic suckup sysops. Look at this letter to Salon: "Wikipedia is a mess, and it is clear evidence that he [Jimbo Wales] can't manage, can't delegate and can't organize problem solving. He's taking all the fame of Wikipedia, and is raising investment capital, while Wikipedia is a complete disaster. There are 7 paid employees at Wikipedia, and its great taht he can get all the free labor, but there is no oversight, and the content has suffered. Most administrators on Wikipedia are under the age of 18, and they have no training. You'll find 10th graders banning university professors, or teenagers who taunt private people by retaining biographies that aren't warranted. Wales just lets most of this happen - he doesn't care." [16] Sounds like RW's criticism of Andy. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that you started this tangent saying Jimbo Wales was influencing articles on Wikipedia like an evil master puppeteer and now end by saying Wikipedia is so bad because he has no influence over what happens whatsoever? Internetmoniker (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I didn't say it; I posted a letter in Salon. Can you tell the difference? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, hell I'll say it.... No, I don't see the difference... In fact, it seems that the letter you quoted extensively goes agaisnt your main point (if we can remember what the hell that was). You claim that Wales has 1300 yes men who copy his every move, but then you post a complaint that says he has no power..... Explain if you can SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly critical of Wales. I support both Brandt & Bagley's contention Jimbo knew Brandt & Bagley were correct in thier assessments and both were being treated grossly unfair by an Admin community unleashed to make thier lives miserable. The Salon posting above is a toned down assessment about what went wrong after the Essjay scandal chased most expert, scholarly and good faith editors away. Has there been improvements in content over the past three years? Yes. Have some of the worst offenders in the cabal been disciplined or driven out for thier outrageous conduct (SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Berlet, for example)? Yes. But all I'm concerned with is policies. And frankly, I haven't the patience to wade though them meticulously anymore.

One thing I will note though, however, I am an editor now in good standing. And I don't wish any major confrontations with any of the assholes I've dealt with in the past. And I think many of them have been driven off because it became obvious they were a detriment to the project. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 08:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I'll say it again. You're pathetic. Remember how this all started? That no one at CP is allowed to express disagreement with Andy's personal opinion (a.k.a. "the truth"), and anyone who does is banhammered? So then you start writing a dissertation full of factually-challenged assertions that contradict each other, just to "prove" that Wikipedia works the same way. When you and we all know that it doesn't. Whatever Wikipedia's problems, Conservapedia is simply not in the same league of accuracy, fairness, or open-mindedness. Get the fuck over it. Junggai (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I am now truly flabbergasted. You start your tirade saying WP is terrible, but you end saying you are now an editor in good standing and those that you deem "assholes" have been dealt with? Doesn't that mean that the system in place at WP works? Internetmoniker (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very few editors can do the kind of work I do. Through the collaborative process we've reconciled the problems between WP & CP's copyright (see the histories behind wp:Grigory Kheifets and cp:Grigory Kheifets for example). I'm recognized as a knowledgeable editor in a highly specialized and controversial area. I'm also the founder of WP:Project Cold War history. I can prove through diffs my interest in the Obama/commie connection is scholarly, historical, and non-partisan. I'm exactly what WP needs. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Rob, you provide links for the claims that are pretty nominal, and then make sweeping statements that are clearly nothing but your own warped view. "Wales granted sweeping protection to Berlet & SlimVirgin for these smears by alleging in the pages of Editor & Publisher that Brandt was not a credible source for anything other than himself." How does merely saying someone is not a reliable source (which seems like a basic, true statement to me; most people are not reliable sources in themselves) grant sweeping protection to anyone? It doesn't. What editors were "were barred, banned, dispatched, and slandered"? "Most administrators on Wikipedia are under the age of 18" can you back that up? And if you can, you realize sysops at WP are nothing like sysops at CP. They are basically custodians, not a group of thugs who make ad hoc rules and wield unquestionable authority. "The Essjay scandal chased most expert, scholarly and good faith editors away." You really like to blow that event out of proportion. It clearly did no such thing. I'd like to see you try to back that one up. You're clearly seeing things as being the way you want them to be. You're a CP sysop through and through. DickTurpis (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at wp:Roots_of_anti-Semitism, it redirects to "Anti-semitism." All the material was either merged or deleted. The only two sources were Karl Marx, and Chip Berlet. [17] After an extensive discussion on that talk page, wp:Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What counts as reputable? the concenesus among high level sysops was Merge & redirect. [18] Rangerdude proved Berlet was not a reputable source about anything other than himself. The problem was WP, in combating the LaRouche editors, and Jayjg to support his West Bank articles, and SlimVirgin in a myriad of disputes, all heavily relied on Berlet. Berlet's critics needed to be silenced as "marginal, fringe and extreme," so Daniel Brandt was attacked. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I: Much of this material was rehashed in the BADSITES case. We finally got a larger segment of the WP community to review that discussion at Talk/Roots of Anti-semitism and see the fraud. It was not long after that Berlet quit, SV & Jayjg were disciplined. Will Beback (User:Willmcw) also has had problems, I understand. But I'm now an editor in good standing, despite the fact SV said the BADSITES policy only targeted 5 websites: me, Brandt, Bagley, Michealmoore.com WikipediaReview (where me, Brandt, and Bagley talk) and Encyclopedia Dramatica. [19] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum II: The best representative sample of response from the WP community over the Essjay scandal can be found here, wp:User talk:Essjay/There's a special circle of Hell reserved for duplicitous sacks of shit like you. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RobSmith, don't listen to Terry Koeckritz, he's obviously pulling your chain: "I've been following your exploits. Nothing gets them on the run faster than facts and logic. I notice no matter what your responses are they keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults. Not a good sign for people who proclaim their "open minds". Perhaps in some distant decade they will finally see the light of what has really happened at WP. But I wouldn't hold your breath! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:34, 19 March 2010 (EDT)"
We're certainly on the run, alright. Who the fuck is obscuring here and changing the subject? Or do I need to remind you again where the thread started, and where you keep taking it? Are you at all interested in answering the charge of CP being an authoritarian blog, rather than bleating about abstract abuses at WP which only make sense when you squint your eyes a certain way? Junggai (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Dick to review the material. He seems to one of the few posters here with a clue as to what's going on on this planet. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, excellent answer to my question. Way to get us running with facts and logic! Junggai (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you have a screenshot on a subpage of you (presumably) calling Andy "retarded." Is there reason for preserving this momento? Is it something you're fond of, or proud of? Do you have a life? Did those actions of yours serve any possible purpose to benefit humanity? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I notice no matter what your their responses are they you keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults." Rob, seriously dude, are you going to engage with the topic at hand or keep blowing farts? The answer to your first two questions is "no," by the way. I happened to be watching while it happened, and ordered the screencap before it disappeared. To the third, yes, quite a satisfying one, full of love. Fourth, while technically there's no answer, as I've never vandalized Conservapedia, I'll let you know that I've done my share of humanity-serving as a profession, and it doesn't include keeping newsclips about commies on my bedrom wall. Junggai (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So you were "watching," then someone engages in childish vandalism, and you felt it necessaary to make a screenshot. Then, afterwards, your stored the precious momento under your pillow as a subpage. Why would you wish to make a screenshot of Andy being trolled and victimized by a juvenile prankster? you wanted to document harassment of Andy? Why would you store this precious momento? When the day comes, you wanted to be ready to defend Andy as the victim? 23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I notice no matter what your their responses are they you keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults." Rob, this isn't CP, and I'm a grown man with kids of my own, so there's no need for me to answer your coked-up speculations. I've said plainly that I've never vandalized Conservapedia, and don't care if you believe me or not. What I do care about is why you refuse to say anything about Conservapedia's editorial policy, even to defend it. What are you trying to cover up? Are you actually a deep-cover parodist, trying to bring Conservapedia down by refusing to defend it against its detractors? (See how easy it is?) Junggai (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what Young guy Junggai, gimme a hint at a plausible explanation why you would (a) take a screenshot of somebody calling Andy "retarded," and (b) why you would tuck such a treasure under your pillow, and I'll take anything else you might say seriously. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that, because you haven't taken anything anyone's said seriously since the beginning of this thread. But anyway, I'll bite. The sequence of events were as follows: a) Some moron wrote a juvenile message on Andy's talk page. b) I read it, and laughed. c) It was a low-traffic time at RW,so I capped it in case the situation escalated and a screenshot would be needed for a WIGO. d) As soon as the screenshot was made, I moved it to my sandbox to clean out the screenshot requests without losing the filename. e) The moron showed up here to brag, so I lost interest and forgot about it.

In case you doubt the veracity of this, check out the low view count of the screencap (4 last I checked) and, incidentally, my Sandbox, which has been around much longer. If I had really "tucked it under my pillow," wouldn't I at least have pulled it out now and then to admire its gleam? In fact, I capped it, moved it, and forgot about it, until you brought it up to try and dodge answering questions about a completely unrelated matter.

Great, that was boring. Now do you want to talk about how open-minded Conservapedia is to opinions other than Andy's? Junggai (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, that really is "Jung G(uy)," in case you were wondering. I'm a bit of a fan. Junggai (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's dated March 2010, so that's hardly ancient history to forgot about. "Some moron" doesn't sound plausible cause why would you bother with it then? But I said a hint of plausiblity so I'll bite. Frankly, I don't know a whole lot about Andy and opinions cause we rarely get a chance to discuss or exchange them. Most of our interactions are spent fighting off trolls who do screeshots of morons calling people retarded. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's the best I'm gonna get from you, a weak dodge, and after I've been 100% honest with you. At this point, if this were the real world, I'd punch you in the face, call you a sonofabitch, and buy you a beer with no hard feelings. As it is, it's getting late here, so I'm going to leave the computer and imagine we've bonded over this pointless little flame war. You can go back to writing about communism with no real standards of falsifiability, and I'll wake up and take my son to the park. You know, Rob, you write well, but you'd write even better if you didn't assume so much from scanty evidence. That's what makes you a nutty conspiracy theorist who writes well, rather than a solid conservative thinker who influences people with his ideas. When we flame you, it's only because we're dismayed at the wasted potential. Junggai (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

TedC

This guy is awesome^img. He's been doing his best to fill out the article matrix - first Evolutionist Censorship^img, then Professor Tools, now Liberal Nitpicking^img. I looked into his articles, and there's no sign of mockery or anything else off-kilter - just Aschlafly-style hackery. Either this guy's a great parodist or an absolute asshat. Regardless, I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I can't decide which would be more interesting, him being a parodist or him being a real nutjob. If you're reading, TedC, nice work! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have 10 internets and a cup of 2-day old soup that says, because we mentioned it... block, delete, oversight. --Psygremlin講話 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems like they haven't done that as much recently (remove something after we mention it, I mean). Probably because TK is the only one doing the oversighting nowadays. (Then again, now that JacobB has the power...) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I smell a Poo Poe. SJ ^Debaser 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So TK just blocked TedC for being a sock. Do you think TK ever lies about his checkuser findings? Only the few checkusers on CP would ever know if he were lying and they would never call him out on it. Keegscee (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But will his articles of sheer hilarity remain, for that is the question. "Professor tools"^img has to be my new personal favorite. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Heeeeee, the ban reason is nice:

17:00, 18 March 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked TedC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Same as TrondE, MichaelMc, DanGleeballs and TedC, abusing multiple accounts, Same IP: 77.241.101.2, Norway)

I know what he means, but a small part of me wants to believe that on CP, you can be banned for being yourself. --Sid (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Sid, that is certainly true in your case. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that's my latest sock finished. It was fun while it lasted though! PS. "TedC" was a tribute to the late great Father Ted DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, there used to be an advisory about not exposing deliberate parody. Whatever happened to that? Let's all congratulate Colonel of Squirrels and most of the others in this thread for pointing out the bleedin' obvious without being particularly funny in doing so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was tempted to delete CoS's orignal post when I first saw it, but I wasn't sure if that was the done thing. But in future, let's not highlight things like that from a new CP user until said user is established enough not to be suspected of parody (ie JacobB). I'll never get that article matrix filled now... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, SR. My point was that this wasn't obvious parody. I suppose I'll just take my socks and bugger off. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not funny?! I think my "poo" comment was pretty well side-splitting. Sorry Delta. And I love Father Ted... SJ ^Debaser 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Me musing...

...about the user Newton. He signed up about a week ago and I stumbled across the article he wrote about Nick Clegg. Assuming he's a uni student (TK on talkpage: "your uni's lovely.") he's got shit grammar skills, though it's a possible parodist methinks. SJ ^Debaser 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of us managed to squeak through college with out fixing our horrible grammar. --Opcn (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Who needs grammer when they'rs internets. --Radioactive PIzza (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, especially some of us got crazily good GPA with atrocious grammar, like myself and Andy (and it's like law school for Andy too, the one place you need to write properly). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that why God gave us computers? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Computers can check the spelling of individual words, but can't check your grammar beyond the most rudimentary level. - π 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well he needs something better than rudimentary, because the quality of writing in that article equates to that of a five year-old. TK, please fix it or unblock me on CP so I can. SJ ^Debaser 22:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of Proxima. Cubic educated Phantom Hoover! 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sweet Proxima. Haven't seen her around in ages. SJ ^Debaser 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Leader of Liberal Democrats "describes himself as liberal". You learn something new every day (if you open your mind). Cantabrigian (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dear JimPT, I understand your frustration at failing to see my point."

I think that this is what Andy would sound like^img with less power. On a related note how is RobertE not banned after that discussion with TK? --Opcn (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that make much more sense than Andy. This is more like halfway between Andy and PJR. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It was much more polite than Andy. It was hardly condescending at all. But I have to confess I got lost halfway through. Something about Moses being Wolverine, right? --98.204.160.254 (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to watch that movie! --Ireon (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Give Japan a few more years. They certainly seem to be moving in that direction... --Sid (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Hi everyone!

I'm wishing you all a happy St. Patrick's day, where we cal all celebrate the colour green (or something), but remember that preaching green means you're more likely to steal^img. --75.119.247.145 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ZB part deux

"These aren't fake, but they're not real either - someone has messed with these, consistently, each page."

Do you think the source was someone in the group, and they removed their messages? Does anyone have access to "the original" and want to, carefully, tell us what's "different"? ħuman 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What looks fake? --aSKTim 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How have they been messed with? I haven't noticed anything. EddyP (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Being grammatically in/correct, maybe? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

MaxAlex said up above what I quoted to start this section. ħuman 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. There are things which definitely look wrong with these files; there is of course no way of proving it - for one thing, it's from Google Groups this time last year, so it's difficult to actually verify against a known real example. There are also things which just look plain odd, like the page offering a sign in link.

The content looks pretty clearly genuine to me for obvious reasons, not least the damage such a piece of method acting would do to the sanity of the writer, but as to who released these - I'm 80/20 on that issue. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to see the originals. They were mirrored on another account, so they cut off when the "source" cut off the supply. That access point was the source of this archival version. I'd go make the comparison, but I'm too lazy to download the 15MB file again and wade through it all. I deleted my local copy ages ago, never really bothered to look at it. ħuman 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect those to be any different though; no-one would have bothered fiddling files which others had already seen - if someone did alter them, it was before they were released. It could just be an artefact of how they were downloaded, though, but it still bothers me that the pages say the downloader has no right to post when TK is supposedly logged in, and it bothers me that they were downloaded from South Africa when it strikes me as pointless to use a proxy for a service like this. It smells mostly of plausible deniability, though... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It didn't bother me, MaxAlex. The reason being that the South Africa IP was the one used by the defrocked CP Sysop, "Jessica". All of her edits to CP were from that country. It now appears that "she" was plainly Rational Wiki Admin PsyGrimlin, as I suspected all along. Your insights were ignored here, because it doesn't suit their need for deceit. But the time-line stops with the removal of that impostor. Anyone with a brain and some fairness will realize this is just another contrived accusation against me. Sorry Psy, it didn't work and do me any harm whatsoever at CP. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh Terry, are you still stalking that poor girl, not to mention stuck in your "all-Germans-are-Sid" mentality. Still, I'd love to see you prove your theory. Maybe you can get Rob to help connect the dots. He's good at that. Still, interesting defence on your part. After all, I doubt Andy would tolerate you opening the SDG twice. --PsygremlinTal! 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So you think being a sysop (not even a crat) on a crummy backwater blog like CP is a pretty cool accomplishment for a 60 year old political operative? Congratulations. ħuman 10:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I could pretty much buy into that - it explains a few things. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it maybe possible that the "Sign in" thing would normally just be hidden via JavaScript? Not everything you see in this version was necessarily visible at the time of saving. --Sid (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. It doesn't seem to do that for me right now, but of course we're talking about a year ago. Just to be clear tho, those things just look funny to me - the comments about being altered were about a couple of things in the source which look find-and-replaced. But again, that can only be a suspicion - there's nothing plainly wrong, that I've seen yet, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if it turned out these had been pulled from Google Cache and then altered. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, somebody left this comment on the blog post all this came from:

Someone on the internet Says:

17/03/2010 at 9:59 pm

In the middle of a long telephone conversation with TK, I casually mentioned that my “mental image” of him is based on Chris Cooper in “Breach” the movie about double agent Robert Hanssen. He showed not the slightest sign of feeling insulted.

This incident speaks worlds of insight to me, i.e., I regard it as tantamount to (1) an admission that he committed “treason” against Conservapedia and (2) an acknowledgement that he feels no guilt or remorse for what he did.

So TK is not the kind of person I want as a trusted admin.

By the way, one of the first things I did after he was de-sysopped was to unprotect dozens of articles that he had over-zealously protected. IIRC Andy said that was good.

He can be an ordinary user, but absent convincing proof of repentance for sharing secrets with our opponents, I vote against giving him any position of trust again.

Ed Poor

Was this in the files? I can't find it. And why does TK always refer to "his friend Ed Poor?" HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in "910/0dd1f995f94460bf.html" at the bottom. --Sid (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They're certainly not fake (I've just been having a laugh at the Dec 2009 debate over who to make sysop, with the old sane people trying to keep parodists (TK included) off the roster). But if they've been modified in some way, how? 22:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone set up a page to collect the good parts yet? The Lara Croft discussion (880/1a8whatever) is another odd one. It's also suggested that all the Harry Potter pages should have a parental caution -- I always figured this suggestion was a surefire way to know a parodist! --MarkGall (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Lara Croft (was the 880 above?), I love karajou asking creepy uncle Ed why he deleted the Tomb raider pic and Ed says, "Voluptuous breasts and bulging vulva isn’t slutty?”. The discussion goes downhill from there - with karajou equating slutty with prostitution. Must be a sailor thing. (No linky, ain't got the sauces on this machine).--Psygremlin話しなさい 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, - 880/1a81245f873aba66.html. Also like the comment from Temlakos "Large breasts aren't necessarily the problem; the way her breasts hang out of her blouse, is" Worm^{(t | c)} 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just love how Ed describes his ideal Tomb Raider article: "Rather than write an article which recommends the game, or explains all the "fun" things about it, we could serve educators and parents by pointing out all the bad elements in the game which Wikipedia overlooks." Typical. Point out all the foibles, and neglect to mention that Lara Croft has rockin' tits. SJ ^Debaser 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, her knockers were too big. Now her bum, on the other hand. I declare jihad (sudden jihad syndrome) in favour of the supporters of the ass you can bounce coins off. --Psygremlin話しなさい 18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Moar fun, this time from TerryH: "...But tight shorts and a tight blouse that allow the breasts to hang out do not strike me as appropriate or even safe attire for an archaeologist." SJ ^Debaser 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some bluster from Kara: "Since Toulouse is operating RW from the comfort of his university account, I strongly suggest we lean hard against that university and threaten legal action unless Toulouse is suspended and/or expelled from the university." ...and... "I'll be convinced of a victory over RW when I see one of them in a jail cell."--WJThomas (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And this is fun: Ed says something fairly (dare I say) insightful--"It is largely because of [RW] that Conservapedia has remained in the public eye. If not for their backfiring attempts to discredit us, we would have lapsed into oblivion..."--and follows it up immediately with an utter delusion--"Eventually, [CP] will find a way to attract big name authors, and then things will really take off."--WJThomas (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That delusion is actually sort of a running theme from what I saw. Several people (IIRC) occasionally mentioned attracting big-name authors or communities to CP. (A fulltext search for Coulter or Rush might yield results.)

This often came up in connection with things like MYOB, 90/10 or the departure of Philip/Dan/etc. from the group and then from CP: The apparent reasoning of some people was that those big names would shy away from CP if they saw people showing Andy on talk pages just how wrong he really is. Others at least argued that those people wouldn't pay attention to talk page bickering and would rather focus on the extremely bad shape their articles are in (mostly re: Obama article). But it was easier to blame Philip and the various other hammered users for CP's utter failure than to consider that maybe these people were on to something. --Sid (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Andy wants a Civil War 2.0

Andy tries to draw a link between the health care legislation and a piece of legislation that expanded slavery and helped bring about the Civil War. How long before he starts calling for secession? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The National Republic of Anthem/Blue Shield today declared its independence from the United States. Leaving the Union are large sections of the South and Midwest, as well as Alaska, Utah and a small home in New Jersey. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 06:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the part in New Jersey already is independent from united states. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 08:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy just bypasses the 'featured article' committee (which these days consists of TK and Pratt) to post his own little scree. Not to mention his ability to link anything to Obama. --PsygremlinPrata! 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This is just so old. CS Miller (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Alaska is Alaska, if the union breaks up Alaska is not going to join Jesusland, Alaska is one of the least religious states in the union (#5) and our state house is a rather blue shade of purple. While Alaska is the highest recipient of Federal funds per capita it also pays more in taxes than it gets out in pork (i.e. Alaska would be fine with out any other states). Alaska leans libertarian, not Republican. --Opcn (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are all the homeschoolers?

Reading through the ZB, I saw a couple of mentions of the student board (of CP) and this got me thinking; where are all the homeschoolers? Addison and Duncan have dropped off the map, as have the ones from the World History Homework; the writing course isn't happening, and I don't think I've ever seen CPanel make an edit. Andy makes a big fuss about how CP was started because of homeschoolers, but as far as I can tell HSers have absolutely no presence on there at all now. What gives? EddyP (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they only want to work on CP if Andy obliges them to; and because Andy doesn't teach "independent study" or "general research", They don't show up very often when Andy is not teaching. And then there is the problem that some of them are socks of ours that some of us are trying to avoid attention. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking RW socks, I'm talking real homeschoolers in his classroom. EddyP (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of those are our socks too. 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a transition that has been in progress for some time and which has now completed, it seems. CP may have been created as an educational resource at first but it's now nothing more than an anti-Liberal, anti-homosexual, anti-intellectual etc etc blog for Andy and his dedicated team of morons and parodists. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

TK needs a civic lesson

Terry Koeckritz doesn't understand the difference between a political system and an economic system. "It is clearly demonstrable that the U.K. has long ago crossed over from Democracy to a European Socialist state." Oh TK, you rascal you. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I kind of agree with TK's point here.

No, I don't agree that we're a socialist state as the workers don't own the means of production in the UK. And TK is hopelessly wrong when claiming that it's one part of the government telling another part of the government what it can and can't do - the ASA isn't owned or appointed by the government nor is it statutory.

But TK's point about "...in the U.K. there are competing boards and commissions issuing obfuscating "rulings" isn't checks and balances as we know them here.....but government by bureaucratic fiat..." has a certain resonance here, even if the remainder of his post was claims about how we're socialists and the US system is the perfect model. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying he doesn't have a valid point in his critism, I was more amazed that he seems to think a soceity can "cross over" from Democracy, a political system, to Socialism, a economic system. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like true students. Your point, SirChuck, assumes that the archaic text-book definitions still fit in today's world, which in many cases they do not. And to Andrew, if the ASA isn't statutory, appointed or elected, just what is it and how are its "rulings" binding? And please don't put words in my mouth, okay? Where did I say the U.S. is the perfect model? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot about how you are with definitions over at CP. To you schmucks, socialism is just one of those terms (like liberal) which means "something I, good God-fearing individual, think is evil." Forgive us citizens of the real world for forgetting this. Junggai (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

TK, at least do a damn search before posting rubbish. You would quickly find http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Who-we-are.aspx which states in part that:

"We are independent of both the Government and the advertising industry and operate according to published standards of service. The ASA’s authority is recognised by the Government, the courts, other regulators such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the established means of consumer protection from misleading advertising."

You would find further down that it is an industry-established body - ie, self-regulation, which is exactly what Conservatives are supposed to like. Now please stop demonstrating your incredible levels of ignorance and go back to abusing your powers on CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Pretty damn rude for a place that supposedly values dialog. Glaringly you ignore the other points, which is a strong indication of a narrow-minded irrational twit. Sorry if this Yank isn't completely up-to-date on arcane points of U.K. bodies. You seem to be a very angry person. Did I do something offensive personally to you? I posted a question, as civil people do, and got your tirade. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I value intelligent dialogue, not the outpourings of a loathsome troll-cum-parodist. I'm responding to one point because it's one you could have answered yourself with a quick recourse to a search engine beginning with "G". You would rather troll than do your own research. It also undermines your entire argument about this being a perfect example of Socialism. In fact, it's a perfect example of industry self-regulation. Now, are you going to correct that on the CP Main Page talk? I didn't think so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you asked and answered your own question, there isn't really any need for you to ever respond to me again, nor for me to ask you a question. Glad that is resolved. You're just an angry elitist man instead of being a narrow-minded twit, and I apologize for calling you that. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If being able to find things on the Internet makes me elitist, then yes - I'm an elitist. Posting incorrect information, sure in the knowledge that you can simply block anyone who disagrees with you, makes you a parodist and a liar. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not a civil person, TK. You may have performed a single, civil act but you aren't operating in a vacuum over here. What actually goes through your mind when you say that? 173.10.105.29 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I was speaking of nameless, faceless appointed government functionaries, never elected, never approved by the citizenry, issuing broad sweeping policy edicts. In the United States, DMorris, our Judicial branch, the Supreme Court, is appointed by another branch and confirmed by the third....quite different than the monolithic bureaucracy deciding."

"Me, I prefer accountability from our elected officials, not them handing off responsibility to a bureaucracy that is on the civil service and cannot be removed."

No, quite right, you didn't say it, TK. But it's pretty implicit. And I agree to some extent with your criticism of the UK being over-run with unaccountable officialdom. But that doesn't, in itself, make the UK socialist. Or even, compared to the US where huge amounts of power are vested in non-elected unaccountable people and organisations, especially undemocratic.

To a conservative American, socialist can be meant as a catch-all bogeyman description for everything to the left of Reagan. To us poor Europeans, it means, well, what it means. And socialist the UK ain't. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree, totally. CP is by design an American-centric project. The group we are speaking about is indeed one not approved by the citizenry, no matter if the intentions for it were good. The news isn't encyclopedic, isn't intended to be. IMO opinon the U.K. is socialistic. I am entitled to think that, right? Isn't anyone without being verbally abused and called names? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can think that. From the American Conservative perspective, you're probably right about the government in general and I don't dispute that. However, when presented with overwhelming evidence that the body under discussion is anything other than socialist, you should have the good grace to admit a mistake. That's having an "open mind" - and not in the Schlafly sense of letting any nonsense drift into one's thinking. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So why all the necessary name calling insults then? You see it as you do. I see it as another abdication on the part of leaders to some board that is not elected or appointed by the elected leaders, to impose its will upon the people. That certainly to my mind isn't democratic, but more like socialism that imposes the government's considered opinion on the people. So I don't accept it is a "mistake" that needs an apology, just a differing of opinion. So no one is in need of an apology, because no one was injured by my opinion. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And you're lying again. That's not what you think. At least learn to be consistent in the way you lie to us, TK. You, as a Conservative, love industry and big business. This agency has been established by big business. It has managed to get itself into a position where it can even influence government. Ie, Businesses influencing government - a conservative's wet dream judging from the reaction to your Supreme Court's outrageous decision that Corporations deserve Freedom of Speech. Said agency reprimands a left-wing (ish) government. Instead of using it as an example of businesses promoting a typically right-wing, ant-global-warming agenda (something you would normally support), you're somehow twisting it into an incorrect example of socialism just (to attempt) to cover up the fact that you were wrong on CP. You're a lying scum. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, are you a teenager? For someone who has never once had a conversation with me, you sure do presume to know what I think and what I believe. You never once called me a Nigger, but I suspect that is next. You vacillate between being civil and and being hateful like someone in need of medication or dictated to by raging hormones. Obviously you know nothing about what "conservatives" think. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang about. Isn't being a member of a "known vandal site" a blockable offense at CP? Strictly speaking shouldn't you and RobS be now banned for posting here? Furthermore, what are you both doing here in the first place? I mean, I know Rob was trying to protect brother dearest by derailing a thread calling into question his...ahem, personality. But you...?

Oh, and we all do know who you are TK. You're the deep, deep, DEEP cover parodist trying to bring down CP from the inside. Shouldn't you be there banning legit contributors?-Tygrehart

He has some twisted logic that because he joined before he made up that rule he does not have to follow it. - π 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing twisted, moron. I have proven myself to never vandalize CP or harm it. Have you? I was invited here, actually, by one of the original founders. Were you? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have just done more for the good for this site on a bad day than you have in your entire time here. I probably come close to adding more non-plagiarized material to CP than you ever have and I never once knowingly added a false statement to CP. - π 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that 'original founder' thought you'd be good for entertainment when things get slow. So far, you're doing a wonderful job - watching you twist things around in a fruitless effort to make it seem like you're not just utterly wrong is most amusing. What's even better is that you genuinely think people actually believe that you aren't. 92.0.102.86 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

He's lying again. He snuck into RW1 via sockpuppetry. ħuman 04:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tautology: "He" (when "he" is TK) & "Lying" are the same thing. 04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Willem de Zwijger / talk / contribs}

Hehe, I know, but I had already hit "save" before I remembered that. ħuman 04:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Huw, you never fail to surprise at the depths of lowness you will sink to. I was talking about RW 1.5 or whatever it was, when Colin asked me. Not that you would care because you are one of the main reasons his vision was changed and bastardized. What a hack you are. Tell me, how many of the persona's above licking your ass are your own socks? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone licking my ass, but most of them, indeed are me. As are you. ħuman 05:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As Andy's chief Asslicker, you should be able to tell. Willem de Zwijger (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

EZ SirChuck Edit Break

OK couple of things since I missed out on most of this conversation.... First of, to a reponse waaaay up top. TK, identifying a system by its correct term has nothing to do with being a student. Socialism has become some creepy catch-all boogeyman for the right whenever they don't like something done by the government. But. hold on this may surprise you, Socialism by itself is a pure economic system. You can have a Democratic socialist state (like most of Europe) you can have a Totalitarian Socialist state (Like China and Cuba) and you can even have an Oligarchical Socialist State (I don't know of any in the real world). You see how that works? Just because your economy is run one way, you do not necessarily fall into any particular political form? make sense now? good. Second, what's with throwing nigger around? If you think you're going to schock us, you're dead wrong. See our wonderful Nigger article for more. Third, I am a sock of Human. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 06:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the civility, SirChuckB. We disagree on that issue, and I would submit the old guidelines, as I said above are antiquated. And I think China still proclaims itself to be a Communist State in some of its own literature. Wasn't trying to shock anyone, just was giving my opinion that with all the hate speech insults here, that had to be next. I learned early on how racist white liberals really are. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem being civil when the curtesy is returned. I don't think it has anything to do with guidelines. Categories are arbitrary and set by people... But if I may ask, what does a Socialist country mean to you? When you say England is leaving democracy and crossing over to socialism, what does that mean? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 06:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It means to me Euro Socialism, or what many call a Democratic Socialist State. Basically an electorate endlessly demanding entitlements, and a flaccid parliament giving them out for longevity in their elected office dole, and borrowing against the future, taxing everything that moves and some who don't to keep up. Have you ever been to the U.K.? There isn't a move anyone can make that isn't watched by the authorities, endlessly running their recognition software.....very Orwellian. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"an electorate endlessly demanding X" "and a flaccid parliament giving X out". You have just described the political system known as a democracy. Internetmoniker (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IM does have a point there. Futhermore, I would argue again that excessive government monitoring, a valid criticism of the English government's style of security, has nothing to do with their economic policy. Even if the government totally controlled all major industry, that doesn't mean they have to video their citizens. Also, you seem to be so against socialism, but you do realize that America has a lot of socialist policies itself..... Or policies that might as well be. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I reject the conventional norm of saying it is "just" an economic system, and I am not alone in that, there being many so-called "liberal" experts who say so as well. In any event I am not some newb to the political process and know full well and agree with your comment about what the U.S. is also sliding into. I am against Socialism as you rightly perceive, but I am not against all social services per se. Feel free to discuss this at any length via IM or email. And thanks for thinking to add the edit break....the scrolling was getting a bit much! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing your main contention here TK. You're saying that Socialism isn't just an economic system and that you have other experts who will agree, but then you agree that a socialist country can have different political system. It really seems like you're contradicting yourself. Please excuse what is basically a repeat question, but what is Socialism then, politically and economically. Where does it fall in the poltical classification system? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 08:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

...Have you been to the UK?.... I live in the UK, and it is one of the least socialist countries in the EU. CS Miller (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an aside to SirChuckB: England doesn't have a government. The UK does, though. alt (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK definitely has a surveillance problem, but I'll echo CSmiller's comment. The UK is positively anarchic when compared to northern Europe. The the extreme conservatives are pushing America to the same conclusion that the most vile version of socialism would bring. Look at the school prayer business, since that's a great example of people wanting the state to intervene in the private lives of its citizens. Although it's often claimed that school prayer has itself been banned, I credit you with enough intelligence to understand that personal and teacher-led prayer are two very different things, and that the former is and quite rightfully should be protected. How about the Ten Commandments monuments, and the push to get religion in to science classrooms? The extreme right are compromising the neutrality of the institutions that should remain separate from governmental interference. With all this going on, it's not really arguing against governmental intrusion in to private lives - it's more being unhappy that the government isn't interfering to push the "right" agenda. Right or left, government needs to be seriously slimmed down and restrained, in both the UK and US. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that most of Europe and to a lesser extent the UK are social democracies. While the UK may have seen more social welfare and government regulation since Labour came to power, it still remains much more capitalist and economically less regulated than most of the Continent.

And even then, the more socially-leaning countries are also very successful economically. Second largest exporter in the world? Germany (only recently overtaken by China). Largest food retailer in the world? French. Second largest aerospace company? Franco-German-Spanish. Second largest chemical company? German. Largest construction company? French. Second largest insurance company? French. Second largest oil company? Anglo-Dutch. I mean, hardly a long list of failed socialist states now, is it?

The surveillance issue in the UK is a complex mix of a control-freak government being sold very effectively to by technology companies and a public too lazy to do anything about it.

But the clumsy dismissal of the UK as no-longer democratic because of its alleged socialism is just plain wrong. Yes, it might resonate with a certain audience in the US for whom bogeyman terms get the juices flowing, but that doesn't make it accurate.

And, oh yes, I was banned from CP simply for being a member here, TK. Never vandalised or did any harm whatsoever. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd disapprove of feeding trolls, but when it turns into owning TK like this, I'm all in favour :D H. Randolph Twist (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The surveillance culture in the UK is also over-estimated sometimes. In many cases there is camera coverage, but realistically the footage is very poor quality, not routinely monitored, and inexpertly set-up so it is to all intents and purposes useless. Not all of it by any means, but certainly a fair proportion. Worm^{(t | c)} 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Herr Goebbels H. Randolph Twist, merely repeating garbage, as you should have learned by now, doesn't make it so. What exactly do you define "Trolling" as? Perhaps you have some wrong idea in your head, and are merely ignorant? Or perhaps you deliberately throw out incendiary comments in some small-time "big lie" technique you find clever?

Ajkgordon, merely repeating back what others have said, that the "U.K. isn't all that bad" compared to other members of the E.U., isn't a refutation, it is a dodge -- like saying someone who kills 50 people really isn't a mass-murderer as compared to Stalin or Hitler. Nowhere did I claim the U.K. is a full-blown Socialist State, that was another liberty with the truth someone else took, a Red Herring. I said it is no longer a Democracy, and strictly applied, that is indeed so. Your POV is European, as I recall, I don't disrespect your thoughts, but I do sincerely ask that you try to see the POV of someone who has grown up in the U.S. but has lived abroad several times in my life, and dearly love the people and distinct cultures in Europe. History takes broad swings. At present the U.S. itself is and has been for some time, adopting European Socialist/"Democratic Socialism" ideas for our own country. So please try to guard against unilateral pronouncements like calling someone whom you disagree with "wrong" as you did. There isn't anything intrinsically "wrong" with what I said, merely a differing of opinion, eh? As for your block, if it makes you feel better playing to your agreeable audience here, so be it, but you were not blocked for no reason, and I would request you stop obfuscating that point.

Worm, I have more than passing knowledge of biometrics and both the hard and software used for surveillance in the U.K. and to dismissively say the monitoring is of low quality is misleading. Perhaps what you have seen of it is. I can assure you it isn't, only perhaps what is shown publicly. I have personally seen satellite imagery where I could clearly read the text of newspapers, and with street-based images and the software enhancements used, one gets significantly more detail. Do the research, and you will see. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was by no means intending to be dismissive, and I'm not talking about specialist surveillance - I'm talking about the generality of CCTV coverage, which is not of the quality that many people seem to assume. My impression is that people see 'a camera' and assume that it is beaming HD images to some bunker where it is monitored on a 24-hr basis. This is simply not reflective of reality. A satellite capable of reading newsprint? I highly doubt it. I'm open to evidence, but I'm not aware of any satellite optics that are capable of that kind of resolution - care to provide some examples? Street-based images can, of course, be pretty good but often are not, and no I'm not talking about the images that are 'shown publicly', I'm referring to images that, for instance, the police use when collating evidence. We have many problems in the UK, but 24/7 surveillance by Big Brother is a myth. Worm^{(t | c)} 02:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a quick note TK, I created a CP account with the SirChuckB name and it was blocked almost instantly. In fact, the account was only up for about a minute before it was hammered. You also blocked Jinx when he certainly wasn't a "member" of the site. He hates us and we've created an entire sport around fucking with him. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your memory, for some reason, isn't reliable. Like 99% of members here, except those you disagree with, contrary to published RW policy and goals, Jinx could undo his blocks, and did. My last "friendly block" of Jinx was for sixty seconds. Anyone with the same user name here will indeed be blocked, by policy, Sir Chuck, and if my memory is correct, your past comments indicate you know that. If you are a conservative, and honestly wish to contribute, make an account. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just found this account at CP which has the same user name as an account here. From what you've just said, based on "policy", you should go and block that account forthwith. alt (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I have the NuttyRoux account on CP I've always wanted? 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I think asking here, instead of by email, pretty much has precluded that from ever happening. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Terry, you don't like it when others put words into your mouth, so please don't do the same to me. Nowhere did I say that the "U.K. isn't all that bad" (your quotes, FFS!). I merely said it is more capitalist and less economically regulated than most other European countries. That's not a judgement and it's neither US or European POV.

"It is clearly demonstrable that the U.K. has long ago crossed over from Democracy to a European Socialist state." You will have to forgive me for reading that as you claiming that the UK is no longer democratic but is now a socialist state. I don't really know how else to read it. If it doesn't mean that you'll have to explain it to this European simpleton.

But until that happens, my opinion is that your opinion about socialism in Europe and especially the UK is wrong. As opinion, surely you can respect that too?

I never claimed I was blocked for no reason. I claimed that the reason was for being a member here. That's pretty clear with no obfuscation.

As I said before, I agree with you generally about surveillance in the UK. But satellites reading newspaper print? Step away from the Tom Clancy novels, TK! Ajkgordon (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh silly TK, wade straight in and call the Jew "Herr Goebbels". No wonder nobody likes you. Take your ball and go home. You are a troll. You know you are. Why? Because you lie, cause trouble and make inflammatory remarks to get attention. It's how you get your kicks, control and manipulation. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You've been thoroughly beaten and yet you keep going, 'cos that means it'll still all be about lil' Terry. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic?

"At present the U.S. itself is and has been for some time, adopting European Socialist/"Democratic Socialism" ideas for our own country." oh, that it were only the case. ħuman 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)