Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive175

This is an archive page, last updated 7 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <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)

Is that a nipple on the main page?

Yes it is^img, sure it's a painting^img but still it seems out of place. Wasn't sure f I should WIGO it or not bother.--Opcn (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, she's beautiful. ħuman 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh, she's cute, but I don't really go in for that slightly erotic look. I have a thing for nude readheads myself. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Crappy wigos

the three most recent are really lame - mostly in the way they are written. Ed's registry - "your computer" might be a Mac. Schlafly lead counsel - links are in wrong order. The other one is TK, 'nuff said, who cares. </bitch mode off> ħuman 03:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Andy WIGO has a ton of potential because of his proclivity for dramatically overstating things and because it's an interesting legal issue. I frankly think Andy's team should and will end up losing under the Supremacy Clause and that their argument that the appellate court could permit the signature gathering phase of the recall process to go forward where there was a significant chance they'd fail to obtain 1.3M signatures will ultimately waste a shitload of other peoples' time and money, but I'm thankfully not from New Jersey. Of course Andy's correct that the case will be "precedent setting" because "no senator or congressman has ever been recalled before." What he omits to state is that nobody ever tried because Article 1 doesn't contain any exceptions or mandate for state action and the Supremacy Clause otherwise prohibits it. This will be a precedent setting "so what." I'll consider how to make the Andy WIGO better tomorrow. 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Nutty. But if that's the case, why is the State Constitution written the way it is? (see Huw's comments in the section above). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it has legs, but right now it's just a shitty, poorly written wigo. ħuman 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the registry one, it didn't originally have the second sentence. I thought less was more and deliberately kept it to the first bit. I thought the brains comment detracted from that, but hey. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If only there was some way of anonymously logging your disapproval of a specific WIGO, or even a way to edit said WIGO to improve whatever you find unsatisfactorily with it.. Alas, the only reasonable thing one can do now is complain about it on the talk page. --GTac (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's not nearly as satisfying as bitching about it on the talk page. -- Nx / talk 12:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Eddy, baby

Ed asks for pat on head: (italics mine)

==New Articles==

Hi, Andy, I've been too busy with my new job to contribute much lately, but here are my last 10 articles:

1. [[Imprecatory prayer]] Stub
2. [[Take the Lead]] Movie review
3. [[Antonio Banderas]] One line stub
4. [[Cary Grant]] Ditto'
5. [[Registry repair]] One line quote
6. [[Windows registry]] Two line stub
7. [[Immersion]] Quote
8. [[False error messages]] Stub
9. [[Confessions of a Shopaholic]] One line Movie review
10. [[The Celestine Prophecy]] Half line movie review

Some are just stubs, but with collaboration they can be improved.

Go on, Andy, throw the faithful old dog a bone Willem de Zwijger (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Windows registry" article was fun. "The registry is the brains of your computer". No, the CPU is. That's in the first page of "My First Computer Book" for all of you kindergarteners. "It provides all the system policies for your system." That too, but one could better describe it as a database for application and system configuration settings - clearer, no? "Microsoft has gone out of its way to make the Registry mysterious and fearsome sounding." No, they just never expected end users would need to deal with it normally, so they saw no need to make it easier to approach. And they expected the application developers wouldn't mess it up too often. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of those articles don't even have sufficient (or in the first, correct) context, even for a WP stub. "Imprecatory prayer" doesn't describe that the prayers are meant to harm someone. "Windows registry" could have a link for advanced users and "Registry repair" refers to software programs, but doesn't mention the open source script. It's easier just to provide the official MS KB article. "Immersion" is unclear as well, but at least you understand it if you read the quote a few times. Then again, who'll risk their account trying to correct errors made by high-ranking admins? --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha, now Andy has no excuse for not noticing the shite that Uncle Ed is producing. I liked JacobB's rather strained justification for Ed's existence^img. Ed contributes in ways that are special and useless, and he is consistent in both regards. Perhaps we'll see the category "Stuff Ed learnt about Windows, and things that frustrate Ed" --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was some top class parodying from JacobB there. (capturebotted for brevity)^{Does 'capturebotted' sound rude?} DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So lets say I saw a user say something they shouldn't in a place where it should have been caught?

The user has been around for a few months, should I put it up here? I don't want to spoil it, but I don't want it lost to a deep burn archive event either. --Opcn (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not until they are blocked forever? ħuman 06:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're afraid it will get burned, screen cap it yourself and save it for when that user is banned, then show it to people. ^{— Unsigned, by: FineCheeses / talk / contribs} 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just let me know, I'll save it for you. :P --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, TK is useless, unlike Mei. ħuman 07:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's been around for a few months, it's in my archive. mb 09:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's got to be parody, but it's so foul I can't imagine someone thinking he could get away with that. 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just post it on up, that seems to be the done thing around here now. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, don't. Burndall (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting intriguing. Email it to me, somebody? 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we're not doing that "I'm so cool passing whatever this is around by email" clique thing again are we? ^{If we are then please email it to me too} DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Change a comma in the article with a sock? Alain (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I scored a comma at WP today. Here: , Anyone can use it wherever they want. ħuman 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cash-only medicine

The video of Andy on the article about him talking the lead counsel position is hilarious. I'm sure there is a new meme in there about the efficiency of cash and how all your medical bills should be paid in good hard greenbacks. No chemo or transplant for you! MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 11:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Joint articles at aSK, CP, CZ, and RW

common titles

I took a look at the 334 page titles which appear at all four wikis, like Adolf Hitler and User:Ed Poor (the only one to be present in this fourfold). I didn't look at common subjects when they were spelled in different ways (Barrack (Hussein Obama), and I didn't include redirects.

On the upper half, you'll find the views per article: readers at CP and RW are interested in the same articles, there is a strong correlation between the views, while the views of aSK and CZ (citizendium) are uncorrelated (and I think they are independent): though CZ has a soft spot for homeopaths and suchlike, it's another lunacy then the readers of aSK are interested in.

The lower half shows the length of the articles: Not much of a surprise here, generally the lengths of the articles in the various wikis are correlated...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How about some kind of graphical representation depiction of what information is on your previous graphs & charts? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Critical Thinking in Math

Let us all pause for a moment of silence in fond memory of the announcement, on CP's main page, of the Critical Thinking in Math course. It was announced 2-1/2 years ago, on 5 August 2007, and withdrawn a couple of hours ago, at 18:53EDT, 20 March 2010.

In the page announcing this (the page is still there; maybe Andy intends to have the course after all), and its talk page, Andy took on all comers. Many people tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to pound some mathematical common sense into his head. He claimed that "proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons", and that it was controversial. He claimed that "when resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself". He claimed that "elementary proofs" (a term which still isn't defined satisfactorily) are preferred, and that there is some kind of cover-up about this. He (and sycophant parodist suckup Foxtrot) got totally owned about the axiom of choice, and about complex numbers. He never did explain what he meant by "additive factoring". (I think I know, but it's not important; It's not about the Goldbach conjecture.)

In all cases, no inroads could be made into Andyland.

Gauss (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"when resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself" - this statement is true. it's just that nobody suspects there's a contradiction in the axioms we accept. 07:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But if there was a contradiction in the axioms, surely more would fail than just proof by contradiction, right? At least that's my gut reaction. --Sid (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Sid, except that the theorem you prove is *in the system* of the axioms. Everything in that system would be uninteresting. But you can still make a mistake in a proof that uses consistent axioms. Actually, as FineCheeses says, aschlafly is correct, in the sense that a proof by contradiction would be invalid if you make a mistake in logical reasoning. But that is true about *any* proof. He seems to prefer constructive or intuitionistic proofs (although he probably doesn't know what these mean). But if you make a mistake in a constructive or intuitionistic proof, you can also prove a falsehood. In other words, Aschlafly's complaint about proof by contradiction is just a proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I really would have loved to see the Conservative Math course! Fawlty (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If there were a conflict in our Axioms how would we proove it? Proof by contradiction ... BAM! --Opcn (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Menendez recall committee

I have two things to say:

1. As an NJ resident, I am pretty surprised that this happened so soon at all. Menendez is not well liked, but wow.
2. Andy?!?!?! Are they fucking insane??

That is all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do have one more thing to add: how the heck did Andy get tangled up in this? I thought he was out of politics at this point. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

He is not out of the incompetent lawyering business.--Opcn (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well wait a second and ask what he's tangled up in. I wouldn't envy him under any circumstances. Any lawyer, even Andy Schlafly, can represent a few shit-stirring troublemakers like these people, particularly when the odds are they're going to completely fail. And keep in mind that as far as I can tell Andy had nothing to do with the trial and appellate work done to get where these people have gotten. They're fighting a tremendously unlikely fight that will either (a) amount to diddly squat if they fail to get enough signatures for a recall election, (b) amount to diddly squat and cost the state of New Jersey a shit ton of money if they get their signatures but the recall election fails to produce a recall, or (c) on the extremely remote chance the recall election succeeds in producing a recall, cost the state of New Jersey a shit ton of money before it gets a new senator. 04:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is why would anyone hire Andy when we have an entire section for his record of rookie mistakes (I am sure there are records for his win/loss ratio elsewhere) I am sure better choices are available for equal or less cost elsewhere. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nutty, I don't think the fact that the hard work was already done and that there is likely nothing the theoretical Andy could theoretically do to not fail really matters; he will be incompetent no matter how low the bar. You can only drive a shitty car at 5 miles an hour on unlit roads so others can't see how lousy it is, but it will still be a rusty bucket of junk. --Opcn (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"In short, our State Constitution, and the democratic process that produced it, deserves our utmost respect unless federal law clearly and definitively trumps it." ħuman 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Given the will of the people embodied in our State organic law, and the dearth of clear precedent nullifying the people's enactments, we accordingly decline at this juncture to find our State constitutional provision and related statute permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional." ħuman 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You wacky Americans and your Constitution. In the UK we just make it up as we go along.

I have to say, I love how in the article it says "Conservapedia began as a project of a 50-strong group of home-schooled students but now includes thousands of editors." Me looking at recent changes list... Aschlafly, Mjadam00 (new user which will be blocked by the time I've finished typing this), Conservative, TK, TK, Conservative, Conservative, RobSmith, BertSchlossberg, Conservative, Jpatt, Jpatt, Conservative, Jpatt, Conservative, Jpatt, Joaquin Martinez, TerryH, Aschlafly, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Dasonk, Jpatt, Jpatt, Wuhao1911, Tzoran, Wuhao1911, Aschlafly, HenryW, HenryW, Clintville, Jpatt, Jpatt, Jpatt, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Jpatt, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, DerekE, DerekE, Joaquin Martinez and Joaquin Martinez. They neglected to mention TK blocked essentially the whole world apart from America. SJ ^Debaser 12:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See also. Doc Holiday (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia began as a project of a 50-strong group of home-schooled students but now excludes thousands of editors." (not me, BTW, I just returned^img. Though I'm range-blocked at the moment... ) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Since your reason for wanting to return seems to be pretty well demonstrated here, LArron, is there some reason I shouldn't reverse my offer? I find it pretty petty to post here what you only just (at the time of your posting here) emailed me about. Deceit thy name is European Democratic Socialist (example #32847), it seems. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And I found it pretty amusing to come back after 15 month and run into one of the numerous range blocks. Amusing - and blog-worthy - that's all: I haven't implied that this was the result of some e-v-i-l manipulations... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And I promised never to read CP again because there's a limit to how much lunacy the human brain can tolerate. But as soon as I do (I have no idea why - maybe my finger slipped) I read that the Tea Party people are hiring Schlafly as their lawyer. Mr Menendez must be sleeping a little more easily at night! Let's hope Sarah Palin chooses him (Schlafly) as her attorney for the 2012 election. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to be fleshing out his legal strategy here.--WJThomas (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh. He didn't even address that Art. I, Sec. 3 sets the qualifications and terms of election of a senator and that the Supremacy Clause means the Constitution trumps state law. 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP: The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes ... (my emphasis) Willem de Zwijger (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What does Andy expect to happen with this? They're going to gather a stack of signatures, present them at some New Jersey state office, and an official will declare "Wow! You have signatures! Despite the fact there's absolutely no Constitutional basis for such a thing, we'll hold the recall election next Tuesday!" Once again, Andy is letting the perceived rightness of his cause trump all logic. If he had anything resembling a sense of strategy, he'd first work to get a recall system into law, then try to recall Menendez. As it is, this is going to end up like the numerous lawsuits the Birthers predicted would lead to Obama removed from office -- a court will basically look at it, say "there's nothing here" and move on to matters that actually matter legally. Basically, Andy's going to get Lenski'd again. MDB (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I have contempt for the guy and his proclivity for slapping up any old frivolous argument and some personal insults to advance the "conservative" cause. But it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. These clowns won the right to gather signatures when the NJ appellate court reversed a trial court order denying their request for an injunction requiring whatever public official to accept their Notice of Intent to Recall. The constitutional issue is not resolved: it will be addressed if and when they gather signatures from 25% of registered voters in NJ, which they rosily underestimated in their court papers. There may or may not be a constitutional basis for a recall in the sense that the entire question resolves to whether despite Article I, Section 3 already addressing the qualifications of a senator, the lack of any express provision for recalling a senator under state law means that "right" is reserved to the states under the 10th amendment. I think it's a fucking stupid argument, but hey. That's the world Andy Schlafly lives in. Interestingly, the Constitution may also provide no basis for even impeaching a senator, as the last time the issue was raised in 1797 the senate determined it didn't have jurisdiction over the matter because a senator was not an "officer" of the United States. Anyway, WhizKid asked the right question on the essay talk page. We'll see how Andy addresses the text of Art. I., Sec. 3 vis a vis the Supremacy Clause. 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This will run and run: I think we ought to have an article ready to go on it. Doc Holiday (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so Andy's not completely pissing into the wind -- he does have something resembling legal hope, and this isn't him tilting at windmills.

Actually, though, my conspiratorially minded side says this: even if this goes no where in court, its still not a bad strategy for whoever plans to run against Menendez (and I'm sure they have someone in mind, I just wouldn't know who.) If they actually succeed in a recall, great for the unnamed candidate. If they fail, they've already got a grassroots movement to tap into for support, and they can use "do what the courts wouldn't let us do" as a campaign slogan of sorts. MDB (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he really is just pissing in the wind as far as I can tell, it's just not as objectively frivolous as his usual strategy of arguing by assertion, repetition, and insult. This is part of the far-right becoming "violently ungovernable," a phrase I heard on the BBC this morning :) 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another great one hit wonder

"There's just something about the way its hook grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor."

Vanilla Ice! Best of the public!^img And it's Andy himself, not some parodist doing a reductio ad absurdum on Andy's insight. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, it was written while he was a teenager, so it supports two AndyInsights™. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo yo yo! I've capture tagged that motherfucker! Are we 100% sure that Assfly's not a parodist? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an age-old question. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The spatula on Vanilla Ice's hat approves! Barikada (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful. Isn't this actually an example of "the worst of the public", since the song is universally known to be quite stupid and everyone who ever thought it was cool is now ashamed of it? It made the whole hip-hop genre look stupid and somehow that's what got it into mainstream. Not to mention all the drug abuse and violence generally associated with the artist in question. Great example there, Andy, a real role model for your homoschoolers. Etc 05:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What an amazing page. The St Louis Gateway Arch was designed by an "unknown" architect? I guess if Andy hasn't heard of Eero Saarinen, no one has? What a maroon! - Poor Excuse (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, by that measure, "Carmen" was written by an unknown composer, and John Bunyan was a one-hit wonder with the novel "Pilgrim's Progress." Anyone want to sock up and add these to the list? Junggai (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The page lists Linux and Linus Torvalds as an example. While Linux is an amazing accomplishment to be sure, note that Linus originally based Linux on MINIX, which was written by a big bad college professor. MDB (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Linux wouldn't have gone very far without the foundations laid by GNU, a project run by pretentious communist welfare queens working for elitist ivory towers located in latte-sipping socialist nanny states. mb 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Linus's master's thesis (University of Helsinki, 1990) was Linux: A Portable Operating System. RMS (founder of the FSF, who make the GNU tool chain), graduated from Harvard magna cum laude with a BA in Physics in 1974. CS Miller (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia uses

• MediaWiki, written by Lee Daniel Crocker (education not stated)
• The PHP scripting lanaguage, written by Rasmus Lerdorf, BSc (applied) University of Waterloo, Systems Design Engineering.
• A web server, defaults to Apache, lead author Robert McCool, BA University of Illinois, (subject not stated)
• A database, defaults to MySql, written by Michael Widenius, studied at Helsinki University of Technology, but didn't graduate.

CS Miller (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony

"The Democrats face a tough battle when it comes to passing ObamaCare and it is no sure thing for them that they are going to pass it. I also believe they will likely encounter a backlash if they do pass ObamaCare. Dick Morris appears to have been the first person to say that health care would be Obama's Waterloo. A Republican Senator appears to taken the line from Mr. Morris. Although ObamaCare may turn out to be Obama's Waterloo and I hope this happens, it was a mistake to cite Dick Morris repeatedly on the main page as he appears to be no Gerald Celente when it comes to making predictions as can be seen HERE. I have to admit though that Morris did come up with a colorful phrase though when he said that ObamaCare would be Obama's Waterloo. :)" Says Ken^img totally without irony. Doc Holiday (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) (should have said: emphasis mine)

That's possibly my favorite Ken quote ever. I'm tempted to make a second Ken quote generator based around this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That there is some good england writing that is there. I hope this will be used as study material for their writing course. Looking forward to the new Ken quote machine, Tet. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you make the "topic words" in the QG randomizing subtemplates that get used over and over again a la Ken

, they should only get parsed once, thus putting the same randomly chosen phrase in every instance. ħuman 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Celente... such bullshit.--^talk 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it me or do all Ken's ramblings read like he never takes a pause to take a breath? Whenever I read his shit, I can vividly picture an ADHD kid being just too overexcited to get his words out properly.. Take a minute to recollect your breath from time to time, Ken! --GTac (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the keyword-tourette's was part of the grand search-engine optimization plan. Maybe he knew before-hand that these mails would become public and did his best to get them well-indexed? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 11:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Christian humour

I see Aristophanes has made it onto the front page of CP as World Treasure of the Week/ Month/ Whatever. Does anyone remember the crap about a year ago when Andy "argued" (i.e. stated without evidence and blitzed anyone who disagreed with him) that humour only came into existence with the foundation of Christianity (if you don't follow the logic, don't worry, there wasn't any). The CP page on Aristophanes mentions the word 'comedy' several times. It also mentions that he died in 380 BC. Hypothesis disproved, matey. CP users who wrote the page about this very funny, pre-Christian dramatist don't seem to have been cast into outer darkness. Yet. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Andy response to that point was that "comedy" was a misleading modern term, and that they didn't display "real humor."--^talk 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Foundation of Christianity already exist back then. What do you think the Old testament is? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the funniest people I know are Christians. It's just that the humorous nature of their utterances is unintentional. --Horace (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ was nearing climax, but he did some tantric hojamajab and managed to hold off for another 400 years or so. Once his refractory period is over he should come again. --Opcn (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here^img (and here^img since CaptureBot just captured up to the next headline) is the old discussion about this (there may have been another one somewhere, though). --Sid (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can find the RW (okay, my) take on it here. MDB (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work there, MDB. That's an excellent example of how it is simply not possible to disprove a ridiculously wild assertion once it's been pulled out of the Assfly's arse. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny Christians

Just for what its worth, there are Christian humorists, and not just "ha ha, look at how stupid people who don't think like we do are" types. I give you The Wittenburg Door magazine. Even though its target audience is believers, it doesn't mind criticizing a lot of the stupidity that comes out of the religious right. MDB (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing teacher

"... could cause more abortions than Roe v. Wade by using federal taxpayer funding under the Executive Order and/or after its rescission. " [1]^img

Where does the "and/or" fit in with the English language, let alone with the the meaning of the sentence? Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he had me until he turned that weird illiterate corner. Andy, take it from a professional, let sane people edit the shit you write when in your cups. ħuman 03:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have parsed the sentence in the following manner:

"|... could cause more abortions than Roe v. Wade| by using federal taxpayer funding| under the Executive Order| and/or| after its [the Executive Order's] rescission. |"

Does it make a bit more sense now? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Err ... no? Willem de Zwijger (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So basically they were counting on people being too poor to abort or something? Sen (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Where "and/or" fits in... Yoohoo ingredients: Water, milk and/or sugar. (I probably have the milk part wrong, but it is true that ingredients have "and/or" Fuzzy =^_^= 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that usually be various vegetable oils or sweeteners, that are "substituted" by using whichever is cheaper at any given time? ħuman 03:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CP officially loses its shit.

Andy is so pissed at Rep. Stupak that he floods the borken news template with all kinds of rambling shit. Apparently he thinks Stupak is like Judas, at one point using the phrase "The betrayal of Christ comes a week early this year." I think someone has an inflated sense of history. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 03:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

CP and the larger conservative movement were dancing on healthcare's grave as recently as a week ago; a month ago they were confident their victory was certain. How many goddamn "Waterloo" pronouncements have we had to see? Now that Obama and Pelosi have proven their chops and gotten it done, despite all expectations (right and left) to the contrary, Andy is very bitter. And it looks like his bitterness has focused in its usual haphazard fashion on the most recent thing to have caught his eye - in this case, the notion that Stupak was going to be unwilling to rely on Obama's word as to the executive order.--^talk 03:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Waterloo" comments I saw never explicitly stated whether Obama was Napoleon or Wellington (or Blücher - getting there eventually). It's quite funny watching Schlafly's reaction. You can imagine him spluttering with indignant rage while scouring all the right-wing news sources for more bile. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

He's just a lame blogger liveblogging the news on his lame blog. ħuman 03:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Those poor fuckers. I can imagine them being so angry that poor people will be getting helthcare. Poor people! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is worth a WIGO which documents the Conservapedia news feed's gradual transition from confidence of the bill's failure, to arrogance, to denial, to indignation, and finally to name-calling. Junggai (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling Sid! ħuman 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I didn't pay any attention to the bill's key players/moments or to CP's news items about this, so I wouldn't even know where to start with this, sorry. --Sid (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On a different note... Barack Hussein Napoleon Pol-Pot Obama's stalinised medicine wins! OH YES YES YES YES! -- 10:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Would like to see what Kendoll has to say in regards to Barack Obama's Waterloo in regards to universal healthcare in America. EddyP (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A good try, but where are the rhetorical questions and the awkward beginning? In regards to Kendoll's predictions in regards to Barack Hussein Obama's Obamacare being his Waterloo, will Kendoll address his predictions that Obamacare would be his Waterloo? A certain B in a certain H of R has passed and has skewered the sacred cow of the Tea Party. Will Kendoll admit that the Tea Party's sacred cow has been skewered? Rational Wiki predicts that Obamacare's waterloo will be Kendoll's waterloo. Waterloo. 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the talking point will now be "ObamaCare's passage will lead to Waterloo for Obama in the fall elections". Which may not be too far off the mark -- the Republicans are going to be hitting the issue hard until November, and I think it may work for them. The issue has the Republican base incredibly energized, and it will be used against every vulnerable Democrat who voted for it. MDB (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What'll be even more entertaining is when "CollegeRepublican" in the 2025 version of CP will claim that "Conservatives have always been for public health care, 'cause Baby Jesus said it was good." We know it'll have to be CollegeRepublican since Andy will have been carted off to the nuthouse after he fux up the "recall that Senator we don't like, anymore" campaign. CЯacke®

Goonie left this on my talk page. It's a good read and I think it belongs here. ħuman 04:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What was it? Commenting has been suspended (and existing ones temporarily hidden) due to the number of comments. CS Miller (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read any comments, but anyway, it's David Frum saying that healthcare might be the GOP's waterloo because their strategy was fatally flawed. ħuman 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He makes a very good point, actually. A strategy of "no" will only go so far. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted as having several key points:

• The Republicans bet everything on being able to beat the bill... and lost, bit time.
  • Their strategy was weak in that they underestimated just how liberal Congress currently is (compared to 1994 when Clinton's plan was defeated.)
  • They should have been willing to compromise.
• The bill has definite similarities to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan, and builds on ideas the Heritage Foundation floated in 1994 to counter Clinton's plan. (My interpretation: this was the conservative plan once.)
• The only winners among the Republicans are the talk radio/Fox news crowd, because their audience is riled up and will keep coming back to hear more reasons to be angry.
  • Overheated rhetoric can only carry them so far, and it's well past that point now.

Frum's analysis strikes me as dead on accurate. MDB (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't accurate, it's been quoted by everyone with a keyboard. Seriously - I've seen that column referenced in the news on an hourly basis. Well-written, honest, introspective, and topical.--^talk 02:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mental disorder

Same old shit. Karajou = liberalism is a mental disorder, look at the UK. Fuck you, Karajou, etc. Can you come up with some new stuff now please? Start talking about how us British have shit teeth and bad breath. SJ ^Debaser 11:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad breath? Shit teeth, yes, I'll grant you. But bad breath? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Daddy, why do the fundies keep calling Che Guevara a mass murderer? 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad breath is a result of the awful, socialist NHS Britain has! And "Nutty Roux," it's obvious that anyone that ever went against America ever in the history of ever is labelled as a liberal/socialist/terrorist/murderer forever ever and ever. Please learn with an open mind, or suffer a ripped off head with a neck full of shit. Godspeed! SJ ^Debaser 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, it is quite normal to consider that political views that are sufficiently divorced from one's own are derived from a warped world view - or mental disorder for the less politically correct. Consider the terms 'loonie lefties' or 'mad mullahs'. It was along these lines that Soviet dissidents were imprisoned for mental disorders. Now, if you start from a position as extreme as the CP crowd then European centralism looks as deranged as they do to us. Hence liberalism is a mental disorder to them in the same way that we have often questioned Andy's grasp on reality or Rob's paranoia. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Jack hit the nail on the head. There is definitely a sort of relativism to this whole thing. These days everyone is entitled to their own facts, and it is only natural to call other people delusional when they don't share your view of reality. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Relativism is an evil and discredited so-called "theory" for which no Nobel Prize has ever been offered in the whole 6,000 years of existence. Free yourself from atheistic, liberal brainwashing, and learn how a conservative, god-centred world view can give you whiter teeth and better breath! -- 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian? Conservative?

Nice little exchange here^img Doc Holiday (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed that one. Karajou can determine whether or not you're a true Christian in 500 characters or less. Andy's cry of "last-wordism" followed by banning and reverting to give himself the last word somehow never gets old. Even better, Jacob and Douglas weren't around to fuck the whole thing up with their god awful parody. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please to not call my parody god awful. kthxbye. mb 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on which one...Jacob is god awful. Douglas might not be. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying Douglas isn't a parodist or that his parody isn't awful? Either case is quite a stretch. 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was only trying to be nice to MB by implying that if he was DouglasA, his parody wasn't nearly as bad as JacobB's. Still bad, though... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome how Conservapedia gives rise to... new forms of politeness. Who'd have thunk. mb 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So wait, if only 20% of Americans are liberals, that would make the majority of Democrats conservatives?

Andy's final reply ("go be wrong somewhere else") was what made it funny for me. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Parody can be so bewildering. OncomingStorm (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but this incident is a perfect example of why it's so funny. When Andy et al. argue with parodists, they reveal their own positions on certain issues, which are often more extreme than the parodists' mock arguments. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Often when one intellectualizes too much on a collection of simple words, they miss the real point. I think this is what you've done here Tetronian; in fact you have somewhat embarrassed yourself. OncomingStorm (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is the "real point?" My point is simply that Poe's Law creates some amusing arguments, like the one linked to above.

I'm not sure how pointing this out (even if it is incorrect) counts as "embarrassing [myself]." Would you care to elaborate? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feel offended if I say 'no'. OncomingStorm (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't be offended, but I will draw the conclusion that there was no "real point." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"It's NOT okay to be wrong sometimes" and such were actually worth watching TK troll...

P.S. Anyone who finds meaning in the words of others is a damned fool. Now if you'll excuse me, I no longer feel like discussing this. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Often when one intellectualizes too much on a collection of simple words, they miss the real point." Jinx, you've come a long way since yelling about "penis-stuffed butts." Corry (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see two such unrelated words in the same sentence - "Jinx" and "intellectualizes".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote counts as a separate sentence, I believe. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, explain this De-Wiki please

Stephanie Simon^img

I missed the part about the dewikification of the conservative wiki... Alain (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? De-wiki of "Los Angeles Times^img... while at the same time reverting the entire article back to his initial version. --Sid (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, complete with his misspelling of "Los Angelas." Junggai (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaand... re-wiki^img and fixing the typo... while still sticking with his initial version. Nice. --Sid (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

*groupie squeal*^img --Sid (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob is made of awesome. mb 05:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, this feels like watching dungbeetles Alain (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or naked molerats. ħuman 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Naked mole rats push around piles of shit? --Opcn (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If Rob was a naked mole rat he would push around piles of shit. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

All this talk of shit and mole rats is getting me awfully hard.Webbtje (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't complain, fix it

Oh, you couldn't, it was locked^img. Andy is a total stranger to Dale Carnegie isn't he? Sssh^Sssh 15:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

By tradition people do not edit their own entries on wikis. But they can 'Clarify' it... Alain (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. This is puzzling. He sasses someone for complaining by saying they could have fixed it and in the very same breath admits the article was locked. Huh. I guess the editor was supposed to pray fervently that some saint would intervene and notify Andy of the error so he could unlock it and invite the editor to fix it. Or something. I guess it just goes to show you'll always be incorrect about procedure when one of the goals of Andy's set of post hoc rules is to shame and insult. 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What's Karajou talking about?

Here he goes on about how the health care bills would raise taxes on middle-class Americans. I thought it was only for people making a few hundred grand a year. I don't expect anything Karajou says to be based in reality, but I feel compelled to ask: is there any basis for his claim? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Think you mean either Jinx or TK? Karajou didn't post in that section. I love TK's comment, though. Damned if Obama does, damned if he doesn't. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a basis for it, yes. If you have health insurance, though, you don't pay it. It's to pay for healthcare for the uninsured, IIRC. You might want to research this further, though. ħuman 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He wouldn't let it lie!

Andy is really upset about Stupak, isn't he? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be slanderous for me to postulate that Andy's wife has stupacked him with out him even knowing it. --Opcn (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He's got his panties in a particularly tight twist over the HCR passage in general. Not sure why. You'd think he be used to being wrong by now.--WJThomas (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's used to being not even wrong. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

gOD only knows what he'll do when all his sysops out themselves as parodists and homosexuals. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

gOD only knows what he'll do when his brother outs him for being a homosexual parodist. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And then there is a whole article^img on it, that's simply constipation. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first Andy obsession that has budded into an article/essay/"mystery." Remember this nugget of pure gold? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

At times I wonder about the merits of intellectual ass rape, with out opening things up a bit stuff like that wouldn't pass so easily with out tearing. --Opcn (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Presidential height wigo

Height doesn't appear to be completely irrelevant: e.g. http://www.hackwriters.com/tall.htm. What would It would say about Palin's chances I wonder.

This is a datestamp for pibot. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My mind has just exploded

"I thought about your comments, Andy, and they make perfect sense."

Conservapedia: Not even Poe is enough. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was a pretty sensible answer. </blasphemy> Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The funny part here is how Andy actually manages to snatch ridiculousness from the jaws of reason in the end. Like Tetronian said, he actually made a good point about how messed up it is for a government to tax addicts for the stuff they're addicted to. When it was mentioned that tanning isn't addictive, he can't just let it go, but has to pull a Schlafly Stretch and characterize suntan bed users as "the less privileged", "who need the money the most". In Conservastan, I guess the less privileged are the ones who have to use tanning beds because they can't afford to go to Palm Beach in the winter. This stretch is seasoned with a final irony - yes, these are people who for no better reason than vanity will repeatedly use a product that has been declared a significant cancer risk, but hey - "they can spend money better than the government can". The best of the public wins again. --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit "replied" to actually made a fair amount of sense. Andy's next comment was totally loonie. Since when does the government fund Planned Parenthood? Surely, surely they don't... and the poor use tanning beds??? ħuman 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy's first comment made it sound like he was being practical and sensible; his second reveals that there is (as usual) a dogmatic, unalterable belief behind his argument. He completely stretches the issue beyond the scope of the orginal point. And then TK swoops in for the win^img. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I read somewhere, (it may have been a private email or IM) where TK said he indulged in beach sports, like surfing. Suggesting perhaps that TK is neither successful nor wealthy. Did we know that?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit of a stretch, Lilly, to say someone who enjoys the beach isn't successful? I know many other CEO's who surf daily, while I cannot manage it that often. And what, pray tell, does my relative net worth have to do with the mission of this wiki? Are you saying that net worth = success? That's very un-liberal of you! Come to think of it, kind of bitchy and catty as well. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

According to professor wikipedia "Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($349.6 million in FY 2008)" and "Some pro-life organizations have lobbied federal lawmakers to halt government funding for Planned Parenthood." --Opcn (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, Andy thinks the money all goes to abortions. Which would be cool in my book. Sorry I was wrong. ħuman 03:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxing Addictions

Moved to Forum:Taxing addictions by Totnesmartin (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wonder of Ed

Of all the weirdos on CP, it is Ed Poor who causes me to bang my head against the wall. His most recent "look at me list" has as much substance and interest as house of frozen spittle. Fr'instance, besides his Windows stubs (really, is 'Microsoft problems' a necessary category?) we have "Antonio Banderas is a Latino actor. In 2006, he starred in "Take the Lead". Banderas is actually a Spanish actor (that's Spanish as in being a citizen of the country Spain), Latinos are Americans of Spanish descent/heritage. I can only assume that Ed watched "Take The Lead" but couldn't be arsed to actually blog the whole film. Keep up the good work Ed, CP will become an encyclopedia one day.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

See also: here. Sssh^Sssh 09:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that it's not the first time, but the whole "I'm a great wikimeister and show me your bot" thing when contrasted with his actual usless contributions makes me want to scream.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He even does it on the Zeuglodon thing. He's just got no idea of his own limitations. He brags about his "recruitment" of admins for the Moony 'pedia somewhere ("4 of the 5 are still there" or some such). Not to mention his "founding member" of WP. The man's a total space waste. Sssh^Sssh 10:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it time for a Rationalwiki Special Award for Best Article by Ed Poor? My vote would still go to the old Two Meters one. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 11:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Two meters? Was that a CP article?? Is there a link or screencap??? How can there be an article about two meters???? Fawlty (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sssh^Sssh 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was a Bugler Classic. Was it really one of Ed Poor's droppings? ^{ONE / TALK} 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. It's a typical ed sub-stub. Sssh^Sssh 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor ol' Ed, he never gets a pat on the head like this: "There's a good doggy then, Jpatt.^img Sssh^Sssh 18:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, SShh. Conservapedia must have been extraordinary back in the good old days. Any idea *why* this article was ever created? Fawlty (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was something to do with Ed's height. (?) Sssh^Sssh 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be slightly fair to Ed, he did create it as a joke. ħuman 20:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Ed, all his articles are jokes.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be really fair to Ed, he is a joke. Vulpius (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

To be super fair to Ed, Conservapedia is a joke. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Conservapedia, the tea-baggers are a joke. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Being seven meters tall myself, I approve the results of these messages. !!!! ħuman 07:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, I'm seven meters long Senator Harrison (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To be uber fair and funny and tall to all people in existence, Ed's got to be one of the most boring human beings in existence. SJ ^Debaser 15:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the two meters have anything to do with the inherent evilness ot the metric system? 6'6" and ¾ , almost the height of the devil... From CP: [4]The metric system is a system of measurement developed during the French Revolution's anti-religious Cult of Reason HORROR!!! French, cult(?!) AND anti-religious Alain (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this at Conservapedia's RINO Page

Check this out from Conservapedia's RINO Page.

In contrast to RINO's and cafeteria conservatives, movement conservatives understand that since conservative philosophy is a coherent whole, it is untenable to discard part of it without discarding all of it.

Wow, that really sums it up -- if you're not with them 100%, you're not with them at all. MDB (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

and yet, elsewhere he claims that only 20% of Americans are Liberals. So is there are 3rd category between Liberals and Conservatives? That seems an unlikely viewpoint for Schlafly. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.73 / talk / contribs}

Sadly, Andy would probably be able to avoid endorsement of that, since that part seems to have been written by DavidE. He's obviously familiar with the page, but yeah. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder when Frum makes it onto that page? 00:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

You're talking about someone who is to the right of WorldNetDaily. To be honest that's pretty much off the cliff. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, off the cliff is not a problem since they don't believe in gravity anyways. remember the AiG's statement of faith that literal interpretation of Genesis is required just as much as the Gospels? For some weird reasons they all liked false dichotomy. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, this means that since Andy is often hypocritical, does that mean he's not a real conservative by his own definition? And since he and TK clash on a number of issues, and Ed… what of it? – Nick Heer 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Since Andy is the sole authority of the definition of being a conservative, he can simply includes himself in the set. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The situation embodies the spirit of "It's not a bug it's a feature" --Opcn (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Bert

Another North Korean hit for Bert? Sssh^Sssh 15:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Andy has some competition

He isn't the only one rewriting the bible --Opcn (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha, and they're showing the same attention-span that Andy did. Looks like they gave up some time back, but there's no-one around to continue the work. God unfortunately didn't tell them how to create relative links. Absolute linking has left important parts of the site broken, since the URLs are pointing towards the original files in a Mac OS home folder. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust anyone who can't spell "testament" to work on the Bible... ħuman 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As if the divine force will guide illiterate people to correct spelling mistakes. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Netanyahu <> Obama

"This what happens when a person is elected President without any diplomatic experience." Or maybe it's what happens when someone wants to get a point across? Sssh^Sssh 11:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy thought (?) about it and removed the above quote^img. Sssh^Sssh 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't stuff like that happen all the time? I know Harper got that treatment at least once in the past year. Also, what diplomatic experience did Bush Jr. have, or Reagan even, before taking office? --Kels (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep! Gordon Brown's been "snubbed" too. Sssh^Sssh 12:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I love Andy's 'reason' to take out that line. He wouldn't know anything about self-obsessions himself, would he? Ravenhull (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a Harvard thing Doc Holiday (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't people in CP-land supposed to hate jews? It must get so confusing for them to remember who baby Jesus does and does not love. Teabag (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't always hate Jews, although some do. However, they support Israel unconditionally because they think that Israel has to succeed in order for Jeebus to come back. The irony is, after he does come back, he's supposed to kill us all in a rain of fire. So they're supporting the country and keeping them alive in the face of threats from the middle east so they can watch them all burn at an as yet unconfirmed later date.... SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 06:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Grasping at straws

Is it just me, or does it seem like Andy is blaming liberalsim for a rabbit infestation? The man needs some help. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 03:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since conservatism solves all problems, he might be on to something. Keegscee (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Cook them in popcorn poppers! Grad student diets will improov! ħuman 04:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2RYiaM6WU Steven Fry does not approve. Sorry, I just found that clip funny. --Damo^Hi 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This was literally the first thing that came to mind when Human suggested to cook them. Sidenote: for those of you missing out on the goodness that is QI like I once was, these two gents have got your back. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome video! As long as the rabbit-engorged students get a can of peas once in a while they'll be ok though... or just eat the sprig of parsley the chef has thoughtfully put on the side of the plate. ħuman 22:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

QI just ate 2 1/2 hours of my life... excellent show! ħuman 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

20 Conservapedia Wikipedia articles

I saw the drama over at Wikipedia about Conservapedia. Pretty funny, but that Nobs guy will probably give up soon as he's yet to make any sense. A WP admin might block him soon for 90/10 as he's gone to every noticeboard and no one agrees with him. What surprised me is that there are 20 interwiki links at wp:Conservapedia. Wanna read about Conservapedia in Latin? I read the couple languages I read ( not Latin ) and saw someone on the Spanish talk page say that there was a www.conservapedia.es with a total of 7 articles (Jose María Aznar, ERC, Dios, Creacionismo, Olocau (un pueblo), Portada (la portada de la conservapedia) y Paleolítico). Increíble! Anyone ever hear of that? Teabag (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad link at .es. ħuman 06:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's defunct. I just linked it so I didn't look lazy. Teabag (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

S'ok, I enjoyed the latin version muchly. Especially the references to "Andreas Schlafly". ħuman 07:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss that meeting?

The one in between Andy rambling in an essay that George Orwell might have turned conservative, and him being listed as a "conservative leader and thinker".^img Then again, a fellow "thinker" is Ms Palin, so take that list whence it comes.

On a related note, there was a scary article in Time, that was more or less saying that 'You betcha' will be 2012's 'Yes we can'. Are the rabid right so hard up that she's the best candidate they have? Then again... once upon a time, the Dems had Dukakis. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

At least Dukakis could read. And had an excellent record of good government service. He just didn't look good in khaki. And had negative charisma, as Dawkins fans are wont to say. ħuman 01:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This^img might have been an important link in the chain: "Sounds like the guy has learned how to pretend to support the theory of relativity as required by liberals, while actually contradicting it in his own work. George Orwell would do likewise, pretending to still be a socialist while writing conservative articles." Junggai (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

But... but... that sounds like Orwell was practising liberal deceit... --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an incredibly deep irony about Andy rewriting history to make Orwell conservative. 17:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent an email to the prof mentioned with a diflink, told him about it. --Opcn (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Templeton = Liberal?

No-one appears to have commented on this "news" where Andy notes that the Templeton Foundation is liberal. Sssh^Sssh 10:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They are atheistic and liberal because they are trying to prove god's non-existence. Please open your mind. The truth will set you free. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Templeton have actually published studies that didn't provide the results they would have liked. Perhaps that counts as liberal deceit, since no true conservative would publish anything that would reflect poorly on the single unified and glorious doctrine of Conservatism. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a little argument with Schlafly a couple of years ago about Templeton. It seems they are liberal simply because they are mainstream science, i.e. not YEC. That's enough. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't they give money to people who corrupt science by deliberately blurring the lines between faith and fact? Jaxe (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, although they also fund some legitimate fields of study. It's unfortunate that so much of their money goes in to trying to marry religion with science. I think they awarded a prize to Mel "Cut me bitch, make me bleed" Gibson's little snuff flick. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is different. While some may object to a somewhat religious organisation getting involved in science, they do perform the very useful task of maintaining the bridge between science and religion.

Look, religion is supported by a huge number of people, including very powerful and influential people. At the moment, the Vatican, the Anglican Communion and organisations like the Templeton Foundation accept science and try to see the glory of God in it.

To me, that's a hell of lot better than the raft of Bible-thumping churches, CMI and the Discovery Institute who reject science purely because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The devoutly secular scientists like Dawkins are helping to turn the entire debate into a polarised war. Most religious people couldn't give a toss about whether evolution is true or that the universe is 6,000 years old. But if the only choice is between God/no God because moderate pro-science religious movement have been driven out of religious thinking, then everything will be seriously fucked up. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one should object to Christians doing science any more than white supremacists should be forbidden from doing science. It's only a problem when people introduce foreign concepts in to the science their doing, such as trying to force science to conform with religious belief. There is the case that morals should certainly be involved in science, but I believe religions to be ill equipped to provide moral guidance. There is a need to engage the religious in science, but it shouldn't involve efforts to undermine basic principles of science. I like the tasty hamburger analogy. If you add dog shit to a tasty hamburger, the result isn't a tasty hamburger with dog shit. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that but I wouldn't recognise it as a description of what Templeton is all about. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I only have superficial understanding of their work. Thanks for raising that, I'll go do some reading on them. By the way, I wrote the earlier comment in a bit of a hurry. I'm not equating Christians with white supremacists, just using them as examples of belief positions that have no basis on science. If Dawkins were to suggest that science disproves God, or that scientists should be atheists, then I'd say he's wrong. Francis Collins is a perfectly competent scientist, and I was annoyed by the slurs against him. Same with Ken Miller. Yes they hold some quaint beliefs, but I'm yet to see evidence of that affecting their work. It is good to have people like that, but the real crazies won't even listen to Aquinas, so I'm not sure they'll be swayed by a mere scientist who professes belief. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'a bridge between science and religion'. Sure science should inform the religious on what the facts of reality are, but what does religion have to offer science? Science needs to be secular because it needs to be free from all possible outside influences. A scientist's religion should have zero impact on their results. If this science-religion bridge brings peoples personal faith into the science lab then I don't think I want it. It's more a secret tunnel. Full of weirdos. Jaxe (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could be like the efforts to get girls to take more of an interest in technical subjects, such as the sciences. Gender has no part to play, but we'll be far better off if we try to encourage both sexes to have an interest in science - particularly since many countries are now suffering a shortage of students. In a sneaky way, engaging them in science may persuade some to drop their beliefs. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How's that a religious goal? You can do that in entirely non-religious terms and it would still be a worthy goal. Jaxe (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Getting religious people interested in science wouldn't be a religious goal, so long as the intent isn't to water-down science to accommodate them. My concern is that Templeton may be doing the latter, but I think I need to read more about them before I can be certain about that. Using the girls example, I remember my CS course about 12-13 years back, and out of maybe 80 people about 5 were female. I'm not sure why the ratio is so skewed, but it's something worth understanding to see if they're being pushed away for the wrong reasons. Same with religion. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by a bridge between science and religion has nothing to do with science and religion themselves exactly. But it has everything to do with the cultures in which they operate. Have you seen how polarised they are becoming? How many religious people who, up until recently would have had no reason to choose between one and the other, are now being artificially forced into accepting either their religiously sanctioned (YEC, ID, etc) view of science or mainstream "secular" science? I keep banging on about Lemaitre but just suppose that he was coming up with his ideas of the Big Bang today. Then, it was debated hotly within the realms of science. Today it would become a ridiculous farce with fundies saying this and Dawkins saying the other persuading nobody but those who wanted to be persuaded.

The likes of the Templeton Foundation allow the religious layperson to have no problem with science. They don't necessarily think about it every day but, when challenged, they can easily draw upon the output of organisations like these to demonstrate to their fundie friends that there is no conflict and that science poses no risk to their faith. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is science does pose a risk to their faith if they believe in things that are demonstrably false. I don't think hiding or denying that does anyone any favours. I don't see any polarisation coming from the science side really. I mean lots of people say Dawkins is polarising but he only wrote one book about bad arguments for god, it wasn't a science book and didn't pretend to be. Although I find it amusing that to be a religious fundamentalist you have to shoot people and fly planes into buildings, but all you have to do to be a 'militant' atheist is write a book. All his other books have been purely about science and why it's interesting. In fact in his latest book he goes out of way to accommodate to the religiously minded readers. If there's any polarising going on it's coming from the religious folk who are promoting anti-scientific attitudes and actively denying the findings of modern science. I think combating those kinds of anti-intellectual movements are, unfortunately, necessary. Jaxe (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blaming the likes of Dawkins. I'm saying that if you end up with only the likes of Dawkins opposing the fundies, you'll end up with an unbridgable gap. What I am saying is that the likes of the Templeton Foundation and, by extension all people and organisations who promote good science but have a non-conflicting faith background, enable the lay-religious to have a much better choice than simply dismissing science that conflicts with the literal YEC view.

Whether you agree with NOMA or not, it is surely sensible to allow the type of position that, at the very least, helps the religious find an accommodation with science. That is, after all, the position that most in Europe have as opposed to the ridiculousness of evolution being objected to in schools in the US because of the prevalence of YEC. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

New Category

TK created a new category called Needing improvement. What is the point of having a category into which 99% of articles fall? Keegscee (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Look who wrote the two articles in the cat. TK's on an anti-human binge on CP today. ħuman 02:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, only one of them. He blocked me before I had a chance to improve the damn thing. Big yellow machine photography season was just coming up, too. ħuman 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested to him that he make it "Pygmies and Dwarfs" instead of stubs but he didn't go for it ... speaking of which, where would I bring it up if I wanted us to change from stubs to pygmies and dwarfs? --Opcn (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just do it the RW way. Go ahead and make the change, then sit back and watch HCM explode around you. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Recess Appointments

Terry is all mad^img that Obama appointed staffers while the Senate was/is in recess. Too bad he doesn't know his history, because the record for recess appointments belongs to Ronald Reagan. George W. Bush made 171 (the next highest amount) in 6 years before Harry Reid stepped in and blocked him from making any more, by keeping the Senate permanently in session. – Nick Heer 04:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Politics come with a short memory I guess. I was speaking with a guy who was fuming over this and when I mentioned that George. W Bush used a recess appointment to appoint an Anti-UN guy as our UN Representative he kinda stumbled around a little and then said "Well I don't agree with it." In today's hyper-partison atmosphere, recess appointments are common. Clinton made like 140 himself. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 04:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a news item carried on, oh I don't know, 1000 media outlets? How does that translate to my being "mad" or not knowing my history, or having a short memory? And one of Obama's appointments was a guy already rejected by the Democrat controlled Senate. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound like its a distinct liberal trait when it's not. It's misleading. Deny that and lose all credibility. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It must be the voices in your head, Senator. The news item says the same as hundreds of other outlets that use the Associated Press. I do understand your confusion, hard as you guys have been working back in D.C. Two thirty hour weeks must take a toll. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can just see TK now, sitting on the loo, wanking away as he sends this shit. I can't think of any other explanation for it. It's all he gets these days. It's been that way for years. Matt 09:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean... he's a bastion of the Conservative movement (and everybody else's bowel movements). Even though his only contributions have been saving Nancy Reagan from assassination and blocking users on a 3rd rate blog, that even conservatives ignore. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Course, the real bad guys here are the ones who prevented dozens of perfectly good people from taking important jobs, undermining the effective running of the country for months on end simply to try and score political points. Damn Democrats. Oh, and by the way TK, ta means thank you. Bil08 (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote is not what the AP wrote. Sorry. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Article of the Day/ Hour?

So Andy wants to step up the frequency of the featured article. [2]^img. That should be fun, watching Terry copy/paste entries to meet Andy's requirement that "Judicial nominees and pending court cases" are featured on the main page. --PsyGremlinTala! 09:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

profspotting

the prof	the prof
contributions of RJJ at CP	contributions of Ed Poor at CP
contributions of RJJ at CZ	contributions of Ed Poor at CZ
contributions of RJJ at WP	contributions of Ed Poor at WP

The good prof became something of a rare^img bird over the last two month. Are there no of his articles at Citizendium left which he could copy to Conservapedia to get them some quality edits? I hope, he's well - and has just read the article on cp:Barrack Hussein Obama...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He's no less active than before, it's just at a saner site now. I had attributed his Conservapedia activity to senility, but whatever it was, he seems to have snapped out of it. Burndall (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting: I had checked his contributions at Citizendium (less than at CP for the last two months), but I'm glad he found his way back to WP (it is him, isn't it?) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely him. Compare the biographical information here and here. Burndall (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

He had never left for good - but now, the prodigal son seems to have returned! That isn't welcomed news for conservapedia - or Andy's ego: our prof went l-i-b-e-r-a-l! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll push my luck & wigo this ;-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. It's already negative... My wigo skills suck :-( larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I like how Ed Poor kept the Sunday holy in his earlier years - or didn't he have a private internet connection? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he must have been editing from work, sat/sun off. What is the deal with the occasional XX hash marks?

The XX hash marks are meant to indicate days when an editor is blocked - but currently, that's only true for the CP pics. Amusing fact: Ed Poor was never blocked here at RW... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Though the wigo didn't come out positive, I'm surprised how many people do read the wigos - and click on the related pics: the pics of Ed Poor (not wigoed) were seen less than 20 times, the pics on RJJ (wigoed) over 250 times. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Elmer Fudd

Fair use! They're kidding surely Green Giant (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't blame them. The ongoing copyrights violation issues at CP would suggest that there's no-one at CP with legal training beyond owning a box set of Boston Legal. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can blame them. And I hope sooner or later someone does. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I blame Andy and no-one else. At least two of the images on the front page are being used illegally, and I find it difficult to believe that Andy's not seen them. Given his alleged legal training, it's not surprising if his minions take his silence to be a tacit acceptance of their thieving. If Andy was served a request to remove images then he'd likely spin it in to an attack on home schooling. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically all of them should know better (especially TK, who is one of the worst offenders - remember the Gore picture?), but for the most part I agree. He does indeed let people upload copyrighted images under the guise that CP is an "educational resource" (is that even a valid excuse?). I've been looking around the site and in 5 minutes I found several copyrighted images. Is it time to call the FBI on them? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't risk contacting the FBI. They're still searching for CP vandals, and the last thing we'd want is to lead them back here. Besides, the homosexual agenda has so subverted the law that I doubt if anything is illegal. I'm off to eat some babies! --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Cue someone pointing out that we do the same and calling us hypocrites. OH SNAP. -- Nx / talk 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we scour the wiki for infringement, then? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It's been proposed, but it doesn't really work if people continue to dump stuff in. We could be called hypocrites, although there's nothing in our mission to suggest that we're law-abiding. CP is another matter because they claim a Christian conservative background - which one would kind of expect involves respecting the law and the moral rights of authors. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're technically correct, but it seems dishonest to hide behind the mantra of "well, we don't claim to be law-abiding." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit weasely. I suppose it may be better to stick with the notion that we're all individuals here, and that we're personally responsible for our own shenanigans. i.e. anyone accusing CP of stealing pictures should at least make an effort to avoid doing the same thing themselves. I reckon that's about as good as we're going to get unless there's external pressure to systematically change the way the site deals with images. If it gets bad then we'll just tell the police that Nx did it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The copyright issue is pretty easily resolved here. We're very receptive to anyone identifying allegedly infringing uses and we address it. That's nowhere near the strident response one gets, noted above, from CP sysops when the same is brought to their attention. JM and RJJ are terrible copyright abusers, CP sysops know this, and yet nobody's done a single thing about some of the egregious examples brought to their attention. Nuff said. 20:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

From above: "especially TK, who is one of the worst offenders." But but but, TK creates all his own work. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Asides which...doesn't one have to be of the chosen to upload there? What is our upload policy/restrictions? CЯacke® 22:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a small delay. Ips can't, and I just made a new account and it can't. But it's not restricted to "syslops" as far as I know, although that is an incredibly low bar here... ħuman 01:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it might have been CJHallock that I got blocked when I harped on the rights theft ... --Opcn (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They can't even spell "scwewy", so scwew them. ħuman 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we trus Andy to be somewhere competent (i.e. goes confrontational at the first instance) and thus can pretend to defend himself (i.e. sue anyone's ass off if they ever accuse them of copyright infringement)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I read and re-read your post several times and have no idea what you're saying but want to. Copyright infringers aren't usually keen on suing someone for defamation for calling them copyright infringers. Nothing Andy does is what I would call particularly good evidence of competence, including going confrontation at the first instance. 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please restate this Thiel - I don't understand. 14:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: see what you get if you search on WP for Wikipedia:CP. Green Giant (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NR is spot on here, RW does remove illegally used copyrighted material. I uploaded a photo recently, I knew I was pushing it a bit to claim 'fair use', another editor wasn't happy with it, so it was removed - simple. Compare that with CP, where they are always uploading all manner of images and simply stick 'fair use' on them. Has anyone informed any copyright holders about CP's plundering? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RKLuffy88

One of the longest surviving editors at CP (since 7 July 2007) gets TK'd^img for 5 years over the Pallywood entry. TK takes yet another step in his efforts to finish off CP. Way to go! By the way, TK, which is it - was the article copied, as per the deletion log^img, or fake, as per the block log. It can't be both. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the hardon for TK? I guess you think you're better, you're not. CP the wiki grows and you are powerless. Go watch some anime--193.200.150.152 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

CP isn't growing. And if we're powerless why are they terrified to let us post on their wiki? Mei (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so good to see little Johnny boy leaping to his boyfriend's defence. Actually John, I am better... I'm not a pathological liar, I'm not a deceitful sack of shit, I'm not a traitor to my kind, I'm not a sociopath, I don't live with mummy... should I continue. And for that matter - why the hard on for me? You're cute, but not my type. Sorry, I prefer people with a brain. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those Remarkable Jews and their flying machines

Remarkable Jews^img

Not much to say, except that the title is great. I sort of want to go and create a list of unremarkable Jews. The guy next door, one of my co-workers, Eric Cantor, etc. Stile4aly (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought Andy was opposed to cataloging by ethnic groups rather than by ideas, because that is what liberals do, or something. - π 23:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What a hideous layout. Only Ken could make it worse. --Kels (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe they forgot Ben Stein. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger was a politician??? ħuman 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Where are Ethel and Julius? DickTurpis (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute... Albert Einstein, the discoverer of the theory of relativity, and David Ben-Gurion, a kibbutznik revolutionary socialist? Andy must be getting mellow in his old age. mb 06:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Who made that page? --Opcn (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Martinez. Green Giant (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Click on "history". ħuman 07:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"This page has been deleted." "CP policy does not allow for classification of specific people by releigion or race." mb 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Those remarkable Jews, we at Conservapedia love them all, even if we think they are all going to Hell." --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FDR was Jewish? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL no, but maybe that allows them to better justify in their minds that he is in Hell. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Jebus a remarkable Jew?82.23.208.15 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and he didn't need no gosh-darned machine to fly! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I officially claim 'Those Remarkable Jews' as a future band name. I Eat Glue (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea party express

"The 'Tea Party Express' was greeted by about 1,200 to 1,500 supporters as it rolled into Phoenix on Sunday, the third stop on a three-week, cross-country tour that ends in Washington, D.C., on April 15." brags Andy, but: "The rally in Phoenix was the lowest attended of the first three Tea Party Express stops, with an estimated 1,200 in attendance Sunday, ..." according to USA Today Green Giant (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NO IT WAS TEH GREETEST RALLEYE EVAR ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Nevada one had a choice quote [5]

Tea Party Americans, some of the folks in this movement, some of you are registered Republicans, some of you are what we used to call Reagan Democrats and some of you are like so many of my friends in my family, including my own husband, just independent, not registered in any party, just true, blue-blooded Americans, working hard, loving this country, standing up for what is right, concerned about the path that we are on.

That seems to describe Andy... though wouldn't red-blooded be more appropriate than the east coast upper class? --Shagie (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Kara's Toon

Why does Obama look like a Dick Tracy Villain? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeh wanneh make somethin' of et, sonneh? SJ ^Debaser 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was Humphrey Bogart at first. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know that Kajagoogoo made an obvious effort to avoid racial sterotyping in that there caricature of his. Any chance of slipping in a few more stereotypical images, Kajagoogoo, just to make sure that the viewing audience knows that that there boy boss might not be white?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

With the apparent cigarette holder, I thought it was supposed to be some weird statement about Obama being like FDR. MDB (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What Doublethink?

For the people who is too lazy to look for diffs, doublethink is referring to this, it has since been edited.

By that same token, if we are drawing cartoons about a particular homophobic priest having gay sex would that be doublethink as well? At most you can say there is a lack of evidence to the accusations, and it would definitely not be doublethink. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with K61824 on this one. If we immediately brand our enemies with terms like "doublethink" every time they say something dumb, we're going to look just like Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree (and I wrote the WIGO). This conservative meme about Obama tearing the Constitution to shreds is as clicheed as it is meaningless, especially considering a) Obama was an associate professor of constitutional law and b) has never shown any public disrespect for the Constitution (unlike the "God-damned piece of paper" mentality that conservatives looked the other way on a short while ago). Priests did rape little boys. Obama has a difference of opinion than conservatives about what the Constitution does and does not allow. They're not the same at all. Junggai (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If they don't think his professor credentials are legitimate or that he has any legitimate experience with constitutional law then it isn't double think. Please cite conservapedia accepting Obama's credentials. --Opcn (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, just because someone has studied the Constitution doesn't mean he ipso facto has to abide by it. It's not a very good WiGO, though the return of the weekly toon is in itself Wigoworthy. DickTurpis (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, Robert Bork has taught constitutional law, and I don't think it says what he thinks it says... ħuman 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For it to be good you need to link to Karajou showing disrespect for the constitution. If you can't find it, you should remove the doublethink bit. EddyP (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, doublethink doesn't quite nail the facile, mugging unfunniness of Karajou's creation. I guess what I was responding to is how the picture (as noted above) emphasizes Obama's blackness, which ties into the real fire behind the conservatives' "stomping on the Constitution" meme - Obama isn't one of us; he's a radical Kenyan Muslim Maoist who knows and cares nothing for our beloved constitutional republic, wishing to supplant our freedoms with a combination of Sharia law and icky internationalist socialism. That the facts completely contradict this image (which even contradicts itself!) has never made jerks like Karajou lose any sleep, and the cognitive dissonance required to take this position, much less to take it for granted like Karajou does in his magery, never ceases to get under my skin. All of the stuff CP claims: that they don't accept his credentials (essentially the same as Andy's), that his birthplace is really still a mystery, Rob's wacky six-degrees of Mao Zedong ejaculations, are not intellectual positions one can engage with or even take seriously. They're just excuses for their irrational hatred.

Now that I've got that out, I'll change the WIGO to a less sloppy characterization. If someone has an idea how to make it funny, feel free to have at it. Junggai (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, read this column. DickTurpis (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thieh is useful, I don't care what all you buggers say about him in pmail ;) ħuman 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how the news changes

Andy: Terrorists hit Moscow! JPatt: Islamic terrorists hit Moscow! Webbtje (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I like how the addition of the word "Islamic" constitutes 'wikifying' the news item. ^{ONE / TALK} 19:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikis hate teh mussies.Webbtje (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Steele

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=87913&diff=765925&oldid=765922^img lol ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy but...

[3]^img I wonder if Andy will ever wiki him and realize that he wasn't named after Ayn Rand because his name is Randal... He is nicknamed after Ayn is all. --Opcn (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is actually steams back to Andy's peculiar (and I might add childish) view that you have to accept a persons entire philosophy or none of it at all. It manifests in two ways. The way above where he can't believe Ron Paul admires/agrees Ayn Rand because he disagrees with her on religion. He has rejected part, so he has rejected all. The other way is when, for example, someone is into animal rights. Hitler liked animal rights, so as you have accepted part, so you have accepted the whole. Animal rights leads to the conclusion you should kill people. I don't know how Andy can possibly vote for anyone but himself as he will never find someone he agrees with in full. - π 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that he hasn't caught on to the fact that neither of them ever mention religion. (I strongly suspect that Ron Paul is the famous athiest in congress that is in the closet, accordion to CFI) --Opcn (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Ron Paul was one of the candidates who indicated he didn't believe in evolution when asked at a Republican primary debate, so I doubt he's an atheist. It's also seemed to me that libertarians seem to be on the forefront of the anti-science movement, but I could be mistaken about that. DickTurpis (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it back, he is a dick muncher--Opcn (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Name that logical fallacy! ("Bob the Fallacy" is not a good answer)

Is there a term for that logical fallacy?

I'm thinking specifically of the argument:

• Alex believes in X (a belief that may be controversial, but is still mainstream).
• Barb also believes in X.
• But Barb also believes in Y (a very radical, perhaps even crackpot idea.)
• Therefore, Alex must also believe in Y.

It's not quite a strawman, but seems to be similar. MDB (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are evil" - but I can't remember the name so Bob The Fallacy will have to do for the moment. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's association fallacy, but it's not exactly what MDB described. -- Nx / talk 13:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have described it poorly. Let's try again.

• Alex a leader of the Barbist political party.
• Alex believes in X.
• Therefore, all Barbists believe in X. MDB (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not far from your title, I'd like to recommend "RobSmith the fallacy." Junggai (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "RobSmith the phallus" would be more accurate. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of a fallacy of distribution Those that believe in some of Alex's beliefs must believe in all of his beliefs. But it's still not dob on. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You could almost term it "the Limbaugh fallacy", since its been a standard tactic of his for years. Find a crackpot statement made by someone he defines as a "liberal", then imply or directly state "all liberals think like this". (And yeah, I know, such tactics are not exclusive to the right.) MDB (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken self meds

The f1 page lists a few foods with specific mg/kg concentrations. The numbers are from wp:quercetin occurrence, though he miscopied the apples (44 mg/kg rather than 440). This corresponds to the 'Q:' at the start of the line. The 'E' is suggestive of 'ellagic acid' which matches a line from [6]. These two suggest cancer therapy though maybe one of the medical types that are familiar with the substances can elaborate further - my guess is based on that it is listed as one of the mentions in the quercetin page and the first line of the ellagic acid page. I don't know what the 'S' and 'J' values are for. --Shagie (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The "S" and "J"'s are about me. Ken and I are in love, even though I'm a slovenly liberal and he's a fastidious conservative. SJ ^Debaser 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Skip to 34 seconds for the music. - π 23:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does he expect to get crowberries? You have to go outside and climb hills to collect those. --Opcn (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You find a crow with dingleberries... --Shagie (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people do tend to go for the outlandish when they've got cancer and similar disorders (here's hoping that Ken doesn't have any of that, and is just a loon). My uncle, who admittedly was one for schemes to start with, had a metal tank lined with copper coils that he bathed in and drank sterilized urine after he was diagnosed with lukemia. It killed him in the end, but he did some weird stuff on the way. --Kels (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have a bladder infection/VD urine is sterile to start.--Opcn (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Liars

You people make me sick. I get that you think we're wrong, that you think we're funny. Laugh at us all you want on your own site. By why do you have to send people like Wuhao over to us just to puts false information into our articles? People use us for education - why are you so desperate to mislead conservative students? YourEnemy? (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of everyone here, I apologize for RW's being the only reason anyone could possibly dislike even a single aspect of Conservapedia. I can only imagine the harm it has caused you personally, not to mention countless young minds. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that Wuhao even knows what RW is. Keegscee (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize to the Chinese people on behalf of Wuhao. From Ken's fascinating news items, we know scores of Chinese use CP to educate themselves about things like atheism, homosexuality (and the associated gay bowel syndrome), so I can only assume that if CP doesn't act quickly to fix his contributions, future generations of Chinese will grow up in utter confusion about their culture. Röstigraben (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"People use us for education" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!11!!!1!!1!1!!eleventy!!!one!! --Opcn (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My God, verifying all of Wuhao's 1000+ edits could take weeks. Possibly the most destructive parodist ever? Keegscee (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's done a good job of really frakking them up. @YourEnemy - far more people go straight to CP than go to it through here. In fact, I'm one of several users who only discovered RationalWiki through CP. Your site already does a great job of misleading "conservative students" - or rather, the children of conservative parents: almost all your major articles are full of lies and distortions. The difference is that Wuhao created articles that only a few people will bother reading. The travesty that is your Barack Obama article is a totally different matter. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What Opcn said! Green Giant (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly, AFAIK none of us knew Wuhao was a parodist (I did, because I know some Chinese history myself, so I could see through his contributions. Secondly, we don't send people to vandalise or parody. Thirdly, as said above, you're a pretty pathetic educational resource. Just stick to being a far-right political blog. EddyP (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree insofar as people going over there to make trouble is pretty low. But, the "liars" thing - eh. There are far, far worse lies on Conservapedia - you just have to look at the relativity article to find a list of lies about the working of the universe which are demonstrably wrong, and have been proven wrong by experiment. The conservative students are not being primarily mislead by anyone from here. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TK just reverted and oversighted JacobB's admission that fixing all the problems will be really hard take ages. Is this A) An admission that they can't do it, or B) An admission that they won't even try? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just love the idea that it's RW that's stopping people from being educated properly.Webbtje (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just read a few of Wuhao's last contribs, and s/he seemed to be removing parody - such as removing comdey-over-the-top extreme-rightwing rants from the Barack Hussein Where's your birth certificate moslem-boy Obama and Al Gore articles. As for people using CP as an educational resource - that has been answered by my colleague above. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That came as a surprise. Now they've got to sift through the Chinese and Japanese stuff, looking for the made-up facts. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(UI) As a Chinese I simply think people in mainland China aren't going to read any of that stuff because of the following:

1. People in mainland China don't actively read stuff in English unless they absolutely have to (that's why Wikipedia and CreationWiki have translations)
2. Did Ken search the stuff in Chinese? (He can't do that again with the search engine beginning with G because it left China already.) Running the Google translator from English to Chinese on the front page will get you censored pretty heavily ("Liberal" is automatically translated into "自由", one of those censored phrases)

[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're responding to me, I was being sarcastic. Obviously, nobody in- or outside of China uses CP for any educational purpose whatsoever apart from studying personality disorders in action. As for Ken, he seems to simply track the results of searches for his articles' titles (in English, of course) on google.cn. Röstigraben (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wuhao1911's Response

Oh dear. It seems I've caused some distress over at CP - far more than I ever intended. Please allow me to respond:

I suspect that you've learned nothing from my Parthian shot. After all, you learned nothing from RodWeathers's final essay, made over a year ago and with the same thesis. Your site is vulnerable almost by design. It's vulnerable to parodists far more sinister than I. Most of them never let you in on the joke.

There is a lot of vandalism out there that you've never seen and probably never will. Hell, the China section was already heavily compromised when I got there. In fact, I'll give you a second present: Look into the contributions made by "Kiowa." He made lots of edits to lots of articles before disappearing into the night. He happened to be an obvious parodist, inserting transparent bullshit into plenty of those articles. Most of that bullshit was never found. Some of his contributions are absolutely hilarious. He claimed that the Cao Wei Dynasty was a constitutional democracy. Do you really need to be an expert on East Asia to figure out that's probably not true?

My favorite Kiowa contribution, however, was his insistence that the Mandate of Heaven was an actual physical object rather than a philosophical construct. Except, he didn't make that claim - one of your legitimate editors did. For every article on CP marred by vandalism, there's another that was ruined by your own inexpert editors.

Now, let's discuss lies for a minute. When I said that I was fixing your articles, I wasn't kidding. Those last few edits were very specifically targeted. I didn't remove anything I merely disagreed with, nor did I remove anything that was silly. The only things I took out were passages that were demonstrably false or deliberately misleading - i.e. lies. I took them out, you put them right back in. If I'd tried to remove those lies before this or argue for their removal on a talk page, you would have blocked me faster than spit flies. What that tells me is that you're less concerned about "trustworthiness" than you are about validating your own beliefs.

Despite this, I think you'll find that I'm a decent guy. I've made my point and had my fun, and I'm perfectly willing to aid you in fixing your wiki. However, I'll need some good faith first. Quid pro quo: I will help you remove the falsehoods in the articles I created when you take the initiative to remove the falsehoods in the articles you created. Until then, you can piss right off.

If you'd rather go it on your own, there's a site out there that can help you with your fact-checking. It's called Wikipedia, and it's a wonderful resource. You should check it out. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your comments looked a lot like mine! Well done. 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Post Wuhao

Looks like we have our answer anyway: KowardJou deleted the articles that only Wuhao had edited, then JacobB reverted his edits on some others and deleted more. It doesn't look like there has been much effort expended to filter the wheat from the chaff. But then, when has intellectual effort ever been evident on CP? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They've already deleted some perfectly valid articles. Dream of the Red Chamber, for instance, was not only accurate but high-quality by that site's standards. I expected that one to go, though. That's why I created it in the first place. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 21:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I notice that one of my favorite arcane vulgarities of yours is still up. Congrats. Junggai (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Spiking those articles with profane Mandarin slang was right enjoyable. I suppose I should reveal them - let the Conservapedians have a giggle, too. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 22:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, let 'em eat Google Translate if they really care. Junggai (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall you edited an article of mine about something Chinese which was profane in english ;). EddyP (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken sucks

up to the great Turkey:

(diff) (hist) . . New! User talk:RobertTurkel‎; 01:49 . . (+678) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (Created page with '{{welcome|sig=Learn together 15:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)}} == Please note == Dear user RobertTurkel, I hope you liked my recent edits to the [[atheism]…')

(Deletion log); 01:49 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:RobertTurkel" (content was: '{{welcome|sig=Learn together 15:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)}} == Please note == Dear user RobertTurkel, I hope you liked my rece…' (and the only contributor was 'Conservative')).

Why does he do this - deletion/creation thing? Is it some way of gaming the search engine beginning with "G" or what? Green Giant (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Chances are the voices in his head conflict from minute to minute? ħuman 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It stops notorious vandal sites linking to the diffs - or it would, if Nx hadn't developed teh awesome CaptureBot. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The original Turkel talk page was somewhat longer, filled, as you might guess, with (unreplied-to) messages from Ken. I suppose he must have gotten embarrassed about them and deleted them. EddyP (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is/was this Bobby T, and why does Ken continue to leave messages for him when he's clearly no-longer active on CP? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He's here & Ken sucks because that's what Ken does. Green Giant (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)He's a Christian Apologist who made a couple of edits to CP about a billion years ago. Ken

keeps posting on his talk page because he's lonely and wants a date. I'm guessing, but it seems reasonable. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, I have every reason to doubt that's actually Robert Turkel's account. Yes, I do. 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, this sort of stuff from Ken makes me feel all maternal. He needs taking in hand for his own good because he is so excrutiatingly embarassing and the poor lamb doesn't even realise it. He thinks that he's making a difference with his ridiculous quote-mined articles, his silly pictures and his irrelevant YouTube videos but in fact he's just a Don Quixote tilting at windmills and making overtures to oriental Dulcineas. Ken, maybe now that Obama's healthcare reform has passed you could see a therapist and get some help.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya sister! Ken (and Ed Poor) both seem to actually think that their inane ramblings and lamentable wiki-skills are helping their cause. Even aside from the fact that their 'cause' is awful, and that CP is such a shit wiki, they are making it more laughable with every edit. I'm sure even good faith conservatives would agree with that. But in the empire of the Asslfy, the sycophant is King (or deputy King at least) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy bitches about paying top dollar

This is just bizarre... Andy railing against the price of professor values at the liberal universities... Not only where he went to school, but where he sent his son and daughter... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Do as I say, not as I do." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick, someone add "Professor prices" to the article matrix ^{ONE / TALK} 16:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a case of noblesse oblige, with Sir Andrew of Schlafly being concerned about the poor poor peasants being unable to afford to learn to serve the nobility better rise above their station. MDB (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would the world take Andy Schlafly more or less seriously if, in addition to teaching his own take on economics and history in his high school level homeschooling (taught at the basement level of a church), he offered college level courses in the other things he knows as only Andy Schlafly can know: Schlafly Statistics, Professor Valuespotting, Counterexamples to Relativity, Counterexamples to Evolution, etc.? Perhaps Roger Schlafly could TA the course and actually teach the relevant science and math in the discussion sections in order to counteract the effects of Andy Schlafly's lectures. 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be a homeschool teacher, all you have to do is declare "I are a homskuul teechur". To teach at the college level, you either have to be accredited, or you end up being the equivalent of the school that produced Kent Hovind. And Andy's chances of being accredited are non-existent. (Actually, since he has passed the bar, I imagine he could, theoretically, set up a law school and have a chance at getting accredited.) MDB (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another triumph for American capitalism. Why aren't market forces driving down the costs? Perhaps because the demand is too high. Funny that old liberal Europe can offer cheaper tuition fees. One of those pop economic books that I read recently suggested that students actually need high fees to justify the high salaries that they can then command when they graduate. What if everyone could afford to be a law student at Harvard? Wouldn't that evenutally drive down Andy's legal tariffs? He should be demanding even higher fees!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So have I missed it, or what ? (Michigan Militia)

Is nobody on the internets going to poke CP and ask them for the website's take on American Christian terrorists plotting to kill cops, bring down the government and fight off teh Antichrist? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem getting that story on the CP main page. First, you need to find an evil librul news source that can be distorted to infer that Christianity is to blame. Then, you need to find a conservative source (e.g. Newsmax, WND, Fox, Drudge, etc.) that reports on the libruls trying to blame Christianity. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now even the UN takes note of Uncle Ed

Just over half way through the word salad/rant the evidence of his awsome influence is hinted at:

"The DDT ban was eventually relaxed 14 years ago when the UN quietly announced that it was dropping its opposition - coincidentally (?) after I had managed to use Wikipedia to publicize the deception and promote that scientific research that proved DDT was safe to use in anti-malaria programs. " [7] Who knew he was so powerful? Mick McT (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And who knew Wikipedia was 14 years old? Oh wait, it isn't. DickTurpis (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if that was before or after the Wall Street Journal interviewed him about "truth in numbers"? (SDG reference I don't have at the mo) --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ZB ref is 670/9f2ce177201fc389.html –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

From Recent changes

(diff) (hist) . . J. Robert Oppenheimer‎; 13:02 . . (+96) . . FOIA (Talk | contribs) (→Soviet Collusion: linked)

(diff) (hist) . . Legacy of Alger Hiss‎; 13:01 . . (+4) . . RobSmith (Talk | contribs) (wikify)

Is it possible that Rob forgot which sock he was wearing? Green Giant (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wigo wigo

Seriously, Andy? Liberal claptrap of the week?

We all know Andy has a blind spot for satire and parody, but please ... glass ceiling for female terrorists? He's taking that article seriously? Etc 10:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He has to take it seriously. Humour was invented by cHRIST & liberals can't be Xtians therefore it is serious. QED. Green Giant (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Will we get on there? You know, I was just about to write an article about how white people should give their jobs to black people, men should surrender the vote to women only and the government should pay every citizen in the world a million dollars to bail everyone out, but then tax them 99.5% to make up for it. Do you think that'd qualify? Oh, and I think the 4th July should be banned. ^postate 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is something I found:

A nomination for Liberal Claptrap of the Week should be reflect a compounded liberal senselessness, analogous to a double negative.

Is he saying that double negative is senseless, or that double negative is compounded? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He's using a poor anaolgy with the double negative. Judging by what he says about the current LCotW, they need to have at least two things he libs are really into. In this case, the glass ceiling & loving terrorists. ħuman 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he's saying something like "liberal thinking is flawed thinking, and a liberal who fails to think like a liberal, does some sort of double-negative". Like if you use an invalid argument to reach a conclusion not even supported by the argument itself. For examples, see www.conservapedia.com Etc 12:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. My. GOD! This is a real challenge! Where would be the best place to secrete our liberal claptrap in order that the Assfly laps it up unsuspectingly? 10 <whatever the cool internet meme is now>s for the first person to get their work featured! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, DeltaStar, here at RationalWiki we don't officially endorse parody... </snark> Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly featured front and center, but it's prominent enough. 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, RW does not condone or promote parody of right wing BS on Conservapedia - i.e., going over there and trying to be all "oh, I'm so clever, look what I can say about 'liberals being deceitful' and 'the Earth was created 10 days ago because dinosaurs prove it' and look I get away with it how dumb". However, this (somewhat unofficial) rule doesn't stop anyone from, either on RationalWiki or elsewhere, trying to parody the left because I think that would be a different thing. I think it's quite important to see what happens, we know Poe's Law applies to creationists and wingnuts - there's nothing a parody site can do that isn't, somewhere, endorsed by someone seriously; from stating things like "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" to "people should pay for their own healthcare, even if their life-saving operation costs £300,000 and they only make £15,000 a year, it's God's way of telling them to work harder". However, I've not seen it from the liberal side. As briefly mentioned above, some Michael Moore lookalike in An American Carol trying to ban the 4th July is clearly parody. No one is going to mistake that for real or will they? Or are there groups out there who are serious about it? I don't know, and I'm damn curious to find out. So if people want to try and push Schlafly's buttons from the other side, I'd be very happy to see the results. ^postate 16:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that - not too long ago we had a conversation about inserting parody into the CBP, and we certainly do "condone" parody in general. It would be interesting to parody the left, but as you mentioned parodying the right is much easier. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my post about should have read "Where is the best place..." rather than "We..." (now corrected). I do not see parody as vandalism. Inserting bullshit in to articles because you know they can't be arsed to check the citations, that's vandalism (and also quite funny), but parodying extreme views (in either directions) in the hope that CP latch on to them/allow them to remain on the blog is not vandalism. How many known, short-term CP parodists still have stuff on there? CP don't seem to mind where the stuff comes from, as long as it fits their warped grasp on reality. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly stayed up really really late and typed this before going to bed: "It will often be a logical extension of liberal position to an absurd conclusion. " Nice, very nice, kan you pleeeze teech mie chilluns to reed und rite? ħuman 07:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Page views

Anyone interested to boost the page views to 200 million on this 4th of July or some other special occasion like thanksgiving or Christmas? Might as well organize this early so it's easier to do. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Count me in. My clickbotting technology has gotten even better since our 100M ralley last year, and so has my bandwidth. mb 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I never understood the appeal of this... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in computational biology. My work involves shoveling huge amounts of crap (petabytes of amino acid sequences and suchlike) over sucky Internet connections, sometimes using ludicrously underpowered university boxen, hilariously unsuitable protocols such as HTTP, or both. I'm a veteran coder but I don't have too much formal networks training. Toy projects such as the CP clickbot or the CP revisions archive help me hone my skillz without going insane from boredom in the process. mb 16:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It'd f**k with your graphs good and proper. I'd be more interested in their real page views, rather than sad little clickbots. ^postate 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As the views climb it becomes ever harder to make a difference to the results. The SDG archives show that Andy was aware that his views were being inflated way back in 2007. However, they have become more aware of the practice and block offending IPs from even accessing the site. There was some funny stuff early on when homosex-related articles flooded the top ten and Goat went stratospheric but there really doesn't seem to be any point now, Andy will tout the hits as proof that his shite is growing vapidly and then server-side block the IPs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's late and I spent most of the night discussing my love life with a number of large bottles, so maybe I'm missing something here, but... how would any of the graphs we typically see here be fucked with by a clickbot? mb 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• the click-bots make it harder for the more legitimate bots the to reach the site: the cunning computer scientists over there ignore that click-bots have to address the index.php, while others only look at api.php. In the times of higher bot activity, I'm sometimes 403d.
• Only very few, quite recent, and frankly not that popular show the views per article, for instance these:

views and length of articles which can be found at all of the four wikis: aSK, CZ, CP and RW

views per rank for different namespaces at CP

• But it can inflate Conservapedia's WikiFactor, an (again not quite popular) measure for the impact of a wiki
• As Andy has the attention span of a mayfly, the whole thing annoys him only shortly: a few days later he will have convinced himself that the overall number of page-views is somewhat legitimate, while his minions had to make some deletes-and-restores
• any new visitor to the site must think that the number is legitimate, indeed.
• Conclusion: I have no big problem with the click-botting, but I don't see the point.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC

Which CPer is WP's User:PCHS-NJROTC? From the discussion linked many sections above he seems to have fundamental misunderstandings of several aspects of WP policy, like thinking NPOV applies to userpages, which are also not allowed to feature anything not directly related to Wikiepdia. I know it's not exactly surprising that someone from CP is clueless, but I'm wonder which specific clueless individual this is. DickTurpis (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DMorris Green Giant (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DMorris is real?>!:?!! --Opcn (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DMorris might beat Andy in a crazy contest. Keegscee (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I had the guy pegged for parodist long ago. Angry teen joins the conservapedia crusade? That's really sad. 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a CP teen but not one of Andy's homeschoolers? That is suspicious. DickTurpis (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that he is just good enough to wrap WP into his parody? I'm not sure if I approve of that, mucking about on CP is one thing, but WP is a legitimate educational resource. --Opcn (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Latest Monomania

I'd WIGO this^img, but it's just more Ken

. After a while, one loses the will to type. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hey guys, Ken here. So, I paired the word "abortion" with everything I can think of and, surprisingly, Conservapedia doesn't have an article on "abortion ketchup." Could you round up some lackeys to write it, and fifty other articles? I'm going to smoke my pipe." – Nick Heer 01:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Every day he reminds me more and more of this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if TerryKunt hadn't blocked me and all my pals, we'd be happy to help there, although it would require the creation of a whole new article matrix here on RW to keep track of it. I do think it's WIGO worthy, so I'm going to WIGO it! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen. My latest masterwork Summa Abortiona will soon be the Waterloo of Rationalwiki. Ole ole ole! Kendoll (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He omitted Parsley abortion from his list.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two WIGOs of this on the page now. Can the top one be removed? – Nick Heer 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken's latest obsession now takes up the whole of 'Recent Changes'. Is there a list somewhere of these CP projects that start off with a bang and then fade away like the cry of a small puppy falling down a very deep well? Worm^{(t | c)} 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it wouldn't be Ken without cp:Abortion and Adolf Hitler, complete with MOAR Hitler. Hey Ken... here's a question. If Hitler's mum had had an abortion, would that be a good thing? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 18:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More Relativity

We all know how this^img will turn out - but I want to capture it for posterity. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

JacobB preemptively steps in for a warning^img. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And Aschlafly touts his ignorance^img: So at what distances do you declare general relativity to be false? Is there a discontinuity at that distance? Such an approach is absurd. As Newton's theory, it's wrong at all distances - but not measurably wrong... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That had to be one of the assfly's most incoherent edits ever. Although, I'd rather see single diffs, I think they are more honest., except in Ken's case, where they are necessary. ħuman 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on Terry, block that mo'fo for Liberal trolling ASAP! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the mix there was this edit^img. Kinda sums up CP for me. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite - at the moment - is Andy's Hey, we want to look unprofessional!^img. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy has a late night problem

Drinking No, that's me. So what explains late night incoherences such as these:

• [8] "These include Jennifer O'Neill, a Hollywood star, gives talks about how she had..." Nice work.

• [9] "It will often be a logical extension of liberal position to ..." leave the computer for beddie bies with illiterate edits all over it? ħuman 08:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was TK who first made mention that Andy was an alcoholic. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it down?

Anyone else getting "forbidden page" notices?^{— Unsigned, by: 86.147.160.74 / talk / contribs}

You must be 404 blocked. Green Giant (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow... blocked from even SEEING the website.. thats pretty cool! ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.147.160.74 / talk / contribs}

Someone mentioned a clickbot campaign earlier, this tends to be their reaction to it. Just hope on a proxy and you can see it. - π 11:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, haven't even started clickbotting yet. Also, my impression was that our friends over at CP have largely given up blocking people for bottery. Until last October they used force me to switch IPs every ten or so hours of heavy spidering. As of last month I can field test archiver tweaks for days on end without being blocked. mb 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they don't like clickbotting. After all, it raises Andy's erection pageviews. ^{heh heh!} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

2012 US Election

Wow, Andy wants that dirty Muslim who upstaged him at varsity, out of the White House so bad, he's already putting together the article on the election^img.
Funny bits so far:

• Appearances on Fox (which isn't as conservative as it pretends to be, remember) seems to count for the GOP, with MSNBC being important for the Dems.
• Gasp! The biggest con against Obama is "depends on a teleprompter to speak"
• How quickly they forget. George Dubbya is clearly out of favour. Jeb (my gawd! Not another fucking Bush!) might be hurt by "negatives via George"

--PsyGremlinPraat! 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy counts Religious voters as a seperate class from social conservatives. I know there are some outliers, but most social conservatives are gonna be religious.... Considering their whole "social rules" come from that one book. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He means fundies, not just generally religious. DickTurpis (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani: "cross-dressing for comedic purposes" lol. I wonder what Andy thinks of Pantomime.

"one-third of seats in the Senate"? Not possible. It's either 33 or 34 and Andy was too lazy (or stupid) to check which? ħuman 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My favourite parts so far are the column for Fox news exposure (why is that significant? I thought one of the biggest problems with Obama was his celebrity image in the media), the cons for all of the Republican candidates (basically, do they tow the party line?), and especially the "cons" for Rubio and Giuliani. Also, this entire article is speculative. I thought CP didn't dabble in gossip? – Nick Heer 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only gossip if Andy decides it's gossip. Hence, the Obama article, the Woody Allen article, the Al Franken article, etc etc etc. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 23:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part so far is this line in reference to John Thune "Defeated Tom Daschle, relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama " What is with the height reference? He thinks that is important? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm too damn lazy to look it up, but the taller Presidential candidate has been shown to to better in elections. I'm not sure if it's that big a difference, though. MDB (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All I have to say to that stupid idea is "John Kerry." SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)