Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive182

This is an archive page, last updated 27 May 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <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)

Correlation doesn't imply causation

...is apparently something Andy never learned in all of his years in college. This has to be the most idiotic argument for reckless consumption I've ever heard. Röstigraben (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely the energy itself, rather than the wealth provided from supplying it, is what provides a higher standard of living and life expectancy? EddyP (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not even correct. And Eddy, it's what the energy is used for ("creating wealth" of some kind) that extends life, and efficiency means you can do it with less... ħuman 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's line "Correlation does suggest possible causation" is an insight in to a very confused mind. I wake up, and in the morning the sun rises. You lot had better hope I continue to wake up each day, since otherwise you're possibly condemned to eternal darkness. --ConcernedResident ^{fetus for the ladies} 21:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I love that they aren't even pretending to have a "debate" namespace anymore. This is a signed talk-type page in the mainspace of the "encyclopedia". ħuman 21:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

On CP a debate page, particularly one started by Andy. Any really attempt to counter Andy's points would certainly be as wise as offering the response "Yes, your arse does look fat in that dress". He's certainly not going to under any circumstances change his mind on his core belief, no matter how bonkers it may be. Andy, whatever dress you wear, it's still the same arse underneath. --ConcernedResident ^{dot for the ladies} 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how he thinks the true problem in Africa is a lack of energy. He really thinks that the only thing Africa needs is a few more generators and all their problems will end. What a fucking tool. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't at least one African country in OPEC? Nigeria? Zimbabwe? I forget... And surely South Africa could buy lots of oil with all those cubic zirconium mines? ħuman 00:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nigeria is an OPEC country, yes, and one of the United States' largest suppliers of crude oil, behind Canada and Mexico. The Department of Energy. Incidentally, Nigeria isn't the only African OPEC member; Algeria, Angola, and Libya are also members. 68.147.139.21 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So why don't they live to 78 YO???? Dammit, you're messing up Andy's assumptions! ħuman 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, with Andy, it always comes down to this. Yeah, the most insane adherents to an apocalyptic death cult are uniquely suited to give policy recommendations for sustainable development. Röstigraben (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of things that mean that the OPEC nations of Africa don't have North American levels of resource-consumption, but the most obvious one that fits with Andy's theorising is simply that they sell all their energy to the U.S. for it to use. :p 68.147.139.21 (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

These stupid peasants just need to leave the lights on and they will add a month to their lives with each kWh consumed. Andy really is such a fucking idiot. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to defend Andy overmuch, but using (v. wasting) energy is fairly crucial to industrial development. He's not ABSOLUTELY insane in this regard; sans energy, a lot of other stuff becomes much harder.68.147.139.21 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but Andy went off about a correlation between energy consumption and the average lifespan, and he made these points to explicitly affirm a freedom "to consume whatever we want, whenever we want", no matter the cost. The only reasonable response to the question posed in the page's title is an unambiguous "no", but Andy just saw "freedom", "consumption" and "environment", took the bait, and then had to make up some justification for his predetermined stance. Röstigraben (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives inflict crushing defeat on liberal wikifiddlers

As here. It can only be a matter of time before Wikipedia is brought to justice and Conservapedia comes to the fore. Perhaps there is some appropriate Spanish exclamation we could use to celebrate this news? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That article is very misleading. He still has the same rights that he has always had. Keegscee (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the user rights history? I see he's not a 'crat, but "founder" seems to be quite useful. So what happened, the sysops whacked his knuckles with a ruler and said "stop"? ħuman 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want information on this from a source that actually has a clue, there's an article on this in The Wikipedia Signpost. DickTurpis (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anyone laid a smackdown on Jimbo it sure as hell wasn't the conservatives. He was the one removing racy images en masse. If it was anyone, it was them child-porn-lovin' librulz. DickTurpis (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But it was Fox and his oldest and dearest friend Sanger who got him to make an ass of himself. Keegs, apparently "some" rights were removed from the "founder" tag, so he still has the same tags but less "powerz" supposedly. ħuman 21:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Less superpowers on all wikis except en:wp. The fuss was over images on Commons. Wales notes that Fox was literally just making shit up - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your link didn't quite say that? Although yeah, Jimbo still has macho powerz. ħuman 08:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I think it does. It's the case, anyway. The Fox article is not even wrong - it paints a vision of a Wikipedia that doesn't exist but sounds plausible to people who don't know anything about it - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My favorite bit is where it says Jimbo doesn't have the ability to delete. Come on, that's one of the most basic sysop powers. A few thousand people can do that, yet somehow the founder can't? Right. DickTurpis (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, Davey G's link hits Godwin after a mere SIX comments - even Ken would be proud of that! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Worst college majors

This probably isn't WIGO-worthy, but check the source (to which Andy's original source refers itself) - it's got Religion in the #1 spot, and doesn't feature women's studies at all. Röstigraben (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lulz, that's great. WIGO it! I additionally love how that blog features this: "Therefore, you’ll most likely end up landing an entry level position at a random small company, or showing up to your interview and being raped repeatedly by a group of masked men." "...finding whores that will let David Caruso pee on them." Keeping the family friendly cred up there, Andy! Webbtje (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, that wasn't his original source. That one features gems such as this, which Ken might be interested in. Röstigraben (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but they got the list they present from that taco site. ħuman 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Interior Decorating really such an awful major? My ex-girlfriend managed to land three jobs in interior design firms just in the time I knew her. Sounds like a stab at teh Gheys to me. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How long did you know here for? - π 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WIGO'd, but I've got a question: I apparently can't link to the diff if he just set the page up, but since it'll probably be changed, the description might no longer apply. Is there any way to link to the exact edit Andy originally made? Röstigraben (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Use "Permanent link" See low on the left. 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This should do it. I like the line "We encourage college students and employers to improve this list over time." A nice encyclopaedic line, right there. Nice use of the royal "we", too. Oh also someone's added to it already. No idea where he got "comic book art" from. It's not in either source. Fun times. X Stickman (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A great example of how a parodist/troll can ruin Andy's crap even better than he can himself. TK's source specifically mentions that most of the items are individual classes, not majors..... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 23:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah, on the plus side for CP, Andy's inclusion of "music" (instead of "music therapy" as in the source) apparently pissed off JDWpianist enough to show his face for the first time in more than a month. --MarkGall (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comic Book Art was an obvious shout-out to Kels. ħuman 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is psychology? tmtoulouse 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After seeing CBA I fully expected his whole list to be sooper sekrit shoutouts. Was disappointed. ħuman 00:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The other funny thing is that the same source lists the 10 Best College Majors - and features Electrical Engineering in #3 position. Unfortunately, Andy hasn't done quite as well as most grads of that course would do..... "Mommy, can I borrow the car again tonight?" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

lol, I can't think of a lot of colleges that teach "comic book art". As to animation, which I'm in, they have at least an 85% placement rate in the field, which is pretty decent. It's not a way to riches, but it's a way to a career doing something you love, what could be better? --Kels (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I know of one such school, but it exists specifically to teach comic book art. And it was founded by one of the masters of the field. (Ever read a "Sgt. Rock" comic book? Kubert is the definitive Sgt. Rock artist.) MDB (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Kubert school is one of the very few out there, at least in North America. A lot of comic artists are actually self-taught, or some from other directions like illustration or animation. --Kels (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Oh my, he doesn't mean Game Theory^img, does he? Cause that's a pretty solid mathematical field, not some crazy course on gambling. --GTac (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Captured. Though it may be some kind of "cultural studies" on computer games. In both cases, the link to gambling is non-existent. And I can imagine some "serious" courses on gambling and computer gaming.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably refers to 'gaming management' as a subset of 'hotel administration'; how to run a casino. See:[2].

Weeell, Game Theory is actually very related to gambling, but not in the sense he's talking about. --GTac (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Bad choice of words. I meant that both can't be conflated with gambling without some serious imagination. If the unsigned comment is right, though, there is no conflation. But it's still unclear why it's in "worst majors". I thought conservatives approved of "practical" education... --ZooGuard (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two kinds of applied mathematicians in my department; gamblers and plumbers - at least that s what the senior professor calls them. - π 12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure Game Theory is one of the fields in which some teenager made some contributions, and therefore was on Andy's great accomplishments by teenagers lists. Good to see him dismiss it now. Just like how Facebook was one, then a month or so later he went off on how Facebook leads to poor grades. DickTurpis (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I might be thinking of group theory. DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Galois was pretty young, just 21 when he died. Might be who you are thinking of. - π 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Karajou learned a new word!!!!

Is it just me, or does it appear that Karajou learned the word "bigot" within the last couple weeks, based on his block log? Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 06:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

*cough*. - π 07:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, never let it be said you can't teach an old troll new tricks. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"bigot - A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion" – Nick Heer 20:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, there's some great block 'reasons' in there!

• Darwin was just as wrong as you are...are you willing to burn in hell with him as well?
• Inappropriate or vulgar name: And God loves you enough to send His only begotten Son...John 3:16

He also seems to have borrowed a trick from those on the left; shouting "racist" at everyone.^{[citation needed]} DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I added that fact tag..... I shout racist at people who perform actions that a racist would perform.... Not everybody. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair one, Chuck. Here in the UK, there are people who respond to any mention of "I would like to see controls on immigration" or "I don't think people should be able to wander around town centres with their faces covered" with "You're a racist!". On top of this, most 'racism shouters' 1) fail to realise that religion does not mean 'race', and 2) don't realise the difference between 'racist' and 'xenophobic', resulting in a statement that's not even wrong. The result of all this is that the word is bandied around so much that when their is genuine racism, that label of racism is far too devalued. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia Scorecard

This could get fun...

Andy has added the "Conservapedia Scorecard", where he rates various conservative organizations, based on how ideologically pure they fit with his definition of conservatism.

For instance, the National Rifle Association loses points for having supported a candidate who believes in same-sex marriage. MDB (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that it's not Andy's opinion here, as the article claims that it is an objective assessment. That's right, totally objective. Bondurant (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why, "objectivity" is Andy's middle name!

I believe the above disproves my long-held belief that some sentences are so ridiculous that they will simply cause a computer to disintegrate. MDB (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The order the "Groups" are in should also allow some analysis (What's "Alphabetical" mean?) 13:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I found it interesting it he included the Drudge Report. Basically, that's nothing more than a news aggregator with a right-wing spin. (And I wonder if Andy would allow "Matt Drudge is rumored to be gay" as a comment.) MDB (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Conservapedia itself in there? And do we get to see the final scores and the scorecard used? Bondurant (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia would be the benchmark against which all other "conservatives" would have to be measured. If Andy weren't so lazy and half-assed about his attempts at quantification, he'd probably set up an index between 0 (Obama) and 1 (CP). Röstigraben (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if CP would even acknowledge there is such a thing as "more liberal than Obama" (like Dennis Kucinich or the Green Party.) MDB (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Or just about any European politician of any stripe. Bondurant (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, those guys didn't start from humble beginnings to first head the Harvard Law Review and then go on to the Presidency, while Andy blew his excellent hand in life and became an unwilling internet comedy phenomenon. Röstigraben (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't understand this system at all. Scorecards usually are numeric, whereas this looks more like those "voter education guides" that the Family Research Council (lol - George Rekers) puts out. So, now I'm not sure how I'm supposed to vote for these organizations for President in 2012. --Leotardo (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What! No Eagle Forum? 15:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Practically perfect in every way." MDB (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My favourite aspect of this "scorecard" is that it doesn't feature any fucking scores at all. Brilliant. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They all get zeroes. In Andy's world, if you don't absolutely agree with his definition of conservatism 100%, you are not a True Conservative. And so far, every one of them has a strike against them.

I'm waiting for World Net Daily's entry, condemning them for attacking the CBP. MDB (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone already did that, but surprisingly, criticism of CP is not considered a relevant factor. Röstigraben (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, so far, it seems to be focused on national issues, and, even with CP's delusions of grandeur, I doubt even they think many people will go into their voting booths and think before pressing the Diebold button, "Gee, Senator Bedfellow is a good solid conservative on abortion, same sex marriage, and school prayer, but he called the Conservative Bible Project, 'the biggest load of horse muffins I've heard of since Carter's malaise speech', so I'm voting Democratic!" MDB (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It must be objective tho - WND doesn't lose points for trashing the Bible According to Andy. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"(please add to the list)"... I know Andy drops this phrase in the end of every freaking "project", but I have to start to question the sincerity of such statements. Do they really want you to add stuff to the list? Yes. Can they tell if you did it sincerely? No. Will they destroy you, your descendants and your motherland in an orgy of bans, checkusers and Godspeeding? Yes. Darn, if Wikipedia adds this sort of comments, at least they usually mean it. Strange for me to grow morose over such trivial matters. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Should have been called the ConservaMometer, ranking the groups by the degree Mother Schlafly would approve of them. --DinsdaleP (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolf: TK and (I think) Rob already openly admitted that they set up honeypots to lure people into openly disagreeing with The Truth. So Andy doing it really shouldn't come as any sort of surprise. --Sid (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lawls

This is not a new article, but I came across this joke highly intelligible and unsourced article. Gotta be kidding me. This is a new low in my opinion. rational ghey (send a message) 22:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This has long been a real testament to Andy's idiocy. I don't know how he can claim Conservapedia is an encyclopedia. I hope Wikipedia's refusal to recognize Evolution Syndrome gets added to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. DickTurpis (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god if TK didn't range block me I would SO totally do that! rational ghey (send a message) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked and no one has ever attempted to create an article on Wikipedia called "Evolution Syndrome." I'm tempted to create the article and see what happens, but per WP:POINT, I better not. Keegscee (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'd fall afoul of POINT since they'd have no idea what POINT you were trying to push. Of course, it would still be speedied for being content-free. Now, if you went to user talk:188 and suggested it to him... ħuman 03:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like User 188 has a job to do. Then again, since he can't write an article that's just a quote here, it's probably out of his league. Or he could take the first sentence of Andy's article, put quotes around it, and paste it at WP. That's basically the extent of his ability. Give it a go, Eddie! DickTurpis (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolution Syndrome is one of my favorite CP articles, it is so patently obvious the subject is just Andy's personal creationist opinion, but is written as if it is some sort of cited encyclopedic article (without any citation of course). As if his opinions is automatically codified fact by the very action of writing them down. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and utter bollocks

The liberal bigotry WIGO highlights a theme I've picked up on at CP, in that after a certain amount of time of it being there, a statement - no matter how incorrect or how provably incorrect - will remain. Even the other sysops will not remove it. So, how long does a bullshit statement have to remain before it becomes 'untouchable'? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The very instant that Andy either makes the statement himself, or makes a statement endorsing it. X Stickman (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. I got this edit^img approved by Andy^img but it was later reverted by Foxtrot.^img But that was long ago. Barikada (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Case in point was the "hit list" thing, which remained on-site 9and was edited by Dean and maybe one other sysop) and was only removed when the blogs picked up on it. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Family Value House Republican WIGO

Further to the WIGO about how Conservapedia never addresses things like conservative scandals, Rep Mark Souder resigned over an affair but--haha--it has come out that he made a video with his mistress about sexual abstinence:

Souder spends the first half of the interview praising abstinence programs, discussing distribution of condoms, the concept of “abstinence plus” in trying to keep teen-agers from having sex. Souder goes on to criticize a congressional hearing chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

“How is it different having a conservative in control instead of a liberal?” Souder says. “When I was chairman of the committee, we did hearings about how to make abstinence programs better.”

Crickets chirping on Conservapedia, indeed. --Leotardo (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to defend CP, but it is a conservative website. I wouldn't expect them to cover a story that paints a conservative in a negative way. Keegscee (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but a consistent meme on Conservapedia is that common human failings can be classified by American ideology. So, cheating on your spouse is not a human failing that many people of many ideologies experience, but a liberal failing. Lying to make it seem like you did things that you did not to make yourself seem better is not a human failing, but a liberal failing only done by liberals through their "liberal deceit". Conservatives tend to make these things issues in their campaigns--even when they are guilty of these "crimes" themselves--whereas liberals don't. Conservapedia is almost a comic book of epistemic closure, hypocrisy and double-standards. That's the essence of MDB's WIGO to me. --Leotardo (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee, It's one thing to write from a conservative point of view but quite another to lie through omission. --ConcernedResident ^{pork chop, for the ladies} 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This is not a lie of omission. Had they described how great Mark Souder is without mentioning his affair, that might be a lie of omission. As it stands, CP doesn't even have an article on him. Keegscee (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Had Souder been a Democrat then this story would have top billing, and Conservapedia makes claims to having high moral values. By failing to mention this story they are lying by omission by giving the impression that these things don't happen to conservatives. If CP was an electronics hobbyist site then I would be wrong, since the Souder story would be irrelevant to them. CP could avoid this lie by changing their goals to read "We want to publicise everything bad about liberals and everything good about conservatives." --ConcernedResident ^{verb, for the ladies} 21:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't see the difference between lying about wartime service and a consensual sexual relationship are going to be in for a big shocker in November. Blumenthal probably threw the election back to the Republicans. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, there is a difference between the two. However, it is important to report on both, especially when CP is certain to report on the sexual escapades of liberals, or anyone that CP has decided to hate. Jimaginator (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the WIGO should point out two sexual relationships, one of a liberal and one of a conservative, to point out the hypocrisy of CP. My personal visceral reaction is one of anger towards Blumenthal but one of I really don't care towards Souder. It's a crime to lie about military service. It's not a crime anymore to cheat on your wife. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Blumenthal sound like a cough drop flavor. Keegscee (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

CPE, Conservapedia only seems to have "visceral reactions" and "anger" when the story is about a Democrat/RINO/Liberal, and usually the reaction is "they did horrible X because they are liberal". Did you have a visceral, angry reaction when John Kerry had his Vietnam service lied about? Why don't you try editing the cp:John Kerry article to be more accurate on this issue and see how far CP's principles go? If you guys would evidence discernible principles, it would be easier to discuss what you wrote. --Leotardo (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering I was banned off of CP, I think editing the article would be kind of difficult until after I create another sock, which I don't plan on doing anytime soon. In reference to John Kerry, I felt some criticism was legitimate, but some criticism (namely the lady who was wearing the purple bandage at the GOP convention) was over the line. However, there's a big difference in questioning someone's service, be it Bush's National Guard service or Kerry's Vietnam service, versus outright lying about where YOU served, which is what Bluementhal did. Blumenthal knew he did not serve in Vietnam, but he still lied about it. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You really think this? You really think defaming someone and lying--they didn't 'question' they 'lied'--about a war hero's record to a national audience is far less offensive than some local Senate candidate lying to a local gathering but telling the truth to another (Blumenthal has stated publicly he didn't serve, which is what makes him so dumb)? You really think the latter is worse and worthy of a visceral angry reaction? In the first, John Kerry suffered a lot of harm for the Swiftboat lie and defamation is a crime; in the second, the only person who was harmed was Blumenthal by his own actions. Yet you think Blumenthal was worse?! --Leotardo (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Blumenthal got caught lying after opposition research uncovered that he had not served in Vietnam. Admitting a lie after you've been caught is no virtue. There is a huge difference between someone, even erroneously, questioning a candidate's military service (which happened to Bush, Gore, Kerry, and McCain) and lying about your own military service, which you should have no excuse to not have knoewn whether you served in a particular function or not. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Reliable Sources, McCain was grandstanding to piss off the pilot of the plane behind him and destroyed an aircraft carrier in the process. ħuman 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We finally hear from Concerned Women for America about Mark Souder in this blog post. Says CWA CEO Penny Vance:

"If Mark Souder is capable of sexual misconduct, it could happen to anyone."

True! If this stone-cold-hot piece of Man Meat can find someone to fuck around with, anyone can. This must, indeed, have those women very concerned about their ugly husbands. Keep your eyes peeled and watch for signs of sexting, Cathy Schlafly! --Leotardo (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not worth a Wigo, but anyone else notice.....

That while CP has seen fit to blast the call to arms over Tea Party darling Rand Paul's victory and Spector's Loss is PA, they are rather quiet when it comes to the special election for the late Rep. Murtha's Seat. Quoting from the AP: "Both political parties spent roughly $1 million to sway the outcome, and highlighted the contest as a possible bellwether for the fall." Maybe the Teabaggers don't have as much meat in politics as they think Yes, I know that's a bad pun. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 03:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tea Party Power---Rand Paul got less votes than the 2nd place finisher in the Democratic primary in that state! 72.224.42.45 (talk)

John Murtha was a national disgrace and I had hoped his aide would lose as he wants to practice the exact same pork-barrel politics that Murtha mastered and that is bankrupting the country. Maybe I feel that way because I'm from one of the blue states that has to fund hillbilly red states who cry about wanting lower taxes as they take more of mine. I sort-of, used-to like Specter because I thought he was a real moderate, but now I think he is an opportunist. It sucks that our politicians suck so badly across the board, and that's about the only message I got from these primaries. --Leotardo (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You must remember that Obama called people from Pa. bitter clinging to their guns and bibles. Murtha called his constituents rednecks and racists. Both were elected by Pa. So it is not much of a surprise that a district that leans Democrat would elect another democrat. It is a blow to the Tea party since he was endorsed by them.--193.200.150.137 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's 12th District is the only district in the entire country to vote for John Kerry in 2004 but John McCain in 2008. --Leotardo (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

However, many people belong to the Tea Party are independents and were locked out of voting. Essentially, Critz ran as far away from liberalism as you can possibly get in order to win. Like a good Conservative Democrat the strategy was simple; be pro-life, pro-gun, oppose Obama's healthcare. Pa.'s 12th district fell for it now he gets to put his votes on record before November. Like the rest of the phonies, he will be outed siding with Pelosi legislation. Notice he didn't have Obama campaign for him, smartest move yet. November is looking horrible for libs.--193.200.150.125 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What, they couldn't change registration and vote in the primaries? Or were they just too stupid to figure out how to do it? I loves me some teabagger videos, and have wasted many hours on them. ħuman 04:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock

I know I shouldn't be amazed at an Ed stub but Sandra Bullock's career reduced to three films! I suppose her Oscar was down to Hollywood values. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

His light chit-chat doesn't even mention which of the two 'time travel' movies he didn't like and I wanted to know because I didn't like either movie so I thought this might one area where Ed and I have common ground. I dislike the term "brain fart" but it perfectly describes the genesis of Ed's oddly-formatted, grammatically-challenged blog posts. --Leotardo (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was Premonition. It's revealed in the history of the talk page. Smyth (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Liberal Atheist Nick Clegg's Page

Someone's done a fairly complete rewrite of the Liberal atheist Nick Clegg article and actually put real policies in it as opposed to saying it would be dangerous if he got any power. Wonder how quick they revert it for hiding the dangers of him as being liberal deceit, because it was made by IVotedClegg or whether they'll actually learn anything about the Liberal Democrats? Aslate (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He's already received the Fuck off! template, so I think the former. --Leotardo (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I followed their reference for "this is dangerous because he's an atheist" to here. Second comment on the article

“”"What has the British public and God got in common? They don’t believe in Nick Clegg! How long will he last? Not very long, if his predecessors are any thing to go by, he’s another non-runner in the British political race for Number 10. or is he a fun runner no real threat to the big boys."

I bet you're eating it now "Billy". ^moral 12:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

CP:Atheism and satanic deception WIGO

This essay evidences a classically weak intellect. It conflates, repeatedly, Theistic Satanism with lack of a belief in a god. It's kind of a nice fairy tale for the religious to tell themselves: all those Richard Dawkins types have been tricked by wily Ol' Scratch, pity the fools. The essay's second act is the classic mass murder Religion v. Atheism: whose worse? Never mind that the argument is that more murder has been committed in the name of religion than anything else; and that Communist regimes weren't murdering people in the name of their official lack of belief in a god. Because if that's how we are going to make a false comparison, then we are going to have to add up all the state murders by governments that believed in God in the "Religion" total. I'll be waiting, putting everything else in my life on hold, until I see this essay add in the God-fearing murders under Pinochet, Mugabe, Amin, Franco et al. --Leotardo (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you actually trying to make sense of a Ken

turd?  Good for you, but that way insanity surely lies.  Or tells the truth.  You never know. ħuman 04:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But if you assume it's Satan tricking them into believing that there is no God or Satan then it just shows how wicked the devil really is! See, flawless logic. ^moral 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Has nobody ever considered that Satan may have tricked people into believing in a God so that they more easily be controlled and thereby suppress free-thought?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, how easy would it to be for Satan to write a bunch of scrolls, stick them in caves and then manipulate people to find them and make a book out of them? I wonder what he'd call it. --Kels (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RW has had a please fuck off template for some time

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, What is going on at CP?. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Our Newcomers' Guide may help clarify things for you.

ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and we use it when people make asses of themselves. But we don't block them. And we remove it if they mature. ħuman 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I got that template when I first started editing here! Keegscee (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation, what did you do to earn that? - π 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And now KGSC is probably a sysop. Entirely different worlds. ħuman 05:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This was my first edit here. I still think it is pretty funny. Keegscee (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's even refreshingly free of the implicit Shut up, get to work, make sure I the Admin templating alone 100% agree with what you do or you'll be reverted, blocked, exposed and dead to Baby Jesus until you open your mind and stop your deceit. Godspeed. Wat more you want, CPE? --Leotardo (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, based upon CP's logs, that your minutes are numbered at CP if you get the warning template. And, I agree with Human that we only put (or only should put) the unwelcome tag if you are totally being an asshole. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a fixed set of rules regarding it. Some people assume good faith and don't bother with the template, others go straight for the block or the bin. I've seen it used less and less in recent months. ^moral 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems ours is a bsic warning to obvious trolls. Theirs is the black spot. DickTurpis (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems from the wording that it could be an excuse to slap it on before an edit has been made. I think that's the major thing people would take issue with. ^moral 12:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Most times that I have seen it used is on BoN pages.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins and pseudoscience on mainpageleft

Ken is hardly the brightest spark, but surely he must understand the crushing irony of accusing anyone of pushing pseudoscience? I know I might as well be shouting at a table, but fucking hell. [3] Webbtje (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken uses the mainpage as his personal sounding board for his pet projects that no one outside of Conservapedia cares about (except to mock), or to promote obscure blogs and Youtube users. It makes an already disorganized page into a visual FUBAR. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No one within CP cares about them either. --Kels (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

CP silence on new UK government

• The new Conservative Prime Minister describes himself as a liberal conservative.
• His deputy is a Liberal Democrat.
• The new government is a seemingly friendly and collaborative coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party.
• His deputy is an atheist.
• The new government is pushing the EU to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30%.
• The new government will introduce a levy on banks.
• The new government will help to make sure civil partnerships are recognised abroad.
• The new government will increase spending on the NHS.

Among other things. I mean, does this just not compute? We have a green liberal conservative prime minister. Is that like an oxymoron for CP? Ajkgordon (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember when PJR was trying to explain to Schlafly that the Liberal Party in Australia was actually a centre-right party. He just didn't get it. Bondurant (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I just figured that Andy lost interest the instant the conservatives "won". Once he saw that he stopped paying attention, since it's not America. X Stickman (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This week's Economist cover story illustrated the conservative landslide nicely:

THE youngest prime minister in almost two centuries; the first coalition government in 65 years; the first-ever Conservative-Liberal Democrat government: by accident, British history was made in all sorts of ways this week. This newspaper had hoped that the election on May 6th would return a single party—the Conservatives—with a strong mandate. But after five days of deal-making and denunciation during which it seemed that a multi-party ratatouille based on a losing Labour Party might take power or a minority Tory government be forced to beg its bread at every vote, the best possible outcome given the ropy electoral numbers has emerged: a formal coalition to implement an agreed agenda containing much of the best in each party’s manifesto. We welcome it.

I will never, ever stop loving the addition of landslide to "Conservative words" considering how comically mis-used it was. --Leotardo (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama oil spill

What is he supposed to do, stop it? The coastguard was out there within hours, and when they realized and relayed how bad it was Obama sent in the Navy. It's not like people where upset about Bush not stuffing the winds into a cowhide sack and stopping hurricane Katrina, it was because he appointed a horse lawyer to run FEMA and he didn't send in aid so much as he set up a perimeter to keep out bottled water and packaged food. --Opcn (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they wanted Obama to be personally blocking the oil, with his own body, yelling "save yourselves!" to the wildlife.. MDB (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or just tarred and feathered. --Opcn (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

TK's reading comprehension

After berating Ken for not reading properly yesterday TK goes on to prove what a fucking nitwit he really is. For what's its worth Terry Koeckritz this user is not talking about the headlines you fucking fool!^img Aceⁱ⁹ 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, TK got it correct, you got it wrong. C'mon, thinking that her entry was encyclopedic rather than meant to stimulate conservative thoughts? Shame on you Ace --Opcn (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

eh? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

TK's response was based on accepting CP for what it really is. --Opcn (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Ken, sweetheart, I know you only took four gazillion edits to add your drivel about the Richard Dawkins project to the main page, but I think you'll find it should read, "Conservapedia editors are encouraged to create high quality articles about Richard Dawkins, some of which are mentioned HERE." You're welcome. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly news or anything

I gotta say, the Richard Dawkins Project still just cracks me up. Does Ken really not know how obsessed and insane it makes him look? Has he not caught on that no one else at CP gives a shit, and most of them are probably embarrassed by it? He's made several references to it on Assfly's talk page, but never gets any response, even though Andy responds to almost every other post by any other editor. I'm too lazy, but has anyone counted the number of proposed Dawkins articles Ken's come up with, and how many he's written so far? Must be well over hundred proposed. I look forward to seeing all those redlinks turn blue. DickTurpis (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow besides a bunch of links and a survey which doesn't say what Ken thinks it says (hint nobody considers evolution pseudoscience) cp:Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience contains mostly a quote from his blogger mate. - π 13:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I love how the first paragraph and the caption of the picture are the same (even the same references) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Ken can look on the bright side. For the almost no people that search Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience at a search engine starting with G, his article will come up first. - π 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I love Ken's sources; it would be disappointing if he stuck to even the pseudojournalism of News Corp. It's sort of like if I went to that bank and the teller told me she has a blog called "Open Minded Rita" and I started quoting her all over my blog as some kind of authority. "Open Minded Rita notes..." "According to the website OpenMindedRita.com..." --Leotardo (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But he doesn't just have one blog, he has millions... that makes him totally trustworthy, right? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"OpenMindedRita.com notes" "According to TrulyOpenRita.net..." "RitaThinks.org reported..." Ah yes, that's right. --Leotardo (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just stumbled across Dawkins Watch from Objective Ministries. Content and insanity level are both pretty comparable to the CP version (though the writing is a bit better at Objective) -- I'm not sure I could've picked out which one was parody. This could definitely be another good resource for Ken's project. --MarkGall (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Objective Ministries is Poe, like Landover Baptist Church, just somewhat more clever and harder to detect at first. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. They fell for Gerin Oil. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead at birth

Somebody just finished reading The Alchemist:

God is using Christopher for His great purpose -- So what is holding you back from living an unconfined life? Find your purpose!

Not worth a WIGO, but I think the text should have read, "God is using Christopher for His great purpose and now we are using him for Ours..." --Leotardo (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I prefer the inspirational story of Christopher Hitchens, who overcame great adversity at the bar to get another glass of whiskey. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the inspirational story of Christopher Walken, who overcame great adversity to be able to dance like this. --Leotardo (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant this, but I'd never seen that video you posted before and that thing had me just howling with laughter. Pure brilliance. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Walken overcame great diversity to deliver more cowbell --Opcn (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Random TK trolling

Looking to pick a fight with Arizona liberals, TK? Sheesh. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"UPDATE Rand Paul keeps getting nuttier and nuttier over "hypothetical questions""

Those links aren't about CP, perhaps cut and move to wigo world? And what's with the recent spate of really stupid - misspelled and irrelevant - wigos? ħuman 04:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

or just delete. Nothing to do with CP. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

True indeed. And no one bothered with this as far as I can tell. Poor Ken

. Amirite or was that 24 hours ago? ħuman 04:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz: Conservapedia's valiant defender of child rapists

<beginrant>I find Koeckritz's continued championing of the Catholic Church to be one of his more unpalatable positions. I just don't see how anyone outside of a self-serving careerist priest can defend this organization against what almost everyone agrees is one of the worst crimes imaginable: raping a child. This is one of those things where CP bloggers really confuse me with their "values". You can still say that the Catholic Church does a heckuva job with all of its proselytizing and charity work but say it's leadership has little evidence of its morality, right? I suppose it's just too damn hard to admit that the conservative hierarchy (including Pope Benedict) knew children were being raped, and did nothing about it (such as minister to the raped children and ensure that they received treatment). This is worthy of defense?! Is this how Koeckritz--or anyone with any humanity--would have handled knowing that 200 deaf children had been abused or raped? Apparently yes, because the police and local officials also did nothing. It's stuns me that what I thought was something we all believe is horrific, in reality is only a belief unless one of the stupid organizations we support violates it. So, this enchanted myth that conservatives are all just super-duper grand stander-uppers-for-values is belied by the fact that they still support the Catholic hierarchy, which knew of hundreds--thousands--of child rapes and did nothing--nothing--for those kids but now complain about an anti-Catholic conspiracy because hooray! everyone is a victim, including the victimizers.</endrant> --Leotardo (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget: Jesus died for our sins so all who believe in him are washed clean in the blood of the lamb. 16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pleeezzz, spare us the anti-Catholic bigotry; whaddya gunna do with civil servants kept on the payroll while in jail for sex crimes? [4] or public school teachers reassigned to other districts? blame the Pope, too? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, yes! And they're also gonna blame the pope for the Gulf Coast oil spill, the genocide in Darfur, etc., etc., etc. Conservative Punk (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, the current pope explicitly covered up child rape and stopped the police from investigating when he was cardinal for paedophilia (or suchlike). Whatever your politics of religious views, that is indefensible. Hopefully we'll get him for "crimes against humanity" when he touches down in the UK this September. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, well perennial Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich takes a shitload of money from AFSCME (in fact, one could say they are his only constituency). Civil Servants who are members of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Union are routinely transfered and reassigned elsewhere to other government jobs after being convicted of sex crimes.^{[citation needed]} You gonna arrest Kucinich, too? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're prattling on about, but I will attempt to answer what I think you are asking: Yes, I think anyone who covers up child rape should be arrested. Do you differ? (PS. Have you got a cite for that, as that's a pretty strong accusation) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I thought that after being convicted of sex crimes people usually go to prison. But if you say the get transferred to a facility in Akron, well, I guess I'll take your word for it. Besides, isn't there a slight difference between accepting money from a group and being the undisputed head of a group? When that group does something wrong, which one do you usually go after? DickTurpis (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I not too sure what you are fishing for here nobs. If a person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison for more than say 1 month, then yes they should lose there job. If they are working in a job where any form of conviction (prison or otherwise) compromises them then they should be removed from that job. The important part is not the transferring, it is the conviction. The Civil Service is not in any way trying to prevent its employees from being convicted, it is dealing with them in the most professional way possible. The Church is actively trying to prevent conviction. - π 02:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's one such case Schools Slow To Protect Students ; Districts Have Been Cautious to Act Against Educators Accused of Harming Kids against a public school teacher. Since charges like this are common, many school districts do not contact police and refer it to an internal human resources department. Then, confidentiality rights of the accused worker make it very difficult to get any information about the charges. Here's a case where a female teacher was charged with raping a 13 year old student.[5] she never spent a day in jail, AFAIK cause she was the mother of two small children (incidentally, she was the daughter of a candidate for County Sheriff). Talk about institutional sexism, huh? Here's a case faculty members and the principal eventually were forced out after they tried to coverup a gang rape ationalwiki.comat a football camp by not reporting the incident to police. [6] I live in a small state, but these are only three sensational incidents over the past year that could not be kept quiet. Who's the Pope of public eduction? the US Secretary of Education, or President who appointed him? Someone needs to held to account. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, Rob! Your last 2 links don't support your case at all. All they indicate is that sexual assault occurred -- nothing about cover ups at all. Admittedly, your first link shows attempts to protect accused teachers, but if you want to follow blame all the way up the chain of command to the highest offices (which there is no evidence for, but we'll take your advice anyway) then we'll take this to the President, if you like. Let's see, in 2005, when the article was written, I believe the President was one George W. Bush. I'll let you carry out the citizen's arrest, shall I? DickTurpis (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bzzzz. Wrong. 2005 is the date of the article, not the date of the incidents reported. Also, (a) Department of Education was created by Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress, and (b) need I expound further on the NEA? [7] nobs^{don't bother me} 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So when was the incident? a) So what? b) Yes. ħuman 03:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see your "logic" now. The Department of Education was created by Democrats. Someone in the general field of "education" tried to cover up an alleged sexual assault. Obama is a Democrat. Therefore, Obama is to blame. You outdid yourself here, mate. DickTurpis (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke. There are at least five incidents in the first link, this one for example:

• [[name redacted] continues to teach with no action having ever been taken against his license, despite his guilty plea to a charge stemming from his grabbing and squeezing a student's genitals while working at a Questa public school... nobs^{don't bother me} 03:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob. Now please explain how Obama, Carter, or anyone except the perp and his immediate supervisors carry blame for this? (Goddammit, here I am falling into the trap again.) DickTurpis (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the 2005 Albuquerque Journal article, excerpted: "a balance between teacher rights and student safety must be struck.... If the [Public Education Department] revoked a teacher's license and he or she were found innocent in a court of law, the teacher most likely would want to be reinstated....Even warning districts where the teachers move to may be inappropriate. "We can't malign a teacher to a potential employer..."

How is any of this different from the Catholic Church? And because students almost daily complain about sexual assault or harassment against public school faculty and staff, and a volume of cases being a he-said-she-said, only the most difficult and sensational are directly reported to police (unless the student does so themself). So while the school districts are in possession of personal files with allegations of sexual abuse, they can't under law disclose much to anyone without pretty substantive evidence the allegations are well founded. How is anhy of this different from the Catholic Churches handling of the same problem? nobs^{don't bother me} 03:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, why don't you partition your congressman for mandatory reporting? - π 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. So a student or an altarboy doesn't like the grade he received, so he/she makes a claim to public school officials or church higher ups the teacher or priest squeezed a boob or pinched a butt, there being no evidence. A personal investigation is initiated with the general rendering the charges are unfounded. The same teacher or priest, who comes in contact with hundreds of kids daily, compiles 2 or 3 unfounded allegations over a ten year period. These files need to be shared then with the FBI, local law enforcement, and the US Department of Education then, under your proposal. ^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs}

Seems reasonable enough. If they are unfounded, no action needs to be taken. If they are not unfounded or there is a clear patten (something you will not notice if you are not keeping records), then action will be taken. I fail to see what you find hard to understand about this. - π 05:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Nobs, your arguments above dancing around why this child rape is no worse than other abuse is disconcerting. This is an area where the "Yeah, my side said/did X, but you're side also did X so we're even!" kind of reasoning is unseemly. You should drop the strawman arguments. We aren't talking about Dennis Kucinich or teacher files; we're talking about the facts of the matter here. That somebody else somewhere should have their actions legally scrutinized is no argument that we shouldn't take action against the Catholic child rape conspirators. Regarding children making false claims, it's interesting that during the 1980's Satanic Panic a lot of innocent people were arrested and tried for abusing children simply because they were supposedly Satanists (many weren't); yet during the same time there was actual abuse of children being done by Catholic priests but the authorities did nothing about it because they were priests. --Leotardo (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

allegations of misconduct by students against teachers is a problem because they are difficult to prove conclusively. Some school districts have taken to using video monitoring systems to try to catch false allegations. It is even harder with female students in a certain age bracket. They may encourage unacceptable conduct until challenged , and then will claim abuse. In some cases a 26 year old teacher has 17 year old students. There is no easy answer. Trials and convictions may not even be conclusive because it may be one persons word against anothers and unless there is clear medical evidence or other supporting evidence then you need to worry about payback for some other conflict. There is a common belief that a list of allegations, while unproven , simply show the person guilty but smart enough to avoid conviction. That is why in some police departments for example , an allegation which is found to be unsupported is expunged from the record. That said any investigation should be by law enforcement who have some experience finding inconsistencies. The argument that priests are above common law , and answer only to the church is obsolete and any actions taken to conceal a potential crime treated as a breach of law. just my opinion Hamster (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Some allegations, short of a confession from the accused, are impossible to prove. And the point I'm making is public school districts have done almost exactly what the Catholic Church has done in similar circumstance, including not alerting law enforcement of the allegations. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If so, indeed, bad on them. However, the public school system does not have a Pope in charge of the entire organization, in case you hadn't noticed. It's mostly managed - or mismanaged - at a local level. The RCC is a pure hierarchy, and the Pope is the absolute ruler. And the current Pope supervised cover-ups of sexual abuse of minors by their employees. Anyone who does that is evil. Pope or School District supervisor. Both. The current Pope is an evil man, as, surely are some of the school admins you bring up. ħuman 07:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the question, are the accused alleged or convicted of sexual abuse? and how does the RCC's handling differ from any public school system? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The RCC does not turn priest over to police if they think they have a reasonable case to answer, the public school system will.
2. All child abuse cases are handled at the level of Pontifical Secret, there is not Ministerial Secret level in the PSS. - π 02:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Got any cites? The Washington Post says, "most abuse [in public schools] never gets reported..." [8] nobs^{don't bother me} 02:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well according to this page by a Emerita Professor of Philosophy and Religion, "In combination, the three documents appear to shift cases of clerical sexual abuse from criminal/civil state courts and the local diocese to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and attempt to bind everyone involved to vows of absolute secrecy." - π 04:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But so what, Nobs. What's this have to do with the global, massive, worldwide Catholic child sex abuse scandal? Perhaps you should fork off your concern about this unrelated issue to another thread, because you've failed to explain what bearing one has on the other. --Leotardo (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than making the point that failing to report public school teachers to law enforcement -which is a evidently a bigger and more widespread problem than Catholic priests- is done for virtually the same reasons the RCC has often failed to do so likewise, together with the main point the lopsided criticism of the RCC may be motivated by religious bigotry. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But so what again? What does any of that have to do with prosecuting child abusers, those who covered up their crimes and investigating the organization thoroughly to discern the extent of the crimes and the cover-up? That Bad Thing X happened is no argument against pursuing justice with Bad Thing Y. Religious bigotry my ass. It's only because its the RCC they don't get a federal RICO investigation and a detainment of Ratzinger at Heathrow. --Leotardo (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Rob, you moron, it's anti-pedophile bigotry. And if the schools have a bigger problem with it than the RCC, well, let's fix it. ħuman 03:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to an article in Education Week,

research conducted for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and released late last month. That study found that from 1950 to 2002, 10,667 people made allegations that priests or deacons had sexually abused them as minors. ("Report Tallies Alleged Sexual Abuse by Priests," this issue.) Extrapolating from data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000, Ms. Shakeshaft estimated that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee from 1991 to 2000—a single decade, compared with the roughly five-decade period examined in the study of Catholic priests. Those figures suggest that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,"contended Ms. Shakeshaft, who is a professor of educational administration at Hofstra, in Hempstead, N.Y.

So, let's look at a statement to support the contention this disproportionate criticism, and feigned concern about pedophiles is motivated by anti-religious bigotry:

Conservapedia may be small, but it continues the strain of religious fundamentalism in the United States.... They avoid the socialization into American democracy that public school provides.... [9]

Maybe they just don't want their kids molested where the risks are 100 times greater than Catholic schools. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Human's entertaining your straw man Nobs, but I'm not. The reasonable man on the street ain't gonna buy your "Don't investigate the Catholic child rapers and conspirators behind door No. 1 because look at what I got worse behind Door No. 2..." Ugh - you must have to shower each time you find a new way to argue this and hit save. --Leotardo (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's an incredibly poor use of statistics, Rob. Comparing actual complaints to extrapolated cases of "some sort of ... abuse"? Please do better before your case is considered made. Anyway, I'm all for locking up the abusers and their enablers. Someone extradite Bernie Law fro the Vatican (spit) and bring him before a court of law please? And, yup, any teacher who can shown to have engaged in inappropriate contact with children (and teens?) should also be brought to justice. Rob, are you defending the RCC's evil just because you think the PSS is "more" evil? Or are you on board with prosecuting them all? ħuman 04:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

actual cases appear to be mostly allegations and the extrapolated reference is based upon a figure 3% of all public school children. Futher, the RCC evidently kept better records than the American public schools which never reported anything to a central authority until required to do so by law. I'm not defending the RCC, I can be highly critical of it on the merits of a theological argument (as well as the Mormon church, Jehovah Witness, or Islam). But anti-religious secularists fool nobody using pedophilia as an argument, while ignoring the far greater abuse and risk of abuse prevalent in secular public schools. As to prosecuting, we're back to the question faced by both the RCC and public schools: short of a confession, witnesses, DNA evidence, or other probable cause, how do you handle allegations that protect alleged victims while preserving the confidentiality and privacy rights of the accused who have not or are not likely to be convicted based on the evidence? nobs^{don't bother me} 06:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For god's sake, Rob, are you really saying that the Catholic church was right to cover up all of that child-raping, because it allegedly happens more in public schools? Junggai (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying the privacy rights of an unconvicted child rapist priest are no different than the privacy rights of an unconvicted child rapist public school teacher, but there appears to be others that would deny those rights while showing special treatment and privilege to secular child rapists based upon their anti-religious bigotry. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It would only appear so to you, Rob. Have you ever heard of a straw man? Just who are these evil liberals who want to stop the police from investigating schoolteachers? We're angry that for a long time, the RCC was given a pass to clean up its own dirty laundry, despite the numerous reports of sexual abuse surfacing. Now we know for sure that the very man who is now pope was responsible for actively covering these things up. Yet at Conservapedia you're still giving them a pass. How can you possibly not understand the outrage over this? And no, public schools have nothing to do with it. Junggai (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cause I see the feigned outrage for what it is, disguised anti-catholic bigotry. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, feigned outrage. Are we that transparent? None of us would be outraged at all if the child rapes had been done by an intersexed person at a cannabis club that doubled as an abortion clinic. Just like you'd be offering tolerance, straw men and deflections had the rapes occurred and been covered up by ACORN, amirite? --Leotardo (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, that's the most pathetic response you've given yet. The pope covered up many cases of child rape and sent the rapists out to do it again. How is being angered by that "anti Catholic bigotry?" And do tell me again, who are these liberals who want to stop the police from prosecuting dirty schoolteachers? Show me one scrap of evidence for that straw man or shut up. And for the record, I like Catholics: beautiful cathedrals, great music, nice people who like a good wine and a long chat. But I'm not big on systematic coverup of child sexual abuse. Junggai (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for separating pedophiles and sex offenders from their potential victims. The Nazi Pope isn't. ħuman 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit freaking button

(unindent) (a) The pope covered up and sent out convicted child rapists to commit repeat offenses? Where have I used the term "liberal" in this discussion? And again, how are any allegations against the pope or RCC different than rape allegations in American public schools, which evidence shows is a larger problem by a factor of 100 to 1. As an ex-Catholic, enjoy bingo and beer with a fish fry, and a good catholic joke -- but I'm the first to get offended if you tell one. And the recidivism rate for convicted offenders everyone should be concerned about, but why do you limit your concern to catholic priest offenders, and not the mush wider problem of secular public school teachers? nobs^{don't bother me} 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Because addressing Problem X does not mean we don't address Problem Y, even simultaneously, and I've said that to you before that your logic makes no sense on this. Yes, haul them all in and demand justice where it is due for all. But you're not really arguing that so you aren't really listening. --Leotardo (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Rob, the Pope of course didn't send out CONVICTED sex offenders to rape other children, because he did his damndest to make sure they never got their day in court. That's a dishonest argument and you know it. In this case, a reported sex offense counts for a whole lot more, because there's been absolutely no incentive for a young altarboy to bring a complaint in an environment where neither the RCC nor law enforcement are going to do anything about it, and also where there's no material gain or payback as you might find in false allegations in the public school system. And if the word "liberal" bothered you so much, I'll ask it again without that word: show me evidence of these "others" (your word, Rob) who want to let child rapist schoolteachers go free. Go on, find it. Then when you can't, stick to the point at hand. Junggai (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. The RCC needs its version of the Patriot Act to round up suspected offenders without evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they just need to alert the authorities when such crimes are alleged and let the justice system run its course. ħuman 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Human, I'll ask again. Are you sure you really wanna be this guy's friend? --Kels (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He's the only friend I can count on here these days. ;) ħuman 05:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the RCC is supposed to be where the sick, hurt and abused go to find solace and meaning in their lot in life, and instead it provided abuse, rape and spiritual pain to children. Children! The very creatures Jesus said a bunch of good shit about. You've done a splendid job of not addressing the issue at hand, and making it in your head about something irrelevant and highly speculative: the motivations of the outraged. How convenient for you to ignore, and barely mention, the horrors of a global child rape scandal and cover-up whilst you talk public teachers and tolerance for the RCC. Face it: you care more about an organization than you do about its purpose, which it so horribly violated. --Leotardo (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? Really? This recalls a 15 year old student who was sexually abused by a pedophile public high school teacher, but when CNN [10] reported it, it was the nymphomaniac Monica Lewinsky seducing her high school teacher, so why should we be surprised about an oversexed woman victimizing the president, too? nobs^{don't bother me} 05:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you have a genius for bringing up completely unrelated topics as if they make some sort of point. By the way, in my county there is a public school teacher serving life (I think) for getting her student lover to murder her husband. ħuman 05:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, saw the movie w/Meg Ryan. Did you heat the one about the Catholic priest who wanted to take a day off so he asked a Lutheran minister to hear confessions for him? The minister says, "I don't know how to do that." Priest says "It's easy, sit hear, the people tell you their sins, look it up in the book, if you have any questions, ask the altarboy." First penitent comes in, says, "Bless me Father, I committed sodomy & molestation." The minister can't find it in the book so he sticks his head out of the box & yells, "hey kid, whattya get for sodomy & molestation?" Kid responds, "Well, it usually starts with a plate of cookies and glass of milk...." nobs^{don't bother me} 05:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't use these often so when I do I go overboard. ħuman 06:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What is Andy attempting to insinuate about London Bridge and atheist?

Because I can't figure it out^img Is he trying to say that it was only built because of christianity, and that with all the atheism about here nowadays (which unfortunately isn't true, we still have a fair share of theists, although nothing like the scale of fundies our US cousins 'enjoy'), such a structure couldn't be built. I hope he is, because I love the idea that an engineering marvel that exists purely because of the scientific method could only be built in Andyland thanks to the bible. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Andy because it's rare one finds another human so willing to publicly display their ignorance; he understands English landmarks as much as he understands English politics. That's Tower Bridge, not London Bridge, doofus. --Leotardo (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha Ha! I don't know how I failed to spot that! D'oh! (But in my defence, I'm not a cockney) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fricken hilarious! Bondurant (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was calling Andy a doofus, not you :-) You didn't incorrectly name a world landmark on the front page of the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Andy's mistake is common for people who have not traveled to London, although it is bizarre for self-professed experts and teachers who should know the name of something they consider a symbol of something (in this case, the strength of pre-Atheism England). Why check things out when you already have Perfect Knowledge? --Leotardo (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, someone politely pointed it out to them. I was hoping someone would be obnoxious and call them stupid for being such idiots, then, after banning, they'd have to either admit the guy was right, or, just as likely, refuse to accept a liberal troll could be right about anything and be forced to insist that the structure must be London Bridge. DickTurpis (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Now we have another idiot--no you fool, they don't call Tower Bridge "London Bridge" in England; they call London Bridge "London Bridge" and they've always been distinct--saying Andy's wrong but right. It's wonderful to be able to construct reality around, "If I can think it, then it might be true." --Leotardo (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the one in Arizona, right? ;) ħuman 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Glorious parody from Patrick. Nice job. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why's Andy so obsessed with Britain lately? EddyP (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

His mind is running in circles with "Liberal-Conservative coalition?" "Liberal-Conservative coalition?" "Liberal-Conservative coalition?" over and over. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish he'd leave us alone. It's so irritating when he constantly displays his utter lack of knowledge of our country. SJ ^Debaser 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Side note

Yeah, because people being forced to brutally maim and kill each other to entertain the plebs and a few hedonist assholes is soo fucking Christian -- Nx / talk 15:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel a no true scotsman coming on... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Side note II: Tower Bridge architect

The Tower Bridge architect, Horace Jones, held the title of "Grand Master of Public Works" as a freemason, a group that historically is loathed by Christians, with Catholics leading the charge, even with a papal ban. Henry Statham, a critic at the time, found the bridge "tawdry", "pretentious" and deceitful. --Leotardo (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Using Andylogic, we can note that many men of the time would have sported fine moustaches. Therefore, this bridge could not have been built had it not been for the inspirational contribution of the proud British moustache. Alternatively he could team-up with Metapedia and claim the bridge as a triumph of the white man before he was weakened by an influx of brown and yellow men. --ConcernedResident ^{escape pod, for the ladies} 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful with that one CR. Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, and look at the great crimes they carried out, all in the name of 'moustachism'. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but they warped the teachings of the moustache and misused them. No true moustache wearer would have done what they did, and I resent being lumped in together with those infidels. --ConcernedResident ^{bear, for the ladies} 16:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to find details of whether he was religious or not, because by the late 1800s there were plenty of people that were RINO (Religious in name Only) or just downright not theists. Maybe we should also mention that Britain was able to build such magnificent structures by conquering the world, not too dissimilar from the Catholic Church and its various cathedrals. Aslate (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WP's article on Jones has a registration-protected biography of him (by Oxford University); I haven't checked if you need to subscribe to get it. If anyone here has access via their uni, perhaps you could get the bio out (after your exams, nach). CS Miller (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arrrg!

It's a bridge. It's in London. So, it's London Bridge. There is a nursery rhyme^img London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down ...., so it's about this bridge. Screw you, king Olaf! 1894 or 1014, who gives a damn! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

London Bridge is falling down... is a hymn according to Andy. The Lulz just keep on coming. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Who the blimey calls it cp:London Tower Bridge? That'd be like saying "New York Harbour Statue of Liberty, also known as The Statue of Liberty". Great fact checking there, CP. --ConcernedResident ^{kitten, for the ladies} 16:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Also referred to simply as Tower Bridge" - that's the only thing it's referred to. If you're a foreigner talking about Tower Bridge, you might say "The Tower Bridge of London" so everyone is clear. If you're a non-English speaking foreigner you might say "London Tower Bridge." So, by my logic, Andy can't speak English... SJ ^Debaser 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As always, maybe I was too hard on Andy. t's perfectly natural to know that there's some children's chant about a 'London bridge' and jump to the conclusion that it simply must be this bridge. Besides, the "real London Bridge" is no longer in Atheist Britain, but Christian 'Round up the Browns' Arizona. Take that, Atheists - your London Bridge is fake and we own the original because In God We Trust and--hahah--you don't so we take your bridges! My favorite Conservapedia drag queen, Ms. Jinx McHue, adds more historical context. --Leotardo (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jinxie is a drag queen? I didn't know that. Does Andy know? ħuman 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!}- "And rumor has it, Jack the Ripper's spirit is trapped in one of the stones of that bridge. (Sorry. I remember an awful made for TV movie with that plot hook.)"[11] Maybe he should ask Ed to do a poorly written, half-arsed, piece-of-shit movie review informative, encyclopaedia-oriented stub on it. SJ ^Debaser 09:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)In other news, I've ordered Rosie O'Donnell a case of Whisk because I'm tired of all those children laughing at the "Ring around the Rosie". --Leotardo (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Andy is an idiot. We know this, of course, but this is simply additional evidence. Take a look at the most common modern version of the nursery rhyme [12]. Now, let's compare the two bridges:

• London Bridge was originally built in 55AD by the Romans, destroyed in 60AD, then rebuilt shortly afterwards, before falling into disrepair when the Romans left, leaving Londinium (the Roman name for London, as you might have guessed) abandoned. The next solid evidence of a bridge being there is in the late 10th century, during Ethelred the Unready's reign of the region, though it may have been rebuilt before then. It was then pulled down in 1014, before being rebuilt by 1016, just to be destroyed by a tornado(!) in 1091. It was then rebuilt one more time before being destroyed by fire in 1136. It was rebuilt as a timber bridge, then replaced by a stone bridge, which took 33 years to build, starting in 1176. Although various parts fell down and were replaced, or were replaced for other reasons, the next major change was the replacement of the bridge for a new one, which was opened in 1831, then widened in 1906. This was then sold in 1968 to make way for a new bridge, which had already begun construction, and was opened in 1973. This is the current London Bridge.
• Tower Bridge was opened in 1894 and is still in operation.

Now which of those bridges is that nursery rhyme most likely referring to? 92.11.6.133 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Soooo...the London Bridge built in Christian England that opened in 1831 fell apart and they found a schmuck in Arizona to buy it; whereas the Atheist England London Bridge, opened in 1973, is still in use. The coolest London Bridge was the one in the 1600's. Rcgallup seems to think that the current London Bridge, in its "awful modernity", is some piece of Socialist Stalinist architecture than the one it replaced. I might agree if it was the 1600s London Bridge, but it more-or-less looks like the 1800s one it replaced. So many opinions...so little thought. --Leotardo (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No wonder it kept falling down - people built houses all over it! ħuman 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it looks like it would have been so cool to have a flat in one! Um, unless it fell down into the river. --Leotardo (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very deja vu. Exactly (almost) the same arguments occured on their original The Tower Bridge article which seems to have vanished. Odd. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The common understanding in England is that when they sold off London Bridge it was bought by an American who though that he was actually getting Tower Bridge (although like Andy he thought that Tower Bridge was London Bridge if you see what I mean). I guess that Tower Bridge being more distinctive in appearance is the one that gets more photographed and is therefore automatically assumed to be London Bridge. However, virtually all of the front row at CP has ended making fools of themselves over this.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's 'common understanding', but it's a good example of an urban myth, because it's complete rubbish :) I thought I read this on Snopes, but having checked, I can't see it there, and I suspect I saw it on QI. The guy who bought it was well aware what he was getting, and for example there are (apparently) pictures of him being shown round London Bridge. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

loveeeeee the new layout!

Looks good! Now we need to insert this page on the conservapedia article on wikipedia. rational ghey (send a message) 17:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, can we lose the "shadow" on the buttons? It looks weird on the big one. That is, it doesn't look like a shadow. ħuman 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally I hate change, but this.. this is pretty spiffy! --GTac (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Two thumbs up! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kinda ironic you guys roll out a new layout with much input from the membership and adding useability at exactly the same time as deviantART rolls out their new layout, springing it on the membership as a surprise (no going back, you little shits!) , and removing functionality and generally pissing a lot of people off. Nice to see there's folks can do it right. --Kels (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, RationalWiki and DeviantArt too? Why are all big websites (plus RW) changing their layouts all sudden? Vulpius (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Word came down from the master overseers of the liberal conspiracy. tmtoulouse 01:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably not far off. From the changes they've been forcing in the last little while, they're trying to make dA into a social networking site along the lines of Facebook but with art. Probably at the urging of the shareholders/investors, since I doubt anyone asked for fucking llama badges and a points system. --Kels (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia one is just a skin change with the latest version of Media Wiki, it's been available in beta for ages now. Though I don't know what they were thinking with the DeviantART one. The last big change was sort of alright, but this one has taking "streamlining" in the wrong direction. You also have to call bullshit on their brief of "putting your art at the center of attention" - they've but the ad space at the center of attention as it now takes up above 50% of the width when viewing images. Real good ideas guys, rock the fuck on. (although I think that llama badge thing was just an April Fools prank that they forgot to disable) Nothing worth quitting the site about, of course, but there's lots of change that's worse. Facebook's new system for "liking" things, while it's cool that it's linking in with Wikipedia, the fact that you can only add something that exists as a page (granted, they are just glorified search results as before) is just plain limiting and stupid. And I seem to be stuck with a horrid new YouTube layout that seems to be bombarding me with a "stream" rather than what I want, which is the subscription updates at the top as before - not sure what's happened there as it's only the case on some computers... ^moral 06:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wp one was awful and I "turned it off". Change for the sake of change is what it looked like, and it looked like shit. ħuman 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You will get a chance to turn it off here next time we upgrade as it is the default skin for MediaWiki 1.16 onwards. - π 09:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wp one was change for the sake of looking like a modern website, not something from the 90s. Although I think the new logo is really bad - scratch that, they just replaced it with something much better. -- Nx / talk 10:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The evolution of the WP logo is pretty good. You can't say it hasn't gotten much better over time. ^moral 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't for the sake of looking modern - it was done after a lot of usability study. (We have the numbers that say all the people bitching about the search box moving are actually wrong.) The logo change ... that was sprung on everyone. Thankfully the bugs in Vector (the broken search, the slow rendering, the way it doesn't work on odd browsers and actually crashes the shitty browser on a lot of Blackberrys) are actually being worked on furiously - by the time MW 1.16 comes out, Vector should be just fine - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But you could've just improved the usability of monobook without changing the style. -- Nx / talk 12:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's officially both reasons: Wikipedia:Vector - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The new look looks more professional. Given that it is suppose to be a reliable source of information, the more professional it looks the more serious people will take it. Looks better is a good reason. - π 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

True, although if the content is crap, no amount of fancy work on the skin will make it look reliable (you can't polish a turd). But for the articles that are good, it's a better box to present it in all round. Making a note about the search bar, most web designs put the search bar in the top-right, Vector just brings it in line with that. ^moral 08:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So websites have to look like This Year's Model, or they are antiques? I have a lot of professional issues with that sort of blinkered thinking. ħuman 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

CP reacts to craig venter's artificial life

So far, only Jinx has made a comment, but I look forward to further reactions. Especially from Kendoll. One can only hope for a Project Craig Venter.

Jinx's comment is comically panicked. One typical reaction from the fundies is "ha! this proves life requires intelligent design!" while the other is "nope, he didn't really 'create' life" - mutually exclusive claims, of course, but Jinx goes for both anyway. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Either way, this should be epic. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ooh, I feel another Lenski coming on. Who has a sock to burn in asking Andy to demand to see the data? --PsyGremlinParla! 09:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is already becoming a science education disaster. The JCVI produced a synthetic genome that was shown to be functional. Generating synthetic DNA is old news, but this is on a much larger scale than previously possible. However, they used an existing cell. This is sort of like how reverse engineering an OS and running it with existing hardware is not building your own computer entirely from scratch. While this is an important step along the way and an impressive technical accomplishment, it is not even remotely close to being "artificial life". Kallium^talk 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but your headline wouldn't sell newspapers. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, this seems more like it could be PJR's Lenski moment. If only there was a way to incite him to demand to see the "information" they put in. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, all (but its a big all) they did was to

• Sequence a bacterium's DNA.
• Make an artificial copy of it, by using a DNA synthesising machine, and stitch the DNA fragments together.
• Inject this DNA into a different bacterium (of a different species), that had its DNA removed, but keeping the rest of the bacterium's organelles (not that they are called organelles in bacterium)
• Induce the second bacterium to reproduce using the machine-made DNA. Its descendents' organelles will be the same as the copied bacterium's as they are produced from DNA.

What you end up with is copies of the first bacterium, but it didn't directly reproduce. It's a useful proof-of-concept of an artificial bacterium, but no quite there, yet. CS Miller (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the spin on it. But I'm at least pleased he has the brain to pick up on the fact that "artificial life" might be a dubious term. ^moral 17:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They also removed a couple genes from Mycoplasma mycoides that were thought to be related to making it dangerous to goats[13] (long live the goat!) and inserted a few watermarks (the names of the researchers, a website address, contact email and quotes from James Joyce, Richard Feynman and a biography of Robert Oppenheimer[14] or maybe...) So it wasn't just copying the genome with a genetic xerox machine. --Shagie (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a great comic. I've always said I would accept that life on Earth was designed by someone or something when we find the comments in the code. Imagine if someday a commented "new" life form takes over, that is, all its descendants out compete existing life, and evolves into an intelligent species, and finds the watermarks in all their DNA... ħuman 23:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, that would be interpreted as an argument for creationism. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart is God

Found this interesting tidbit on Conservapedia's page on Jon Stewart^img:

“”He was the host of the 2006 and 2008 Academy Awards. He is the "Father" in the Holy Trinity of Father, Son (Stephen Colbert), and Holy Spirit (Dennis Kucinich).

^{— Unsigned, by: Night Jaguar / talk / contribs}

Do we have a policy not to out parody or is it just parodists? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd say this is a case when it shows why we should neither out parody or parodists, because it's gone now.^img Of course, it only took them about six months.... MDB (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick. You're welcome, TK. Sorry that we have to do you work for you. ^moral 11:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Worse still, Terry Koeckritz's edit broke a Ken

perfect run of fifty consecutive edits. I'm not sure what the record is but fifty is pretty good going, even for Ken. Bob Soles (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Shit. Sorry about that. I didn't realize they followed here. *Puts head down in shame* --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of them read RW more than you do. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we know if Andy himself reads this site? (My suspicion is that he doesn't, out of fear that our evil secular progressive liberalism would corrupt his precious bodily fluids or something.) MDB (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain Andy doesn't, but obviously TK, Rob, and Ken do. That's about 50% of the CP users right there. DickTurpis (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I think I speak for everyone when I wish Jinxy would come back. I, for one, miss his incoherent penis-bone laden rants. Especially in light of his moralising I've seen in comments left on Ray Comfort's blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Those were the good ol' days Jeeves. I loved Jinx baiting. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we haven't heard the Schukky for ages now. I'm sad. And I wish Bohdan was back too. At least nobs is here. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

TK doesn't even try to be subtle about the fact that he reads RW a lot. I mean, this getting posted and it being deleted happened pretty damn quick. Andy probably doesn't (although I sometimes get the feeling that Roger might have a sock here... ) and the rest I imagine take fleeting glances at WIGO:CP to use us as a cheap fact checking service, as we have just seen. ^moral 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they all read us. People, when they know that others are talking about them, have a really, really hard time not wanting to find out what is said. Especially when they can deny they care and nobody is the wiser. --Leotardo (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Andy "reads" RW at all. He probably came here once, skimmed the first paragraph of our article on him and CP and then went away in disgust. ħuman 23:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One wonders whether Andy has ever read anything written by RW editors past the first couple of sentences, even when we were active on CP. RW's problem is we'r just not concise enough for him.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the selective reading of sources and the speed of revisions of long comments are anything to go by, I'd be surprised if he took any of it in, yet alone the whole thing. That said, our article on Andy has so much tl;dr I defy anyone to say that they've read it fully. ^moral 08:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read both of them completely. Several, nay, dozens of times. ħuman 09:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some of Andy's comments in the past indicate quite clearly that he never reads anything all the way through. And how could he, when his brain is so full of such elevated thoughts all the time? Bluefish (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

High usage of Fuck

This may just be me, but it seems like we have a lot of fuck creeping through on the page. Seeing as how this is a hub page for non-users, I thought we agreed to try and clean up the language in our WIGOs. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, while I think on talkpages anything goes, egregious profanity on mainpages may turn off the more discerning user. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh - the last WIGO I wrote was the first one with a curse word in it, and actually - I had noticed fuck in a few WIGOs and I was sort of thinking it was a community norm. Since it's not, or trying not to be, I don't mind toning my own down in the future. I do like the word. --Leotardo (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The bit that annoys me more is how it is used. It is mostly "OMG you are fucking idiots". If it is WIGO worthy you an usually phrase it with something witty instead of inane. - π 01:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be done well, and was in the WIGO "User: "Ken, your broken news item doesn't tie up with the source you provided.img" TK: "Well, perhaps this non-sequitur will answer your question, weasel" --ConcernedResident ^{elf, for the ladies} 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we want to try and clean up the ones that already exist? Or just leave them.... I feel vindicated, when Ace agrees it's time to clean up the language, you can take that to the bank. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 03:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast there, Richard Pryor. While I am anti mainpage profanity I am well versed in the vicious talkpage rant. I have always been a proponent of keeping the mianpage clean(ish) and devoid of internet meme's. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did Ace say that? (oops, up above ;)) Yeah, pages like wigo cp should use "fuck" sparingly, for effect, not on every one, as in starting every wigo with "what the fuck was this fucking idiot fucking thinking about fucking x?" OK on talk pages, though. ħuman 04:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck allz of youz you fugging fuckz. Fuggit. I'm fucking fucked, me. Fuck. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good issue to raise. Anything that isn't on a talk page and thus signed from an individual represents the site as a whole, as an entity, rather than anyone specifically. So that means controlling the language used, not just profanity but style as well. Well placed swearing has its place - the entire point is that it emphasises certain things with shock value but it loses that value if you over-use it. So, while I wouldn't advocate censoring it, or putting a watershed on the WIGOs or even the front page, I'd advise people to reign it in and colloquial stuff for talk. ^moral 08:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and if we redo the look and feel of parts of the site, we should get input and respect it, instead of saying "we three agree, and fuck you". Armondikov, I'm not sure where you are coming from lately, but your desire to impose crappy graphics on the site is not impressing me. ħuman 09:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are these three you keep mentioning? Stalin, FDR and Churchill? Aceⁱ⁹ 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of potty mouths afraid of offending "more discerning users." Ratwiki's wants to become Family Friendly now. What a bunch of bullshit. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Guess your inability to follow discussions is not restricted to Wikipedia, nobs. Oh, and go fuck yourself. 92.0.201.221 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) what Bon said. On another note, Rob.... Do you think you could come to Denver? The Colorado University college of science (Which happens to share campus space with my own college) has state of the art technology and I would like to test my theory that when your fingers come into contact with a QWERTY Keyboard, your frontal cortex shuts down completely. If I can get a good CAT Scan and run a few tests, I could become famous in the world of Psychology. Thanks Rob, I owe you a bunch..... and FUCK you! SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 06:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wha? 800 is damn good, but which one?

I only got a 790 myself Who is andy bragging on, the 8-10 people who are still conservapedians are all too old to be taking the SAT's. --Opcn (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably one of the homskollars? I think he took the writing class "off CP" so we couldn't see the rough drafts, and perhaps to allay parental concerns. I wonder how the student on the math and essay portions? Also, why did they take it twice if they aced it the first time? Also also, I bet anyone could get Andy to denounce the SAT battery as liberal claptrap if they tried with four brain cells. ħuman 05:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Also note that he took it twice. Why would you take the SAT twice? To improve your score. Why would you need to improve your score if you got an 800 on the reading part? --Shagie (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Because your essay or math sections utterly sucked, I guess. Though it's hard to imagine someone getting 800 on the Inglish part and not being able to write a decent essay, or being fairly capable at math. ħuman 06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Worst College Majors WIGOs

So this is getting more enjoyable for me (finally). The original logic to the page was the vocational school "what trade makes money" reasoning and Andy originally cited the comedy website HolyTaco.com (no, it's not a site for Virgin Mary fetishists) as his source for what comprises "the worst" majors. After the Johnfrankin comments, Ken changes the uselessnes of the Religion degree to specify liberal colleges, and then adds his "they get jobs" rationale to fit with Andy's original logic. Then he throws off the entire rationale of the criterion with his introduction of biology as a worst major since the job prospects and pay are not bad. I'm enjoying yet again a demonstration that even when there is an attempt to use some loosey-goosey standard, it quickly devolves back to "just whatever we think with no rationale." --Leotardo (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically. Why "Evolution syndrome" is my favorite piece of shit from CP. It's completely made up. No doubt about it.rational ghey (message) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The starting logic was flawed. For most office jobs an employer just wants the candidate to have a college degree and they could care less the major. For people who plan to go to law school, they can study whatever they want; law schools look for diverse educational backgrounds. Kudos to Ken for supplying the pastoral employment statistic, but if they were serious about this nonsense they would pull the stats of people who graduated with a Women's Studies or English Literature degree, and compare their employment statistics and income levels. --Leotardo (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, if Andy et al. start searching for real data to support their arguments, they might realize that they are wrong, and they obviously don't want that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Even more nah, facts are librul. Any amount of data wouldn't change Andy's opinion one iota.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting new user?

"John S. is a community college professor specializing in history and British literature of the medieval and Early Modern periods as well as children's/YA literature. Currently, he predominantly teaches composition and argumentation. He is also a non-Christian who has a longstanding disagreement with organized religion. He identifies as a moderate conservative political and economically, but leans left on social issues."

He is also not long for this world. EddyP (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Did he not read the main page? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Will give him about five more minutes, tops. ^moral 17:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And what's the story with Ken blocking him (JohnS001, at present) with a reason of "broken arrow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GGhASxRCMw"? That Youtube page says it has content that may be inappropriate for some users (sane ones???) and wants me to create an account. Which I won't do. Ken is doing mundane banhammering chores? That sounds kind of dangerous. He might accidentally block Andy in the middle of the night, between his 20,344th and 20,345th edits to "Richard Dawkins and my onanism". Ken should not be allowed near any sharp utensils. Or anything sharper than a beach ball. Gauss (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More of Ken's covering up his homosexual desires obsession with machismo, war, and so forth. I think what he's trying to say is either the armies of Christ are overrunning atheist positions and somehow blocking a user who didn't do anything wrong with part of that, or he wants to have sex with Charlie Sheen. --Kels (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

a little truth about Jim Bakker

To the brilliant editor who added this "truth" [15] to CP, do you have a scintilla of evidence (in the form of a citation) other than a personal hunch or twisted stereotype that Jim Bakker is a conservative? Thanks. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. That's why CP is the perfect place to put information like that. Lack of evidence has never been a problem at CP. Is there even a scintilla (word of the day calendar?) of evidence for this? Keegscee (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think "one of us" made that edit? We can all spell "infidelity" here. ħuman 03:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, since when can some dumb trolling at CP get 50 votes on WIGO? We get it, CP will delete things they disagree with -- there's nothing remotely interesting about the "truth" posted. On the other hand I think that essay is my personal favorite CP page. --Benod (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; though I kinda liked this one, there's no reason to put it on the same scale as actual CP content, which usually seems like the consensus anyway. That aside, it's nice to see RW is still responsible for all negative feedback at CP (or at least required to defend it). ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 05:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

other than a personal hunch or twisted stereotype - Oh come off it Rob, if I had any working irony meters left then you'd have blown the lot. It's a paradox that RW editors have probably done more to improve Conservapedia by adding genuine original content (unlike most of the sysops or homeskollars with their copy/paste plagiarism) or correcting factual and grammatical errors. You of course have certainly added much original and highly amusing material. RationalWiki editors were also prepared to debate facts but if they didn't fit in with Andy's own 'personal hunch or twisted stereotypes' then they were swiftly godspeeded. But to think that all edits which somehow undermine CP's 'message' are made by RW editors just shows how much TK has worked you into a siege mentality with RW as the sole enemy. Get real, there are thousands of people out there who have never heard of RW who find Conservapedia such an object of ridicule that they can't help themselves but join in the derision.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You can tell by the rate that WIGO:CP is updating recently that RW is moving on, and almost has moved on already. Most of the co-ordinated vandalism and things that you could genuinely call "attacks" are probably organised via 4Chan or something else. But even then, this is how often? Once a year? Less? It's a nice fantasy that there's a small, co-ordinated group "out to get you" but in reality its a lot of people with a common idea who just have the same response in a given circumstance. They don't need to be an organised collective to make it appear that they're an organised collective. ^moral 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot that Rob, of course, is CP's No. 1 conspiracy theorist.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I like how the only thing RobS can come up with against the entire list is "WELL DO YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES THAT THIS CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST IS ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE?". It's pretty much the same as admitting you don't have any real arguments against the list. Good on you for being honest for a change, RobS! --GTac (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Rob, what proof do you have that Fred Phelps is a liberal? DickTurpis (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

He protests fallen servicemen's funerals along with Cindy Sheehan-types who's in bed with prominent Democrats like david Duke and Al Gore and is a monomaniacal activist wanting to change the world -- classic symptoms.

Jim Bakker can't be Conservative, he had sex with a woman! --Kels (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't a ratvandal that did it, it was RW WIGO that called Jim Bakker being a conservative "a little truth." Truth is, I've been told he & Tammy Faye were quite the traditional liberal Democrat Farm-Labor (DFLers, as they're called) who dominate Minnesota politics back in their college days. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have any sources or other evidence for your one single argument against an entire list? Bravo. --GTac (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

GOD FUCKING DAMN TEXAS

I'll bet Don Macelroy Reads CP, which is the best case I've ever heard of for a DDOS attack on a site. (which I am not advocating in any way, and neither should you) Jesus they are gloating about ruining the next generation. --Opcn (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, what's this all about then? I have a friend named Don MacElroy. ħuman 07:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This and this. You being not a yank it might not mean to you what it does to us. --Opcn (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Not sure if I am a "Yank" or not, I've lived here for 40 years. ħuman 09:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've said it once before and I'll say it again: I wouldn't shed one tear if Texas seceded from the US. In fact, the entire south can go for all I care. Keegscee (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't such a bad idea; Texas could divide into 5 states, (cite provided courtesy Wikipedia) adding several more US Senators to offset the Dems plan to give D.C. representation. Hell, the Republicans could give up two new Senate seats and net the other 8. nobs^{don't bother me} 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Rob. Keegscee's point is that he wants Texas 'kicked 'out of the country. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How do they know Jesus wasn't born in Texas? Can't find three wisemen & virgin. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of wishing the North had "lost" the civil war is gaining a lot of traction lately, and I agree. ħuman 09:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

http://fuckthesouth.com - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's tediously predictable that CP only relies on Fox, but in this case it's led to happily overlooking all of the undeniably fucking insane bollocks which the board is pulling off. Ditching Newton and referring to the slave trade as the "Atlantic triangular trade" is about as deceitful as it gets. Webbtje (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there are any intelligent teachers in Texas, they'll do something about this. Also, why the hell are these idiots the ones who decide what gets put into textbooks? Ugh, I don't know, I'm hungover and my back hurts. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing I hate the most about the Texas text book issue is that it's always presented as if this hillbilly one state commission of non-experts is going to be deciding what children learn from Alaska to Hawaii and there's nothing that anyone can do about it. I mean, what the fuck? If the Texas textbook people have gone crazy, then rational states should demand to know if a book is Texas-standard and reject it. Surely if even just 30 of the other states said, "No, we aren't buying that crap" then it's not an issue, but the media narrative portends that there is absolutely no choice and the entire nation will be Texafied. --Leotardo (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Very well said, Mr. Leotardo. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 14:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue with that is that Texas is one of few states with a single standard for textbooks; most others set standards at smaller scales like individual districts. It would be nice if they rejected the Texas standards, but individually they have much less market power to influence what textbook publishers produce. It wouldn't be impossible to get a lot to reject the standards, but they aren't used to uniting to influence national standards like that. 96.60.50.30 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, maybe they could import world history textbooks from other countries. Might be similarly unpopular disallowed for all I know, but worth a shot. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare and Contrast

Not quite pure plagiarism, but here's Terry Koeckritz, and here is John T. Marck. We report, you decide. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is plagiarism from the page he included in his external links. Take a look here. Looks oddly familiar, in fact it's almost word for word identical to what Turbid Kockrotz wrote. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 13:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Paste them both in http://www.textdiff.com for a lol. Jaxe (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be a red-letter day when Terry Koeckritz actually creates an article that isn't plagiarised.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

TK can't even dishonestly hector a new user honestly. That bird feeder thing was cribbed from a widely forwarded email. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Coincidence?

After a new user points out to Andy the stupidity of having Ken's insane essay on the main page (a newbie who is surprisingly not reverted an banned), Ken removes it. Was there some discussion behind the scenes? I'm very sorry to see it go. Perhaps it will be replaced with something more subtle, such as a banner reading "WE ARE ALL A BUNCH OF FUCKING IDIOTS". DickTurpis (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised. Ken's not exactly the most popular guy (after all, IIRC, he often even kept fellow sysops in the dark about his schemes), so it's quite possible that TK slapped him around a bit. Anybody know if they let Ken into their new secret discussion group? He had been in TZB (again: IIRC)... --Sid (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it a bit, I'm sort of thinking Andy didn't say anything. Isn't it more Andy's MO just to remove such things himself, rather than go through other channels to ask for (or demand) its removal? I do find it odd that the comment on his talk page calling it "pathetic" wasn't reverted, oversighted, or even acknowledged. DickTurpis (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is odd, although now that we've mentioned it TK is going to stumble over and revert it. But you're right, it is very surprising that Ken took it down. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same Ken

here? The ken I know puts up crazy stuff and takes it down during his brief lucid periods all the time. Windmills, Hitler and bullfights anyone? Not to mention, every gentleen he's ever written. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken deletes and recreates, he changes things constantly, and does a bunch of other crazy shit, but once he gets something prominent on the main page, it tends to stay; the whole "article of the year" was his invention, after he realized a week or a month was not long enough to feature his evolution article. Everything he does is to draw attention to himself, so removing his latest pet project from a prominent spot on the main page is out of the ordinary. DickTurpis (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ole! Ole! Ole! Fedhaji (Talk) 21:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken, perhaps we deserve an explanatory Red Telephone Message? We haven't been addressed as Gentlemen in a while. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

But only because his gentlemen started to get overtly crazy and out of hand, and da management ordered him to stop. He took his gentlemen to aSoK, but I think he got his marching orders there too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I really miss being Gentlemaned. It was great. My life is vacant and sad since then. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken worships Chuck Norris' manliness--Buscombe (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Senor Dawkins could gain muy muchismo by becoming a Bible believing Christian." And yet, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Hey Ken

, how come you don't spell señor correctly? (I hope I got that right!) ħuman 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone here speak grammatically correct?

This xenophobic turd gem on Mainpage Right brought out the grammar pedant in me, but then made me doubt. Is it actually gramatically correct to say someone "does not speak gramatically correct." Any higher level grammar geeks here know? Junggai (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am snot sure but either way it is a very clumsy way of writing. But then again, Terry Koeckritz is a clumsy windbag himself so not surprising. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that but wasn't going to mention it since it's Terry Koeckritz. In this case, "grammatically-correct" should be hyphenated as both words form one adjective. The sentence ought to finish "grammatically-correct manner" or something like that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, 'do not follow the rules of grammar when speaking', or 'do not speak grammatically', or even 'do not speak grammatically correctly', then that would be grammatically correct (albeit the last example would be a bit clunky). 92.19.104.171 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, BoN! your post contained a lack of Terry Koeckritz. When posting about Terry Koeckritz make sure to address Terry Koeckritz as Terry Koeckritz. This is because Terry Koeckritz does not like it. Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz Terry Koeckritz. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob could do with some edumification too: affects?^img. Thicko! --Quilt (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

4 hours? A bit slow, Rob. [1]^img

Should be "speak grammatically correctly." Verb adverb adverb. Still awkward.96.60.50.30 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dang, missed 92.19.104.171. Sieg heil, fellow grammar nazi. 96.60.50.30 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy frothing at the mouth while simultaneously rubbing his, um, pipe

[16] OMGZ hold the presses! He successfully hassled the NJ Supreme Court! I'm surprised he didn't say "Conservapedia has [wasted the NJ SC's time]" this time. His mommy must be sooooooo proud. ħuman 02:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, he actually did it!? Unbelievable. Now let's see how the bumbling, incompetent excuse for government in NJ responds. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Andy was the main counsel for the tea party, what is he doing filing a measly amicus curie? tmtoulouse 03:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he filed it on behalf of some other group? Either that, or he is really confused about judicial process. ħuman 03:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought he lined to the homepage for the group that is doing all this and they had hired him as lead council...something is not making sense. tmtoulouse 03:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Something is not making sense on CP or in Andy's brain? Well, that's a first. ħuman 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See this article [17] is saying Andy is lead council....tmtoulouse 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're using TerryH's blog as a source for reality? ħuman 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless of course "the committee to recall Robert Menedez" who is the plaintiff is a completely different entity from this "recall nj" that Andy is council for. Which means that Andy is actually lead council for a group trying piggy pack with a spoofed name, and all of Andy's crowing is pretty much a lie....tmtoulouse 03:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That was what I thought - he's lead counsel for the plaintiff, and is filing amicus incurious briefs on behalf of some other group at the same time. ħuman 04:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might even be stupider than that. I think Andy is lead council for this "Recall NJ" which isn't doing anything. And that the main plantiff is "The committee for the recall of Robert Menendez" which Andy has nothing to do with at all. And all his preening about how important he is in this fight is utter BS. I suppose I could actually, you know, look up the case and get this info...tmtoulouse 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh the stuff I have access hasn't been updated. It is also possible that Andy had nothing to do with the amicus brief....I give up. tmtoulouse 04:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys a bit behind the curve on this one. Andy took the job on the Menendez recall committee [18] two months ago, and the other link is a month old. This story is in fact a milestone in the 200+ year history the United States Republic--the voters right to recall a federal official-- and Conservapedia broke the Exclusive. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. We reported on TerryH pimping his blog on mainpageright, we just don't necessarily remember the pathetic details. "Conservapedia broke the Exclusive" because Andy scanned a letter he got and put it on the web. So, anyway, why is the lead attorney for the plaintiff in a case filing a.c. briefs? ħuman 05:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He may have nothing to do with the a.c. brief. And Rob, I think you are way over stating the importance of this case. So far a group of crazies want to do something unconstitutional, the state court ruled that since the chances are they won't even be able to meet the basic requirements the court can ignore them, and that is the case that is before the NJ Supreme court. Whether or not the court should ignore the crazies, and only worry about it on the off chance they should meet statutory requirements. tmtoulouse 05:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's some of the background. [19] This is truly historic, I don't know if a court has ever agreed to hear a case on recall of federal officials, but Andy has done the work on the case law. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, do you even read the links you post? "But Wells has this perfectly right. The term of a U.S. senator is six years, unconditionally, and nothing a state says to the contrary (even in its constitution) can have any effect on this fact. Even before the Seventeenth Amendment, when state legislatures rather than voters chose U.S. senators, no “recall” was possible." ħuman 05:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

NRO is one opinion, but that's the background on the NJ supremes hearing the case. Another consideration, the 17th Amendment changed the way the founders provided for election of Senators, so if the US Constitution is a living document, may be the rights of the people need to be considered. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What does the NWO have to say about it, though? ħuman 06:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Several points Rob, the first is a bit subtle, so lets see if I can make this clear enough for you, the supreme court is hearing an appeal about whether or not the state court was correct in its finding that there was no grounds for them to rule on the case until a petition is actually successfully completed and submitted. Do you see how that is a different case than the whether or not there is a right for people to recall federal officials? The second point, Andy didn't arrive on this case until after it had headed to the Supreme court. He hasn't done anything yet, nor was he responsible for any of the good or bad arguments or outcomes. So there is nothing for him or CP to really be crowing about yet. tmtoulouse 06:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarity: This is not going to the US Supreme Court, just the NJ State Supreme Court. ħuman 06:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for setting all that straight. So the NJ Supremes have to determine if the NJ Constitution is legal, which in turn could wind up before SCOTUS. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would go before a Circuit court first. ħuman 02:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's actually some precedence on this. There was an attempt to recall Frank Church in the 1960s, but the District Court ruled it would be unconstitutional for a state to recall a US senator.--Justme (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the NJ SC decides the question of whether a state official has the authority to unilaterally determine that a state law is preempted by the federal constitution and then decides that she was correct to do so, the only avenue for appeal is SCOTUS, just like any other decision rendered by a state court of last resort. BTW, the more I think about this the more I think the likelihood is that Schlafly will win and that the NJ SC will decide the Secretary of State wasn't authorized to do anything but execute state law, even if it is unconstitutional. It would be the narrowest ruling possible, which is what appellate courts do. Such a ruling would obviously leave open whether a recall under state law is constitutional, and I'm going to check the US Party Index to see if Menendez already filed that case in DC or elsewhere. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested. Has Schlafly's stellar legal career involved anything _other_ than filing spurious amicus briefs on behalf of various fly-by-night wingnut organisations? If he gets this excited about receiving a form letter, surely his other stunning victories would have been highlighted? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To clairify what he posted - he's boasting that a third party filed a brief in support of the recall effort. Menendez's camp has two weeks to reply to the brief. I don't believe that Andy is involved (at least directly) with the group that filed the amicus brief, since he wouldn't be able to file it as counsel. I strongly suspect that the group that employs Andy created a shadow group that filed this brief. Effectively impersonating someone else to agree with you. What's actually funny about Andy posting this is that it's utterly meaningless. The standards associated with submitting an amicus brief are mostly issues of filling out paperwork and getting it in on time. While this may be "breaking" it isn't really "news." - Lardashe

According to Newsmax this is symptomatic of the current underlying anti-incumbent fever sweeping the nation. [20] Obamacare and the Cornhusker Kickback got people really pissed off, so Uncle Ted's seat going to Scott Brown, the formation of the Tea Party movement, and now recall of federal officials are the big issues. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Scott Brown a dirty RINO? EddyP (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

ell-if-i-no (cross between an elephant and rhinoceros). nobs^{don't bother me} 14:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly Rob. CP deals in absolutes. If a Republican doesn't match up in every way, he's a RINO. EddyP (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RINO is a pejoritive, I prefer Big Tent Republicans. Even Sarah Palin, who raised taxes, is a Big Tent Republican. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this in perspective. In all probability the NJ SC is just going to tell him to run home to mommy. Does he really think that one brief is going to recall Menendez? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's suppose the NJ SC finds the Constitution illegal, that's more fuel for the fire for H.R Res 71 [21] (you will recall term limits was a Contract With America item that failed to get two thirds majority in 1995, but was a big factor in the 1994 Gingrich revolution). nobs^{don't bother me} 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That just killed my brain.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

They won't find it illegal. They don't want a Constitutional crisis, especially given the fact that Menendez's seat is up for election in a year. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a real simple issue, Are you for a basic human right, like voting for example, or are you part of a corrupt system that keeps misfits in power, like Senator Menendez. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, so if you are opposed to recalls you're anti-voting. I guess you either want to recall Menendez or what to make him Senator for Life. Should the President be subject to a recall as well? Instead of having a Presidential election every 4 years, should we have one every time enough people feel its time? Shall we have recall votes for the Supreme Court too? I assume you must be for all of these, or you're against basic human rights. DickTurpis (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if Rob is right (which he isn't), the SC won't see it that way. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob's not right. We have a system for getting rid of "misfits" that's only moderately corrupt when compared to similar systems in countries truly more free than we are. It's called "voting." Also, there's no basis, notwithstanding whatever FlavorAid CP people drink that's got them convinced otherwise, for believing state law can affect the federal election system except where the US Constitution expressly grants it such authority. Menendez' term is set by federal law and will be finished according to federal law. Schlafly is wasting a huge amount of other people's money on a really uninteresting question. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis?

Why would deciding this cause a constitutional crisis? Personally, I think it is pretty clear that the recall is unconstitutional and the federal constitution takes precedence (supremacy clause), it seems fairly straight forward to me. I think thought it will all be for nought as the NJ SC will likely hold that there is no grounds for the case till the petition is actually in play. This will free them up to get signatures but I doubt they will get the numbers they need and it will all go quietly away. tmtoulouse 16:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonder how Kagan would come down in a review of the NJ SC on this? Wonder how Senators confirming Kagan would fare, particularly if they have some questionable dealings of their own? Wonder how disgruntled voters may react given the anti-incumbent mood? nobs^{don't bother me} 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Civil war, that is the only logical outcome. tmtoulouse 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deciding in favor of Schlafly would cause one for the reasons you mentioned. Ignoring him would avoid a crisis, which is why they are going to do so. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)