Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive185

This is an archive page, last updated 15 June 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>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <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)

Wikipedia debates the notability of Assfly:

Browsing Articles for Deletion, I had a chuckle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Schlafly_(5th_nomination) ^{— Unsigned, by: Overlord / talk / contribs}

An obligatory snide remark that I put here because it has nothing to do with the AfD: I'm all for covering critics of Wikipedia in a neutral fashion, but perhaps covering Conservapedia under "best-known WP critics" would be too harmful for them. I mean, putting Andy there might make people notice easier how weird these people are. (Wikipedia: "Here's a list of big Wikipedia critics. Take a look." The reader moves on to Andy, who says: "Wikipedia is evil because they use wrong date style and encourages the use of complex numbers." Larry Sanger interjects: "and PORN." Reader, now truly perplexed: "WTF?") --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's just a new-ish guy (contribs just go back to March 2) jumping the gun after two people re-redirected the article he basically recreated. I guess/think/hope it'll just be closed to let people do some regular discussing first. --Sid (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the "article" (except for some misspellings) looks like an edited-down copy of ours. ħuman 04:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The force is strong with this one

TK and his new BFF. Almost the exact same signatures plus JacobB veiled request to give TK 'cratship. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll, troll, troll your boat^img. - π 08:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Whut? Is TK calling Jacob out on being a parodist? mb 10:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Did he just admit that there isn't enough work on conservapedia to occupy more than 3-4 'crats? So that's a tacit admission that the site is dying? Awsome. X Stickman (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

CP has only one crat - he who does not trust. Aschlafly. ħuman 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A "super-sized" TK? There's plenty of shit pouring out of you TK, please don't get any bigger. SJ ^Debaser 11:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TK? is that you? --Kels (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoken by somebody who insists on being called a senior admin... even tho no such thing exists on CP. And we all know that cratship is all that stands between TK and his finally taking off his mask and shutting CP down from within. Plus he's been hinting at getting crat since before Justine left. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy is the only of the 4 crats active and two of them are the same person. Given the number of rights and sub-rights, a second crat wouldn't hurt. - π 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I call for a new user right! "Rename". ħuman 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there is only 1 active bureaucrat, but then again, there are so many piecemeal steps between "block" and "bureaucrat" that I guess all the Señor Admins have crat-like powers already. Is rename the only thing they can't do? Well, it is pretty clear Andy doesn't trust anyone enough to give them the final powers unless he knows them personally (hence Sharon), so if Andy did suddenly decide maybe a second crat would be a good idea, who would he choose? So few choices. Is he dumb enough to go with TK? Would User188's Wikipedia-honed computer-mastery make him the front-runner? Obviously the "newbies" (ie, people who have been there less than 2 years) wouldn't be in the running, nor would Ken. Karajou? Rob's disappearance for a year and a half would probably be a point against him; who knows when he might disappear back to the institution for a year or two. I would think it would be one of his homeschoolers, but they tend to disappear when class is over. Is BenjaminS one? He might have to be the default winner. Damn, I wish Andy was smart enough to realize this dearth existed, then he could announce an imminent promotion and we could start a pool. I love pools. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that given that rats can change user rights, there's no way Andy's going to promote somebody so they have the same rights as Brother Leader. After all, it'll deprive him of his little game of asking his fellow sysops for suggestions for new sysops, then promoting Terry over their objections. Besides, the first thing Terry Koeckritz would do, is demote everybody, block them and leave CP as an empty hulk on the net. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, user rights is the biggie. Rename is "mostly harmless", that's why I suggested splitting it out as a special right. Renaming is basically grunt work and Andy should delegate it. ħuman 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy and freshwater lakes

In a recent pair^img of exchanges about^img freshwater lakes and ice ages, Andy rattles off some crazy shit that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around. He really just seems to be thrashing around at random here. There are so many statements that aren't even wrong that I can't see what sort of internal logic would hold them together. Where do you think he gets the idea that young freshwater lakes disprove an old Earth? I didn't get pubes until I was thirteen or so; does that disprove my claims to be 38 years old? Even my oldest pube is probably no more than a year old, so how old am I? One? 25? 38? As far as the 'old water' thing goes, again I have to just shake my head in wonder. "None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary." Except, of course, for the ones that were cited, like the African Great Lakes, or even Lake Baikal. Andy claims that there is no fresh water older than 10,000 years - apparently because he thinks that all the water in a lake gets in there at the moment of the lake's creation, and no 'new' water enters the lake after that point. There's no such thing as turnover in Andy's limnology.

Plus there's the bizarre bit about the glaciers carving the features of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River bluffs (!). Not only that, but the implication that the pro-Icers are hiding the weakness of their models by not running any simulations. How would you, even in theory, run a simulation to prove how a particular coastline shape came to be, or simulate a river's course over geologic time? It's just too chaotic. It just makes me woozy. I have to say that this makes even less sense to me than Andy's flailing about Lenski's statistics, and that's setting the bar pretty high. It's almost a Chewbacca Defense level of WTF.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF does Andy know about freshwater lakes? I come from the land of 10,000 lakes, and I know that, based on carbon dating and other research, many of them are to be waaaaay older than 10,000 years. Especially Lake Superior. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 03:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your pro-icer denial will not be tolerated here. Please open you minds and realize that freshwater lakes are one of God's subtle clues to mankind that He created the earth very recently. Nobody seriously denies this. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But there still exists much glacial evidence to support that Lake Superior was created around 10,000 years ago, and that Glacial Lake Minong existed in its place before it was formed. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now this is saying something, but that article is my favourite example of CP's ignorance to science. It is a masterpiece, most of the "counterexamples" are so absurd that even the likes of Kent Hovind would be embarrassed to use them. Top notch stuff. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the supidest Schlafly arguments ever IMO...he truly resides in his own little crazy reality. Sad, really. But funny. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You all fail to get it. The world is less than 10,000 years old, since we know this we also know that the lakes are less than 10,000 years old. Since the lakes are less than 10,000 years old wecan use that as proof that the earth is relatively young. QED.--Opcn (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting point hinted at with the idea that "all the water got into the lake at the same time" is Andy's way of thinking. This is quite typical of YEC and many neo-conservative beliefs. Things happen, in the minds of these people, as single events. It's very black and white. Life started at a single magical point. The lakes formed at this exact moment. Reality somewhat different, with no hard boundaries, and this is difficult for certain people to grasp. When did the lakes form... well, how do you know that they're not still forming now? Where does something stop being a very wide, very slow moving river and starts becoming a lake? Reality is complicated and doesn't always bend to suit our way of thinking - and the people who don't understand this become YECers. ^bomination 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it amusing how illiterate Andy was in this discussion? (I had to choose "grammar" to pick on, since "content" was sorely lacking) ħuman 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the way Andy manages to hold utterly contradictory ideas. Freshwater lakes have managed to always be fresh despite the global flood with salt water, which would of course have killed everything in them making Noah's aquarium loading even higher. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Noah's Aquarium", I love it. I lolled. ħuman 03:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it...

You go Ken!

Coming soon: Is Richard Dawkins the anti-Christ?

When the Conservapedians go on about how the purpose of RationalWiki is to "destroy" their website because of a few vandal attacks organised by members and past members of RationalWiki over 3 years ago - before it was the site it is today - they really have no one to blame but themselves. Apart from opening themselves up for all kind of parody simply because of the nature of their project, they ignore the blatant parodists and let them chase off decent (well, genuine) editors. JacobB, a parodist outed publicly here, has succeeded in chasing away a genuine conservative editor, Jinx. And Andy is just letting his sysops run wild, doing whatever the fuck they want. Andy hasn't even given Conservative the time of day with his various anti-something pet projects, Ed Poor has been editing intermittently over the last couple of weeks in his usual stubbing style, Karajou is still there but seems to be editing half-heartedly at what's happened to the site, Jpatt's become a grey blur while TK is just being the good ole liability he always is. Looking at recent changes, the entire page reflects a Kendoll editing spree covering an hour and a half. I don't even know what my point is now... oh yeah, save for about 5 or 6, there's no genuine editors left. SJ ^Debaser 09:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

By hour and a half, you must mean EIGHT HOURS. Which, honestly, is not that long for Ken. He must not be hitting the meth as hard as usual tonight.

And I mean that sincerely. I honestly believe Ken's on crank, because nothing else explains 30 hour edit sprees, obsessive devotion to a single thing, dozens of edits to get things just right... it all basically screams tweaker. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Something. As I write this he's on a nine+ hour run.--WJThomas (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ELEVEN HOUR RUN! Is this normal for him? Seriously, does he sleep? He's edited through the night. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I really wonder how Ken prepares homework and writes tests in pen/pencil and paper if he edits like this. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that Ken is only allowed crayons to write with and a spork to eat with, I'm sure his minders aren't too interested in what his submissions are, provided he at least colours within the lines most of the time.

@The Super One. It would actually be interesting to draw up a list of notable exits, or absentees and their replacements over the past 12 months. I see even Roger has given up on trying to educate Andy in the ways of science. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Coming up for 13 hours now. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know if I was a decent editor, but I was a sincere one, although it wasn't JacobB directly that made me decide to leave, it was amusing that on multiple occasions he would essentially announce he was watching every edit I did for "evolutionary snobbery" (I love that term, so hilarious). Still, yeah, the demand for ideological purity in every article was too much. What is weird is seeing how much futher down the rabbit hole the site has gone since then, it just doesn't seem to end. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He's coming up on 19 hours now. He started at 6:30 yesterday and his last edit was 4 minutes ago. He hasn't taken any substantial break in the mean-time. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He's stopped just shy of 19 hours. I show him making edits between Jun 4 22:45 and Jun 5 17:25^img Conservapedia time. It's 17:59 Conservapedia time now, so no additional edits for more than half an hour now. mb 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I considered the 1845 edit his starting time because that's funnier. But I guess in the interest of honesty and that it's still absolutely insane, just short of 19 hours of editing on dawkins is good. He fricken edited through the night. Maybe he has an overnight job and he has a computer... or he's a methhead. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Never ascribe to recreational pharmaceuticals what can be adequately explained by sheer insanity. mb 22:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Was going to wigo this but

its to weird.^img Aceⁱ⁹ 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I think Dawkins can get a bit shrill at times, as witnessed in the God Delusion. Also, I'm pretty sure he doesn't suffer fools easily, which is why IDers and creationists might find him "abrasive". Then again, maybe Ken doesn't use KY and likes it "abrasive". --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I dislike Dawkins in many ways. The point though is that Ken feels he needs an article, some of which is the exact content of the main Richard Dawkins piece, for every perceived character flaw in Richard Dawkins. Next it'll be "Richard Dawkins and improper use of a knife and fork". Aceⁱ⁹ 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken's got over 100 edits just from today. EddyP (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

...And tomorrow, he'll work on a second sentence.--WJThomas (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That is sooo CP - the anti-abortion project is basically stillborn (or aborted), Ken is the only person working on the Dawkins stuff, the CBP is dead in the water. Besides Ken's manic editing the rest of tem are all, "Ok, today we're going to destroy abortion on the inern- ooh! let's ride bikes!" yet, they still trumpet their pages of red links on the main page. --PsyGremlin講話 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm particularly impressed that Ken has quoted someone quoting Dawkins! I will however 100% defend Dawkins's 'abrasiveness', religionists don't like it because they are used to people beating around the bush and indulging them with their 'philosophical' arguments, whereas Richy just steams right in: "so you think a magic man in the sky literally made the first man out of dust 6000 years ago? You idiot." Dawkins is an educated and intelligent man, he feels passionate about the importance of science and reason, and religionists are exactly counter to this. Keep going Richy, don't pull any punches. DeltaStar's got your back... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Dawkins can be abrasive rather often, but the fact that anyone needs to write an article about that single aspect of his personality shows an extremely unhealthy obsession. I wonder if Ken has pictures of Dawkins up in his room/den/office/wherever he types. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See, I don't get where people get the idea that the God Delusion was shrill. Do they mistake honest opinion and British humour for vibrating with anger? 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get where people get the idea that Dawkins is shrill or abrasive. Sounds like ad hom to me. Exasperated maybe but only when he's dealing with YEC nutters. The God Delusion wasn't shrill at all. Not very convincing perhaps, but not shrill. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I met Dawkins at a dinner held in his honor when he came to give a talk at my university. He definitely is abrasive. Sure, its a mix of politeness and abrasiveness, but the man made it clear that he not only thinks very highly of himself, but is fine with being completely dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. I mean, during the course of the dinner conversation, he insulted E.O. Wilson, David Sloan Wilson, and Americans in general (he really doesn't know much about this country and its history). There was a law professor at the dinner with whom Dawkins was having a pleasant exchange, but as soon as he found out the professor was Christian, Dawkins terminated the conversation, and then proceeded to ignore him save for a couple of slighting remarks. And this is a professor whose entire field of research and work deals with the legal aspects of creationism and how to combat attempts to slip creationism into schools. And then there was a grad student whose research was based on some of Dawkins' ideas, and, when the student tried to talk to him about them, Dawkins just rudely brushed him off. Dawkins is a really smart man who has done some good work, and he is probably the best writer on basic evolution there is, but he is a bit of a jerk. I think the adulation he has gotten from the New Atheist community (one atheist at the dinner referred to Dawkins as his "lord and savior", jokingly, but still) has gone to his head, and that is part of the problem. It is a pity, really, because I think it dissuades a lot of people from his writing. I've noticed that since "The God Delusion" came out, it is a whole lot harder to get people to read "The Blind Watchmaker". Kaalis (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how the main article sections all start "For more information please see:" with a link to an "article" with identical content to what is in the main article. I know, we've seen this before at the H, A, and E articles, but it is so lame and stupid to do it I just had to bring it up again. ħuman 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that informative post, Kaalis; I think I like Dawkins even more now. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, DeltaStar. Kaalis (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obama's half-brother refused UK entry

Interestingly the BBC site now lists this 2009 article as its fifth most shared currently (as of 12.20GMT). I don't know what their algorithms say about over what period, but it's interesting nonetheless. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it means it's currently getting play amongst the American right. MDB (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that, wouldn't you? However, if it's filtered by geography, it doesn't appear in the North American top ten. Go here to see. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The story is now listed as the third most emailed. Is Kenny dusting it with some of his internetz magic? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it says its the tenth most popular story in North America. Which probably means someone in the ever-vigilant right wing blogosphere is pushing a year old story. (I checked Drudge; it's not there.) MDB (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of very old stories appearing the recent most popular - amongst the ones I've spotted

• Condoms too big for Indian Men from 2006! - still in most emailed
• Welsh road sign mistranslated to email out of office Story from 2008, 2nd most popular May 31st 2010
• Obama's brother Story dated 12 April 2009 - 8th most popular today

I'll try searching down refs. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for old articles to basically get slashdotted to the point where they override current news. But tracking down the source often seems difficult - a site with a readership big enough to outclass the daily visitors or news.bbc.co.uk must be huge but the usual suspects never seem to have posted it! A bug, perhaps? But if that was the case, you'd expect it to happen to random articles, rather than amusing ones like the welsh road signs. ^bomination 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh road sign hit the Daily Fail mid March (ahead of the news as ever!) but I can't find anything more recent. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the Obama half-brother story was the most popular between 0200 and 0600 GMT this morning - the quietest time of day for the site. Some sort of Kenbot? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be the quietest time of day for the site, but if it is indeed a North American phenomenon, 0200-0600 GMT = 2200-0200 EDT (GMT-4, New York/Boston/Miami) = 2100-0100 CDT (GMT-5, Chicago/Dallas) = 1900-2300 PDT (GMT-7, San Francisco/Los Angeles/Vancouver). We might be looking for something that happened prime time out on the west coast. TheMayor (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Openly speculating where the vast right wing conspiracy gets its talking points? Now you guys are revealing your amateur side. nobs^{don't bother me} 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone do something

CP may have more going on at it lately, but I think that's just because the regulars have shut up, so we aren't seeing as much from them. Douglas, Jacob, use your positions of power to generate some lulz please! ^{— Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs}

CP is kinda like the tides. There are phases of low lulz and phases of high lulz. Right now, we're in the "high to low" or "low" phase: Andy has appeared in front of that Supreme Court thingy and Ken generated some buzz with his Dawkins/Socialism/Whatever Projects and MAH-CHEEEEEES-MOH, but by now, those are old news, and the good folks at CP are in their cooldown phase again, idly poking older projects (conservative parables, best of the public) in search of inspiration. Just give them some time, they'll find something entertaining to do in a few days or weeks. --Sid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy has been quite entertaining today, what with the deaf psychiatrist parable, footie-hating, and praising Red China's educational system. ħuman 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To say nothing of the letter to Prof. Moo... ħuman 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two Psychiatrists

I love the inference that Reagan is somehow better that JFK because he wasn't assassinated Iatrogenic (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I love that the entire parable in the context of this page grinds down to "Be a good conservative - never listen to criticism!" --Sid (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the moral is "be a good conservative, don't do your job." DickTurpis (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the whole thing and I couldn't figure out what the meaning is. I interpreted it the way Dick did but I hope thats wrong. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the only way it can be interpreted; "Take money from people who need help but then do fuck-all." (Or possible in a more economic sense; "Increase your profit margins by not delivering the service for which you have been paid") Nice, either way. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens when a quote is run through the editorial mill of too many people who don't understand it. If you read more contemporaneous versions you get the gist of it: the elder psychiatrist is talking about emotional detachment/professionalism, and it's a story about pressure, not "vision". MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To me it sounds like Reagan was just making one of his jokes. A little self-deprecating humor poking fun at the public perception that he was a lazy president. Bluefish (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RWR was noted for having an afternoon nappy time everyday, maybe he was moar European than we knew? C®ackeЯ

Why does this say, 'Rowland Evans, the famed columnist, was having lunch with Ronald Reagan in 1987, six years into his presidency, a milestone by which the previous five presidents had been defeated, resigned in disgrace, refused to consider reelection...' I'm not actually American, but I was under the impression that no president could serve more than two consecutive terms of office, each term being four years in length. If that's the case, then not only would the 'previous five presidents' refuse to consider re-election six years into their terms, Reagan wouldn't have been considering it then (unless, of course, his Alzheimer's was kicking in, even back then), and no president before or since would either. 92.22.161.18 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point BON, the key words here, though, are "by which [time]" indicating "before the six year mark". And Shame on Kennedy for allowing himself to get kilt, (no better than that Lincoln fella). C®ackeЯ

Clarification for BoN: it's no more than two 4-year terms, irrespective of whether or not they're consecutive (though only Cleveland has served two non-consecutive terms). alt (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In 1987, the fact that the same man had managed to be president for six whole years must actually have felt like a real sign of stability, especially after the chaos of the 60s and 70s. Not so much that it was jfk's fault for getting killed, more a sign of the times.

I still don't see what makes this a "parable", though. Bluefish (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A true conservative knows that psychiatry is a load of mumbo-jumbo & just uses common sense while making a lovely profit. Reagan knew he was a load of mumbo-jumbo & just used his advisors while making a lovely profit. 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Clueless sighting!

" the clueless and lazy Obama tries to deflect criticism"

It's on main page right, and looks like Andy's work but might be TK sucking up. Anybody got the energy to find the diff? Signed, Ed Poor. ħuman 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. [1]^img ħuman 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ħuman 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking to yourself is the first sign of being Ken, you know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, someone already added it to the clueless article. ħuman 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

CP on Hayworth

Has CP covered the McCain/Hayworth primary at all? I'm curious to see the angle they take, what with McCain being their infallible hero in '08. They have to support Hayworth, though, don't they -- him being the teatards' pick? We'll surely see the RINO tag being slapped back on McCain and some serious whitewashing soon, I imagine. DickTurpis (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a few pro-Hayworth items in the Breaking Snooze column.--WJThomas (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

So Jinxy is finally hanging up his spurs as the exodus continues. Well, he hasn't been all that active anyway, so I guess it's no major loss, except that he was one of the few who we all knew wasn't a parodist. Hasn't he done this before? I suppose he might be back, but in conjunction with Taj's retirement this gets CP down to just 21 unbanned users rated "active" or better on our activity scale, as opposed to 50+ here (not counting bots). Well, good luck Jinxy, hope you can help out your church, lord know Westboro Baptist needs you. DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

He's finally going to get the power he so desperately wanted. If CP had promoted him, he would have probably told his church to fuck off. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have promoted him. Penisbone stuffed butts will sorely miss him. Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 16:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he have a strong sense that god was pushing him towards something last time he quit? Does anyone remember what it was? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

He was gettin' picked on and couldn't take it. NO MACHISMO! 16:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You really don't think it was that WIGO that pushed him over the edge? 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The WiGO itself or the subject of the WiGO? It could be he's had enough of getting bossed around by an obvious parodist who outranks him even though he hasn't been editing nearly as long. DickTurpis (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That was my take on this, too. Jacob getting away with unblocking an obvious parodist and then mildly slapping Jinx around likely made the latter realize that something has gone fundamentally wrong with CP. His "Maybe it's time..." comment was a fairly strong hint at this. --Sid (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how Jake protected the user/talk page so that Jinx could no longer edit it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone pointed out to that cretinous boob Jpatt that he was calling Jinx a woman by fixing the edit, for which Jpatt reverted, infiniblocked, then fixed it himself. So of course JacobB has a great reason to protect the page. It's clearly a vandal magnet. Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't care what kind of fucking redneck you are; if you live in the United States and don't speak at least a little Spanish the people responsible for educating you should be tarred and feathered. Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I took six years of French :( Was anticipating the imminent Canadian invasion/annexation. But I know what "cuidado" means. ħuman 04:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, TK, somewhat, undid JacobB's protection of Jinx's user and talkpages. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am betting TK is waiting to trash those pages. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think his last exodus was a combination of the lord's calling and offspring number 3 arriving. Have no fear, Jinxy will be back once he realises that without CP he's just a very, very small person. Just like Karajerk did with his "leaving and never coming back" escapades. At least Dean (why no parthian shot Dean?) and Dan meant it when they walked away. --PsyGremlin講話 11:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't even know if Dean is still alive. If someone kicks the bucket in an online community who is going to let them know that he's gone?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, fess up

Who did this? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That has been there for at least a year and half. I'm surprised he hasn't seen it yet since it comes up when you google his name. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He lacks the has too much machismo to google his own name. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, and I see JPratt has decided that Andy doesn't need to know there's a parody bio of him on the inner tubes. Always good to see they have Brother Leader's best interests at heart. He'll probably mention it in their new soopah seekrit hideout and claim the credit. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On a separate but somewhat related note, the vandals at CP are getting ever stupider (more stupid?). Does cp:User:BDodge actually think that TK won't see right through him? I mean, the blog that he blatantly advertises on his userpage is mainly written by someone with the username Dendodge (and written extremely poorly at that). cp:User:MegA is obviously advertising the blog as well. Keegscee (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Apparently capture tags don't work when used with direct CP links. Apparently RW admins (specifically me) are getting stupider as well. Keegscee (talk)

Apparently you haven't thought of the idea that that was done intentionally (like not to capture some of the CP links on the wigo page), have you? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it's because of the way the parser works (it strips internal and interwiki links, replacing them with placeholders, then reinserts them later. the capture tag is run in between, so it doesn't see internal or interwiki links.) -- Nx / talk 22:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Andy's Twitter feed (no, it wasn't me) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is too rich

Obvious parodist ReligiousRight suggests that Andy's students scrawling bible verses on their face before tests to improve their performance[2]. JLatt comments on the post[3], pointing out the obvious parody, but TK objects[4], and warns him not to make any more personal attacks on ReligiousRight. Good lord! HoorayForSodomy (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obivious that the Shadow Parodist Wing is quite powerful on CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So have we changed the rules from not outing parody, to only non-obvious parody while shining a light on the really, really, really, obvious parody? :P Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What did I out? My whole point is that not only did TK notice RR's suggestion that the homeskoolerz take tests with bible verses on their face, he DEFENDED it. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Was actually an honest question. What do we do in cases where the parody is obvious?Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I ignore it. The greatest parody in the world is less than 1% as funny as Andy's collected insights and Ken's marathon editing sprees and MA-CHEEEEEEEEESE-MO speculations. --Kels (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the rules against outing parody only apply to new parodists on tenuous ground. RR, on the other hand, has been rebuked as a parodist on CP and no one seems to care. He's safe until TK gets his taste for blood back. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 04:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think HFS, or anyone else here, violated any rules about outing stuff. People need to be less critical in this area. The rule was obviously intended to not help them find stupidities, so that they can fix same. We want all the long-standing parody and vandalism (like [never mind] and [never mind] and [never mind] ....) that is on CP to stay that way, so there will be more lulz for passers-by. Stupidity that the sysops currently know about is fair game. If Andy/TK/Jacob/etc don't think it's parody when it's pointed out to them, then it isn't parody; it's just lulz. Gauss (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I asked is because I personally made a WIGO awhile ago on obvious parody in the same vein as this and got called on it.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how JacobB hides Andy's earlier statement (This is superb! In reply to Ed, I agree that the statement this confirms the multiplication of the loaves is over-the-top, though funny. Thanks for deleting the comedy.^img) But he didn't oversight it - on purpose?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't highlight parody.
• Please use capture tags (especially if you insist on highlighting parody). DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• I added the capture tags.
• As Aschlafly and JacobB are both sysops, their comment cannot be parody: "sysops are not wrong^img"

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, LArron, that edit wasn't to you, rather to HoorayForBumbanditry who started this section. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But TK, a senior admin, defended the alleged 'parody', as noted in the OP. So it can't be parody - we can only assume TK vouched for the genuinity of the user ReligiousRight. Also, such a user would have been banned for not using first-name-last-initial, so the admins must have verified his credentials. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Dear Delta Star, my egocentricity tricked me :-) But I have no problem with HoorayForSodomy's quotes: senior sysops are involved & they would spot parody, wouldn't they? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of parody, a mysterious internet friend of mine pmailed me a wonderful example that they'll probably never ever catch. It's sad that I can't post it here for all to enjoy, since that would get it removed. ħuman 22:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if I was not blocked on CP, I'd have to be a good-faith editor and remove it myself. ħuman 22:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't out a parodist, but after a sysop has thrown in their lot behind them you can out the sysop for supporting a parodist, because the sysop changing their tune would be a tacit admission of our influence, which would never happen. If anything outing someone a sysop is standing by is the surest way to make sure the sysop stands by them. the exception to this may be pointing out a vague reference that the sysop missed. If no sysop has stood behind the parodist then they will happily take our lead and permaban them. --Opcn (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me there is a difference between content and talk-page parody. Anything in Mainspace which undermines their project should be left on permanent display, talk-pages are different as given sufficient time they will be archived and forgotten. Also the casual vsitor is unlikely to read the talkpages - how many people read the WP talkpages unless they're involved with editing? The main issue with talk-pages is that parody generally enters the realm of Poe.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A new toon

Up to you lot to amend it 12:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"After years of suffering, Ned Flanders finally snapped, killed the adult Bart Simpson, and mounted him on his wall." MDB (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Karajou could have made it any more obvious that the guy likes to fish? Perhaps he could have a small duck in the corner, holding a piece of paper saying "Frank likes to fish!". By the way, the old forum thread has been revived with an amended version of Kajarou's art. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 13:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So the swabbie has finally come out and said that liberals are fair game and should be hunted and killed. And where does he get the idea that liberals are all slavishly devoted to weed (salvia... now that's the way to go)? And who calls it weed anymore? One of his stranger emissions... let me see what amendments can be made. --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Weed" I still hear. "Pot" and "grass" seem out of style, though. But all the cool kids say "420". MDB (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Pot" is practically its proper name now; that will probably never go totally out of style. "Weed" is used, certainly more than "grass". "Tea" and "jazz cigarettes" are terribly passé. While people use the term "4:20" I don't recall ever hearing it used directly in reference (as in "let's smoke some 4:20"), more as a vague allusion ("Whaddaya think? 4:20?").

This pedantic drug discussion was brought to you by DickTurpis (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

I gotta say, that's probably his worst toon yet. Looks like something I'd submit for a Refer Madness Festival. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoy hoy Psy. There's something wrong with it being OK for a hate-filled ultra-right-wing redneck alleged veteran to talk about killing liberals? Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it Karaturd or the John Patti who bragged about having some kind of fancy firearm on one of the soopah sekrit groopz? Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably both, but Karajou's penis is tiny, so it was more likely to be him. As for the whole marijuana thing, I just call it "weed," or "green." SJ ^Debaser 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the joke isn't that bad. It just falls a little flat because I wasn't sure what "WEED" meant. I assumed it was some kind of political neologism... ^bomination 18:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was JPratt bragging about his tripod mounted H&K. Probably needs it as a defensive weapon of gun against all those well-armed deer in the woods. And to compensate for his tiny dick. @Nuttie - lol, good point. I wonder what Karajerk would do if one of us ever met him in the street and said we were from RW. I'm guessing a beer together would be out of the question. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well duh. We'd smoke some reefer together then he'd bludgeon and kill me and mount me like a trophy largemouth bass. Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't even joke about that, I have a serious, serious feeling that some of those people would happily shoot us. Seriously. ^bomination 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you never know, the CP crowd might be a bit of a laugh to get a beer with. Kinda like George Dubya. SJ ^Debaser 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we now have a blatant drug reference on the "family friendly" main page... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not for the first time. Quite a few Karatoons feature drugs. ħuman 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does the man in the toon have bitch tits? Did his body up the oestrogen after he took his testosterone HRT because he had testicular cancer? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Manboobs = machismo! --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Irony meter doesn't go to 11.

In what bizzaro world can the Arsefly possibly criticise anyone else for giving credit for wrong answers? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I liked that one. Good faith effort shouldn't be rewarded if it doesn't produce the correct results. This could be gold come multi-variable calculus time. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of multi-variable calculus, has anyone checked out the lectures? What are the odds that any of Andy's scholars will be able to understand the course? I predict the students will be 90+% parodists. What is JacobB up to? DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Now come on Jeeves, I've seen Arsefly deduct 2 marks for a completely wrong answer (on a 5 question exam), thus giving the thicko homeskuler only 48/50. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to check, he has stopped putting that online now, right? I mean, seriously, it was embarrassing, not to mention wrong. ^bomination 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not rightly sure. I get the feeling he's just not doing much homskolling right now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There was the writing course in "Spring 2010", but either he gave up almost as soon as he started, or maybe he decided to make it a strictly off-line affair. That did very briefly have students posting their work online. alt (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He possibly homeskools when he's no lawyerin' to do. He might be on a retainer for the "remove our rep or whatever it's called mob" and so have no need for other funding. Alternatively, of course, the parents might have sussed him. 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he took Writing off-line when he discovered how hard it is to comment on text on the wiki. With a printed copy, the teacher can just scribble in the margins, etc. Also, this "partial credit" thing makes total sense (not that I necessarily agree with the examples). I once got 8/10 on a college physics problem, my method and application was correct, but my answer was horrendously wrong because I swapped a + for a - early in the calculations. ħuman 23:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That was my first thought.... It's fairly common, especially in math and physics classes to get partial credit for incorrect answers as long as your show your work. Not to mention that it makes perfect sense for standardized tests to do this... The whole point of the test is to see what the kids know, including their ability to reason and work on problems. If all the test measured was whether or not they wrote the correct answer, two thirds of the kids would fail miserably. SirChuckB^{That is all} 23:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that PJR left as Andy could then have used that inline green quote template.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@human. That reminds me of a saying: A good physicist is one that makes an even number of sign errors. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, that's funny. ħuman 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Took a look at those lectures. They actually have decent material! But I don't expect for a femtosecond that any regular nonparodist CP user would understand the method of Lagrange multipliers by the third lecture. ScientificRigor (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As an engineer, I loved partial credit in college and almost every student would fail without it. However, I always wonder if some students think partial credit also works in the real world. I mean, look at the oil spill fiasco. The BP engineers probably got 99% of the problems right, good enough for an A+. Unfortunately, the few problems they overlooked ended in disaster. Keegscee (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some of that depends on how critical a mission is. Trouble is they ignored signs that the BOP was damaged (rubber bits coming out with the drilling mud) and kept on going. As far as the more abstract solution, say you and I both run the math on a problem, and we get different answers, what we do then is go through each other's work (hence "show your work") to see where one of us went wrong. If we set up the problem very differently, we also look at that. Multiply by several engineers, and you've got a pocket protector party! ħuman 02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea in theory. In practice, though, what I have found is that I design something, and then it has to get signed off by like 100 people. However, only like 2 out of the 100 have any clue what my design is (and most just don't care), so the other 98 just sign off without taking a second look. So even though my design got approved and was supposedly reviewed by 100 people, it was really only reviewed by two, making it possible for mistakes to propagate through from design to inception. Oh yeah, and to keep this on topic, Andy is a bad educator. Or something. Keegscee (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree. The problem with triple QC is similar. The first two say "hell, someone else will go over this", and the last two say "hell someone already checked this". So no-one checks it at all. Remember, "the customer is the final inspector" is not an admonishment to the final assemblers and QCers, it's a caveat emptor! ħuman 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After Spinal Tap all good irony meters go to 11. Now 12, that would be a fuse-blower.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mine go to 20, and after that are logarithmically calibrated to 100. Necessary in these environs. ħuman 13:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After a while it's measured in log(anvils) - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This talk brings up a good (missing) point, What should we name units of irony?

I'll proffer the "Seinfeld". 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The kilomorissette - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

10K spoons, surely? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed @ WP

Although he's "disappointed with the limitations of Wikipedia", he's still getting nudged about his film reviews stubs 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor Ed. ħuman 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And is, unsurprisingly for Ed, a movie about young girls who want to wear troussers.--Tlaloc (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Christ he's creepy.</obvious> --_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Shame on Wikipedia for failing to recognize his genius! --Kels (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait wait. I just read the first link. Ed Poor the Moonie thinks Wikipedia is at odds with reality. A Moonie, who endlessly self-aggrandises himself, obsesses over women's pants (and lack thereof), and talks about little girls a little too often for comfort, thinks WIKIPEDIA is at odds with reality. I think you jus' broke mah brain, Unca Ed. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more, this is also the "Uncle Ed" (that never fails to creep me out) that thinks he's really good at wikis, and that WP really owes him a debt of gratitude for all he's done for them. All of which was motivated purely by an interest in fairness and truth. --Kels (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If reality were a person, it would be someone Ed momentarily brushed against twelve years ago in a crowded train - yet he pretends to be on bff terms with then. I'm certain that Wikipedia will somehow learn to cope with the loss of Ed von Brainfart Stubmeister. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@Toasty Sue. Thanks to TWOOP (the work of other people) the WP article has developed into an acceptable if non-notable entry. This was how Ed left it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

One more great article "created" by user #188! ħuman 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone live in Kansas?

Don't bother trying to edit CONservapedia if you use AT&T global. TK^img just blocked you all for 3 months. Conservative Punk (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Does a /20 rangeblock mean a range 20 bits wide of the IP address is blocked, ie Terry Koeckritz has just blocked 1048576 IP addresses? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, a /n rangeblock means the lower (32-n) bits of the IP address is blocked. So a /20 blocks 2¹² or 4096 addresses - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL

Look at the recent changes on CP-- a nice little vandal attack apparently. 75.125.163.152 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Woo - fuckin'-pee 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave RW out of it. That shit's boring. Nutty Roux_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡Con más machismo!} 02:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To summarize the above, we don't care about your puerile silliness. And don't post shit about CP on the SB, thank you. ħuman 03:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal attack =/= nice. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A New Toon...

The new toon.... They go from bad to worse, I just don't see what they are trying to get at? The whole idea should just be quietly euthanised, but then one could say that about the whole sad lil blog that is CP. -- 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#A_new_toon Keegscee (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's spreading!

JacobB and TK both block users for lack of machismo^img.

21:14, 8 June 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BarryM (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (‎lack of machismo, just like EdwardS)

20:16, 8 June 2010 JacobB (Talk | contribs) blocked GabeS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (lack of machismo =))

Oh please that was me, the same troll who vandalized this site a few hours ago. Don't worry- I hate you guys as much as them. (: ^{— Unsigned, by: 166.137.138.3 / talk / contribs}

Another who mistakes vandalism for trolling! Wazzock. 01:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And yet Jpatt seems to fear machismo^img..... Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 02:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Shocking. 67.241.191.198 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF?

Every time I've loaded CONservapedia's recent changes in the last 10 minutes, ESET Smart Security gives me a virus threat detection, and the page is immediately blocked by my Threatsense firewall. According to the details "These are tracking cookies often associated with phishing programs." Weird. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 03:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not happening to me, but to be fair to your firewall, Conservapedia is kind of like a virus, right? Keegscee (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much my thoughts. Granted, of course, I have the most secure settings possible on my anti-virus and firewall, so it is prone to false positives when it comes, especially, to internet cookies. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if Andy accidentally changed some server setting that inadvertently caused it to send out malicious-style cookies. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Image creation

I just joined but have been following both rationalwiki and conversapedia for awhile now and ^{— Unsigned, by: Quazywabbit / talk / contribs}

Andy wastes the time of yet another expert

This time it's a professor working on translating the Bible. He's bragging about the speed at which the Conservative Bible was completed. Well, it's easy to get it done when all you're doing is rewording the KJV to say what you want it to say. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And people up above were complaining that CP is slow lately... ħuman 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn. For the first time in a while Andy had me checking the page history to make sure it wasn't parody. That is indicative of a high level of whatthefuckery. DickTurpis (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He was even drifting into a Kennish level of repetitiveness. Also, isn't "Biblical" supposed to be capitalized? Someone had better keep egging him on, or he's gonna forget about this now that he has vented. And why is he ccing Jerry Falwell Jr.? ħuman 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WOOOOT! That is hysfuckinsterical! Good old Andy! 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how JacobB pretend to know ancient Greek. Whoever is running this sock needs to start thinking about endgame. DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I may have discovered his endgame! DickTurpis (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy not understand how publication works? I wonder if he wrote a letter to J.K. Rowling asking her to release her first draft of book 7 to the public so that he could condemn all the evil witchcraft contained within. Jammy (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeeze, that blog must have stung: "ANDY SCHLAFLY’S CONSERVATIVE BIBLE PROJECT". Also: he's written the "letter" as a wiki page: does he expect Professor Moo to read it where it is, references and all. The man's an idiot (sorry, I know you all know that already) 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll email it like he did with Lenski. DickTurpis (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be interesting if Professor Douglas (Moo?) responded with a copious amounts of links to RW. I loved how much shit Andy and others took for censoring Lenski's link to this site. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We should drop a line to Dr. Moo and poke the whole situation with a stick give him a bit of a heads-up. P-Foster (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Even emailing it, he'll need to sort the references somehow. Probably the best bit's in the head: "scholarly significance"!!!! 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what I love and we all know it....I "translated" some of the CBP and it literally took all of about 30 mins. if that per chapter and all I did was reword it into more modern English. Those parts that were a bit archaic I looked up in the NIV and just paraphrased from that version. I'll let you guess whether there was any discussion or whether it was sent through exactly how I wrote it. Can Andy really be so stupid or arrogant to think that his version is anywhere near as scholarly as one that probably took months per chapter and a hell of a lot of actual language knowledge? Of all the shit that I've heard Andy spew, this childish letter really, really, pisses me off for shear, absolute gall. This intellecual gnat with one of the biggest egos I've seen on the net is going to lecture an actual scholar based on what, the fact that he didn't rush his project through like a bad screenplay? He's going to make allusions to Moo's lack of integrity based on nothing but....well nothing. Oh wait, Moo had problems with Andy's steaming pile of shit and in Andyland any criticism must be the work of librulz!!!!!!!!!! What the hell is the letter anyway? It isn't a scholarly helpful letter, no references anywhere, just a bunch of accusations couched in "concern". No reason for concern cited by Andyroo I should point out. I'll stop now before I really go into a rant.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just another example of Andy's way of thinking; everything is a competition. Everything. Conservatives are better than liberals, full stop. Christianity is better than everything else. Not just to his opinion, mind you, in an objective way. So this is just another aspect of that; Andy's bible was done quicker and other people have read it, therefore he's won and is better. He's like that kid at school who saw every task as a race; he'd race you to finish a drawing, a piece of work, to the front of the lunch queue etc... X Stickman (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy should send him the machismo essay. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts - 1. Why would the Presbyterian Church of America care enough for him to cc them? 2. Note the references to the Lenski exchange. He really thinks that whole thing rebounded to his benefit! Andy's cluelessness is just epic. Kaalis (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unintentional wisdom by Andy: "Christianity wouldn't exist if fear of ridicule were a concern." --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

[5] ħuman 07:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Moo on the CBP: "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it". Andy, please give him reason to elaborate in a less kind fashion! 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor lamb, he doesn't even have PJR to restrain him from his craziness this time. His hubris is once again unleashed, and he's surrounded only by parodists and trolls egging him on to further heights of idiocy. This is going to be fun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And as another Lenski mess is about to begin, I feel reminded of these words: "As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful for what transpired in my absence. Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group. These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around. Ne-eev-er." Your move, Rob. Go ahead and tell Andy that this is a bad idea. *grabs the popcorn* ;) --Sid (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked Rob on his talk-page. But perhaps he imagines that this is a splendid time for not being around... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, there's clearly a fifth columnist in Andy's household whispering these poison ideas in to his pure, conservative brain. It's time you did the right thing and relieved him of command, for the sake of national security. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain how these matters work. I know nothing of the subject matter being discussed here. My job isn't to watch Andy's back. My job is to ferret out editors who don't have the best interests of the website at heart; while there are many common trolls, some are more dangerous than others. I police these. Who is Moo anyway? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, Rob, we'll quote you on this. BTW: it's not important who Douglas Moo is - but he'll become the Lenski of Biblical translations. And this is all Andy's doing: no one forces his hand larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 02:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on the above: I don't really target editors, I ferret out fucked up ideas. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Like translating the Bible, of all things, into...get this...Conservative English! Seriously, that's messed up, you gotta do something about that. --Kels (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob, trouble with your "philosophy" is that you're judged by the company you keep: "Rob Smith?" "You know him - he was a sysop on that loony site run by the nutter Schlafly." "Fair enough - ignore him then!" (although I tend to ignore right wing idiots anyway) 06:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so guilt by association is ok, thanks. What about Obama's boy, Doug Clapper? he's a former Bush boob who touted that Saddam WMD claptrap being moved to Syria. [6] Looks like Doug clapper is 0-2 for hanging out with idiots and losers. Just the man to handle the most important intelligence position in the US. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comrade Smith, please try to stay on topic. My choice of staff has nothing to do with your boy Schlafly's decision to make an ass out of himself again. Barack Hussein Obama^{Allah akbar, comrades!} 01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just... wow. At least with Lenski, Andy had some basis for his demands, in that the research was publicly funded by the NAS. In this case, Andy is basically asking that a completely private effort share their preliminary work with him... presumably on the basis of him being a fellow Bible translator and he's so much better than the so-called "experts", because he's so fast. That would be like the local Little League team that's only lost one game this season calling up Wrigley Field and demanding the Cubs come down and play an exhibition game because the Little Leaguers have a much better record.

Oh, someone asked above why Andy CC'd the Presbyterian Church of America. My first guess is that Wheaton was run by the PCA, but it's not. I can't find a reference to it being run by any denomination. Perhaps Professor Moo is himself a member of the PCA.

I also find it intriguing that Andy also CC'd Jerry Falwell, Jr. What, does he fantasize of uniting theological conservatives in a grand crusade against Biblical literalism? MDB (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not cc the Vatican? I'm sure they'd be interested in Andy's Bible rewrite. Maybe we can get Andy excommunicated! -Lardashe

For that matter, why not the Commissioner of Major League Baseball? "For your heretical condemnation of the glorious Conservative Bible Project, you are henceforth banned from attending Major League Baseball games, until you recant and accept the CBP as the last and final word in Biblical scholarship." MDB (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That talk page is nothing but a major example of CP's parodist problem. One editor tries to be sensible "I would recommend against sending this letter. I fail to see how it could result in anything but ridicule." and then gets jumped on by three or four parodists stroking Andy's.......... Ego. Absolutely amazing..... I did get a chuckle out of this post though. Basically Andy admits exactly what brought this on: he dared to criticize me so I am wasting his time and making an assclown out of myself. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 17:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That letter is all kinds of crazy. Pretty comparable to Ken's plans on debating Dick Dawkins, except that Andy isn't actually asking for money. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy really does have a tenuous grasp of reality. He really believes that rephrasing the KJV to make it say what he thinks it should say is the same as translating the original biblical Greek and Hebrew texts. Unlike the best of the public, liberals turn it into an elitist academic persuit. ^{— Unsigned, by: Auld Nick / talk / contribs}

Could Rob be any more fucking vague? 00Opcn (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess this could provide some summer entertainment for those who don't like football and won't be watching the World Cup. I'll be watching both. Andy get his bottom smacked from someone on his own side will be great, "as done in our famous dialog with Professor Lenski".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Vatican...

Should we send some info to the Vatican to get Andy excommunicated? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my child, you absolutely should. Please send all evidence to:

Father Iggy "Scratch" Nutelli

Holy Catholic Office of Dealing With Annoying Americans

Conservatives and Republicans Division

Apostolic Palace

00120 Vatican City

Please note that Office is especially backlogged right now due to Tea Party members who don't seem to get that whole "love thy neighbor as thyself" thing, so it may be a while until they get back to you.

Peace be with you,

P.B. 16 ^{— Unsigned, by: PopeBenedictXVI / talk / contribs}

Jesus and the Axiom of Choice, take two

January: User claims^img that Jesus used Banach-Tarski to duplicate the loaves ("it can also be viewed as a mathematical affirmation of the biblical story of the loaves and the fishes"). Ed Poor deletes^img it as comedy, and Andy agrees^img, opining that "[the claim that BT confirms the] multiplication of the loaves is over-the-top, though funny". June: Andy changes his tune^img: "this paradox -- or insight -- bears a striking resemblance to the multiplication of the loaves, which is the only miracle described in all four Gospels." Not quite as strong a claim, I suppose, but pretty bad... --MarkGall (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And to think that, only hours ago people were (rightly) lamenting the boredom of CP, and Sid observed that the tides come and go. Well, the tide is coming in, folks! We have a new crop of parodists and suck-ups, like ReligiousRight, KevinO, and probably PhillipA. And math seems to be the place to be. Loaves and fishes and Banach-Tarski? That's as cool as faith healing disproving relativity. But remember, if Jesus can invent comedy, he can invent measure theory too. Who would have thought that the "feeding of the multitudes" involved tricks of measure theory? But, then, I haven't studied the Bible in the original Greek, unlike Jacob. Funny how no other biblical translator ever had that mathematical insight--it's certainly not in my KJV.

And another Lenski episode on the horizon!

And the math course is heating up, with Jacob and Andy falling all over each other with self-congratulation. It's going to be a fun summer, folks! Gauss (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken's gotta take his game up a notch or he'll get left behind! --Kels (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, you said "left behind" hehe. ħuman 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken was so disappointed when the books didn't live up to his expectations of "behind". --Kels (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He's planning to move on to Phase II soon!68.147.139.21 (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen this quote by Andy about the loaves being mentioned anywhere.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the Heisenberg compensator work? It works quite well, thank you!^img Just ignore the heat.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Does he even know what he is talking about?!--203.127.44.12 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that nobody on CONservapedia actually knows what they're talking about. They just make it up as they go along. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TK and soccer

Wow! Either he's trolling CP now or is a complete moron (or both). Some awesome reasons why Terry Koeckritz doesn't like soccer:

• They count backwards - Soccer is 90 minutes long and is split into two 45-minute halves. But, instead of counting down from 45 minutes every half, they count up from 0 to 45 and then from 45 to 90 in the second half.

Does counting forwards confuse Americans or something?

• Not Enough Contact - This a sport that penalizes people for barely touching the opponent and encourages players to take more dives then Michael Phelps

TK likes to see people touching a lot I guess

• We already have football! - The main reason that you should hate International football is because it is worse in every respect in comparison to American football.

Except they are completely different games. It isn't our fault you chose the name "football" for a game that's basically a cheap ripoff of rugby.
Much more lulz in that list but I liked the above the most. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz has taken a comic web item and taken it semi seriously. As far as I can tell the biggest problem with footie in the US is that it's one of the few international sports where they don't dominate.

As for the whole England are crap because they're atheist and haven't got the passion - no England are crap because they're crap. Well, not that crap. We may have invented the game (or at least codified it) and we still have one of the toughest leagues in the world but there's no rule anywhere in the book that says we have to win every time. Internationally we do pretty well for a small island country off the coast of Europe, we just don't do as well as our egos say we should. As for lack of passion - I defy anyone to visit any ground in the UK on a Saturday afternoon - I suggest Bloomfield Road, personally - and then talk about lack of passion. Bob Soles (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

England are crap because the players spend more time getting advertising deals, fucking wags, and doing their hair than they do bettering their game. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He's just displaying his ignorance really.

• You Can't Screw Up in Soccer - in soccer a player can go an entire game without touching the ball (with the exception of the goalie) and look like he did his job.

I don't know stats, but it's rare. However, it's perfectly possible that a player can go an entire game without touching the ball and have done his job. Even the goalkeeper. I should know, I am one. It's unlikely, but possible. How often do defensive players in the NFL touch the ball?

• Schedule - With national teams and other circumstances teams can go without playing a regular season game for almost a month at some points. This makes it impossible to build loyalty in an Multi League/Multi Sports market, like America

Hard to build loyalty? Yeah, those soccer fans are so fly-by-night, they really don't care about their teams. Dear oh dear.

• Two-Hour Games - Some of the greatest sports memories are watching 12 inning, 4 hour baseball games or sitting on the edge of your seat during triple-overtime hockey or basketball games.

Yep, never been excited during a soccer match, not even after 90 full minutes, 30 minutes of overtime, 15 minutes of golden-goal and then a penalty shoot out. It's just so tedious.

• Hockey - While there are a lot of differences between hockey and soccer, the basic objectives and rules are similar. But hockey is faster, hard-hitting, action packed, in a much smaller field of play and has more scoring chances then soccer.

Uh yeah, hockey is not soccer. Point?

• We already have football! Games can be high scoring. There is action in every single play

A game where the foot is very rarely used. Call it handball at least :) Soccer games can be high scoring (it's a relative measure) and there is action in American football. For about 5 seconds. Then everyone has a 2 minute ad break. The actual play time for American Football is 60 minutes. 30 minutes less than soccer.

Not that I care. :) Worm^{(t | c)} 09:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He's just trolling. For a man who claims to be well-travelled and visits England on a regular basis, he sure comes across as a myopic insular little shit.

What silly people like TK fail to grasp is that it's possible to appreciate two different sports. Or more. One doesn't have to be better than the other. Obviously TK doesn't get it - his loss.

Interesting thing about American football - like rugby football, it is so-called because the players are on foot.

The history and common ancestry of all the different codes of football is fascinating. And there's a healthy trickle of players who change codes or interest themselves in a variety of them. Martin Johnson, current England rugby union coach and former world cup winning captain, is a grid-iron fanatic. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin Johnson once expressed a desire to try his hand at American Football after retiring from rugby. That would have been a sight to see. Basically, one of the hardest men in rugby, putting on body armour and a helmet and given a licence to clobber the opposition even harder than he did in a scrum. Bondurant (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember joining my university last year and looking around all the sport societies at the freshers fair. They had an American Football one which had a few guys who were incredibly weedy compared to the thick-as-shit jocks you see bred in American high-school movies. The British and Irish just seem better built for Rugby rather than American football.

And as for TK saying low scoring in football - not that getting ridiculously high scores is the point of it - Chelsea FC (I support) won 7-0 against Stoke, 8-0 against Wigan, 7-1 against Aston Villa in the last month and a half of the Premier League this year alone. SJ ^Debaser 10:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But how much machismo was on display for Chelsea? Bondurant (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ties -- Isn't there a tie game in American football a few years ago? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Americans play to the death. No ties allowed. Unless all players die. ħuman 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why a tie cannot be a thrilling match. One of the best football matches I saw last season was a goalless draw (Preston 0 - Blackpool 0) where both sides were evenly matched and the result could have gone either way. By contrast when Blackpool won 5-1 against Swansea,although it was fun to watch my home team win so convincingly, it was hardly thrilling or exciting. The final outcome was well settled long before full time. Bob Soles (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A 0-0 draw can be thrilling if your team is involved. Personally, I find it hard to get into any match where I'm neutral to both sides. But stick me in the crowd at Carrow Road, or in front of a flat screen in the pub for an England match and I'll shout myself hoarse. Bondurant (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, more Norwich-ites on RW. I had a nice lunch in the Shiki yesterday :)

Also, although not footy related, I went to see England vs the All Blacks in 97 when we drew 26-26 and it was one of the best matches ever. They actually released the match on VHS because the demand for it so high. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was the game in which the Poms did a lap of honour after securing the draw. --Damo^Hi 01:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether TK posted those points (it says at the top of the page "SATIRE") knowing that most people won't follow up the link or whether he really believes them I think it sums up a lot of what is really wrong with CP. Sport is a cultural thing but "soccer" is multi-cultural, it's global, it's played by both men and women, you don't need to be muscled giant to be good at it, and as Andy says it's low-tech which puts it within the reach of everyone from the richest to the poorest. Of course, such multi-culturalism is what CP despises. It also points out the shallow nature of much modern consumerism, there has to be something big happening all the time and people don't have the attention span to follow something through. But great drama in movies, music, dance, theatre, literature and sport is not dependent on mathematical tallies. To use an Ed Poor analogy all that point scoring becomes a sexual addiction, lots of brief little orgasms which lack the satisfaction and real emotion of a big one. One night in Istanbul five years ago showed just how much emotion can be contained within a single game of football.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to mention that the USA has actually bought the greatest number of World Cup tickets and they certainly won't be a pushover for England. If the USA beat us then I can well imagine CP trumpeting about losing British atheists all over mainpageright.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend this NY Times article about the Ajax Academy which has plenty to say about the difference between footie in the US and the rest of the world - as well as being just generally interesting. Bob Soles (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The USA won't beat England. We simply have a better team than they do. As for emotion in football, try watching One Night in Turin - all about Italia 1990 when England got to the semis and lost out to West Germany. SJ ^Debaser 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"One Night in Turin"? Isn't that a Lord of the Rings porno flick? link for those not sufficiently geeky to get the reference. DickTurpis (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

England WON in 1990. They must have! They had the best song! Don't you remember the German oom-pah band playing "World In Motion" to celebrate their victory, with Italian house stars singing the John Barnes rap in the middle? - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this song has to be a record-holder when it comes to bizarre footy anthems. 2002 anthem for the Argentina FIFA World Cup team, it's sung entirely in Japanese, and is a cover version of a song inspired by the story of a bunch of female nurses in WWII who hid in underground caves on Okinawa when the US came, and ended up dying there. More info at WP, of course. --Kels (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Emotion? Emotion? This is emotion... Brighton & Hove Albion playing Hereford United on the final day of the 1996/97 season to decide who would finish 91st in the English league, and who would finish 92nd and therefore last. Matt 10:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Parodist or Just Sucking Up?

User IScott claims The Archbishop of Canterbury suspends Episcopal Church of America perhaps, just perhaps, of Conservapedia's influence in Britain^img (You know, that atheist bastion). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

D'ya know what B? I don't think Andy cares. As long as an edit agrees with him / stokes his ego, he really doesn't care. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, he's just sucking up. Or he's an obvious parodist. ScientificRigor (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Image creation and Conservapedia info

Is there an ideal way images should be created for Conservapedia changes because Conservapedia has a habit of removing things from talk pages that doesn't fit in with there [strange/even crazy?] view of the world?

I also just joined but have been following both Rationalwiki and Conservapedia for awhile now and was wanting to post something to the affect of DouglasM removing the IQ/SAT section from the Counterexamples to an Old Earth article and it was reverted and ReligiousRight said the that new users should not be editing articles. Its the only wiki I know that says to edit articles to avoid a 90/10 rule but then the admins come back and say you should not edit.

Here also are the links and the info from religiousright. Also DouglasM was banned for 3 days for his revert.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069^img http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Observations_on_some_deceitful_points_in_this_article^img

I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --ReligiousRight 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

I made my case above, did you not read it? DouglasM 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Quazywabbit (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Surround the link like this: <capture>link goes here</capture>, easiest way is to highlight the link & click on <capture></capture> in the box below. This automagically captures a screenshot of the link. 07:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DouglasM(oo) showed cp:machismo and directly went to some of Conservapedia's softer spots: Aschlafly and lakes^img, for instance. So, he became an easy target for parodists to suck up to Andy and TK... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet lack of Machismo is one of the reasons you can be banned. Ah the irony Quazywabbit (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

JacobB and ReligiousRight are the same person?

I mean, JacobB unblocked ReligiousRight after he was blocked by Jinxs. When does a sysop arbitrarly unblock a new editor after he is blocked? He also got away with having a user name that does not consist in first name and initials. He also edits mathematics articles, and obviously is a parodist. And his weird conversation with JacobB in talk: ounterexamples of an old Earth... They really seem the same person.--Tlaloc (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TK made my day...

As the wigo (Tk removes obvious parody...) says, TK removes an entry by Aschlafly, thinking it was inserted by the new parodist Religious Right. To make it even funnier, TK scolds RR on the talk page, with a comment which should be directed to Aschlafly:

completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. I want to see citations, credible ones, before you add silly stuff like I just removed.^img

Silly stuff like I just removed - o dear, this silly stuff was an insight by Aschlafly... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: (I had to add this entry to keep a screen-grab: how long before the whole episode is oversighted?)

Comedy gold! On a side note, I find it funny that Andy really believes humans are getting less intelligent, especially when you remember that he always proudly claims that new conservative words are entering the vocabulary at a geometric rate, therefore proving that conservatism is on the rise. Junggai (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andy had his own little community in mind when he came up with that thesis, although it precedes Ken's machismo essay. Röstigraben (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch - I was coming here to add this exact thing. I suspect oversight is coming along to remove the glorious beauty of TK calling AndyPants 'silly' Worm^{(t | c)} 10:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Please add it to our TK article for posterity.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, TK fixed and oversighted his foot-mouth-mistake^img. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He also managed to beat the capturebot for one of them. That's some quick work! MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite - that particular link is supposed to show that the page has been vaped. I think. Nothing has been missed, anyway - the final link caught the lot. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 12:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And JacobB's mask slips some more. C'mon, Jake, "politely removed"^img is an RWism. DickTurpis (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on guys! They're vaping like crazy over there. Please put capture tags around everything you reference here. Gauss (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when has that been an "RWism"? Although it is extremely fitting. ^bomination 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly used it on the Colbert Report. We mockingly use it once in a while, but it's his, not ours. ħuman 15:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's originally his, but we've claimed it. Sort of like "largely defensive weapon of gun". Sure, Andy coined it, but while it's used regularly here, it's used at CP only by parodists. DickTurpis (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SUCCESS- DouglasM

Was me and I knew the assfly added that shit in the article and as soon as I used logic- BAM TK comes in along with the assflys mindless followers. I will destroy that site by ever so politely and logically pointing out every single flaw so even the idiot comservatives understand the logical, liberal POV. ... but Im still attacking this site tonight too cuz the people here suck. Mission #1: success. Cheers everyone! ^{— Unsigned, by: 166.137.138.195 / talk / contribs}

Yawn. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DouglasM has a far better grasp of english than you do. You're not DouglasM, and TK isn't dumb enough to fall for that. Besides, we don't want Douglas banned... he's helping them parody up the site (anyone confirm/deny? I'm not sure what Douglas's "suspected parodist" status is) 194.6.79.200 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Douglas. I'm DouglasA. He's DouglasM. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 14:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do people insist on claiming to be someone they are not? Barack Hussein Obama (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry comrade. I assume that DogP is actually Spartacus then? Barack Hussein Obama^{Allah akbar, comrades!} 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually Helena Bonham Carter. --Kels (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can one of you tech-savy folks update Conservapedia:This site is growing rapidly!. The stats are about a year old, and since then new article creation has fallen off even more. If we discount all the unofficial namespaces that are technically still part of the articlespace (debates, essays, lectures, homework, draft letters to people much smarter than Andy, recreated deletes of Ken's, etc.) we must be at an all-time low. I'm curious to see just where the site is at. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to see LArron about that. He's the graph man. ^bomination 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer.

Andy admits he's wrong. But points out that in his defense, soccer is good for "picnics and growing up." In other words, it lacks--wait for it--ma-cheees-mo. P-Foster (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"That is so pathetic!" Nice to see Andy's partial to a bit of valspeak. Webbtje (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gah, the bs is incredible! Soccer's not good on TV? Only the entire planet disagrees. It's not good for "statistical number crunching" because it's got low scores... and baseball? Andy really is a specimen. Bluefish (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-gUXl7usc&feature=related DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noOHdTQd6H8&feature=related Keegscee (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGmCjbYa0w --ZooGuard (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ravaged by atheism, England cannot even field a decent soccer team anymore." He's gone too far. If he wants to use it to justify uncharitableness, rapes and mass killings, then that's totally fine, but when he attacks the England national team, he's gone too far. SJ ^Debaser 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a footy match or something on? 19:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Before they play USA, dirty atheistic England are taking on the rest of the world in a charity match (socceraid). But I'm sure the NFL do that like every week after they go to church. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am speechless. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

USA do have a very good goalkeeper, though. And England rarely fail to disappoint. Oh well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TicMbH4OY&feature=related Toffeeman (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the extra irony of CP praising Red China in the very next In The News item^img, an atheist and commie regime no less. They really simply do not like Britain, did Andy get kicked out of a pub or something? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I almost fell out of my chair with that one. Surely China uses a taxpayer-funded public education system? ħuman 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Britain =/= England. alt (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Britain ⊃ England. I don't recall him saying anything that was actually about Britain, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy fears the English because he doesn't know anything about us, or the fact that there are 2 other countries on Great Britain. If Andy walked into a pub anywhere in England he'd stick out like a Christian Evangelist in an unholy land of atheism. SJ ^Debaser 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Andy would have more positive feelings towards Northern Ireland, Wales, or Scotland even if he realizes they are separate from England. He most likely just sees Britain as all the same and just calls it "England", justifying in his mind those other entities don't really count, rather then admitting he was wrong equating England with the United Kingdom as a whole. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck kind of warped view of sports do you have to have to come by the perception that the chief thrill of being a spectator is the statistical number crunching? If you want that, become a fucking train spotter. I think the rest of the world might appreciate the action and the skill of the competitors producing exciting moments a little more. Nobody fucking cheers down the pub when they announce that What-ever-his-name-is is on his half millionth cap. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy is right about one thing in a way, in that Soccer isn't as suited to television as American Football, in the sense that it's not as conducive to constant commercial breaks. Football might as well have been designed for that. (At least, I think this is true; I've never really watched soccer, to be honest.) DickTurpis (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The emphasis on stats is because an intense and exciting 90 minutes of footie can result in a 0-0 tie and no particular statistics of interest or use. On the other hand, even a boring, low score American football or baseball game results in megabytes of data to process. Therefore, since soccer sucks and AF and AB rule, statistics must be vital to enjoyment. ħuman 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, since Andy seems to highly value a little manly body contact, I wonder how he feels about rugby and MMA? ħuman 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"I appreciate your analysis. But England -- atheistic as it is -- a bit weak on the all-important passion and faith necessary to prevail in the big games, don't you think?" Heh. The Vatican should put forward a team, they'd dominate any opposition. X Stickman (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, they should. Vulpius (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well god damn. X Stickman (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer IS an incredibly dull sport to watch, so I've always found. Quite fun to play, but it's no hockey. 68.147.139.21 (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see Andy's take on cricket. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People who claim cricket is boring to watch don't understand how to watch cricket. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Would that be tanked up and hardly able to stand? SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 07:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Shut your fucking face Chuck, cricket is lord. 07:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Take no offence to my agression. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?" -C.L.R. James. P-Foster (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you shut up for once Ace. Go fuck yourself you sheep fucker. If Cricket is so great, why is it named after an insect? Exactly. Fuck you Ace, fuck you and your whole upside down wanna-be Australian countrymen. (I hope my joking demeanor is obvious) SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 07:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

i think you'll find crickets are in fact named after the sport, stupid. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the two seem to have no connection Take that you ignorant prick. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 07:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So fucking predictable, wikipedia. You believe everything they tell you? Create the controversy! Aceⁱ⁹ 08:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cricket has lots of stats, and so many silly positions. But seriously, why is there no sport called "Beetles"???? ħuman 08:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be (and perhaps still is) a game/activity called a 'Beetle Drive', much used to raise church funds, etc, in the inter-war years. I don't think it involved real beetles, though. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Andy would have more positive feelings towards Northern Ireland, Wales, or Scotland even if he realizes they are separate from England. He most likely just sees Britain as all the same and just calls it "England", justifying in his mind those other entities don't really count, rather then admitting he was wrong equating England with the United Kingdom as a whole. --BMcP Almost certainly. I'd love him to go to NI, though. He'd heartily approve of the rigid Protestantism practiced by a sizeable proportion of the inhabitants as being akin to his own version of Conservative Christianity; but how he'd square that with his view of NI as being 'occupied' by the Evil Brits against the will of the population (expressed through the struggle of heroic IRA freedom fighters) God only knows. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly your IRA is going to be your freedom fighters -- the financial freedom after your retirement. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken's funny typo quote

In cp:Abrasiveness_of_Richard_Dawkins Ken quotes some nutter blog that Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." Is Dawkins saying that he is a priest of lax morals or just a piece of poorly-performed music? (For those of a less pedantic nature than meself perhaps he really meant this.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I saw that too and was amused. ħuman 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For extra lulz, the reference link is broken (at least for me). Let's see how long it takes Ken to search for the correct one. --Sid (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't loose cannon also referring to something about sexuality? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

i thought loose canon meant he writes fanfic. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A "loose cannon" is a dangerous object (why am I explaining this?). A "loose canon" is a holy book with diarrhea. ħuman 12:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fully descriptive imagine the gun deck of one of the ships of the line around, say 1700 or so. Now imagine how much that gun deck rolls and heaves as the ship is rocked both by the force of it's own broadsides and the force of the broadsides it receives. Now place on that heaving rolling deck a large and very heavy lump of metal on wheels, a cannon on it's trolley for example, and imagine what it's like when this loose cannon starts rolling towards you. I think the image speaks for itself. Bob Soles (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that most of the pitch and roll comes from the sea rather than the boradsides? Still - very heavy - easily a ton, often more. Not only would they do nasty things to anyone who got in the way, they had a tendency to roll either into the side of the ship, or down a hatchway and do unspeakable things to the hull. There are a couple of very stirring descriptions in the Aubrey-Maturin books where a cannon comes free .... Worm^{(t | c)} 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the reference I found for this says there is no proof it was ever used by sailors at the time of such guns. Jimaginator (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

They didn't live to talk about it? ħuman 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another fondly held belief bites the dust. A quick Google seems to confirm that the tems dates from the mid to late 20th century. It's still pretty descriptive. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of nautical terms that supposedly originated as a phrase in the days of sail, but have come to mean something quite different and the origins are murky. Such as 'the devil to pay', 'to the bitter end' and so on. Worm^{(t | c)} 14:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

CANOE, the Committee to Ascribe a Nautical Origin to Everything That particular page might be popular in the Saloon Bar too. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is abrasive? Perhaps, I've been described as abrasive in the sense that if someone rubs me up the wrong way I give as good as I get. Dawkins is quite similar in the fact that people may perceive him as abrasive and harsh - because he actively goes out to criticise religion, so the religious are obviously going to view him as abrasive. That in itself doesn't prove he has that sort of personality, though. Most of the "official" definitions I'm coming across say that an abrasive personality needs to be harsh, rough and practically rude, blaming others for their faults, complaining and challenging to everything. So I'm not sure Dawkins counts, as he's generally polite and well reasoned - he doesn't mince his words, of course, when calling religion "child abuse" but that's not the same thing, really. However, most of the things about being "abrasive" aren't a personality trait, more of a trait of a personality interaction, which requires two people. So to religious believers, Dawkins is abrasive; religious beliefs almost exclusively don't like to be challenged or criticised (contrasted to political beliefs where it's practically expected) and quite literally want to be held above such things and immune and protected from criticism; therefore believers will certainly view such things as "abrasive". Anyway, enough waffle, please continue. ^bomination 12:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Want a career? Be a professional dictator

I see Karajerk has created an ugly Dictator bio template with a sub-section for "Dictatorial Career". It made me laugh. However, it doesn't float properly so it screws up the page layout. Far be it for any of us to point him in the right direction.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice how it only features a "claimed" religion, it's got a No True Scotsman fallacy built in from the start. Röstigraben (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pol Pot: "Claimed religion: Roman - Catholic (rejected), Buddism (rejected), Atheism".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Highest rank attained", er, wouldn't that be 'Dictator'?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They're known for their creativity in conferring titiles upon themselves - Idi Amin rose all the way to "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular". Röstigraben (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Nationalized private industries and other services on a large scale"? I'm honestly surprised that it isn't used in the Obama article yet. I haven't watched Karajou much, though...can't say whether he's brave enough to wedge it in there himself. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to note how many of the dictators had previously completed a course on the list of CP's cp:Worst_College_Majors. Hitler's wish to study art is surely a sign that the worst college majors are producing the next generation of dictators. If you have a university nearby, pay very close to attention to their women's studies classes. You never know when you'll be compelled to address one of those students as Dear Leader. --ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is obviously part of preparation for yet another copy-paste fest. From Friendly Dictator Trading Cards. And bad attempt at that, because the cards obviously don't feature dictator stats in a traditional trading card statbox format. Conservapedia is, once again, forced to resort to actually creating new content. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of professional dictatorship

(says the guy interviews the dictator for his next job) "Tell me about a time when you demonstrate professionalism during your dictatorial career." [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Trait: Covering Your Tracks

When I see how many stupid and untrue things get completely deleted from CP and only survive as images here, I can't help but think of Winston Smith in "1984" re-working articles so the newspapers can be reprinted to make Big Brother always right. Has anyone ever seen Andy and Big Brother in the same room together, or photographed together? Methinks there's something fishy going on...Jimaginator (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think of Enron. Bondurant (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

When will liberals admit to the possibility that Andy Schlafly is dead? He hasn't made a public appearance since his dismal performance at the New Jersey Supreme Court. Sure, the propaganda machine "Aschlafly" still cranks out the crazy, but any one of his minions could be behind that. Until I see definitive proof that Schlafly is alive and well in his capacity to run CP, I'm not giving liberals the benefit of the doubt by assuming so. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Neveruse (if that's your real name), thank you for your edits. I'm learning a lot from reading them and I look forward to exploring this theory that Andy is dead. Godspeed! ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy isn't dead; Andy is undead. I'm betting on some kind of mindless Glenn Beck viewerzombie. MDB (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Submitted for debate

The entire "machismo" thing is a prelude to Ken revealing himself as a parodist. MDB (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. And if it was the case that he was pulling Andy's leg since the beginning, I'd only have to pity the person behind it for doing something like that for so long. ^bomination 16:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe it's highly addictive and one you are on the express train you simply can't get off.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he is just highly delusional about the supposed impact he is having regarding Dawkins, or Abortion, or Evolution, etc. Rather then being a parodist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's about as likely that Andy has been pulling a Kaufman. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If Ken's a parodist, he's been deep cover since years before CP even existed. He was already a pretty well known kook (as was Andy, for that matter) long before they built their own kook ghetto. --Kels (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been having trouble believing this "machismo" the longer it goes on. If I had to put money on it, I'd claim that it's Ken's idea of a joke/parody. He's trying to be funny or mocking, not serious. It's just that he sucks at it so it looks like he is serious. X Stickman (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this machismo theme has only been maintained because we've embraced it so readily. Let's face it, RW has more machismo references than CP by now. Ken's enjoying being the center of attention, and doesn't mind being the butt of jokes. It's a win/win scenario for both of us, but let's not pretend we're not very actively encouraging it. DickTurpis (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So if machismo is really the yardstick for correctness, who is ready to debate Ken with fists? Sorry Ken but in fairness, your mommy's skirt should not be allowed in the ring (unfair hiding place).--Brendiggg (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Dick's analysis hit the nail on the head. --Leotardo (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Dick has the correct idea. We're encouraging Ken. MDB (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Machismo thing is intended to reveal Ken as a parodist. It does, however, reveal his self-perceived "comical side". He meant it as a brilliant, insightful and yet at the same time funny piece. Conservapedia doesn't seem to mind parodies as long as it's explicitly humorous... for a very varying definition of humorous. *cough*weeklytoon*cough* The problem is, if someone makes an unfunny joke, it seems to turn into a law far too easily: Yesterday's muckracking became today's block reason. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's it at all. Ken is universally hailed both here and at conservapedia as at best a joke, at worst a victim of some unfortunate mental defect. If people at CP have picked up once of Ken's curve balls and run with it, then they're doing it either to mock him and/or to play to the audience (which I think all those who aren't Andy are coming to recognise is exclusively comprised of us.) Nobody cares why people are blocked at CP any more, blocking is a culturally ingrained ritual done to all new arrivals. I think the mention of 90/10 on here today was the first time I'd heard the expression in months. The block reason field is used either at random, for the purposes of intimidation, or as another red telephone.

What I find more interesting about Ken's little flights of fancy like MA-CHEESE-MO! is how he has gathered a little axis of idiocy that will report and reinforce what he's doing. No one on coservapedia takes him seriously, but he does have his own little band of merry men scattered about the internet. I guess in a world of seven billion, there really are at least two of everything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But as Dick said above, it's still win/win. Ken is clearly making Conservapedia look really ridiculous with his high-lariousness. Win = Conservapedia continues to look ridiculous, even to conservatives. His lack of self-awareness means we have something to laugh at, and Ken sees that we are his only audience as he is an embarrassment to his movement. Win = Ken dances for us. Lastly, because we discuss him and ridicule him, both he and his CP brothers think they are "getting to us" and therefore "winning". Win = CP also dances for us by being reactive, harming their own brand. LOLs and LULZ across the board, and everyone thinks they are winning, so puppies for everyone. It's a symbiotic relationship typically only seen in nature. --Leotardo (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That Richard Dawkins talk page is surreal. It's just Ken muttering to himself about his plans to, um, do "something" to RD. Somehow. ħuman 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Surreal is certainly the best word I can think of for it. I know he's meaning to be funny - we'd have to be pretty gullible to think that he was 100% deadly serious; or we're on the money with the "mental defect" comments - but the word that describes someone who only makes himself laugh isn't "comedian". This is some kind of level of something that I'm sure hasn't been seen or appropriately described before. We're surely suffering Poe's Law over the whole Richard Dawkins project but... this is seriously in a different ball park to everything else. ^bomination 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Credit where it's due, the machismo thing is funny and he came up with it. So well done to him. I love the matador imagery as well.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in Case

The MA-CHEESE-MO! takes off I've created the {{mmo}} template so as to be able to fly through edits with the greatest of speed but still adding max lulz, feel free to modify (or delete) as ye see fit. C®ackeЯ

3/5ths of a human being

I remember I had a teacher in Junior High that had us read the entire U.S. Constitution, and I was appalled when I got to the 3/5ths part. And yet, what do you know, the Constitution IS a living document, and this was repealed by the 13th Amendment. Thank Zeus for the ability to amend it. Care to amend the 10 Commandments CP? And which commandments do you use? The only ones CALLED commandments in the bible talk about not boiling a goat in the blood of its mother or some such. Jimaginator (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That bit is weird and shows TK's ignorance and readiness to bully. Whether the constitution is "living" or not is irrelevant to subsequent amendments. "Living" refers to interpretation by the courts and Congress exploring its authority to legislate under the few empowerment clauses it has. Indeed, TK. One MUST be a poorly educated liberal to quibble about how nasty the framers were in 1789 by today's standards that black folks and indians weren't citizens, women couldn't vote, etc. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in principle not a fan of TK wigo's, but this one looks not like intentional trolling. It really seems like he's that ignorant of history. It's a valid point, whatthefuckyagonnadoaboutit, Terry Koeckritz? Junggai (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

ÑR would probably know better than I, but I don't think TK is that dumb. He's just being contrarian because he thinks the guy is a librul (or just because Terry Koeckritz is a dick). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinks the guy is a liberal? He (KevinO) is a blatant parodist^img. Remember, 95% certainty is all that science requires, according to Andy. So Kevin goes 1% better. (Did I just "out" KevinO? Tough.) Gauss (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he outed himself. Don't worry good buddy. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well gee, look who welcomed him to Conservapedia131.107.0.70 (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone else weighs in^img. Let's see how long he lasts. Gauss (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

130 minutes. Gauss (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not surprised that a thick redneck like Karaturd doesn't even understand the words he types. But it's disappointing that he's an alleged veteran. I'd expect our servicemen to have a better understanding of things. Or not. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 04:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Capt for fun.^img It's simple logic that the Constitution only changes when it's changed, yet Australia just doesn't seem to get it. Then again, nobody actually suggested that the Constitution c be reinterpreted, just that it contains controversial topics. Did I miss something in that Fox blog link? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 05:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You didn't miss anything. The hypocrisy in this one stings my eyes the more I look at at it. Those racists and bigots want the constitution to be read according to its plain language, like the cretinists and their biblical inerrancy. But when someone points out that the very language of the constitution, albeit superseded by amendment, justifies a warning like "hey, these guys back in 1789, they were creeps, ok? Just keep that in mind when you look at the racist and misogynist shit they wrote" that person suddenly becomes an ideological enemy to be dealt with harshly and nonsensically. I'm still trying to understand Karaturd's eruption yesterday. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why I love Andy

Nothing like a good batch of Schlafly Stats to brighten my day.... Here, Andy is debating his claim that Fox News is biased in favor of John McCain over Hayworth. Andy is able to give an exact ratio^img of the bias. I missed these little statistical treats. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 20:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He loves "perhaps". Whenever you see Andy say "perhaps", you know it's come straight out of his ass. Remember when he didn't ever qualify stuff? Now those were the days... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Let's not exaggerate; he didn't give an exact ratio. Instead, he says it is "perhaps" 10:1, which I'm sure is Andy's technical term for 95% confidence level. In reality, the ratio could be anywhere from 9.5:1 to 10.5:1. Keegscee (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps" is the "certainly maybe" of Schlaflyisms. Heavenly. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy really needs a camera crew following him around everywhere. There's probably a whole bunch of good stuff we're missing out on. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Best television show ever! I can see it now: "Manager, my coffee was not served correctly. Your liberal baristas are proof that Atheists should not be employed. Your so called coffee experts are nothing compared to the best of the public, deny this and lose credibility." I would watch that show. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(unident) He would probably explain that the coffee/water ratio is too low and when they tell him what it is he would tell them they are wrong and they need to open there mind and they all have liberal denial. Quazywabbit (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

failing a reality show starring Andy (in passing PeeWee Herman is back in a movie ) could we start a grass roots movement to get Andy appointed to the Supreme Court ? His is an actual lawyer , represents a professional organisation and is the child of a sainted conservative idol. Hamster (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No. He's a nobody. His litigation record is abysmal for his age and he was never a state or federal court judge. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 00:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he could be a mascot? --Kels (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Unreal World" starring Andy Schlafly. I think audiences might really think this conservative moron with the voice of a gay robot is just another character from Sacha Baron Cohen. Sometimes even I have trouble accepting that he's a real person. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nutty I agree withyour assessment of "perhaps". However, knowing Andy, with a little careful challenging that figure could be enshrined in stone once he's beeen really cornered on it. OYFM!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Minor" lost at sea...

Not much to say, but at the end of the article it notes that another 16 year old girl, and Australian, finished doing it a month ago. Oh, and the girl in question's brother did it successfully last summer at 17. Hmmmmm. ħuman 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Brother/success = BOTP

Sister/failure = Bad parenting

^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 00:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nail/hit=head --Opcn (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to WTF you're on about? P-Foster (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[7] DickTurpis (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks...aaaaaaaaaaand--is there a CP connection here? P-Foster (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting borken news:

"The effects of liberalism on California. Lack of proper parenting and the allowing of an "anything goes" attitude may have resulted in a minor - yes, a minor - being lost at sea hundreds of miles from the nearest ship in the southern Indian Ocean: [8] And it's all because she wanted to sail alone around the world and her parents said "yes". "

ħuman 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised that they didn't take the "A little girl tried to sail around the world and predictably failed. She should have taken a man with her." approach there. Though I guess that hating liberals has higher priority than telling women to stay in the kitchen. --Sid (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Karajou's just sore that she's ten times the sailor he is. She's been found alive and well, btw. EddyP (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad she was rescued. ħuman 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Got to love this story. It's as if this girl just woke up one morning, and with no prior sailing experience, asked for permission to freebase coke while sailing a bathtub across the Atlantic. ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 10:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how TK removed the news item and didn't post an update, like it was a shame this didn't turn out to be a tragedy he could politically capitalize on. Terry Koeckritz, since we know you're watching, how about "Let's hope libruls learn their lesson" and mention Jesus or something. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought that Andy would be trumpeting how all the great achievements have been done by teenagers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got a spare $1000 I can borrow?

I need some M-Factor.^img Aceⁱ⁹ 02:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ken, we like you, we really do. We also wish you could afford better medical care. ħuman 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ace, I'm a bit tight right now, but...wait...is that NZD$1000? Isn't that, like, $1.25 American? Hell, I can spare that. I'll write you a check for $2 even. You can keep the change. DickTurpis (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(a) How much thorazine can you get for $1,000; (b) would that be enough? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did the basement dwelling ken-troll really just offer to teach us how to have machismo for 1000 bucks? Is this coaching going to involve how to take bennies and sit naked in front of your computer for hours on end writing insane stuff about how awful the gays are? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfft, Andy said Conservapedia had "0 in mental problems by its contributors"^img. So there is no need to worry or do something to for this guy who desperately crying for help. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's $1000 per hour and will just get you off the base thetan M Factor level. It won't get you any latina ladies, but may at least stop them from averting their children's eyes away from you, like you're the elephant man. Bondurant (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Either it shows M-factor by being bold, or it shows lack of M-factor by hiding behind a big number and a deal that you;ve made abundantly clear is a bad one; we report, you decide. --Opcn (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. How effeminate. Bondurant (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Speak for yourself Human, I don't like Ken at all. Ken, I can't afford the thousand bucks, but my life is rich in adventure. I can pay with that? I can haz ma-cheese-moooooooo? SJ ^Debaser 10:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While we're talking about the M Factor, it's pretty clear that richarddawkins.net suffers from a lack of female interest, but at least Ken is on the case. I'm not sure if he's noticed the lack of machismo at another popular web site though - what to do, what to do... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 11:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Alexa figures mean anything that other popular website certainly has a very serious M Factor problem that certainly maybe curable with Big C's attention, which we do certainly believe might be forthcoming at a time of his choosing. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 19:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I LOLed. We really are his only audience. What would Ken do without this site to motivated him to greater feats of MA-CHEESE-MO? Also he may not want to look at Alexa ratings too much otherwise he may discover the Richard Dawkins forums are significantly more popular then CP, and that may snap something in his mind. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What was the URL behind all those "M factor" links? He deleted the edit, and sadly Capturebot doesn't save any more than a screenshot. Fedhaji (Talk) 20:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His stupid machismo article. Every M factor link was a link to his stupid god damn machismo article. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Those looked liked external links, not wikilinks. Fedhaji (Talk) 06:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bold words

Nice bit of what-the-fuckery going on there^img. So Richard Dawkins should have "a greater understanding of manhood"? Does that mean playing with other people's tackle? I guess that means Ken has a great understanding of it. Looks like we've found our definition of what ma-cheese-mo is. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this "insight" means that Ronald Reagan lacked machismo as well. Bondurant (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone should feel free to change the wording, it would be nice if there were a second page I could link to on Kenservatives sexuality (or lack there of) but I can't so I didn't. --Opcn (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to know much about his sex life, given that I suspect he views sex as more of a spectator than a team sport. I added some background on his oddly obsessive editing of the homosexuality article at CP. Blimey the boy must be confused. Seriously, how could anyone possibly write so much about something without being oddly intrigued by it? --ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 10:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reagan had machismo by definition. His divorce simply doesn't figure into it. Nor do Newt Gingrich's and Rush Limbaugh's. Divorce increases a conservative's machismo, because they are moving onto better wives. Divorce decreases a liberal's machismo, because their wives are moving on to better husbands. Deny this and lose all credibility. MDB (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reagan was a wuss. I doubt he ever sank twenty pints, had a fight, and still went home to give Nancy a servicing. Ken needs to write an article about the wp:Macc Lads. Soft southern shites! ConcernedResident ^{Fightin' round the world} 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There was only one world leader during the Eighties with more machismo than Señor Reagan, and that was Margaret Thatcher. Had liberals' silly prohibitions against polygamy not kept Reagan from a dual marriage with Nancy and Maggie, the uber-machismo exuding from the west would cause the following:

• the Iron Curtain would have collapsed immediately
• Iraq, Iran and Libya would have become western-style democracies
• El Salvador and Nicaragua would have become United States 51 and 52
• the spot on Gorbachev's head would have disappeared MDB (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian Dollar

Huh? All the remaining world currencies are fiat currencies. Australia historically took part in Bretton Woods, like the USD and GBP, but when that inevitably failed it was just tied loosely to the dollar, like any number of other smaller currencies. Today it's free floating. Does Conservative think he can take AU$ to a bank and get a fixed amount of something... else? Gold? Cans of lager? DVDs of Neighbours? Sand? He can't, and de facto that's a fiat currency.

I know this isn't the first time that Conservative wrote something that a schoolchild can trivially verify is wrong, but it is one of the more peculiar examples (the Bible doesn't say anything about Australian dollars). It will be interesting to see if it gets reverted quietly or whether there's some ridiculous rationalisation. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.69.171.91 / talk / contribs}

Oh, I think I know where that comes from. I remember several times Big C posting stuff on the main page and elsewhere about gold, and how stupid everyone was who didn't buy up gold and therefore it must have been entirely Christians or something, because some economic fortuneteller said something about it as one of his "trend forecasts". My memory's a bit hazy, but I think if you go back a couple of months you'll find more on it. --Kels (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck? Ken would perfectly fit his audience. Röstigraben (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no. It's some economist guy who makes wild guesses for a living while acting dead serious about it all, then claiming credit for all the ones that were right. Can't recall his name, but Ken's got moist panties for him his stuff. --Kels (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

cp:Gerald_Celente ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the one! I can't keep track of Ken's crushes. --Kels (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Australian dollar is tied to the price of Vegemite? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

tk blocks himself

is this normal http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:TK he blocked himself 2 times in a row?Nailo1 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy and Soccer Part 2

I know we discussed this earlier, but I wanted to get this up. Has Andy noticed that the "pathetic" atheistic English have been ranked 4th best in the World Cup? Four Penguins and a shot of Vodka to the first person to get that posted to CP..... Or for Rob, substitute those Penguins for a nice pic of a cute girl in a yellow dress.... Wink wink. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know a thing about soccer, but rankings like that in any sport are meaningless. That's why they play the games. Keegscee (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To a point yes, but they are usually a good reflection on the perceived strength of any squad. Any professional ranking will generally be close to reality and having England ranked 4th is probably a lot closer than Andy's assessment. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But in Andy's mind, the World Cup ranking system is clearly biased toward more liberal, atheist leaning countries. Vradient^{Hit me up} 01:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's probably more like that England is ranked 4th best in the world in the obscure sport of soccer. Unlike the US, which always has a team that wins the World Series of that much more well-known sport of baseball. 92.20.123.113 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What? ^{— Unsigned, by: Olefiance / talk / contribs}

Unless the Canadian team wins... ħuman 08:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the same "World" either. HTH MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this myth? Cantabrigian (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The top 3 teams, Brazil, Spain and Argentina are all catholic countries, all ahead of atheistic England. Deny this and loose all credibility. Bondurant (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am loosening my credibility as we speak. DickTurpis (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Argh! I have loost credibility with my typoo. Bondurant (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spain is a European country which by definition means it is atheist, and both Brazil and Argentina are in South America, which automatically means that they are a socialist and therefore atheist. Denying this means you will loose all credibility in the same way as denying the link between smoking and 2+2 equalling 4.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I don't really see how conservatives are attacking soccer all of a sudden despite the conservative "soccer mom" image in the US. Not just Conservapedia has been having field day talking trash about soccer. Also, the Media Research Center has too. Source: The MRC's War Against Soccer by Terry KrepelAP (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)