Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive186

This is an archive page, last updated 1 July 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>, <185>, <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)

Fall of the American Government in 2010

I am appalled that Andy is letting his students use their full names to enrol for his new course. Also how stoopid is it that the instructor has to enrol?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Four of those five users (that's 95%) have no contributions other than that enrolment page. Just sayin'. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Four of five" is "95%"? Have you taken a Schlafly math class?

And there's at least one user name there I find more than a little suspicious... MDB (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Beardude1963? Does that mean it's a 47 year old large gay man? Also, I'm calling Poe on this user: "I am also a huge supporter of Sarah Palin! GO PALIN!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing creepy at all about letting Beardude1963 play with homeskoolerz... Have my suspicions about Davidkon as well, name says a lot, though kudos to the parodist for putting him/herself down as a Catholic, as it adds the slight divergence from CP orthodoxy just enough to make obvious troll slightly less obvious. -- 12:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how long the topic "the effect of low voter turnout" will take assfly? "Filthy Muslim libruls like Obama get elected!!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he'd have to teach that morons like Dubya get elected (51% in 2000 vs. 63% in 2008). Apart from that, it's no wonder his "special concepts" aren't mentioned in other courses, because almost all of them aren't even distantly relevant to the issue of "government". Röstigraben (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If Davidkon is a parodist, he's going deep-cover. He has only 30 edits in his 9-month existence, hasn't been a dick to anyone, doesn't use any CP memes, and hasn't sucked up to Andy (yet). He also displays a lack of wikiquette, and the only edits he's ever made are on Andy's course pages and talk pages. He probably doesn't know about the "substantive contributions" directive (though he did get a mild bollocking from the assfly in that department) or the 90/10 rule. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Beardude1963 fairly screams "47 year old large-ish furry gay man". I will say that, despite the fact the "B" in "MDB" stands for "Bear", I am not Beardude1963. I wasn't even born in 1963. MDB (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Machismo Devouring Bear??? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. "MD" is the postal abbreviation for Maryland, which is where I live. MDB (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I found it funny that he's teaching "the difference between politics and history, and the similarity between politics and team sports". --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone able to expound on this? "The instructor is Andy Schlafly, who has taught over 15 courses, including one as an adjunct professor at a major law school." "Professor Schlafly"? it's enough to leave Castro spinning in his grave, who would let that man teach in a lawschool? Who (at the level of a grad student) would bother sit through a course by him and not throw an absolute shit fit about it? --Opcn (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would explain his hatred of professors; he tried, he failed, so now he hates everyone who's better than he. But, given Andy's penchant for inflating his accomplishments, "adjunct professor at a major law school" is probably code for "drunken ranting from the back corner of a bar near the local community college".--WJThomas (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if what he describes is something common for law students to do, more along the lines of a TA. So bragging about it would be sort of like playing up that you won a prize on Everyone Wins a Prize Day. --Kels (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's probably correct. But, even considering a best-case-scenario, where some law school hires Andy to teach (shudder), lasting one whole semester is nothing to brag about. Assuming he lasted the whole semester, anyway. "I'm an expert on relationships; I've been married three times." "I'm an explorer and mountaineer; I once climbed 3,000 feet up Mt. Everest." "I'm a chef; I can whip up a mean meal of hot dogs and mac 'n cheese."--WJThomas (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it was at Seton Hall, by the way. ħuman 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Karajou fears what he does not understand

Pretty funny section where Karajou is a dick and has no clue what he's talking about. He then pulls an Andy with non sequitur guilt-by-association bashing of WP for bonus points. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the thread is rapidly becoming classic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, it's almost perfect. TK chimes in with a shot at wiki-lawyers, because of course he's absolutely awful at wiki-lawyering to any positive effect. Please continue. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

God, I hope Andy weighs in on this evil Creative Commons thing we hate. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Karajou has now been victimized^img. Here's the world's smallest creative commons picture of me playing the violin for him: ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to upload pornography to wikipedia; what ever you do, don't search for lemur chimes... *sobs* --Opcn (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Kowardjerk is by far the stupidest CP sysop. TK is the biggest cunt, Ken is on his own planet, Andy and Rob are deluded and have only a small grasp on reality, but Kajamangoogoo is truly thick as mince. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, how is it difficult to understand what CC is? Oh, wait, copyleft. That means it's left wing and therefore communist. How could we be so blind. And yes, I think we are smart enough regarding legality because we've seen Schlafly's track record of lawyering, it sucks. ^bomination 05:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"If I told you this wiki is owned by a lawyer, would you still think you are smart enough about legality?" (Jpatt) Uh, yeah, a lawyer who obviously has no experience whatsoever in intellectual property - otherwise he wouldn't have left huge, confusing holes in the CP copyright policy.
"You have to explain where Wikipedia gets them. They just don't appear out of thin air, do they?" (Karajou) "Silly Brian took a photo. Now it's Silly Brian's photo. Now it's up to Silly Brian to choose who should see the photo, and how." (Copyright Law for Toddlers, Pages 1-3)
"we use a low-res version IAW the Bridgeman v. Corel case under current "fair use" laws" (Karajou) But Bridgeman v. Corel didn't say damn about Fair Use, it only ruled that exact duplicates of PD images are still PD! *facepalm*
"I can find plenty of images in Wikipedia or other wikis in which copyrighted images were actually stolen from owners and posted by the uploaders altered with the wrong attributions." (Karajou) Yeee-eees, but unlike certain wikis, they have actually policies against that sort of things. Copyvios get annihilated in WP once someone, anyone, points them out. If Karajou is so good at spotting them, he should tag them. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Copyright Law for Toddlers, Pages 1-3" I Lolled, as they say. ħuman 08:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

'"I can find plenty of images in Wikipedia or other wikis in which copyrighted images were actually stolen from owners and posted by the uploaders altered with the wrong attributions." Apparently the pot can also call the porcelain black too. --Opcn (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

re The 'fair use' thing, I'm certainly no lawyer (wiki or otherwise), but I thought the whole crux of fair use (and this CP's blatant disregard for it) is that intellectual property can be used for "comment or parody", ie you can legally do side-by-sides etc of copyrighted work, but CP just nicks photos to use as illustrations - that's not good. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Educational use gets a lot of passes, and if it ever came to a serious battle they could also point out the lack of ads. That said, I'd love to see them get a pile of DMCAs for refusing to keep to the licenses - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to watch the footy...

But now Andy's made it personal. I'm going to be tuning in to watch the liberal, atheistic English kick some conservative, christian arse. I'm also looking forward to how the assfly rationalises the inevitable defeat. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We're on a "hiding to nothing". If we win, it was expected. If we lose (or draw) then it's a historic victory for the USA. Schlafly's just capitalising on that: if we win it's because we're atheist liberals who concentrate on footy to the exclusion of decently rabid "Christian" dominionism, if we lose its because liberal atheism saps your strength in the face of "Christian" dominionism. The only hope is a 4:0 drubbing. But really we should just hope for 3 points. It's early doors and you shouldn't peak too early. It is, of course, a marathon not a sprint. We want to avoid the German's in the second round and avoid injuries so we can keep our options open. Given a fair wind we could go all the way this time even though there are no easy games in International Football. What do you think, Motty? Toffeeman (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For. Fucks. Sake. I am trying to avoid the frigging world frigging cup and even Conservapedia's main page mentions it! I may need to revise my plan of locking myself in the lab and staying in the most remote nerdiest corners of the internet until it's over with... Is there any refuge at all? ^bomination 08:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You should think yourself lucky. The world cup spares us from the god awful big brother which is the usual thing you can't escape each summer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Look to the looney environmentalist corners of the net, they really don;t care about sports --Opcn (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because of Andy, I'll cheer for England as well. Should the US advance and meet Germany in the round of 16, you can repay the favour. Though it'd be much more hilarious if they meet an early demise at the hands of those Algerian Muslims. Röstigraben (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Repay the favour? No deal. If USA knock Germany out of the tournament it makes it a (tiny) little bit less likely that we'll go out on penalties in the semi-finals. And, if USA beat Germany, it brings that awesome prospect of USA v Mexico a little nearer. Toffeeman (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how on the WIGO talkpage someone has asked Andy "how does atheism affect England's performance?" Oh noes, he's using real life logic! England should do fine tonight though. If we can't beat America at football, we're totally fucked for the rest of the tournament. SJ ^Debaser 10:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(ud) It may have passed the notice of younger contributors but teh US managed a bit of an upset 60 years ago 82.23.208.15 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to avoid the football too, as usual. But then Andy going on about the England vs US match got me interested, and then I found out North Korea is fielding a team, which was news to me. So I'll probably be watching those too. X Stickman (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the way Andy is sticking to his (largely defensive) guns about the recent Conservative landslide here (even though they're not real conservatives). Cantabrigian (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a footy match on? 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I kinda get that impression. Limies 1, Yanks 0. (Gerrald, 4 mins) CS Miller (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Limies 1, Yanks 1 (Gerrard 4, Dempsey 40) CS Miller (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, already behind in the 4th minute. Where's your god now, USA? --GTac (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What excellent timing! I was thinking, "oh, there's no way I'll catch this on the tellybizon" and there we are! ħuman 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Which team is which? Why aren't they wearing flags? ħuman 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

God has clearly cursed Rob Green's gloves. That'll teach those atheists. X Stickman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

God damn, England's lack of faith made them into idiots! What the hell was that? --GTac (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice how Dempsey, after scoring, looked up to the sky and thanked God? --Maquissar (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Maquissar.. and on England's side... --GTac (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant demotivational! EddyP (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Best laugh I've had all day, especially after this disappointing match! --Sid (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping the question about whether or not god exists would be resolved on the pitch today. Then again, it would've been strange if Steven Gerrard had been the one to finally deliver a conclusive proof. Well, there's still lots of atheists and socialists left in the competition to trip up the only god-fearing nation on earth. Enjoy your gloating time, Andy. Röstigraben (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"God uses His infinite Power to force a 1 - 1 draw in the first match of either team in the world cup" isn't a huge display of anti-atheism from the almighty, however. X Stickman (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He failed to mind the Gap and fell in, is all. He does what He can under the circumstances. --Kels (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob on Political Wire?

I have no idea if this is in the wrong section, already discussed, or not even interesting, but is this Rob as 'nobs77' on these Political Wire comments? - FernoKlump (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "Everything is Obama's fault" is there, but I'm not seeing enough stuff tied to communism, the Weather Underground or Chip Berlet. So not sure. --Kels (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also seeing that Nobs78's writing is a lot more complex and coherent than RobS can muster. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Immature as hell, but I find the idea of anyone using "Nobs" as their username to be highly amusing. X Stickman (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks/reads like our friend to me. He's a bit crazier here because our logo causes him to suffer epilepsy. ħuman 17:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Given my experience with him has been here, CP and that rather embarrassing show at WP, I wonder if it's wikis in general that make him stupic(er than normal). --Kels (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing a wiki is pretty much supporting socialism! Also, his parents were gunned down by wiki developers. Bruce Wayne went down the route of slightly unhinged vigilantism, while Rob contends himself with being a cartoon version of McCarthy. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they weren't really gunned down so much as having a couple of edits reverted. But it still hurt their feeling. --Kels (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Huffington post misunderfail wigo

The MPR story was about how Huffpo his the fact that the reporter prompted the politician to say those words, the huffpo story has the politician saying those words, I'm going to tuck the wigo out of sight (I've misunderfailed in the past too) --Opcn (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying there. The WIGO looks okay to me, but I could be missing something. CP claimed that the article hides the fact that the reporter prompted by introducing the term whack job, but the article prominently mentions this early on. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 22:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy claims the Huffington Post was trying to hide the fact that it was the reporter who first used the term 'whack-job', a term the politician then picked up on for their response. The story makes it clear that the reporter used the term first by quoting the actual exchange. Jammy (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Holds British Petroleum Team to a 1-1 Draw in World Cup Opener!

Apparently the English football team is representing an anglo-american company with 10000 British employees and 20000 American employees. Yay for conservapedia! Raging (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You realise the really strange thing that's going on? The CP party line is actually in agreement with Obama on the whole BP thing. That should be rather worrying for Andy and Co. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 22:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear god maybe Obama won't turn out to be the antichrist :P And I just realized I have no idea where I found those employee numbers but I can't find them now so take them with a grain of salt.Raging (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why ...

... delete this^img? If TK's really on the "Conservative good/Liberal bad" schtick, then it's right on the party line; if^[ha!] he's a parodist working from within to destroy CP then it's another nail in the coffin. Strange 05:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Because now he got your attention. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Its because it makes her out as a racist and doesn't fit into the biased view of CP. If the truth hurts hide it. Quazywabbit (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Assfly and Sources/writing style

Assfly always seems to have an issue with sourcing what he is trying to say or leave it unsourced and if someone says it is wrong then he claims they are a liberal. He seems to add content to articles and then find articles that somewhat match what he is trying to say even if it really doesn't say that. I have tried to figure out what his point of this is. To make others believe in the same [wrong] world view as him and CP? Or maybe he is the first parodist on CP. Quazywabbit (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Errrr....yes, that's kind of the point of our entire webshite. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite Jpatt

Boris Johnson is leader of the Labour party apparently.^img Jammy (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Our relations are at historic lows and we've been repeatedly mocked by Obama before this spill? Funny, I don't remember that. Maybe it's because we don't have Tony Blair trying to hump Bush's leg every time he goes to visit the ranch that means in the last 10 years our relations have decreased. Good job too, Blair was far too much of a lap dog to US politics. I've also seen the full video of the "who's ass to kick" quote, it's hardly anti-British or Obama's own words (the reporter stated that it was time to kick some ass).Aslate (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do they expect British-American relations to get any better if yankees like Jpatt constantly churn out incorrect information and other shite? SJ ^Debaser 10:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That is so trusworthy. Totally unconnected: how is the US Democrat's leader, Sarah Palin, doing nowadays? 12:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

UK media reporting of this thing is driving me mad. They're all saying that Obama blaming the spill on BP (which is, y'know, right) is a direct attack on the UK itself, because BP once in the past was called "British Petroleum" and is still a 100% British company and not a multinational corporation with no particular ties to any one country at all. With headlines such as "OBAMA IS KILLING ALL OUR PENSIONS", "OBAMA'S BOOT ON THE THROAT OF BRITISH PENSIONERS" and demands that the Prime Minister "stand up for his country". Just god damn. Driving me nuts. The spill is BP's fault, whether or not they're a british company, and whether or not actively blaming them has a negative effect on pensions or anything else, blaming them is not a bad thing. X Stickman (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to hear a bit of Brit-bashing on my liberal talk radios on this end. It's quite irritating, and stupid... ħuman 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that it's BP mess, but BP is not a 100% British company. About 38% of the shares are held by US citzens or institutions and 24,000 employees are American compared with 10,000 Brits. It's just that the headquarters are in the UK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, but various media outlets in the UK have equated "blaming BP for the spill" with "launching a direct attack on the UK", which is preposterous. X Stickman (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea of trying to find one country to blame is totally preposterous, as it was a formerly British, but now multinational company, leasing a rig from a Swiss company, said rig operating under a Marshalese flag of convenience, and having been built by a South Korean company. Add into that mix the fact that there does seem to be some question over the diligence of the US Minerals Management Service (though it's more in the way of believing a report submitted by BP that was just plain wrong than anything else, so the bulk of the blame still lies with BP, even if the MMS wasn't all that diligent), plus the fact that Halliburton had been doing cementing of the well shortly before the explosion, and the nitrogen-charged cement they were using might have been a factor in the cause of the explosion, and you get a right mess where it's not really clear who all shares the blame, except that BP gets the lion's share of it. 92.18.67.6 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The "launching a direct attack on the UK" is the insistence on emphasising their name as British Petroleum when it has officially been BP for more than ten years and BeePee is much easier to say; when did you ever hear IBM being called International Business Machines? But the pensions thing is all a bit confused and is played for hysterics by the Express/Mail/Telegraph. First of all BP is a large component of many pension funds but people who have already retired from company schemes usually have annuities paying out their cash and are no longer dependent on the performance of share prices. Of course the staple fare of those right-of-centre, middle-class papers is scaring old people.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Boris Johnson line is still uncorrected after two days - is no one from CP reading this?? Cantabrigian (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Which would be a farther stretch, Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican party or unofficially giving the mayor of London "BoJo" high profile status when all of Labour is without a head? It should read "leading Labour" instead of Labour leader. --193.200.150.152 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

just one pic

While updating Conservapedia:This site is growing rapidly! (a page which needs some work...), I created the following little pic

Pages at CP, RW, CZ, and WP

The number of articles and files correspond well with the statistics at cp:Special:Statistics and Special:Statistics. The overall number of pages are quite off, as in the data for the diagrams redirects were not included.

CP has twice as many pages as RW, and roughly half of them are "content". Our greatest creator of new pages is CapBot. Interestingly, the number of user pages (and user talk pages) are somewhat comparable:

	CP	RW
User pages	2759	3566
User talk pages	6659	5668

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

pages at wp

Is it at all possible to use a bot-thingy to do this once a month to automate the process? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia" (what a ridiculous website name!), you're not fooling anyone here. I have analyzed your page statistics and one in five (95%) of your pages are talk, talk, talk. Godspeed. -- Aschlafly 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages = Jpatt welcoming users who haven't edited yet since the two days they've been registered... or a real sysop warning such users who have edited with more than a sentence. Keklik 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

→ the real deal... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to do the same charts but adding up the page sizes? I think the kb numbers would more accurately show the 'amount' of content/talk going on (you might have to leave the file pages off though...) ^{ONE / TALK} 13:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

page lengths at CP, RW, and CZ

Something like this? Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers for wikipedia: but it's database had a size of 14GB in Jan 2010 (taken from here) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that is interesting.... 11% of CP's pages are talk pages, but by content, talk pages account for 22% of the site. I expected the opposite, given CP's anti-talk policy. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

CP doesn't have an anti-talk policy, just an anti-talk-we-don't-like policy, which isn't the same thing. You can talk talk talk all day long as long as you're sucking up.--WJThomas (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to tell the fly?

Coleman died of a hemorrhage in his brain after a fall. There is no report of alcohol or other drugs. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 19:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The liberal media is covering up the truth, obviously. MDB (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What'chu talkin' 'bout, Javascap? ^bomination 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have my KJV at hand, but I am certain Andy shall quote the relevant verses in his retraction. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Andy's position that he fell in the first place because of Hollywood Values ruining his life. --Kels (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So does Andy think that Professional Athletes are also suffering at the hands of HWV?--Opcn (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but he has claimed that Title IX leads to more athlete injuries. Women!--WJThomas (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we add Rod Hull to the Hollywood values list? He did, after all, fall and die as a result of wanting to watch the liberal media. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which at the time was showing the insignificant, socialistic, atheistic game of soccerball, if memory serves. 80.2.201.212 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [FretfulPorpentine too lazy to sign in]

Why do people laugh at Creationists - Conservapedia edition

Conservapedia gets a mention in Thunderf00ts latest "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists". Aceⁱ⁹ 04:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that. Good video as usual, although it seems to me he is going after the low lying fruit on this particular occasion. On the other hand Nephy was kind of asking for it. --Damo^Hi 08:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing Thunderf00t is holding back; if he really spoke his mind on this matter, Conservapedia would be a smoking hole in the ground. Conservative Machismo is no match for the usual Massive Fact-throwing Pwnage in the previous parts of the series. =) (Also, Celestia is an awesome piece of software and it's good Thunderf00t gave it some publicity.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Superb, as usual from TF. Damo is right, he is going after the dumb fruit, but if creationists (including conservapedia) hold these idiots up as flag-bearers, then when they get so simply and completely annihilated by TF and his "so-called science", it's all the more enjoyable. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well there are no really well informed YECs on Youtube and now that VenomfangX is gone and Geerup has seemingly dropped Youtube, that leaves Ken's boys Nephy and Shock as the defenders of YEC dogma. Especially Nephy with his "challenge" to all "evolutionists" on Youtube (that have sufficient subscribers) to debate him, establishing himself as the VFX but without any of the boyish charm. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, B. Whilst I don't really follow this YT crap any more, whilst PCS may have been an idiot, as least he was a charismatic idiot. Neffy just comes across as very dull, stupid, weirdo. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It'd be funny if Ken/Conservapedia still praises NephilimFree these days. He posted a video not too long ago that has him admitting to living off his friend's disability for years (link), which in itself doesn't seem all that bad from a neutral point of view, but he went around threatening to sue users who also uploaded the video with commentary. Long story short, it backfired on him, his account was suspended (until today, apparently), and lots more lulzy material being made. Resembles the VFX vs. Thunderf00t DMCA claim. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken and discipline

I'm flattered, but it seems Ken has never been to an Oktoberfest. Incidentally, "lounging on their couches eating assorted snacks" is exactly how I picture Ken during his editing marathons. Röstigraben (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oktoberfest: now there's a memory from the 60s. Those were the days. 07:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I never knew that Subsaharan Africa was so well off financially. --Opcn (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I fucking love bratwurst with boiled potatoes and sauerkraut cooked with apple. Shit, I might make that next week. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Stay slim, disciplined and debt-free by embracing the German way of life! Studies have shown this treatment to be 95% more effective than alternative methods. I should pitch this idea to Heidi Klum. Röstigraben (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What does weird Ed Moon think he's doing?

When he does his movie reviews in two sentences? Is he really so stupid that he doesn't realise his articles tell you nothing about the flick in question? I can't believe it's possible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's no nubile young girl in the picture, then what else is there to talk about? Two sentences is too much! --Kels (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just creepy.^img Night Jaguar (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of injury/deficiency/syndrome/disorder/etc. does it take to think it's a good idea to put things like that in an "encyclopedia"? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 20:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't give Ed enough credit and he's one of the few over there who fully realizes that CP never has been and never will be an encyclopedia. DickTurpis (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Hillary Duff a little...old...for Ed?--WJThomas (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh holy shit. I just realized that Hilary Duff was in the news for ... wait for it ... an up skirt picture of her bare ladybits getting posted on the celebrity gossip blogs. Very timely interest, Ed. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone help me out

Is Andy saying that the NRA isn't conservative enough? Or is he just saying that they're not consistent with their conservatism? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 10:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just collateral damage - Andy's still hating McCain for some reason. Compare to this discussion (which was also WIGO'd some time ago) where Andy is accusing Fox News of bias ("FoxNews is favoring McCain over Hayworth by a bias factor of perhaps 10 to 1."). So naturally, anybody who endorses McCain angers True Conservatives like Andy. --Sid (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

they're not consistent with their conservatism...no, they're not consistent with Andy's conservatism, which is the only true Conservatism. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

NRA does the obvious thing, throw it's weight behind the strongest candidate, who is pretty much sympathetic to their agenda anyway and will probably throw "good boy" treats as reward. Politically astute move by the gun nuts. Andy doesn't like that because he believes in the "cause" (whatever bizarre and incoherent form it may take. I don't' think he's going to always have hated Eurasia the NRA though, as they have lots of machismo guns, and Andy likes real American men with big guns, so he'll still idolise them.

It's always really funny when people feign outrage at political groups for playing politics.... I mean, sure the NRA could do what the Unions did in the Lincoln campaign, namely flush millions of dollars of their members money down the toilet, but what good does it do the organization? Especially considering that the AZ race is not nearly as close as that one (I think the last poll I saw had McCain by 12 points). The NRA did exactly what any political group should do. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Assfly is quite against the NRA, whilst he obviously likes them for being mostly-defensive-weapon-of-gun-nuts, he marks them down for not being anti-abortion and supporting RINOs. I thought that they were just a gun club? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"vulgar display of adolescent machismo"

Isn't the American Thinker blog the one that Ken always uses? Under the very professional heading "A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?" written by one "Robin of Berkley", who is well-known for her exhaustive work with the American Shrink Association, had this to say:

Take also Obama's declaring on the "Today Show" that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.

Machismo is vulgar and adolescent?! Clearly Dr. Robin of Berkley doesn't realize that Obama is going after the Latino Lady vote, ole olay. --Leotardo (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) How will

Oleo? --Kels (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I just found this quite funny

[1]^{— Unsigned, by: Jammy / talk / contribs} 18:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he means not substantiated. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always liked how he uses the word "substantive" instead of "substantial", or even "insubstantial". Not that it's wrong, but it's a word that I don't seen thrown around a lot. Is it because it's a legal term and he's trying to finally make use of that law degree? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was a legal term, but (as a shock to the Assfly) the word does tend to be used more often in the UK, probably as a result of politicians using it a lot over here. I mean, I can't ever remember a politician saying that something was a substantial issue instead of a substantive issue.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, when people in the UK know both words they then tend to use the word substantial for the physical and substantive for the metaphysical. e.g. The oil slick in the Gulf is substantial whereas the issues surrounding it are substantive issues.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought there might be a distinction like that. But yeah, in law it's "pertaining to the rules of right which courts are called on to apply, as distinguished from rules of procedure". EDIT: Oops, I meant to say "can be" a legal term up there. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 05:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

National anthem

One of the black american soccer players didn't have his hand on his chest during the national anthem. Does this mean the yanks have a secret muslim on their team? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly... It seems that Christianity isn't working terribly well on the pitch. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't God signed with Italy anyhow? That's what the Pope keeps saying. --Kels (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That must have annoyed him; the current Pope supports the Germans, or at least he did in his youth... ;) Jonno^{Hurl Abuse Here} 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So what happens to Andy's little theory is the USA lose to Algeria? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If such a thing happens, then Andy will surely blame the atheists/gays/liberals. In fact, that's pretty much what happens to Andy's little theory about anything if anything undesirable happens. ScientificRigor (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean, in fairness, as a gay, atheist liberal, I am dosing all the American players with various sedatives in an attempt to subvert God's will that they win. Take that, God!! Quaru (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone's running out of ideas

New Karatoon 05:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The boy is at the cutting edge of eighteenth century satirical cartoons. There's nothing to be done to make this funny, no - nothing at all. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the Spock ears are down to shit drawing more than anything else, but if Kowardjou was a vaguely intelligent man he could exaggerate them. Which would mean, I don't know, something. Webbtje (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Puts me in mind of the cartoons of Joe Clark way back when he was Prime Minister that gave him not only Spock ears, but floppy Spock ears, which was surprisingly effective. But then, that was in the hands of competent satirists. --Kels (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Vulcan ears work for Obama, since he's noted for being rather intellectual and emotionless, plus he's something of a geek (though I have no idea if he's a Star Trek fan or not.) The hammer and sickle halo though... as I've said before, "anyone who thinks Obama is a Marxist wouldn't know a real Marxist if he ran up and bit him on the proletariat." MDB (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for the Statue of Liberty horns and the random hand tools, it's not too bad of a drawing. Except the stripes on the tie and knot should go in opposite directions. And Obama, when smiling large, usually does it with his teeth touching. Don't think I've seen him laugh since 2008, though. ħuman 00:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He laughs in private, as he has telecons with Jeremiah Wright, Kim Jong-Il, Osama bin-Laden, Hugo Chavez and Lex Luthor, gloating over the continued success of his plan to turn America into a socialist Muslim republic.

He also smiles widely after a snack of stem cell tissue from aborted fetuses, but Michelle says that's just gas. MDB (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Eddie Murphy wearing a truck tire as a hat? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

andy and Orwell

Is andy now seriously quoting Geroge Orwell admiringly?

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=787287&oldid=787284

And if so is this the beginning of a Renaissance and will he soon be an avowed Marxist?

I forget what the exact deal is, but Andy long ago claimed Orwell as one of their own as an ex-socialist or something. It's full of stupid. I think part of his plan is to paint all distopian literature as attacking leftist states. DickTurpis (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Andy thinks that Orwell is/was/has always been a conservative and books like 1984 are about, specifically, a liberal (can't remember exactly what unique brand of liberal he decided, though) government. I just assumed that Andy likes Orwell's works and can't bring himself to like a "liberal", so he redefines Orwell's politics to make it easier to like him. X Stickman (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's about the size of it. Andy like = conservative, Andy no like = liberal. Quite a good system really if you see the world in such black and white terms. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A first reading of Animal Farm could be taken as being anti-communist, but its actually against a betrayed communist revolution. Nineteen Eighty-Four is anti-totalitarianism; it doesn't state whether The Party is Communist or Fascist (for want of a better word for ultra-right wing). Down and out in Paris and London and Homage to Catalonia are against unabated capitalism. CS Miller (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Party is Ingsoc, clearly Newspeak for English Socialist Party. The book in the book also specifically mentions this fact, but also notes that The Party long ago abandoned all its socialist ideals in order to achieve complete control. - π 00:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1984 economy is capitalist or semi-capitalist (i.e. planned economy), with all the stores and stuff that appear. They also have three society levels, the proloes, the Outer party and Inner party. The only difference between a normal society and the fictional one is that they produce goods but don't distribute them to the general population - thus making currency good for collecting rare commodoties or practically worthless. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not a capitalist economy, as the means of production were not privately owned, it was very controlled by the Party. There was in fact, as you noted, there was no production. The entire economy was the equivalent of the old army trick of getting soldier to paint rocks, or prisoners to break them up, to occupy surplus man hours, but in this case they were doing it place of useful production. - π 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I eagerly await the Conservapedia Orwell Project - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently read an article on how Camus is claimed by both the French left and the French right as a hero/touchstone; the article began with a discussion of how Orwell has the same sort of legacy in the Anglophone world...P-Foster (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I am no Orwell scholar, nor do I play one on TV), Orwell was a socialist who did not like (to put it mildly) what the revolution became in Russia. Were he alive today, I suspect he'd be one of the people who'd argue that nothing resembling actual Communism has ever been tried. MDB (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." (George Orwell, Why I write, 1946) --Maquissar (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy wrote this lovely pice: Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?. This lovely nugget:

“” It is suspected that he kept his public image in order to retain his influential position as a columnist for its leading publication, the Tribune. Moreover, his support of democratic socialism was based on conservative reasons: he thought it would produce a wealthier society.

Yep, he was a democatic socialist, but for conservative reasons *eye roll*. Oh, and only conservatives want a wealthy society. I'm currently reading Home To Catalonia. Orwell fought for the anarchist side in the Spanish Civil War and spoke well of their egalitarianism. As David mentioned, he really didn't speak well about capitalism. I doubt he would have liked the The Glorious Stalinist Republic of Konservapediya. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

But,... But,... Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative? is back in the Bugler days... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to think of. Yep, Andy claiming a committed socialist as a fellow conservative. Brilliant. Good on you uncovering that one. DickTurpis (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning he uses is pretty revealing (well, it would be revealing if we all didn't already know what he's like). "All the available evidence points to one conclusion, but the actual conclusion is the total opposite because I want it to be. Now listen to my insane rationalisation of this." I'm scared that reading andy might actually break the logic parts of my brain. X Stickman (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Orwell fought for the anarchist side in the Spanish Civil War and spoke well of their egalitarianism. Orwell fought with the militia of the POUM (United Marxist Workers' Party). POUM weren't anarchist, not Trotskyist, but a rather wooly blend of left-Socialism, a bit like the ILP with whose contingent Orwell travelled to Spain. Thje Trotskyists scorned POUM as being 'centrist', which, in Trot-speak, meant wavering in an unprincipled manner between reformist and revolutionary tactics. 80.2.201.212 (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) [FretfulPorpentine too lazy to sign in]

Yes, you're right. I was careless there. In my defense, POUM was allied with the anarchist CNT, Orwell did fight on the anarchist-POUM side during the Barcelona May Days and later wrote: "As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." So, at least it's not like I was turning him into a conservative. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I get why Andy likes Orwell now. He took 1984 as the instruction manual for Conservapedia. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice bit of parody inserted by Bugler in there, which says that Orwell was a conservative because he was a patriot. 1. I wasn't aware that Orwell was especially patriotic, more of a romantic who appreciated some (but by no means all) traditional values of English society. 2. Andy has clearly not noticed that the "patriotic implies conservative" stuff is pure donkey poo from Bugler's pen. (I heard Denis Healey on the radio a few months ago, speaking very movingly about his experience of being the beach-master at the Battle of Anzio - to mention just one of millions of patriotic non-conservatives.) What a git (Schlafly, not Healey). The Real James Brown (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Active Editors

I want to reform the tables for Conservapedia:Active users and RationalWiki:Active users: at the moment, these table show the 150 editors who made the most comments. Therefore, the table for CP includes now 117 who haven't edited for at least three months (RW: 59).

I'm thinking of changing this to the top 100 (or even top 50) editors who were the most active over the last three months - which would result in something like this.

But I have always stressed the fact that we should use these pages to commemorate those who added to the sites considerably in the past, but aren't doing so any longer: For those, I'd introduce new tables for the notable absentees, including the top 25 (or top 50) editors with the most overall edits who haven't posted for at least three months. These tables could include some additional data (have a look here and here).

And of course, there will be pics...

Absentees at RW

Absentees at CP

the bars show the period between the first edit and the last edit of a user which are still in the database. The colors indicate the number of edits per day, from black (no edits) over red to yellow and white (more than 1000 edits a day (bots can do this - human(s) perhaps, too)). On the left hand, you find the name of the editor (red: blocked, gray: bot, bold: special group), on the right the number of edits)

I would like to have some input - the reaction to my proposals on Conservapedia talk:Active users was rather inexistent.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very clear and easy to understand. The bottom axis is a bit ambiguous, however. ^bomination 11:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. I like how Bugler and DanH are the only users without a single black bar... ^{ONE / TALK} 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One correction. AlanE was indeed blocked after his Parthian. Junggai (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

He is was blocked, but only for a year. Time flew by :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I commented on the image talk page, MP at CP shows that I have 1992 edits (used to be over 3000), so why aren't I on the pretty picture? ħuman 18:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit count of my preferences is notoriously unreliable, especially when it comes to deleted edits. According to my count, only ≈ 1330 of your edits are left in the database, which makes you no. 44 in the list of the notably absent - and no. 68 of all users. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the history of Edits of Template:Cpau. Since Nov 2008, I'm updating this somewhat regularly, using the edits left in the database of Conservapedia. Here are the edits ofcp:User:human to be found at CP at the end of a month:

2008			2009												2010
O	N	D	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D	J	F	M	A	M
1434	1636	1647	NA	1619	1605	1605	1393	1394	1394	1385	1381	1381	NA	NA	1381	1381	1381	1332	1332

So, the main drop in human edits happened in May 2009: in fact, our friend TK deleted human's user page and his talk page on May 9, 2009. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fascinating. Can you go back through all of 2007 too? Anyway, you also see an addition of 202 edits in Nov 2008 - that's when someone restored my talk (Bohdan?) as I was briefly unblocked. Btw, as far as I recall, I once had over 3000 (MP #) edits. ħuman 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Andy's dumbest insight?

I have started a debate page on this pressing issue. Hopefully the debate will bring forth some insights. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty sweet piece of work! --GTac (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful. All the most idiotic idiocy on one easily accessible page. Good work 1. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Professor of the Day

Love it^img. Shame that the quote of what he said are words that didn't actually come out of his mouth (he was third author of the book they're taken from, and even then they're taken rabidly out of context), but can't quibble over these little details.

But - "of the Day". Does this mean it will only stay up one day? Will there be a parade of Liberal professors updated daily? Hrm. My money is on this daily feature not lasting very long. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Ken's waves of glory. ħuman 18:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I give it like two weeks before the entire homepage is just one large crashing wave. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 18:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is like Andy's "picture you won't see in the mainstream media of the day" or what ever it was called, it only lasted as a one off. The man just does not have the attention span to maintain this, he doesn't trust others to edit it so he can't have a template for this purpose, and he never sets up a suggestion system for others to contribute ideas. - π 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal Professor of the Day", I swear the stuff they come up with, if I didn't know better I would say the site is mocking itself. You're all right though, it won't last long. However I do expect Ken to use this opportunity to place Dawkins as the next "Liberal Professor of the Day", and if we are really lucky, maybe we will get P.Z. Myers too. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins as liberal professor of the day?!?! Methinks not!!! MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 12:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he's just doing it in hope of distracting people from Ken's waves. Once it gets hijacked or tedious, he'll probably just give up and replace everything with the usual "open your mind" piece. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins can't be liberal professor of the day. He was never a professor, according to Aschlafly. Bondurant (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

gone!^img 16:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it was actually his ongoing "random thing of the once-in-a-while" all along. I stand by my claim that he's just doing it to hide Ken, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

cumulative voting Stephen Robinson

The funny thing about this is that Stephen Robinson was appointed by George W Bush in 2003. Quazywabbit (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not nearly as funny as those comments on Yahoo! And to think that we thought some of the biggest idiots on the internet were Conservapedia's sysops; some of them are down right intelligent by comparison. - π 00:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The world is fully of nutcases. CP doesn't have a monopoly on them but it does have a monopoly on sysops that will ban someone that they disagree with and then burn the evidence of them ever being a member. Quazywabbit (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how can we get all these morons to join CP and bring it back to life? CP is crazy, to be sure, but it seems to me that a lot of these teabagging types would feel right at home there if it got a bit of exposure. TK can't be banning all of them. We need to get Andy as a guest on Glenn Beck or something where he can find an audience who'll actually agree with him. --Benod (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The talk pages are full of people explaining the issues with articles. CP needs to do a mass burn of all the talk pages so that new people won't see this and think "Wow, so if I don't agree with one of the sysops I get banned for 5 years by TK". Other than that I think having Andy on Glenn Beck would bring in all of the crazies and I am all for it. Quazywabbit (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading any comment section on yahoo can cause massive depression. People have worse reading comprehension and dumber opinions than Andy. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed some commentators can actually turn on a PC in the first place - how they manage to connect to the Internet and leave comments on message boards is beyond me!

In order to maintain my sanity, I assumed long ago that 99.9999% of posters on yahoo news articles are trolls and/or 9 year olds spouting their parents views without any thought for the subtleties behind them. X Stickman (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What does atheism and interfaith service projects have in common?

The latest great question on the Conservapedia mainpage^img. Is there any non sequitur that they don't attempt to link to their favorite boogeyman, Atheism? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That pi approximation again...

I always thought that people complaining that $\pi =3$ in the Bible were kind of nitpicking; in the original context of the text (2 Chronicles 4:2), it probably was close enough for the purpose of the explanation - a "popular science" type thing. "The Bible is wrong because this passage implies that $\pi =3$" is kind of silly because it wasn't intended to demonstrate mathematics; it was intended to demonstrate that a guy made a friggin' bowl. But also consequently, it's very silly to say it demonstrates "Biblical scientific foreknowledge". Crude measurements are hardly showing the kind of superior scientific insight people need in their lives. (...I can't believe I just typed that.)

This bit just got me interested recently because I'm currently writing a fantasy story which involves artillery calculations (yes, before you ask, the subtitle of the story is largely defensive), and damn near had a brain cramp when I pulled out the Wikipedia article, what with all the sin()/cos()/tan() and square roots that were flying around and thinking the characters in the story would need to do all that in their head, too. The characters end up doing crude approximations when the idea is to cause explosions. Yeah, getting this mathematical stuff precise was real fun before ENIAC. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I always took the $\pi =3$ complaint to be an argument against Biblical literalism and the idea that the Bible was written by God. If the Bible were literaly true then it would be saying that $\pi =3$. Also, you'd think the creator of the universe can do a much better than a 1 sig. fig. approximation. Hell, even Ahmes, who lived more than a millenium before Chronicles was written, got a better approximation: ~ 3.16049. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no world before ENIAC, the resolution was too poor to render the universe called "Real", and there wasn't enough CPU time to dedicate to character movements/interactions. Teh eb1l Mikr0$oft just made it up because Bill Gates resents some Brit geeks beating him to it. -- 10:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're doing your story wrong. People don't do these calculations, they use fire control computers. Watch them all, they're all kinds of awesome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, can someone a bit more mathy than me have a look at the link I posted here which claims the bible calculations do actually work out as Pi = 3.14? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

yer characters simply need a slide rule. Hamster (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the maths does seem to work out if you assume outer diameter , inner circumference and a wall thickness. It seems a very clumsy way for GOD to have told the story. "They made a circular bowl 10 cubits across and with walls a handspan thick" how hard is that ? It would have been much easier to have measured the outside circumference and the inner diameter . Hamster (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd take that except my hand doesn't span that much. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on what Hamster said above, slide rules are what people actually used for artillery calculations before fire control computers. The heavy math is done by the people who make the slide rule, and people in the field adjust the slide rule to represent the parameters at hand to get a firing solution.96.60.50.30 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think Andy's defense (well, they got the first digit) is especially ironic given his lamenting about partial credit.--Danielfolsom (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I say: Teach the Controversy-Pi=3! Jimaginator (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I say: Teach the Controversy-Pi=3.0! (unless the language used to write that part of the Bible has no way of expressing 31 or 32) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And I say there should be no controversy! Pi = 4! (I worked this out mathematically whilst drunk and half asleep once. Needless to say it's gospel.) DickTurpis (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Years ago, I had this conversation with a co-worker, and it goes a long way to explain how my mind works:

Co-worker: Pick a number between one and ten and don't tell me what it is.

Me: Okay.

Co-worker: Add three to it.

Me: Gotcha.

Co-worker: Multiply it times three.

Me: Okay.

Co-worker: Now, add all the digits together.

Me (laughing): That's going to take a while, because the number I picked was "pi".

Co-worker: Pick an integer!

MDB (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are a sad, pathetic nerd.^{and thanks for sharing that, I can't wait until someone asks me the same thing!} DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a nerd. I am a geek. The difference (by my definition, at least) is that nerds to do not realize they are nerds. Geeks realize they are geeks, and are often proud of it. MDB (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

[2] Random surfer (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

xkcd has it's definition and I have mine. QED. (I will also admit that I groaned inwardly when I first read that one.) MDB (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry MDB, maybe "nerd" was a little harsh. After reviewing the literature, I have arrived at the conclusion that a nerd is someone a geek thinks is a geek. Therefore I think you are a nerd. Nerd. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how's this. I am not a virgin. Therefore, I am not a nerd. MDB (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy (part umpty)

TK isn't going to let his ignorance of atheist Britain's House of Windsor^img get in the way of his ongoing trolling of CP. --PsyGremlinTal! 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd. The Queen has no surname. If she did, I guess it'd be Windsor over Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, but she don't. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the last name issue can be a bit odd. When it's legally necessary for her to have a last name (e.g., on certain documents), it's usually Mountbatten-Windsor, combining the name of her house with her husband's adopted last name. There are some examples where it is listed as simply Windsor, but it's really not the same as having an actual last name. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And, for example, Prince Harry puts his name as "Harry Wales" - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They really don't understand our ways, poor things. There was Ken'n'Andy insistence that our ex-PM was actually Margaret Roberts-Thatcher. And despite the best efforts of the last UK Gubmint it is still perfectly legal to call yourself what ever you damned well please here, so Brenda is simply Elizabeth. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you said "Brenda". ħuman 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BON will be a Private Eye reader. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What Do ObamaCare, Atheism and the U.K.'s National Health Have In Common?

Hlep eme undurstand! I get that NHS allegedly refused to treat the guy, but what do the other things on the list have to do him? Oh, I get it. I just got trolled by TrollK. Carry on. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

. - π 01:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that they're citing the Daily Fail, so it's unlikely to be very true. Also, don't forget that if he had the money, he could have gone private very easily - as most cosmetic procedures are, you have to be mentally affected to get it on the NHS, and sometimes people who are do slip through that check. Under any other system he'd obviously not be able to afford any treatment anyway so would have jumped too. ^bomination 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So, err, reading The Fail's story, they have one line that Schlafly is referring to, it says "which he claimed health services refused to treat". Okay. Somewhat special. ^bomination 13:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the story, he was being treated ineffectively with skin creams by his doc. If it was effecting his throat, he needed something stronger. There's no mention of him actually getting denied care by the NIH. It's just another example of Andy using a tragedy to advance his political agenda. Of course, if he was in the US, the fact that he was unemployed meant that he probably wouldn't be able to see a doctor at all unless he was on Medicaid. Corry (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is horrible. How dare we give medical treatment to the unemployed! Damn socialists. Let anyone unable to get a job with health insurance to die in the street! Let 'em all die!! If they had a better job, they'd be worth surviving. Oh, and if you support abortion, you're a MURDERER!!! Quaru (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Waves

Haha, I actually almost pissed myself laughing when I saw this^img. KlassicKenny!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the whole "Waves" section, not just making the image larger. Kenny makes it very hard to get a full diff with his clusterfuck editing style. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a wave that's more like Kenny's Krap. 18:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that picture is awesome. Tragic, but awesome. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It makes me mad. When there's money involved, everyone forgets right and wrong. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No Susan, that wave will actually do some damage, Ken's waves are imaginary. --Opcn (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, both of you. If you collect the fluids of the wave, at least there is hope of fixing it (separating the oil from water). with Ken's words, you cannot separate content (because there is none?) from the rest of his words. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, after Ken destroyed atheism on the internet with Nephilim Free, Operation Grassroots and Flying Fortresses needs a new target. Corry (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not wigo-worthy, part umpty-one

CP In the News^img item says, "Nevada Leads the Nation in Unemployment Rate -- Harry Reid Is Toast. Nevada's new rate of 14% surpasses Michigan, which had held the number one spot until this week, when its unemployment rate dipped to around 13.5 percent."

CP's source does not mention Harry Reid. MDB (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Harry Reid =/= Toast. Toast = toast; SusanG = Toast. Harry Reid =/= Toast. 11:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

Harry Reid =/= SusanG. QED. MDB (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mmm... Warm, buttery toast... SJ ^Debaser 12:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

D'awww, for some reason Toast's equations strike a chord in me to emphasize how cute it is. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

At MDB, it's common knowledge that Harry Reid is running for reelection to his Nevada Senate seat this fall. ħuman 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BHO lacks ma-cheese-mo

Indeed, that big girly girl-man. He needs moar ma-cheese-mo, like great conservative politicians such as Ronald Reagan, or Maggie Thatcher. SJ ^Debaser 12:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama could enter a bull ring, naked, slay six bulls dosed with methamphetamines and PCP using nothing more than a withering look, feast on raw steak he tore directly off of their carcasses, then satisfy Michelle right there in bloody dirt, and CP would still insist he lacks machismo. MDB (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The fun part is that Ken's source basically says that, yet he used it anyway to plug his machismo bit. Even the comments agree he's off topic. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how he used the word Meme, while at the same time decrying Dawkins supposed impotence, ignoring of course that Dawkins coined the word. --Opcn (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PCP is a tranquilizer. ħuman 00:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who knows that obviously lacks machismo. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop nicking our words, Schlafly!

Waterloo!^img A conservative word! Because "... there has never been a "waterloo" for Christianity or conservatism.". Fuggin iriot! 15:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(BTW it wasn't "the English" on their tods either, Asshole. 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC) )

Who expects Schlafly to share credit with the Dutch and bunch of German states that no longer exist when he can't even get the "the English" right. On a completely unrelated note, someone please link to Schlafly insisting Prussia is a former name of Germany. That shit's like crystal meth. You never get tired of it until your brain falls out, which you don't notice anyway. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 17:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There may never have been a Waterloo for Christianity but Andy seems to suffer similar resounding defeats regularly, shame he never notices. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I say let him have 'Waterloo' and that from now on whenever we want to say 'final defeat' we'll use the term 'Lenski affair'. Also, Prussia vs. Germany. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this guy have machismo?

I'm quite amazed that they've tried to defend^img the actions of that police officer. Jammy (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well both girls resisted and said "fuck" a few times. In the eyes of the typical right-winger that allows the cop to shoot them on the spot. Anyone denying that is obviously soft on crime. — Pietrow ☏ 19:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The real funny thing to me is that if this person had any probably connection to conservatism or the tea party, the right wing headline would be "Obama's SS attacking innocent civilians in the street." SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 20:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

They're not alone. Even The Root is defending the cop's actions. Junggai (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but when I see the full tape, including what NBC 'tried to hide', according to CP, I see a cop trying to arrest someone, her friend interfering and the cop losing his cool and punching her in the face. If the cop is incapable of keeping a cool head in a stressful situation, which this tape seems to indicate is the case, he's in the wrong line of work. And I'm not even getting into whether the original person he stopped actually deserved to be arrested, considering the original 'crime' was jaywalking. 92.19.0.91 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

People who don't live in minority-dominated parts of big cities think the statement "almost all cops are racist" is a generalization. Perhaps, but it's absolutely true. No white girl would have been arrested for jaywalking, and no cop is going to punch a white girl in the face. 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I second the issue of arresting someone for fucking jaywalking. Hell isn't that like a $20 ticket? Certainly far less of a crime than, oh, say, hauling off and punching a stranger in the face? I'd like to see the couple minutes before that clip. ħuman 01:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't watched any more than the Lauer clip, but I don't think she was being arrested, just ticketed, which apparently she balked at, to say the least. Hell, I would have too, but apparently Seattle is one of those few cities that regularly tickets jaywalkers. I've been there plenty of times and I've certainly seen people standing on the curb waiting for the light when the roads were quite empty. And yes, apparently even white people are ticketed for it. My sister lives there and has warned me about my persistent jaywalking, so I'll ask her what she knows about enforcement. DickTurpis (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The 17 year old girl had machismo! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 04:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft letter to Douglas Moo (Bump)

No action for a couple of days. Reckon he's chickened out? 17:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Naw he just had impotent edits he had to make to Federalist Papers. Today RR edited the letter, presumably to add that Moo quote Andy was drooling over. ħuman 01:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

With the Tone of the letter I don't expect a reply or if there is a reply it won't be well liked by Andy. He has already been warned about the tone of the letter in the talk page. It looks to be another failed letter like Lenski and PNAS. Quazywabbit (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what to make of this

Essay: Gallery of liberal pantywaists^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PZ Myers lacks Machismo! Who wants to bring that to his blog? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the image. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how he included John Keynes. Dead (sorta) liberals are totally lacking in Machismo. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 20:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow,Ken put a picture of Stalin in CP's article on PZ Myers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So... Peter Moore is Ken's real name? 00:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, but it's one of his pseudonyms. I like how he writes: "PZ Myers has yet to offer any scholarly works concerning the murderous atheist regimes". Yes, why isn't this biologist writing scholarly work on history? --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there was a user at the time called Tom Moore, he often borrows other users name, he also went with name David Jensen for a while. If you read through the ZB files you will find Ken talking about passive-aggressive attacks to get bloggers to link to your website to increase Google rankings. He trolled the shit out of PZ Myer's for two days until he got banned and links to CP blocked as a response to this fairly transparent tactic. - π 01:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken's unreciprocated shout-outs on Andy's talk page are a wee bit tragic, but his post on the talk page of that article would suggest that he's now trying to get his own attention. That is all kinds of wrong. I think I'm just about done with CP watching. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 02:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Great idea ken! This image will surely give you and CP much needed credibilty Machismo! Aceⁱ⁹ 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think CR is right. Ken is now such a pathetic figure that the only pleasure he gets is being laughed at by Rationalwikians. Somehow he thinks this creates a ripple in his Canute-like campaign to hold back the tide atheism/evolution/homosexuality (Insert silly picture to ram home mixed metaphor, here.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said it about 100 times before, but Ken's so pathetic I just feel so bad for him. As for adding a picture of Stalin to PZ's CP page, it seems like he's relying on people to see the picture and go "ZOMG!!!@@$1121!!! PZ MEYERS IS STALIN!!!" and not bothering to read the caption underneath which clearly states that PZ has absolutely nothing to do with them. SJ ^Debaser 11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious question: is it okay to laugh at retards? DickTurpis (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No! But we're laughing at CP hosting a retard as much as at the retard himself. I do feel guilty occasionally at the way we mock Ken, who is undoubtedly a monk short of a monastery, but it's CP who tolerate the iriot. (is it prescribed therapy do you suppose?) 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

He's got some weird choices on there. JFK and Carter were both military men. Castro? Led and won a frigging revolution. Is John Kerry on the list yet? I like how Obama isn't listed under the "Americans" header, though, that's a subtle one there! ħuman 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, i was wondering what was a pantywaist , no article yet on CP. I went fishing with some dead/socialist presidents (I didn't dare to put Lincoln). I guess anything lefty/democrat/scientist can go on that list...

To Andy: please let him put it on the main page^img. It'll fit in so well and won't make the "encyclopedia" look any worse. Honest it won't. Much. 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So are there any genuine editors left?

I know, I know--we don't out parody. How about NON-parody? Are there any editors left (outside of Andy and maybe Ken) who seem to be sincere--misguided, perhaps demented, but sincere? I'm really wondering at this point. --Phentari (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point it : Job done, Rationalwiki. CP's credibility can't get lower. There not much you can do more there. the trainwreck is rusting. Your debunking mandate is fulfilled with honor, machismo and lollity.

A question: are there any real kids 'studying' there left?

Looks like there are, but we'll see what the indoctrination curriculum looks like this fall. – Nick Heer 04:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of RC is given over to Andy reverting a whole bunch of stuff, Karajou blocking people, JonB writing about Swedish people (he's DOOMED... Swedes are all filthy libruls), oh and Andy bizarrely offering a certificate of completion^img for those who tackle resident parodist JacobB's calculus. Like that will carry any weight outside Andyland. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jacob and Douglas

When are you two going to come out? You're both bored with CP, as shown by the lack of editing. EddyP (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of editing is the default state for CP admins. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought Jacob's recent movie-related edit was SUPERB! 72.224.42.45 (talk)

Bored of CP is the default state for CP admins too isn't it? --Opcn (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There's too little going on that's of any interest. Almost no one is editing, so my edits have tapered off. Signed, Jacob and/or Douglas. 00:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, it was not to be.

I am working away at the moment, and as such I like to take the oportunity bestowed upon me by virtue of a fresh IP address to sign-up a new CP account and contribute to the Assfly's fine blog. However, my customer's ^{company name blanked out lest they face a "Do ______ lack machismo" Kenning} IT deptartment don't seem to be fans of conservapedia.

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm actually extremely annoyed that anywhere considers "controversial opinions" a reason to censor something. X Stickman (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is a workplace. --Kels (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't block a website because of 'controversial opinions'. EddyP (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely you can. Don't get confused now, this isn't an ISP blocking a site, it's a workplace. killjews.com probably isn't workplace appropriate, either. What's more, unless you're a reporter or something, it's hard to imagine a job where looking at Conservapedia would be at all productive. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I worked at a place where greenpeace.org was blocked, but ESPN and all those sport sites were ok... As long as we read dumb shit, it was ok to our boss. Ok,conservapedia is dumb shit but funny dumb shit

It is possible that they were being generous to CP when they said it displayed "Controversial Opinions", perhaps what they meant was "fucking tragedy". --Opcn (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to ______, I was on a work computer earlier; I am now on a recreation one (with an extremely slow connection), and I can access CP - but account creation is turned off at the moment. Andy, switch it on, I want to contribute! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@kels, I get that a workplace would block sites that the management don't want workers wasting time on (like web-based MSN things, facebook, somethingawful and so on), it's just the reason given that annoys me. p.s. I have no fucking idea how I'm supposed to structure replies and such in talk pages. The colons confuse me! X Stickman (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The might have had one of TK's little "someone from your IP address has been nasty to us" emails & blocked in retaliation. 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

More likely, it's a catch-all bin for stuff that doesn't fall into the porn, games, or Facebook categories, but is a little more politely worded than "Fundie sites that might as well be done by batshit loonies but I repeat myself". --Kels (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

New Course

Andy confidently steps over the mouldering corpse of the still-born Creative Writing course to announce that soon he'll hold the world record the biggest class evah in his "cutting edge, up-to-the-minute American Government"^img course. Which can be summed up by saying "Everything Obama does = the devil's work, compared to Saint Ronnie's many miracles. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no way this is real. No way!

We all know CP doesn't keep itself away from gossip (as long as it's suiting to their ideas), despite their commandment. I find this last news post of Conservative's just hilarious:^[3]

It appears as if Obama isn't doing any better than the weak and cowardly liberal Richard Dawkins on the manly front.

It sounds like it was taken directly out of The Sun. =)) I just can't believe these guys are serious any longer talking about how manly people are on the front page, asking why PZ Meyers hasn't published any papers about Stalin yet, etc., etc. There's NO WAY they're for good. I'm starting to think Andy's the only one left who actually wants to help CP. - diego_pmc 17:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy keeps Ken around because he usually bans the right people and is the only person who ever reads their Google-listed "flagship" articles. It's similar to help. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken was made sysop in the first place, as I recall, because someone (Andy?) locked the Evolution article due to too many people trying to insert science into it, and he needed to be able to edit it. Of course, he ended up owning it and acting like Lord of the Manor (in this case similar to King of the Shoebox) in short order. --Kels (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, loved that outcome. CPanel takes forever to decide how the Evolution article should be like, and Ken just bulldozes over everything and sysops ignore his actions to this day. MERITOCRACY! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we knew that would be how it would go from the start anyway. The moment Andy announced the issue of whether the Evolution article would be changed to include actual science would be dealt with through a total sham by an anonymous team of students (read: Andy and nobody else), there was a collective sigh, rolling of eyes, etc. And then everything Ken did was under cover of "the CPanel said it was okay", despite utterly ignoring its decision. --Kels (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Crat & Sysop trees

Human started it!

Crats at CP	Crats at RW	Crats at WP
Sysops at CP	Sysops at RW	Sysops at WP

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Superb. These should be put on their own page & linked from our articles on CP, RW & WP, not just left here to the archives. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Weird, I thought I'd been sysopped right from when RW 2.0 was started. Guess there was a delay or something. --Kels (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mind = blown. The sysop trees strike me as those pictures of black blotches psychs use to test your mental health. CP's looks like a retarded frog with a third leg, RW's looks like a planet being formed, and Wikipedia... looks.... like....... a virus taking over everything. :3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone mind telling the crowd who is PhillipB? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember him. Seems to have been one of the "students" though. CP Panel member? 22:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

PhilipB=CPWebmaster=Conservapeedia Webmaster. He is the guy that actually does the maintenance work on the server. - π 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought he got fed up and quit...--Opcn (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Most edited articles at RW and CP

RW

CP

At CP, the deletion and recreation of pages plays havoc with these stats, and for the deleted articles, I can't find the titles anymore (that's why 91356 occurs in the list of articles: it's just a page-id)

Enjoy Brasilia - Côte d'Ivoire! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Conclusive proof that Human is Trent's dictatorial figurehead. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What are the highest rated non-chitchat articles at RW? CP got a few mainspace "articles" on theirs. --Benod (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Special:MostRevisions shows Expelled:Leader's Guide ‎(1,012 revisions), Andrew Schlafly ‎(977 revisions), Main Page ‎(970 revisions), Andrew Layton Schlafly ‎(945 revisions), Conservapedia ‎(920 revisions), UK General Election, 2010/Election night special ‎(669 revisions), Fred Phelps ‎(663 revisions), Felidae ‎(607 revisions), Poe's Law ‎(509 revisions) and Goat ‎(502 revisions). --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Any way we might figure out what that article 91356 was? 20:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins. mb 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thunkful and editing

So I am not sure if anyone else has noticed the user Thunkful (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Thunkful) but he has been editing articles for a little bit on CP, and has started to ask questions about why things aren't referenced in articles and even disagreeing with there whole bible project since they aren't actually translating it but instead giving it there own POV (obvious to most). I sense there will be a disagreement and in the end Thunkful being called a liberal and to open his mind. Here are the talk pages to view the comments so far.

http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Thunkful
http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:JacobB

Quazywabbit (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw him: Greek scholar disagreeing with (was it?) Mark 14 or something. 19:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Powerful. Conservative. Terms. Better. Convey. The. Meaning. Of. The. Bibble. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Various parts of Mark and I think Mark 14 is one of them. I didn't think he would last when I noticed he was asking too many questions and now he is disagreeing with Assfly. I give him another week and then he will be banned for disagreeing and being too liberal for them. Quazywabbit (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha, Jacob chastised him for Kenning. ħuman 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

From QW's keyboard directly to TK's... ħuman 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(unident) And the saga comes to an end and Jacob burns the evidence. And I really wanted it to go on for another week.

1. 22:52, 19 June 2010 JacobB (Talk | contribs) blocked Thunkful (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling)
2. (Deletion log); 22:52 . . JacobB (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Thunkful"
3. (Deletion log); 22:56 . . JacobB (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Gospel of Mark (Translated)" (deleting to re-create)

Quazywabbit (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work ending a potentially productive troll's career there, QW. ħuman 03:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the suggestion that QuazyWabbit (or others who do similar things) has harmed anything by revealing, or speculating on, the actions of "Thunkful". We are directed "not [to] expose parody or unnoticed cp vandalism", but no comment about contemporary edits can possibly be construed as "exposing" or referring to "unnoticed" events. The only unnoticed parody or vandalism is from long ago. (And there's plenty of it that I, for one, am keeping secret.) But these days, every edit is scrutinized carefully by goons sysops.

Virtually all contemporary edits, other than stupid vandalism or the blatherings of Ken and Rob, is either an attempt to talk sense or is transparent sycophancy or just jerking people around. No one is serious any more. 140 account creations have occurred since Thunkful. Almost all of them were plain vandals or people who came to argue. A few are IMHO transparent sycophants signing up for Andy's "educational courses". Almost all have been blocked. The others have been warned or had their comments replied to by sysops. Nothing passes under Andy's/Jacob's/Terry's/Brian's radar. Except common sense. Gauss (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cripes, I was only joking, my dear. You think I really care about who edits on CP? ħuman 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Thunkful was a parodist: he'd have chosen a more CP friendly name, for starters. He read genuine to me - but Poe's law - who knows? 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I resemble that, Gauss. I signed up for an upcoming Andy "course" and I'm not a transparent sycophant. Quite the opposite. I have not one shred of respect for the man nor will I pretend. Let's see how long I last. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 20:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "nothing" passes under their radar, Gauss. I saw some gems a couple of weeks ago. Junggai (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! You have a sharper eye than I do. Gauss (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Are Thunkful and Editing reuniting? Brian Thunkful and David Editing were truly one of the best comic duos of the 1970s. DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Huge waves of pro-life activity!

Oh my God! Conservapedia has just LEARNED that HUGE waves of pro-life activity MAY be forming on the Internet! This is epochal! Momentous! Prodigious! And just look at that picture of a huge wave, which may very well be heading towards all anti-life activists on the planet to wipe them out forever! Let's analyze the language a bit:

LEARNED

What Conservapedia wants it to mean : "We have a highly reliable inside source for this information, but it's too early to divulge it at the moment."

What it actually means : "I just pulled it out of my ass because it sounds nice."

MAY BE FORMING / COULD ROLL ACROSS THE INTERNET

What Conservapedia wants it to mean : "It's almost sure, like 96.4% sure, which is even higher than mathematical certainty!"

What it actually means : "Well, technically they COULD be forming, couldn't they? If you can't accept the possibility that they may be forming, open your mind."

PLEASE STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

What Conservapedia wants it to mean : "This is gonna be so HUGE! Just wait and see! By the way, have you seen the picture of those HUGE waves yet?"

What it actually means : "Please, keep visiting Conservapedia! We need it for our internet traffic stats!"

IN ADDITION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO GET INVOLVED IN THE CONSERVAPEDIA ANTI-ABORTION PROJECT

What Conservapedia wants it to mean : "You don't want to be found on the wrong side when those HUGE waves come crashing down on all anti-lifers, do you?"

What it actually means : "Ok, I put this sham of a feature article on the front page just to get one or two guys to join my pet project. Please?"

--Maquissar (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There, fixed the formatting for ya. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep it in mind for next time, I couldn't figure it out :) --Maquissar (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"ACROSS THE INTERNET" - Someone will make an insignificant post somewhere on a low-traffic website,  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheetah

Lol, only just spotted this^img. Kenny has officially lost it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why none^img of^img the^img previous^img ones^img has graphs and pictures. And perhaps one of our technically savvied crew can send him a script/bot to update these things daily and auto archive them. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that explains it

I couldn't figure out why my irony meter was acting up, so I started looking through CP talk pages when I discovered this hunk of shit from Karajou. basically he's getting on a user for copypasting articles, and he actually wrote this sentence "You cannot have so much as one sentence in an article that was copied from it's source and claim it as your own." Karajou, if I may direct your attention to exhibits A through Z. You have a lot of deleting to do. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't some other policy reduces the count of deletion to Karajou's own piracyfests, which he never admit any wrongdoings? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Scraping the barrel

I see Karajerk is stuck in his "everything the Dems do is wrong" rut again. I love how the oil spill is the Dem's fault (Drill, baby, drill!), and I'm not sure what "The Gre Depress" is. Lol... and somehow the Branch davidians are the Dem's fault? Not to mention he just copy/pasted (but then he's so good at that!) his old cartoon on the new one. And is "screwing" a suitable word on the front page of a family friendly blog? Bonus points to him for highlighting Kosovo, whilst ignoring Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia... --PsyGremlinParla! 10:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Screwing maybe a family-friendly word -> "Start by screwing this piece into that piece", perhaps? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Weren't the biggest falls of The Great Depression during Herbert Hoover's watch, and the recovery during FDRs? and excuse this ignorant limey, but IIRC, Hover was a Republican and FDR a Democrat? CS Miller (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah but don't forget, it was FDR's fault that it went on so long (well according to Rob and his New Ordeal crap). Actually, I wonder how many financial crises have arisen during a Rep term. Savings & Loan, Credit crunch are two that come to mind. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Civil War? WTF?? 13:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The slavery-supporting Dems "politely removed" themselves from the Union to start the Civil War. But then again I have no idea why the deep south Republicans would occasionally be spotted with the Confederate flag primarily associated with Democrats. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

B-b-but Afghanistan is Obama's war now, so why isn't that in there? Karajou, you disappoint me. Vulpius (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh...Looks like Kenny wants^img a piece of Karrie's 'toon action.--WJThomas (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That image he links to is a bizarre bit of photoshoppery. ħuman 00:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Klan?? Jim Crow?? What a fucking joke.... User:Stick Boy

Perhaps we need an article on Conservapedia:Family-friendly words. Just off the top of my head we have "screwing" and "dick", are there more?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WIGO phail...

"clearly the word 'black means 'brunette.'" but the word "brunette" does not appear anywhere on the page linked to in the WIGO. Maybe a relevant difflink would be a better call? DarkStar (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked the poster on their talk page to try to do so. ħuman 03:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a good WIGO... Sort of, but Jacob came in and fixed it (guess we can add him to our regular readers list). I have replaced the link. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 04:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The good work was done. I changed my vote to up ;) ħuman 06:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I really hope that Quetzalcoatl is a parodist, because otherwise what they think they're "improving" about the Song of Solomon is fucking criminal. I look forward to seeing how they ruin it. EDIT: "and his banner over me was love." --> "...over me he raised his love flag." Let that love flag fly! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 08:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the funnier WIGOs I've seen. On another note, I'm disappointed at the banning of Thunkful, he was dealing Andy a pwning, although I don't think he pointed out that they weren't even translating from the Greek WashionalRiki (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like a bit more of him, he's actually wandered by to get CP declared "not fundamentalist". As for the current WIGO, that tent bit was probably my favorite CBP edit so far. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Love flag" sounds obscene! Also a turtle dove isn't the same as a nightingale. ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.14.106 / talk / contribs}

When I saw that, I honestly thought he was referring to this kind of flag...at any rate, it'll be a shame if they revert all this poetry. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The main "translation technique" seems to be adding exclamation marks at the end of every sentence! And destroying the poetry in favour of pure clunkiness! And why are all those references to wine allowed to stay? It's undeniable that verse 2 should be "Your love is so pleasurable, even better than grape juice!"! Cantabrigian (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is cash being paid out for clunkiness, or has been at some point. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The parable actually happened

No it didn't. I made it up and admitted to it when my sock came out. Andy must like it I suppose but I surprised to find it there still. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

They still have whole articles you created, what makes you think they would fix that? - π 23:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many such examples. DickTurpis (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a thin line between the parody in your stories and the kind of stories Schlafly writes, maybe you didn't full far enough the on the wrong side. - π 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Jacob removes^img the "this happened" sentence, but leaves the bollocks story behind. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

HI JAKEY! Senator Harrison (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Chippy gains second sight

Chippeterson gets oversight! What took Andy so long? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the Jedi Knight of Oversight has already dropped in to take the little paddawan under his clammy armpit.^img --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how TK describes control over what can be seen as a 'privilege'. EddyP (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Best of the Public - what's that?

Not worth a WIGO, especially given the source, but you have to love the hypocrisy in this headline. A well-intentioned political outsider who's earned his own way in life running a successful small business goes up against an expert (gasp!) in politics no less, who's supported by the political establishment that basically calls the shots in that state. Could it be the Best of the Public challenging a "so-called expert" insider? Oh, wait - he's a Democrat, so that automatically makes him an incompetent wanna-be who's clearly out of his league. --DinsdaleP (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think TK ever bought into that Best of the Public nonsense. Keegscee (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt TK ever actually believed in any of Andy's "insights". Few did, really. Right now, I guess only TerryH and maybe this Benp do? Everybody else is a parodist, plays along, or flat out ignores them. --Sid (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see Andy waking up after a car crash to be greeted by TK: "Those so called expert surgeons wanted to operate on you Andy, but I said you wouldn't want that ... so I got the best of the public to repair your ruptured liver... stop screaming Andy - anaesthetics are for Liberals - where's your machismo! Andy, I'm your number one fan!" ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.14.106 / talk / contribs}

Just an aside

looks as if Rob's going for Kenny's "number of edits on one article in 24 hours" record^img. 13:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone should tell him it's sunday, and he needs to take a damn rest. :p Quaru (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't sleep. Communists will eat him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Rob, there no such company as "British Petroleum". It's been BP since the merger with Amoco ten years ago. Idiot. ħuman 00:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that changes everything...? It's a British-based petroleum company. Get over your pedantry. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Human has a great point. Rob is constantly calling the company British Petroleum because it reinforces the idea that this problem wasn't America's fault, it was all caused by those dirty tea-sucking Brits. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh!!! WDIFB?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually in Chinese it is still using the long formed name (英國石油; where 英國=Britain, British; 石油=Crude Oil, Petroleum), at least on WP. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but imagine a BP fanboy. "NO YOU IDIOT, THE ARTIST COMPANY FORMERLY KNOWN AS PRINCE BP". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It'll always be the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to me... But it is a douchy move.. I mean, in reality, they're a multinational company that spans all borders and is truly an international corporation. So continuously trying to emphasize it being those damn brits again makes him sound like Palin or some shit.. Buy american oil, they wouldn't never have an oil leak!! Just think of it logically!!! Quaru (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New parable

[4] ħuman 00:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great new parable (nevermind that the parable describes a line drive while the title is "The Fly Ball"), I thought girls playing sports was a bad idea, Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is so conservative about that story? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's part of the standard trope that everything good is conservative and everything that Andy doesn't like is liberal. I'm sure that he would attribute a nice, sunny day to conservative values when he gets an ingrown toenail he finds a way to blame liberals. Corry (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the conservative message is that putting women in their place makes everything work out. -Lardashe

No, I think the conservative message there is 'assume anyone who has any kind of disability can't do ANYTHING. That way, if they manage to do something that would otherwise be fairly commonplace, it will give you an excuse to patronisingly congratulate them for pulling off such a miracle.' 92.11.0.196 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well put. Keegscee (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the message (which is only "conservative" if you believe that conservative=good) is: Give someone a shot, and maybe he'll surprise you. Of course, that sentiment is a laugh riot coming from Andy. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the term 'aerobics' is conservative. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Headdesk, facepalm, etc., etc. Repeatedly. It's been a while since I've read CP very much, and I think I see why I reduced my exposure. This simply is not good for my blood pressure or my sanity. Corry (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy's always at his best on Sundays. What on earth is conservative about that parable? They put an affirmative-action player in right field and they did well? ħuman 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[ud] Not so much a parable as the usual condescending shite "and her ever-present smile glowed even wider" about the differently-abled. Wasn't there something where Andy called the paralympics a waste of time? 82.23.208.15 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the conservative parables article may be my favorite article. It's such a wonderful collection of obviously made up feel good nonsense trying to drive home some point, tho if you look a bit closer it becomes unclear what the specific point is actually supposed to be. I do miss 2 of my favorite stories on there tho, the story of the militant liberal atheist professor who is defeated by God's chalk and Einstein humiliates atheists. That last story's final line just cracks me up, it's such a desperate and ridiculous claim to authority that it seems non sequitur. I would like to add it to each of CP's parables: "The name of the girl with cerebral palsy - Albert Einstein." --GTac (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And now you know... The rest of the story.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'm going to end every anecdote/story I tell with "and the name of that [fill in the blank] - Albert Einstein!" DickTurpis (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So, the other day I was walking on my property, and when I got near the middle, I found a guy in the pond, RAPING DUCKS!! It was crazy!! I freaked out, yelled at him, kicked him the fuck off my land.. The name of that young duck-raper - Albert Einstein! Quaru (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A Conservative Parable

So, I was talking to this little girl, the daughter of some friends, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, atheist liberal Democrat professors, were standing there with us - and I asked her - "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied - "I would protect all fetuses which might one day uncover new conservative insights."

"Wow - what a worthy goal you have there," I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that, you can come over to my house..."

Then a terrorist busted into the room, and the little girl pulled out a gun and shot him dead.

Her parents yelped, "You should not have a gun! Prove there is a God! Morals are relative!"

She spat on the terrorist's writhing corpse and, looking at them, said, "God's too busy protecting the soldiers fighting overseas so you can say stupid shit like that."

That little girl's name? Albert Einstein. And Einstein said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

This parable actually happened. Twice.

05:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Errr I don't get it. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the girl named Albert Einstein? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Disregard Ace, you fucking nailed it Publius! All the best parts of all the conservative parables in one, and it makes just as much sense as any of them! This deserves a long string of FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:'s --GTac (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No it would have the best parts of all the conservative parables if it had Reagan telling the story. - π 06:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the girl - Albert Einstein doesn't make any sense - in context of Conservapedia. It should read: The name of the girl - Isaak Newton. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does - Einstein lacked Machismo. Röstigraben (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the dog poop parable. What sort of dog owner is Andy if he doesn't clean up his own dog's poop instead of leaving it around to get fly blown. I'll overlook the idea of asking other people to do it for him (let alone a little girl).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice parable. It's further proof that the weapon of gun is largely defensive. Corry (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate Andy's ignorance; a parable is by definition fictitious, so to say "this actually happened" is stupid.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, the "this actually happened" is put with the parable of the guy who is too much of a self-righteous jerk to give someone a dime when they politely ask for it.. Is that really the parable that needs the "this actually happened"? Even though I'm sure it's made up, I'm also pretty damn sure it also happened in real life numerous times. It's not like it's a really weird scenario.. How about "One time a family refused to pay tip in a restaurant cause they just came back from the church and had already given money there". I'm pretty sure that this actually happened at one point somewhere! --GTac (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the dime-withholding jerk is actually Andy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's happened plenty of times, GTac--I've heard from several waiters that church crowds are notoriously bad tippers. --Gulik (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Great parable. But why do I think the weapon of gun's name should be Albert Einstein? DickTurpis (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lily and GTac are absolutely correct, but conservative anecdotes doesn't really have that ring to it. And lo, Jesus descended from high and sayeth he: I have several amusing anecdotes for my disciples. Didst thou hear about the traveling salesman who came upon a farmhouse........ SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Get your arse over to the CBP. your help is needed. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually considered joining and up and helping out with the bible translation, but then I realized that I could have much more fun sitting back and letting them destroy it themselves. I finally decided it wasn't worth breaking my no sock pledge for cheap laughs. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sound the trumpets!

After watching him edit for more than two years, Andy decides that FOIA is probably not a security risk. The meritocracy in work! EddyP (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Promoted to "edit". Let's not go overboard or anything here, Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

BZZZZZZZZZ Barikada (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the title, the correct link is here. Make sure you speakers are on. — Pietrow ☏ 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, that made CP significantly more readable. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Grain Elevators in Buffalo

Li'l Phyllis is apparently posting her college homework to CP^img and disproving her Dad's contention that girls are bad at math. MDB (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"This essay is an original work by PhyllisS. Please comment only on the talk page" - expect TK to make some suck-up comment soon.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

dememoryholed. CS Miller (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not realise she is an Admin. good ol' meritocracy at work at CP.--Buscombe (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unlike Andy Schlafly Jr, who was awarded sysopship after 2 edits, Phyllis had to earn it [5]. Of course, that makes perfect sense. She is a girl, after all. Keegscee (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just feel so sorry for those two kids. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Waitaminit - what's this about steam engines only being 1-10% efficient, therefore the horsepower available for work (from a 100 HP engine) was 1-10 HP? What kind of dumbass rates his steam engine at 100 HP if it only produces 10 HP? This seems to be a conflation of two separate notions: one, that steam engines vented to atmosphere rather than a condenser are only 5% efficient in terms of fuel burned vs. power output, and two, that the lion's share of power output from an engine in the elevator would be wasted on friction and slippage amongst ten tons of leather belts, Babbitt bearings, squealing pulleys, etc. Whether it's 1%, 5%, or 100% efficient, a 100 HP engine ought to be putting out 100 HP. The fact that it takes 95 HP just to make the machinery of the elevator turn over, leaving only 5 HP for the actual lifting of grain, is just a coinkidink. Kind of an odd mistake for a mechanical engineer to make.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010

Except that for most engines (possibly not for electric ones), the power rating is the maximum amount of power you can get out of the engine (under the correct load), not the amount of fuel it uses. It wasn't until Joule's calorimeter experiments in 1844 that the ratio between HP and water-heating was known. This would be needed to tell how much the engine's motion could heat a barrel of water, as opposed to burning the coal directly to heat the barrel. CS Miller (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that according to figure 2, the grain needs to be lifted at least twice to get to the storage bins, not once. I wonder if this is taken into account in the appendix, which we don't see?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)(UTC)

Also also, the "article" starts off in a very clumsy fashion. The first several paragraphs need serious rewriting if this is a high school paper. College? Cripes, I hope this is just a first draft. And what is it doing on conservapedia? She could now be technically guilty of plagiarism if her prof finds the web copy. "Technically", not really, but if a prof finds your paper on the web, you're in for some tough 'splainin'. ħuman 04:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How bad the writing is depends on what kind of class it is for. If it is for a class on transportation and infrastructure then it might do fine, if it is for a composition class then it probably will not. She does have her name on it on the web, so presumably a prof would be able to see that she put her own work on the web, rather than stealing it, so that's a non-issue. As for how well it fits on CP, have you seen how poorly CP is written? It makes me look like a mildly competent writer. --Opcn (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Karajou splutters!

Just read through this^img. Karajooo' spluttering is v funny. 22:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

link to relevant soon-to-be-oversighted edit^img DickTurpis (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Most excellent. ħuman 04:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, Andy's response: "Reagan was better". X Stickman (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least Andy gave a response, the edit was not even deleted and the user was not blocked. Is conservapedia becoming more tolerant?--Tlaloc (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That was excellent pwnage, who did that? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Return of the fact - tag

At the moment, there are over 200 articles in Conservapedia's category cp:Category:Atricles with unsourced statements. Here are the latest two^img newcomers^img - complete with an explanation^img... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements^img, but only the first 200 articles in the list will be shown. CS Miller (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a total of 224 unsourced ventricles right now. ħuman 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That dear man is not long for this world. I'll mourn him. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He has survived everything so far, including a number of blocks and has lasted since Colbert. One of the more resilient editors. Broccoli (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sokal

I know this is not usually the place to brag/whine about bans but this one was pretty much hilarious. I noticed the article on Social Text contained a huge error so I decided to create an account, fix it and watch CP's reaction. CP claims Sokal is a conservative who parodied liberal postmodern thought. In reality however Sokal is a card-carrying leftist, which is perfectly obvious from the very article cited in Conservapedia:

"After all, I'm a leftist too (under the Sandinista government I taught mathematics at the National University of Nicaragua). On nearly all practical political issues -- including many concerning science and technology -- I'm on the same side as the Social Text editors. But I'm a leftist (and feminist) because of evidence and logic, not in spite of it. Why should the right wing be allowed to monopolize the intellectual high ground? "[6]

The main reason Sokal wrote the hoax was because he considered postmodernism to be counterproductive to the left, he even said he wanted to defend the left against postmodernism. Predictabily, my edit got reverted within 2 minutes, my account blocked (Trolling / Liberal Trolling) and the ip I'm using atm permabanned. It's pretty funny, unfortunately I don't have a screencap. Is this the first time an outspoken leftie is appropriated as a conservative by Conservapedia? M the T (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the first time, see the earlier conversations here about Orwell. CS Miller (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does CP want Sokol to be a winger? Oh, and I see JacobB isn't even trying anymore. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In andy's world

Publicly insulting your boss is allowed under {free} speech. When my boss gets back I am gonna call her a fuck and see how far "free speech" gets me. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In Andyland getting fired is worse than having your finger nails pulled out and then being sent to a forced labor camp in siberia to die. --Opcn (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's due to Andy being unable to get a proper job? Webbtje (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The world's biggest irony meter just exploded, as a reaction to anyone at CP complaining about Free Speech. They have no sodding concept what free speech is - they do their utmost to squash it at every possible opportunity. Dicks. Worm^{(t | c)} 08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not just that -- this is not a free speech issue. Period. McChrystal is under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it says, quite clearly, publicly criticizing the President (or other senior civilian officials) is insubordination. Had Obama not sacked McChrystal (well, accepted his resignation, but you have to wonder if it was "resign or be fired"), he would have been opening himself up to even more, and worse, insubordinate acts. McChrystal had every right, and I'd even call it his duty, to offer frank advice in private. He did not have the right to do it in public. Even most of the right agrees on this -- it's only the utterly mindless "if Obama does it, it must be bad" crowd that CP represents that view this as even questionable. MDB (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And as Ace says above, this is no different than if I went to the local paper and told a reporter that I thought the CEO of my company was a fuckwit who couldn't manage the five teenagers I hired to shovel snow off my driveway this winter, much less a multi-million dollar software company. (Not that I would. Our CEO is a good guy.) I'd be fired, and deservedly so. MDB (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

80 years ago McChrystal would have been shot for treason. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I quite agree that it's odd to fret about him being fired, given that he basically asked for it to happen. It's just that claiming it as a free speech issue is absolutely mental. Andy wouldn't know free speech if he met it in his soup Worm^{(t | c)} 10:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Always amuses me/makes me sad that Andy thinks it's OK to liken modern day America to the worst communist regimes the world has known. I might try it out however, call my boss a condescending, authoritarian piece of shit and see what happens. SJ ^Debaser 10:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us not forget all those editors at CP who have criticised Andy and been politely removed from the scene.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On ground of "liberal <insert verb here>," which obviously isn't a violation of freedom of speech. SJ ^Debaser 11:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh... Well, of course liberals don't get free speech.. lets see. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion other than Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christian worship; or abridging the freedom of speech of Conservatives, or of Fox News; or the right of Conservatives peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances about Liberals. And military generals are above the law with respect to how they voice themselves" I don't see what you guys issue is. It all looks good to me. Quaru (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Worse than the Communists? Well then, I guess we can look forward to the General being photoshopped out of a lot of photos. Seriously, when you join the military you knowingly give up some of your rights to free speech. If Andy had spent so much as a day in boot camp, he would know this. Corry (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of the scene in Citizen Kane with the two election headlines: "Kane Elected" or "Fraud at Polls". One talking head on TV said it won't matter what Obama does, it will be wrong to somebody. If he kept the General, he would appear weak, fire him, he's too tough, and if he thought about it at all, he's wishy-washy. Andy, you need mental help before you destroy more kids minds and lives. Jimaginator (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first time caller here. If this had happened under a Republican president, Andy would be demanding McChrystal's head. McChrystal would be labeled a super-secret communist, Nazi, Muslim, atheist traitor and would be talking about an inquiry into other generals with "un-American" opinions. Smapdey (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The funniest thing about all this is that it's taking place on conservapedia. Let's say that the guy didn't deserve to be fired, that it was protected under free speech, and Obama really is violating the right to free speech, Andy wouldn't really be in a place to criticise him for it. Anyone wanna burn a sock posting the general's comments on Andy's talk page, swapping some of the names for CP's sysops? X Stickman (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note also that McChrystal wasn't "fired" per se. He is still a four-star general in the US Army. He just isn't running the snafu in Afghanistan any more. However, I suspect his actual retirement will be forthcoming fairly soon. ħuman 21:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Having read the article, on the face of it, it doesn't seem so bad. Plenty of politicians would say the same, and worse. However when you remember this is a four-star genreal, he should damn well know better. I'm not a military man, never have been, never will be, I'm too much of a coward; but I've read enough about it to know that the military doesn't take insubordination well. He criticised the CinC for god's sake, in public, on the record. That's practically begging to be fired. Say what you like to his face, that's basically your job, but you present a united front - that's pretty much rule 1. Worm^{(t | c)} 08:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to wonder what the CP reaction would have been if this happened 5 years ago, with the guy publicly slagging off Lord Bush. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe my memory is a little faulty, but didn't Colin Powell get called some pretty nasty names for endorsing Obama? Junggai (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Right's general (so to speak) reactions was "he only endorsed him because he's black! Aaaaaiiiieeee! When his Powell ever supported a Democrat?" Powell, as always a class act, responded with a list of Democratic Presidents he voted for. MDB (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, that almost sound like Bush appointed him because he's black. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I love that thread, got Karajou in total denial even while faced with facts and evidence, Andy's "we all know liberals hate free speech!" broad statements, and Conservatives questioning of McChrystal's competence because he voted for Obama. If you can't take 'em down with intelligence, surround them with stupidity until they give up. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A newcomer tries his hand at reason^img. Good luck with that. Junggai (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what the censorability^img of generals is? Auld Nick (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen...

If, instead of accepting McChrystal's resignation, Obama had said, "The General and I had a long, productive conversation today. He has offered me a sincere, personal apology for his ill-considered remarks, and has assured he will also apologize to others he criticized. As as man of great honor, he offered me his resignation, but I have refused to accept it, because we still need his highly capable services. I ask all Americans to join me in supporting this very gifted military man, and in putting this unfortunate incident behind us." Now, tell me, had the been the case, would CP have said "Obama does the right thing with General McChrystal"? Nah, the response would have been "Spineless Obama refuses to even reprimand insubordinate general!" MDB (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Assfly or TK would say he wasn't macho enough to do. Quazywabbit (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it! "Obama demonstrates his lack of machismo with unwillingness to fire rogue general". MDB (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if they didn't jump on him for not firing him they would have been silent. They are selecting against praise for Obama. --Opcn (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)