Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive187

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2011. 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>, <186>, <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)

So it was feminism after all to blame...

I think Andy's just trolling us^img now. Dammit, I lost my bet, I thought he was going to blame Obama (or Bill Clinton and Hollywood Values™ icon Mick Jagger, who were spreading their bad Mojo by showing up) after the US team lost. When it turns out that Title 9 is really what done them in. Junggai (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting just who Andy Schlafly is: the son of anti-feminist creep, Phyllis Schlafly. Raised by that Aqua Net'd facsimile of a human being, is it any surprise that Andy also hates women and is prepared to revise history and simply make shit up in order to slander feminism? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Hablar 22:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just holding my breath in hopes that atheistic England can find a way to squeak past Germany tomorrow. P-Foster (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not the only factor, given Ghana's good conservative values, compared to the indubitably liberal Americans who play such a machismo-free sport: Ghana rely on power of prayer, family values --MarkGall (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe its because of George Bush [2] Quazywabbit (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghana's winning goal was full of ma cheese mo. It was a brilliant play. I suggest a new name for the sport: "Triangles, Lobs, and Strikes". ħuman 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghana's entire *game* was full of awesome, they danced rings around the US. I don't know if it was just me, but I'm sure I noticed the US players taking a lot of dives through the game, especially as time wore on. Pretty annoying. Anyway I'm pretty happy with the result; I fully expect that England will lose tomorrow, but as long as the US team didn't get further than them, I'm happy enough. X Stickman (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I only saw the OT, and yeah, Ghana tended to have control, what, 80% of the time? Of course they were just playing pass, not trying to score. But half the time when USA got possession they'd lose it immediately. They did try some heroic attempts on goal, though. ħuman 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy reveals his total ignorance of the World Cup. Lets see, how many countries are there in the world? over a hundred. Out of them, only 32 make it into the tournament, and then only sixteen into the brackets. That means that even if the United States were the worst team of the brackets, that would still make them 16/100+ or, in the top fifth of the world..... I wouldn't really call that an early exit. Not nearly as good as I'd like to see of course, but we tied our best result in standings and won our group for the first time since the very first World Cup in 1930. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If England loses to Germany, they at CP will no doubt spin that story to say it was due to England's "weak atheistic" values, even though Germany is every bit as secular and every bit as much into social welfare as Britain. If England wins, CP will likely ignore it. I honestly do not understand the hate boner they have for Britain.

If Ghana wins, not doubt they will use that article linked above about "Ghana's good conservative values", most likely after finding it through this thread. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The US women's football team, on the other hand, is very successful, so there seems to be a net positive effect to feminism. Unless you're like Andy, who always sees the big picture and takes the critical understaffing of the cookie baking sector into account. Röstigraben (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Don't you get it? The feminists have crippled men's sports with Title IX (we'll just forget that Soccer is not a sport where athletes go to NCAA to hone their skills before turning pro) and given them the power. So all those guys being screwed are being countered by more females leaving the kitchen to go play sports. This is a negative in Andy's world. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 07:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What's really rich is how they're having a good hardy har^img mock-blaming Bush for the team's loss, while seriously (?) blaming feminists for it. Junggai (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What, for the female soccer team not teaching the male soccer team how to play soccer properly? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't but wonder how Andy would've reacted if he actually cared about soccerball. Vulpius (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes this whole thing really fun is the fact that the US team improved on their performance at the 2006 WC, where they finished bottom of their group and lost to Ghana. Anybody want to sock up and mention this fact to him. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I called it on the Ghana victory part^img. They even used the same article first cited in this thread. Perhaps Andy does read this forum after all, we know the rest of them do. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

More than likely TK or one of the others posted the link in their sysop group when they were discussing it, it is exactly the sort of thing they know Andy would like. - π 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Andy is not going to go searching for that stuff off his own bat.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why Andy isn't trying to lobby for the vatican national soccer team into FIFA. The Power of Prayer would pwn any opposition! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Amusing discussion

This discussion at WP is mildly amusing. Keegscee (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hee!^img 11:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't TK try and bluff it out by saying he was standing next to Jimbo Wales at the time and just happened to take an identical picture? That would be his normal defensive position.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be funnier than him telling me that he was in contact with Jimbo Wales and other Wikipedia "admin" about RationalWiki's alleged bad behavior and that some of us were going to get in trouble! ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bored.

For the love of god, something happen over there already. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 07:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What ever happened to the Lenski Affair 2.0? Did all our excited jumping up and down at the thought of him bugging another scholar with his ill informed ramblings put him off sending the letter, or did it go immediately in to the round file? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Last activity was Religious Right on t' 23rd. It still amuses me that the've left all the wiki formatting in. 10:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant CP this...

Considering he was a big spending Democrat, TK's announcement of Robert Byrd's passing is remarkably respectful. MDB (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

They didn't start trashing Ted Kennedy until a day later. I'm sure they'll mention his racism and his membership in the democratic party. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Check his article, done long ago. Dives straight into his KKK membership. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est... hodie MDB (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

FSM forgive me for defending CP, but the KKK membership stuff was there well before he passed, and it does acknowledge that he later regretted being a Klansman. (A fact I've heard some conservatives directly deny. I think Sean Hannity, at least at one time, would directly claim Byrd never apologized for being in the Klan.) MDB (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, doesn't membership in the Democratic party automatically imply racism? Along with socialism, facism, & communism (not mutually exclusive I've heard)? Jimaginator (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure does, along with liberalism, atheism and muslimism. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did y'all miss the "born-again Christian" part? 173.10.105.29 (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was more impressed that CP wasn't dancing about his grave, singing "ding dong the liberal's dead". MDB (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Recall Menendez website

This is amusing.^img tmtoulouse 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - it's been WIGOed somewhere. Read the comments on the RecalNJ facebook page too. 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

'Twas mentioned at the SB. ħuman 01:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats weird I tried taking a picture of it but just got the "this site is down" message. Does everyone else see the rant or the down message? tmtoulouse 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The screencap sure looks different from the actual page. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: I am seeing at least 3 different pages on 3 different refereshes. Should that be a problem? I saw one with the "no website" thing and 2 other pages. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the same. 3 different pages. 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the unpaid bill moan this morning but now the original site appears to be back up ("Our Day in Court").  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but refresh it a couple of times. 19:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still "ODiC".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the only one I don't get now. Two different "no such site" notices & the one Trent referred to. (clear cache?) 19:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So the first time I clicked, I got the DO NOT SUPPORT NJ RECALL site. The second time I clicked, I got the website in the screenshot. BIZ-ARRE! Senator Harrison (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the weird will-it-or-won't-it website display is some sort of DNS update problem. I reliably get the moaning page, but capturebot gets the old version. It does bring up the intriguing possibility that the reason that this guy didn't get paid was that he was hired based on his ideological credentials rather than his ability to do the job *cough* just like they hired their lawyer *cough* and he turned out to be a colossal incompetent. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I sense a Conservative Parable coming on! Moral: If you're going to stiff your website designer, change the damn password first! ħuman 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Schlafly mentioned as one of the groups lawyers in the release? Is it a different group, or is it the obvious reason?

Quantcast

I was just looking at the Quaintcast CP statistics and noticed that "The typical [CP] visitor listens to Rush Limbaugh, reads the New York Post, and attends Berkeley." Yet, according to UCBerkeleyNews just "12% [of Berkeley students] are proud to claim membership in that elusive (but vocal) species, the Berkeley conservative".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, you've noticed that since quantcast has no source for real data on this, they're pulling these audience figures directly from their arse, eh? Now, if only Ken

could also understand that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, in AndyLand, this means that conservatism (only the flavor CP preaches, of course) is on the rise and that Berkeley is trying to use liberal bias to distort and censor what the overwhelming majority of its students believe. --Sid (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

CLS v Martinez

I'm not sure what I think about the decision, but lol...Andy's silence is priceless. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this possible?

I've never in my life seen someone's comedy attempts get worse after repeated attempts. I mean, even the worst stand up comedians get a little better if they keep working at it. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeez. I'm starting to think they should just post some Chick tracts instead. Might take up more of Ken's wavespace, but it'd be a lot funnier. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is some serious stupid. But of course CP's mainpage has been so full of fail for so long... ħuman 07:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing...for reasons not intended by the humourless jerk.--Brendiggg (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't really expect improvment until feedback can safely take place though. Who wants to burn socks for constructive criticism? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why bother burning socks? We all know that plenty of folk from CP read here - just do it here. 92.8.121.230 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The K-toons don't annoy me personally, they are not that good, but really I have seen many regular editorial cartoons that aren't any better in either artistic quality or in delivering a clever message. To me they are average, and at least he seems to be trying. What really gets me is what Human stated above, the CP mainpage is terrible mess with neither consistency or any design elegance. Of course the reason for that is because the senior sysops keep mangling it in order to promote their pet projects. BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What I find Ironic, as an Alaskan, is the fact that most of the futile attempts at dirtying Sister Sarah have come from a Conservative Republican failed politician and former Palin friend Andree Mcleod, but I guess she must be a Fred Phelps liberal (also known as not a liberal). --Opcn (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

His dumpster toon is poor on content and drawing. I thought his oil spill monster wave was one of his best drawing efforts as it was simple and conveyed a message even though the ultimate point was poor and the caption was unsubtle. Most of his pictures try to cram in too many political jibes and with CP's narrow worldview it limits the range of subject matter. Ultimately it is his paucity of humour that makes them a weak addition to the front page of an online, fundemantalist, right-wing nutter blog family-friendly, educational resource.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's extra stupid because some right wing idiot recently recommended... dumpster diving as a solution for the long-term unemployed. Also, is Palin at Cal State??? ħuman 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm being very kind to Karajerk here, but I think what he is getting at is that California is where most of those those whacky, dope-smoking liberals live and therefore where they would most likely set up a course to bash Republicans. It's just as well that he didn't say it was Berkelely as that would risk alienating most of CP's readership (according to Quantcast).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The piano man bows out.....

A good run^img but this is bound to spell the end. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and his ref was "↑ Of course, this was only necessary because his previous attempts at getting the USA eliminated in the Group Stage failed, despite using the same tactics to get our goals agaist Slovenia and Algeria (a Muslim country, mind you. Coincidence??) disallowed." Aceⁱ⁹ 07:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this guy bow out nearly three months ago^img? mb 08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically not^img, but before today he's made a grand total of 4 edits since his brush-up with Andy. Junggai (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TK's reaction: "I wonder why liberals hate America?"^img Oh, and Jacob apparently jumped the gun^img, albeit several hours later. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lamestream media

I saw numbnuts Schlafly use the term recently and I see Sally Pally using it in one of her Bitter bleats, but it was first used by JPratt back in December, given the lack of imagination of all these loons, where did the meme come from?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Google and yea shall find. - π 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Best part about it on CP is that they've set it up so searching for "Lamestream Media" takes you right to "Mainstream Media" (i.e. it doesn't take you to "did you mean mainstream" or anything, just right to the page). That makes me giggle. X Stickman (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Because she is an Alaskan politician Sarah Palin's nickname is "Sister Sarah", not "Sally Pally". --Opcn (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy reads FiveThirtyEight?

To be sure, it's an excellent blog, but Nate has a pretty liberal stance, and reading his material would result in a lot of presumably unwelcome reality checks for Andy's views...Röstigraben (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At best he skims 538, It would be hard to read that article then make that MPR post. --Opcn (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Schaflflfllfffly family: heroes or villains?

I couldn't believe this when I read it. Is the Schlafly family on the side of good after all??? According to the BBC World Service, they're at the forefront of efforts to supply America with proper beer instead of muck like Budweiser ("The best gnat's piss is fresh gnat's piss"). Or are there Good Schlaflies (brewers of decent beer) and Bad Schlaflies (certifiable loonies who waste electrons filling up the internet with garbage)? Any thoughts? (Even from a Schlafly!)

PS: Here's an advertising slogan: "Schlafly. True. No but seriously, forget Conservapedia, what we say about beer is true." The Real James Brown (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis' nephew. Maybe he's not crazy. Maybe he's crazy and has good taste in beer. I have a crazy uncle that would fit right in at CP. I hope you don't hold that against me.. But really, the american beer landscape is not nearly as bad as it used to be. I sometimes even drink store-bought beer. Sometimes.. Quaru (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC America now has the largest number of small and micro-breweries of any country in the world. Both in number and per head of population. And some of them taste reasonable. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, they even address this in their FAQ:

Q: Are you guys related to Phyllis Schlafly?

A: Phyllis Schlafly is Tom Schlafly's aunt. She is the widow of Fred Schlafly, Tom's father's brother. She is not involved in the business.

So I guess their implied advertising slogan is "Beer by the not/less weird part of the Schlafly family!" --Sid (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We have an article if you follow the Schlafly fork. - π 23:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks as though Tom Schlafly is not only tolerant but also has a sense of humour (last couple of FAQs). Is Phyllis his aunt by marriage, not a blood relative? If so, I guess Andrew and Roger inherited their fruitloopiness gene from their mother, not from the Schlaflies. But if Phyllis is directly related to Tom, perhaps Tom has a beneficial mutation, thus disproving one of cousin Andrew's favourite anti-evolution pieces of nonsense. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume she took her husbands name. Andy doesn't have a hyphenated name, and assumingly didn't take his mother's name. so surely she married into it. Quaru (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why waste time with logic when it is clear from the "A" above that they are not blood relatives? (Although her kids would be...) I love how it diplomatically distances the business from the crazy relatives. ħuman 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess I just red the one above me, since he asked, I assumed it wasn't addressed. I'm tired. My bad. Quaru (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They even sell gym shorts in case you want to proudly display SCHLAFLY in your ass--Tlaloc (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember Tom publicly announcing that he does not share his cousin's beliefs. I'll try and find the link. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to try some of that beer. They don't sell it around these parts. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS - Schlafly Beer is for sale.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The RationalWiki Foundation MUST PUT IN AN OFFER. I got fiddy pee here - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did think about that myself - how awesome would it be to produce a "Rational Ale" or "Obamale"? An amusing fantasy unless we've got some major sugar-daddy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"F%$# Off Lager" I hope to start a brewery some day. Damn lack of funds. Quaru (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I hope to empty a brewery some day. Damn lack of funds. 15:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the current owners want it to become employee-owned. Damn socialists. MDB (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Best of the Pub (lic)?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The value relative to your base may belong to us go up as well as down

The latest WIGO is a bit sucky, a base is a base and everything is relative to that. Values may go up and down relative to a base year. Now if someone picks a peak or trough as the base year you may mis-represent the data (make everything look shit to a boom year or brilliant compared to a recession). 78.86.174.102 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a great WiGO for that reason. I just like how Andy seems to think consumer confidence is something Obama has any influence over. DickTurpis (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kinda sucky, sorry, but hey it is what's happening. I wanted to highlight how schlafly took the meaningless base point and made it sound like it was data. Oh well, soon the Moo situation will be moving again and if we are at all lucky we can watch Andy fail hard once again. --Opcn (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah. Could have been much better. Looking at this, which only starts in '97, Clinton seems to have done quite well thank you leaving it at 140 for W, who never got it much above 100 - and left it below 40 for O. ħuman 01:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS crap on top left

I can't believe how badly written that stuff is.

This:

• the right of Christian clubs to exclude as voting members students opposed to aspects of its mission. RESULT: THE COURT RULES 5-4 TO ALLOW PUBLIC COLLEGES AND GRADUATE SCHOOLS TO DENY EQUAL ACCESS TO SCHOOL CLUBS THAT REQUIRE STATEMENTS OF FAITH BY ITS MEMBERS. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, describing the decision as this: "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning

is just excellent. Yes, "Clubs ... its" twice; also, I didn't leave of[f] the closing quote. Andy (presumably) did. ħuman 02:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its a bad idea. Christian conservatives can remain in their echo chambers while the rest of us get on with life. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the Supremes got this one right: "You can discriminate, but don't expect to get funding for it." The Court affirmed the right to be assholes. (No wonder Andy is celebrating.) MDB (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Human, I see the second-hand X-ray prattler read your comment and fixed it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The eedjit didn't fix the awful plural/singular agreement problem though. They should unblock me and let me edit mainpage left. ħuman 03:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see whoever gleefully posted about that, but there was another statement about the case that Andy responded to reflecting that the post had no fucking idea what he was talking about. Sure, xtian clubz are and always were free to be as bigoted as they want when it comes to private accommodations. Now, as MDB says, they just don't get to take state money to do it. Predictable result. The gun case is more interesting. People are shitting their pants here in Chicago and Mayor Daley is rushing to get a replacement ordinance in place ASAP. Imagine this interim period in which there's absolutely no gun control in the city at all beyond state law, which is pretty permissive. It's going to be a bloody bloody summer :( . ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest why is the left column called "Today's Featured Article" when nothing on the sort is there? I think a better name would be "Admins' Scrapbook". - π 03:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Admins' Litterbox," "Admins' Rubbishbin," "Admins' Shitheap." ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

New toon

I don't get it. Are Conservatives better at rooting through dumpsters than liberals? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This was posted already.. Though I don't remember where, and don't see it. I don't get it either. So either Conservative's rapier wit is just beyond me, or it's retarded. Quaru (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been archived already. Seeing as we are not getting much traffic as of late do you want me to turn the archive up to three days? - π 12:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So.. I can't seem to find it in archive either.. Was anyone able to explain it, or is it just that absurd witty? And Π, is there not a way to archive it after it gets X large? Quaru (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You can always crank up the number of threads it leaves. At the moment it leaves 5 threads on the page, you could turn that up to 15 if you want the page to look busier. If we ever go over to 1.16 and get liquid threads it will leave only the last 20 or something on the page. - π 13:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is just up here. - π 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hah! I was looking in the contents for a more appropriate name. And no, no one had a good explanation. Damn. Quaru (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear CP: No dumpster diving required on Sarah Palin, she makes it really really easy. Maybe a "funny" cartoon about Thurgood Marshall is in order. Idle hands are the devil's workshop ya know... Jimaginator (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The joke is simple, "Libur'ls are trying to muddy up palin's good name, but they are bringing up things that have nothing to do with her" Presumably in response to people bringing up slogans like drill baby drill. --Opcn (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(unident) Explaining the joke: If you remember a few months back, Palin booked a gig speaking at a school. The students were outraged that Palin was speaking there, given that she was known to command upwards of 100,000 a speech and demanded the school release the details of her agreement, including speaking fees and any other perks given, which they refused to do. A few days later, a copy of the contract was made public, stories differ, the general understanding is that someone leaked the document to the student press, who then shared it with others, but the students said they found the document in the garbage.

Fast forward a few months and Palin is now speaking at the school. She decides that she's gonna insult the students involved and says "Students who spent their valuable, precious time diving through dumpsters before this event in order to silence someone ... what a wasted resource... "A suggestion for those Dumpster divers: Instead of trying to tell people to sit down and shut up ... spend some time telling people like our president to finally stand up," she said.

Now, run that through the bizarre filter that is Karajou's brain, and it becomes stoned out hippies in California digging through the garbage to find dirt on Palin, but they're stoners and liberals so they can't do it and need to take classes in dumpster diving in order to know what's good. SirChuckB^{That is all} 07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a bad cartoon without the explanation, but now that I understand the background it becomes even worse. — Pietrow ☏ 07:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the local insight Chuck. Running "Palin dumpster diving" through Google brings up an ABC report dated 26 June explaining the situation and I guess that is what fired the Koward's synapses.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That last word shouldn't be plural. --Kels (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PhyllisS

Gives thanks to KSorenson for some writing. She can expect a reply in late 2014. EddyP (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As clued up as her daddy. 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Read further up: KSorenson (Kate!) has a great set -to with Andy Re Popper (falsifiability) & Black holes & science teaching. 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Permalink & capture of page^img 20:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the reminder of that classic discussion. "I'm sorry my reply was so 'verbose,' Aschlafly, but you make it so difficult to be succinct when there's so much you don't know." - best line ever! Cantabrigian (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin in goal?

Is Joaquin Martinez his real name? because I don't see him in the squad list. Perhaps he was their official art advisor.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming he was up all hours watching it. Wait... but aren't the games like really early for you lot on the wrong side of Greenwich? Still, between futbol, tequila and siesta, who has time to steal copyrighted pictures and load them on to Andy's blog? Bonus for Terry's sleazy "my friend' - he'd be the first to pop Joaquin one, if he were to sneak over Arizona's little fence. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He's probably busBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT.

I mean, he might have a job that requires more hours during the World Cup, like a bar, security guard, or something. I didn't see any players with stolen images stitched on their jerseys. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Security guard? Have you seen his picture?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I misread the header as "Joaquin in gaol?" (That's an alternate spelling of "jail" btw) I thought his piratical habits had brought him to his doom. Disappointed! 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So did I at first. - π 01:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He looks dangerously like one of those leftie, hippie artist types, you know, the kind that don't paint fig leaves over the mmm-mmm's. I wonder how he flew under TK's radar for so long? --PsyGremlinTala! 15:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I imagined him as being, like, not 87 years old. I was thinking college-aged. He comes across freshman/sophomore intellectually. Maybe it's a language thing--WJThomas (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he looks like a political prisoner who has just been freed. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Freedom fighter and art-thief Mandela Martinez released from gaol!" --_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 02:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity in editing does not justify being blocked

Aschlafly should know that TK and Karajou are those with the most blocks for "being inactive" - time to remove their blocking rights, I presume... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do something about that wigo. It's taking up the entire first screen of the page, & I doubt that anybody will bother reading a wigo entry that contains a hundred links. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree:- I've commented most out. 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An observation

Miss me, Crundy? Calling you on line one!

I really think that Andy's appearance on the Colbert Report has been better for lulz than we could ever have hoped. Andy has been emboldened but his TV appearance and is really giving us some serious crazy. For a good while before it was just TK bullying people and Conservative calling us on the red telephone, with Andy rarely entering into ridiculous arguments or having comical insights. So I take a break from looking at CP at all, and it's turned into an unstoppable, lunacy vomiting, lulzy juggernaut. Steve Colbert: the gift that keeps on giving. That's why I vote for him in every election, for every office. Corry (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That was 6 months ago. Seems like more than anything the appearance did absolutely nothing to actually promote Andy Schlafly and that his website is dying, if not dead. What have you been looking at that's got you laughing so hard? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say dying. I would just say that no one is taking it seriously. Even the sysops [at CP] with Richard Dawkins and machismo article, its news section that is filled with rumors rather than news, Creating and editing exists lists like CP:Liberal_tricks. Even Roger Schlafly has decide to edit wikipedia articles on relativity rather than continue to try to edit these on CP and Andy telling him that he is a liberal (in not so few words) See[3]. Quazywabbit (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I miss the red telephone :( Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You all have free will to deny what you like and I'm open minded about it, but judging by the dearth of quality CP Wigos and posts here it seems that CP really is dead. Or on summer break. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Moo letter

Andy prepares to send the letter, but he's making it boring. --MarkGall (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the reply will be funny. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we WIGO that he dated the letter June 30th? Also has anyone given Moo a heads up yet?--Opcn (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The 6/30 thing might just mean he is planning on mailing it tomorrow? ħuman 03:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"...in the USA Today..." Why is he writing in Canadian? ħuman 03:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also also also, that letter is still a classic. It shows just one thing: Andy lives a special world. A very special, unique, mostly fictional world... ħuman 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by that I meant should be WIGO that he is planing to send it tomorrow? --Opcn (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WIGO when he sends it? ħuman 05:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heresy.

"Andy lives a special world." -> And because of Conservapedia he never has to leave that world. Honestly, how can be boast to Moo when all he did was reword the KJV, with the occasional glance at the original text with BabelFish? If God were real Andy would roast in hell for heresy.

"the USA Today" -> That's what Colbert calls as it as well. Actually, sometimes Colbert is more believable than Andy. I can't wait until his next insane stunt. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Colbert is speaking Canadian when he uses that terminology. Intentionally. ħuman 09:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this now, why is he sending copies to Falwell and the Presbyterian Church? Are they the ones who ordered Moo's translation, or is he just trying to get the attention of some big shots? Röstigraben (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else wondering what he intends to do with that wikilink to his Conservative Bible Project? In his recent version, he deleted his explanation of the CBP, but kept the footnote with wikilink. He does realize that clicking on a letter doesn't actually serve any purpose, right? Junggai (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He gave himself an out though "I look forward to your response and will post it for the benefit of others, unless you request otherwise" (my emphasis). Aceⁱ⁹ 06:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But if the Lenski Affair has taught us anything, it's that the Assfly isn't one to be perturbed when flamed righteously by people far smarter than him. In fact, he seems to view it as some kind of victory. Sometimes I wonder if he's missing the part of the brain that allows us to recognise when we've just made an extremely embarrassing mistake. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good point, particulary as he links back to the Lenski "Famous for all the wrong reasons" Dialogue seemingly without noticing that he was nailed. Badly. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I expected the "make new section" link below to read extremely embarrassing mistake. I dunno, Freud, got any ideas on that? ħuman 10:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the fact the letter page boasts about the Lenski dialog like this will be just as good for the cause. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait to see the reply to Andy's "You harshly criticized our translation effort, declaring that 'Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it.' Yet we completed our work on the New Testament two months ago, all in full public view. Where is yours?". Talk about hubris. If Moo responds, I hope he mentions that despite what Andy thinks about the best of the public, a bunch of parodists changing thees and thous to yous and wine to grape juice, isn't a translation of the Bible. Hell, even Terry Hurlbut (I can't type that name without laughing) gave up with his pocket dictionary and Babelfish. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

His letter certainly does seem to be begging for Messrs Moo & Co. to use the less kind language they were restraining themselves from earlier. I wonder what Andy is actually hoping will be the result of this little escapade? That conservabible will be endorsed as the official text of some major church group? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were, say accidentally, as in oops my finger slipped quite a few times and purely by chance happened to send prof Moo an e-mail giving him a heads-up, would that make me a bad person, or just clumsy? --PsyGremlin講話 13:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure to give him some links to Schlafly's more ridiculous screeds, like this unborn child shit, the pericope adulturae, conservative economic principles, King Herod's daughter being a "temptress" where the word is actually kora (literally little girl), etc. Also, I'll find a link to Terry Hurlbut, the "leader" of the project, musing aloud about how the declention suffix of a word was actually some different word that must be very special because it's not in his dictionary, hence the bible is super and great and all that. You can also have some private emails with JacobB admitting he doesn't read Koine and that the project is only about updating the language; then fast forward to a few months ago when he's talking about how everyone is translating from the Greek. What a beautiful mess. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 13:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Too late, Psy. Its already been done. Grinch (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah buggery. I guess I'll just have to sit back and wait for the expected response. Pass the popporn, somebody. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I trust whoever contacted Moo asked that he either makes his reply public or sends us a copy? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I do hope Moo (mental image of Ken's bullfighting pictures - does the Prof have ma-cheese-moo?) gives Andy a quick reply.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what do people think will happen with this? I'd love it to be Lenski 2, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Moo ignores the Assfly completely. Well, here's hoping Andy gets a ripped a third asshole. DickTurpis (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he'll just ignore it. If he knows anything about assfly he'll know about his whole "demanding the data" meme and won't entertain it. I'd love for him to just reply with "Andy, myofb. Doug." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a few things I'd like to see. First, Moo's response in Koine Greek. Second, no personal response, but simply the delivery of very high resolution scans of the work in progress which we could watch Andy fumble with. Third would be a list of professors who politely asked and then participated in the project. Fourth would be a Lesnki-like dismissal. Not hearing a peep from Moo would also be interesting. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The only drawback is that - in Andy's mind anyway - it's a win-win situation. If Moo ignores him, he can cry "Where's the data?" until the cows come home. If Moo rightly puts Andy in his place, then it'll be all about Moo's attitude and professor values. Either way, Andy's shares rise with the sycophants surrounding him, whilst everybody else knows he's a moron. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(unident for the hell of it) What I am hoping is that Douglas Moo looks over the conservative bible project and gives Andy a lesson (or two) on what the verses mean in Greek and tell him why there translation is "silly as silly can be". Quazywabbit (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My only question here is: Where is Conservapedia's Director of Internal Counterintelligence? ;) --Sid (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Rob is monitoring the situation from afar and deemed it worthy of his approval. Or was he only complaining about the Lenski affair simply because people were egging Schlafly on? Either way, this can only end well. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

JPatt WIGO

Don't get it. He seems to be telling a joke. For me the good part is "don't worry about wrong blocks, especially if you corrected yourself", implying that even if you don't correct yourself it's ok. EddyP (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

After I blocked myself JPatt did in fact re-block me for violating the commandments. So for what it's worth that is at least consistently a JPatt commandment, even if not an official one. --MarkGall (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been said that you become an unauthorized wikibot when you block yourself. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

June 2010 at CP and RW

I updated Conservapedia:Active users and RationalWiki:Active users, making some changes as announced last month. Have a look for yourself! Here are some pics for June 2010:

	Edits by User Groups	Edits by Account Creation	Notably Absent
CP
RW

• Human was dethroned!
• Where the hell is Nx? Ah, there he is....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I demand to know why I'm not included in these lists! SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I demand to know why I'm only included as a lowly commoner! Röstigraben (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@SirChuckB: sorry, you didn't make the cut (#57) - you are just what England is to the World Cup, sorry :-)

@Röstigraben: I don't know - perhaps problems with the Umlaut, though I thought I had taken care of non-ascii letters. Perhaps I'll look into it...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Human was dethroned? Impossible! (picks up pitchfork) BAN THE ONE WHO DETHRONED HUMAN!!!!! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I knew it was coming - Dave has been editing heavily and I've been editing quite a bit less recently. ħuman 23:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh good Lord, I have been clogging RC. Perhaps I should declare myself actually a bot. (I've just spent a week ill in bed with very little else to do, of course.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, hope you feel better soon. By the way, I wouldn't call it "clogging" RC. There's something odd, to me, about people who complain about the wiki being more active. Ideally, we will grow to the point where RC is useless for following WIGO RW. ħuman 00:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Clogging RC with good edits = not clogging. Clogging RC with vandal attacks, trolls amd pointless discussions with Lumenos mutants =/= not clogging. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy loses Machismo

Seems even Andy has had enough of Ken's dribbling^img. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It really says something when one of them stops and (implicitly) says, "Whoa, too much Ken." --_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When Andy Schlafly becomes the voice of reason.....I can't even finish that sentence. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say though, that original article is pathetic, no wonder newspapers suffer from a slow death. Still it is hilarious that Andy finally stopped one of Ken's crazier submissions. However, will Andy pull that list of "liberal pantywaists" from the site? BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That gay toreador (? matador? Ole generation machine?) on the front page has a pantywaist. ħuman 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's doing some last-minute house cleaning to prepare for the arrival of Moo and Falwell. Röstigraben (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone comment on this essay of Ken's.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, Ken, I quite agree that every act of wandalism against a conservative, christian or creationist wiki is a tacit acknowledgement of their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Wait, what do you mean you didn't intend the wikis to be the subject of that sentence? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada day, eh?

Does anyone else feel sickened when they see sysops post messages on mainpageright congratulating their "Canadian cousins on [their] day of national celebration!" when the other 364 days are spent saying how Canada is full of liberal socialists who love healthcare and hate guns, which can basically be taken to mean that Andy et al hate Canada? SJ ^Debaser 11:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just TheKunt doing what he does best. Although this is the same person who claimed after Dean's wife died that "showing sympathy for somebody you don't like, is the biggest hypocrisy there is" (or words to that effect). Then again, do we really expect TightKnickers to practice what he preaches? --PsyGremlinParla! 12:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just like how you deal with the relatives you don't like at Thanksgiving dinner. You're nice to them one day out of the year and then badmouth them when they're not around. MDB (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember Canada is a monarchy with no freedom of speech^img:

“”Andy: [English spelling] developed to a more concise and economical form in America, where there is freedom of speech, than the English used in the monarchies of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where freedom of speech does not exist.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I feel a lot safer speaking my mind here than I would in a country were everyone is allowed to carry a gun. - π 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And then he gets all pedantic about other people's misspellings or grammatical errors. Twat!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second of England:

Were you aware that, according to the American website "Conservapedia", you actually rule over England, and not merely reign?

As an Anglo-phile Yank ColonistAmerican citizen, I urge you to take the following actions:

• Order the BBC to release Blake's Seven on DVD, in Region 1 format, without delay.

• Request that the United States return to you the colony of New Jersey, post-haste.
  • Order the beheading of your new subject, one Andrew Schlafly, of said colony.

• Designate young Wills to be your heir-apparent. You know as well as I do his Dad's a doof.

Yours sincerely,

MDB (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Name

Does anyone else think they should call it "Cana-Day"? MDB (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, it should be "Canad, eh?" --GTac (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the way they came up with the name of the country in the first place by reaching into a hat and pulling out a "C, eh? N, eh? D, eh?" ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I told that joke to a friend once and it was totally lost on her. What a waste of a minute and a half that was. SJ ^Debaser 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A year or so ago, I was on vacation in Las Vegas. I was taking a limo ride to a helicopter tour of the Grand Canyon, and I shared the ride with a couple of guys from Canada. They were both very nice and friendly, and I was fighting the urge to break down laughing, because every time one of them said, "eh", I was thinking, "they really do talk like that!" MDB (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I met a Canadian girl at a party a few months ago. I remember it vividly because I said "are you American?" then she said, "no, Canadian," then I said, "sorry, I bet you get that a lot," then she said, "yeah," then I ran off because I had nothing else interesting to say. In hindsight I should've said, "y'know what? Lemme start over, hi, I'm Josh!" SJ ^Debaser 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In Australia it's polite to assume the person is Canadian unless and until they reveal they're American. Really - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that too David. Also, in Ireland and the UK, I've heard that when I'm talking talking to people, specifically attractive females, with antipodean accents, it is polite to assume that they are Kiwis until they reveal that they are Aussies. --NotANumber (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is there inferiority complex showing. An Aussie, like a USian, will just laugh off you getting their country of origin wrong, how were you to know? But a Kiwi, like a Canadian, are a little bit sensitive of their richer, more successful, better liked, and better looking older brother and so are a little more sensitive when mistaken for them. That said in Argentina, a woman from Arizona thought I was English, I was polite to her at the time, but I had a good laugh afterwards. - π 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I got that with an old housemate from the prairies of Saskatchewan. She really said "aboot"! Her accent's moderated a bit in the last several years tho - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have shared that experience MDB. When my folks were moving to Alaska, I went with them to help them get settled. On the drive through Canada, we stopped a little rest area to walk the dog, standing there looking out at the view, a couple of Canadian hikers came up and the first thing the guy said to me was "Beautiful Country Eh?" It was nice. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We Saskatchewinians do NOT say "aboot." No one in the whole country says anything even like "aboot," and that includes the ridiculous sounding maritimers and Newfies. I'll grant you that the poor deprived people from rural Saskatchewan have a bit of an accent of some sort, but, again, no one says aboot. 05:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as my freshly-arrived Australian ears in London were concerned, SHE SAID "ABOOT" DAMMIT - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's closer to "a-boat".--WJThomas (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine calling anyone from Wales or Scotland English would not be taken to very kindly. My housemate's at uni's Scottish and after ten months down here his mates in Scotland seem to think he has a "stupid, pansy English accent." Of course, to us he still sounds like a grotty Scotsman. SJ ^Debaser 09:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

American Govt

Oh dear.^img I mean, ok, we never had high hopes for this course anyway, but given gems such as:

• Tea Party: the decentralized political party
• the role of the Courts: the "least dangerous branch," or now the most powerful branch of government? (recall hearings anybody?)
• Was Jesus pro-life?
• "politics is not history."

I'm sure we're in for another doozy of a Schlafly performance. What happened to the writing course? people want to know? --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, straight from Andy's mind to the front page.^img --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Boooooring

It's just vandals and kendoll. Come on Andy, find a way to attract some sane people. EddyP (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't do any good. Terry Koeckritz would block them after two edits. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell, TK would rangeblock their IP as soon as they clicked on "create account"! ħuman 21:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

TeamKill's long term vandalism strategy for Conservapedia seems to be a blockade of new users as a method of slowly reducing the site to a really boring blog. Hopefully Professor Moo will offer a good response to Andy's latest Pro-Life Jesus insanity. Smapdey (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So

Is this place where we update the lame shit at CP? and this particular is the discussion of it? —rms talk 18:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Particularly amusing/mindblowing things go on the WIGOCP page. Chat about them and other non-conequential stuff goes here, yes. 18:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Can anyone update the things, or a select group? —rms talk 20:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiki: open to all! 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You might read this first though. 20:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly will. I hope to actually edit here, or something. It'll just take some time to get used to the editing standards of here as opposed to my home Illogicopedia, where everything is shit. —rms talk 20:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when you read something here about how this place is run its probably true. That said this place is kept in line by mobocracy, if anyone says something annoying they are shamed and ridiculed into line; as a wiki should be :) --Opcn (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is nice to see we have broken your free spirit, Opcn. - π 04:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'll figure it out. —rms talk 04:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

First Tuesday?

"Um Andy, wouldn't the concise way to say that be, "the first Tuesday in November?"" Err ... no. 'cause that (Andy's) way means it can't be Tuesday 1st November. 13:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See - told you I wuz just a dirty furriner. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd comment it out if I were you 13:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh - you have done. Sorry! 13:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not one of my proudest RW moments. I blame... blame... the Japanese emperor for having sex with demons. It's all his fault! --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Psy, you should be humbled and embarrassed. If I were you I'd feel pretty damn silly. You'll never live this one down.... Ace^{Liquid Room} 13:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The concise way of saying it would be "The day after The first Monday in November", unless you can have a way for a Tuesday not following a Monday. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I like K's version best. ħuman 22:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says "the Tuesday between November 2 and 8" that is a lot easier to say and is far more understandable. - π 07:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

_{<Pedantry corner>}Then WP is wrong! That means that it can only be on a Tuesday falling on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh._{</Pedantry corner>} 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic as you may be, you're right! unless the following phrase is "inclusive"... But Wikipedia is always wrong, right? Quaru (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal fuckers and their godamned clarity!--Brendiggg (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The best of public - again

I know assfly is completely insane but how can even he decide that someone schooled from the age of 10 in higher mathematics and who has a graduate degree in maths and has been a maths professor is somehow simply the best of public?

[1]^img Oldusgitus (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Andy only sees black and white. In his world, it's simply not possible to be an expert in something while at the same time criticizing the establishment surrounding his field of expertise. So since his criticism is documented, that must mean that he can't be an expert. Also keep in mind that (I think) there never was a satisfying definition of "expert", so any case is subject to Andy's judgment. And who could be better suited than the man who invented and personifies The Best Of The Public? --Sid (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A case study in why it is important to define your terms carefully before you start. I think in Andyland the BOTP is really an attempt to make an exclusive club, like you did back in 3rd grade on the playground. By generating his artificial group he hopes to shame and put down those who he doesn't agree with. --Opcn (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I like to think BotP is Andy's way of justifying his failure in his chosen career(s) to himself. He got too much of that there book learnin' and became a god damn expert, rather than homskooling himself and becoming the best of the public. Just my theory. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I always figured Andy considers himself the BoP, since one sure way to qualify is being kept down by the man liberals elitist gatekeepers. But the Perelman thing makes no sense no matter how you cut it, he's an expert by any standard. --MarkGall (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What is most interesting is that the reason that Assfly gives is not completely honest (I know what a shocker). The reason according to the article is because he feels that Richard Hamilton deserves credit as well, but that doesn't make a good CP headline now does it? Quazywabbit (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

BotP basically (if I remember correctly) came into being when people pointed out that Andy in fact isn't an expert when it comes to math, physics, translating the Bible, etc. So it basically was "You're not an expert!" - "Uh... yeah... but being an expert is BAD!" It's really just another version of "Those who do good are conservative, those who do bad are liberal, conservatives are good, liberals are bad." --Sid (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he said "...that a U.S. mathematician deserved as much credit as he did" - so why didn't he ask them to give half to Hamilton? Why didn't he give it to charity? Or found a series of math prizes for students or something? ħuman 21:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question Human. I would actually like to know if this was considered by Perelman or Clay Mathematics. But either way this is far from a BOTP story. Quazywabbit (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Word is that Clay is going to give away to the money to "benefit mathematics", though I don't know if they've decided how. --MarkGall (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

By stopping Andy from writing about mathematics. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While I actually think that in very limited situations Andy's Best of the Public idea has some merit (and is hardly his original idea anyway), I think it's hilarious that he equates it with CP editors, almost by definition. What's best about it though is how it relates to CP vs. WP difference #14 "We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research." Pick a side, Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So does Andy completely reject peer review as a tool of the experts/liberals that works against BotP? That's the impression I get from "Note to liberals: Perelman posted his solution on the internet, eschewing peer reviewed journals." If so it seems he's practically given us a reductio ad absurdum of the whole BotP story. --MarkGall (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Colleges Going Bankrupt wigo

Just like this one, maybe?--WJThomas (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

football result

Christian, Conservative Brazil deafeted by liberal athiest Neatherlands 1-2. CS Miller (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure about the conservative part of that statement. in fact, I've seen CP reference Brazil as socialist. ScientificRigor (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you look at the world through a lense of politics its always about what is expedient at the time--Opcn (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The patented Andy-o-meter did quite well in round 1, predicting 6 out of 8, I believe. It'd falling apart a bit now. According to its method, we should be down to only the Catholic South America following this round. Netherlands should never have got this far, and this can only be the result of DECEIT. DickTurpis (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it is because of their proposed burqu ban. - π 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That may have helped a bit, but it's not enough to overcome the rampant atheism prevalent throughout Holland. Something else is afoot here. If they make it to the finals we definitely need an official investigation into this. At least the sole Affirmative Action Team is eliminated, but the fact that they beat the USA shows how politically correct the World Cup has become. DickTurpis (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The real question is - "Does Andy predict better than a brain parasite found in cat fecal matter?" Or maybe... there's some correlation there. --Shagie (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would wager the oracle octupus generates better insights than Andy. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And Ghana, who used the power of prayer to defeat the mighty US, lost to Uruguay. Does that me Uruguay prayed harder, or that God just loves Uruguay more? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Germany beats the pants off Catholic Argentina. What can we learn from this? I'm confused. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Germany isn't catholic, there are roughly as many protestants as catholics, though I assume that there are more catholics than protestants in the nationalelf. But wp:Mesut Özil is probably neither :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I sort of thought Germany qualified as a liberal atheist country, but their football performance seems to prove that wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But the Pope is German, and Germany is ruled by CHRISTIAN Democratic Union. It was obviously divine intervention. Vulpius (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re where this conversation started. I'd just like you to know that the Netherlands contains a lot of very religious people who take West Asian Sky God worship very seriously. Try finding a shop which sells food on a Sunday anywhere in the Rhine valley between Rotterdam and Ede... In some really out of the way places, they'll throw stones at you for bicycling through their village on a Sunday (I'm not joking). Brazil, on the other hand, is full of nearly-naked women. So that's why Holland won: Goddidit. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OnLive supports Conservapedia

I did laugh when I saw the image on this page. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Web 2.0 shinybuttons? Not going to happen. Religious right and graphics design: Never the twain shall meet. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Man, it's really depressing when the nicest-looking conservative awards were designed by a parodist. --Sid (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a fun photoshop day (especially playing with Gishie's mug). Why are they still up though? 18:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!!! Were those awards made in 3 minutes by a 6th grader using Microsoft Paint? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever "won" on of those awards in the first row (the award graphics that actually look like they took effort to make)? BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Have any awards actually ever been given? (Outside of the ancient article drive competitions) 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if they were, I'm not sure how anyone can win the math one. --Sigma 7 (talk)

I want to win the AGRI CULTURE award! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Should I scream into the redphone?

Dawkins is coming to Alaska (Fucking Squarebanks) on the 15th and my girlfriend and I are flying up (from Los Anchorage) to see him, should I have a shirt made mentioning machismo and try to get a picture? I'm torn between the opinion that I will be poking fun at Ken and the opinion that I might be validating him. Thoughts? --Opcn (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw him here in NZ in Feb. I wanted to ask him about Schlafly but decided against it. Ace^{Liquid Room} 08:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I think he will get the joke! ħuman 08:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Get the GF to wear it, though - otherwise he might think you're coming on to him. 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Smooches, whichever one or both of you that is :) ħuman 09:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DO IT Fedhaji (Talk) 10:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah do it. Post on the RD forums first to see if he gets a heads up about it. Might give you a shout out :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Those bonus points for getting the GF to pose seductively with him in order to show that he does have a good effect on women! Actually, on second thought that might require brain bleach afterwards... ^theist 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Dawkins goes to some pretty great pains to avoid feeding creationist trolls. While in theory it would be a hoot I can see him getting a little cranky about it. Plus, despite Ken's delusions, that whole "evolutionists lack machismo" meme is still pretty obscure and a lot of people might not get it. Add to that we probably don't want to give CP any more press than it honestly deserves.

Up to you of course. However personally I think you'd be better off taking a visit from Dawkins seriously and leave the infantile gags to Andy and Co. -Tygrehart

I say no, because there is a chance Dawkins may not even have heard of it. The whole MA-CHEESE-MO bit is very obscure and your idea quite possibly serve the interests of CP more then anything else by giving them what they want, exposure. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the t-shirt going to say, '<-- Señor Machismo'? IMO, you should explain to him the joke and only then try to take a picture. And, if he's really up to it, ask him to hold a red cape and put on a matador costume.;) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Seventy wins of innertubes to Night Jaguar! ħuman 04:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

My take is you should see if you can find a couple of latinas at event and ask them to pose with Dawkins, then add a lolcats style caption on the picture "MACHISMO!". --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess ...

... without looking: who's the most frequent editor on the IPBReason-dropdown^img. Oh! You got it right! 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So what's Rational Wiki's plan after Conservapedia wipes itself out? Senator Harrison (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote for world domination. When we divvy up the planet, I want Scandinavia. MDB (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So now you're not allowed to use an IP that has ever been used by someone else at CP? Despite the fact that Terry Koeckritz himself, frequently resuses the work of other people. Keep up the good work, O destroyer of wikis.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like there isn't an unlimited supply of IP's, added with the fact that cable companies assign each customer a specific IP that never, ever changes...it only makes sense Team Killer is doing this. Yes. 08:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Look on the bright side, all we need to do is find out TK's ip, open an account there, write some liberal trolling and the moron will be duty bound to block himself. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with that plan is that a sysop can edit on a blocked IP address. - π 09:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for conservative terms

Hooray, more conservative terms! (See WIGO.) One of the best things you can do on CP is add conservative terms from the 1600s to that list - for every one you add, Andy has to find eight from the 20th century to make it look like his "geometric growth" is still true.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, good point. Also he has to find 4 and 2 1800s/1700s, for a twelve to one coinservative effort ratio! ħuman 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

... which is of course why any terms added will immediately be reverted and any questions about it will get you blocked, because we all know real scholarship comes from ruthlessly defending your figures from data. --Opcn (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins macheesemo WIGO

I hate to be a funsponge, but do we need a WIGO each and every time Kenneth expands his little project? Unless something really exceptionally mental happens, it's no more fun than making a new WIGO for every twattish thing TK does.Webbtje (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but in this case at least it seems the votes disagree. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How many infiltrators?

I'm planning on doing them up the ass. They're so paranoid they make it easy. Unsource, unsource, conjecture, delete, condemn, repeat, profit. I only learned of that site a few days ago but I've never before seen such a collection of rash ignorance, and most clearly, hypocrisy. I don't self-identify as liberal, hell, I don't self-identify as gay most of the time, but seeing their shit makes me so glad some people actually do value peaceful co-existence. So how many parodists do you folks estimate constitute that site? I'm going to guess over half. The guy actually says the bible says not to change it, then he goes about removing god's biases toward tolerance. And this guy has money? Money for being a fluke struggling its way out of its host's political pigshit? Sodom (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

His mommy and (probably) his wife have some money. If you've only learned of these guys a few days ago you've missed out on nine out of ten edits and nineteen out of twenty editors they will ever see. Traffic has been decreasing fairly steadily, albeit with some hickups, since early 2008, and is now at a few percent of its peak value. Even if the site stays afloat for a few more years their median lul must have been more roughly two years ago. mb 06:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Klose & Cacau

• Cacau (Claudemir Jerônimo Barretto) is indeed Christian, of the more annoying sort - from his website: Wenn Du auch, so wie ich, ein friedliches und erfolgreiches Leben wünschst, nimm Jesus Christus als Deinen Herrn und Heiland an. (if you - like me - wants to have a peaceful and successful life, take on Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour). He came to Germany being 18, but wasn't homeschooled: being a working single mother, I doubt that his mother had time for such a thing.
• Lukas Podolski, Piotr Trochowski, and Miroslav Klose live in Germany since their very youth, so they are products of the German school system. Though they are probably catholic, there isn't much public display of their beliefs.
• Another player who is known for being religious is Mezut Özil: his girl-friend just converted to Islam to marry him.
• Sami Khedira seems to be a more laid-back Muslim.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy's whole line of thinking here is just nonsense. He can warp stuff like Germany into it, but what about the god-fearing nations that have been knocked out? Award for most Ned Flanders-like would probably go to Kaka, who didn't even turn up to the World Cup. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

He's now settled on Uruguay as the last hope for a Christian triumph against the forces of evil - guess he liked their last-minute "hand of god" moment and wasn't too beholden to hard-praying Ghana after all. It's not like he's got a whole lot of options left with those Dutch liberals, German heathens and Spanish socialists clearly being out of the question, but those who care about fairness will be united in chants of Hup Oranje tonight. Röstigraben (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaka did indeed show up at the WC, only to get a red card and then a yellow in the subsequent game. And evangelical Brazil certainly qualifies as Christian (I think Kaka actually tithes...) ScientificRigor (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Uruguay is by far the most secular country in Latin America. How to explain it? Bluefish (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Constitution Retranslation Project

Based on the "homework" Andy has assigned I would love to see a CP "US Constitution Retranslation Project". Hot damn, the laughs would flow. Ace^{Liquid Room} 06:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Was Jesus pro-life?" One of the great unanswered questions of US politics.Webbtje (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As if Andy would accept any answer short of "yes, absolutely, 100%". MDB (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly fix the "Establisment Clause" once and for all. Those Founding Fathers, what a bunch of rubes. They left "God" out of the Constitution. It has to be a copying error. Jimaginator (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea! Time to get rid of that misleading "well regulated militia" clause, too. Weapons of gun for everyone! I only wish the idea had been suggested there rather than here - it might actually have stood a chance. Bluefish (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

exceptional

dictionary.com might data "exceptional" to 1840 but merrian-webster does date it to 1787, so Andy is right for once, for one source. CS Miller (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Vector Fields

I knew it would happen sooner or later. Andy's desperation to get the number of Conservative Terms^TM to double every century has reached the point where a conservative vector field^img is now a conservative term, even though the article itself says "(not related to political conservatism)". He shows his usual scientific and mathematical ignorance of the whole subject, of course.

One hour later, he used this new "insight" to add crap about "Virtually all well-tested fundamental physical forces"^img and points out that relativity fails this. He cites what seems to me to be a bullshit paper. The paper was apparently never published in a real ("peer-reviewed", i.e. "worst of the public" / "atheist" / "lamestream" / "driving-people-away-from-the-bible") journal, and no reputable scientist seems to have picked up on this person's discovery in the 30 years since the paper was published. Andy seems to scour the internet for crackpot papers that support his delusions, whether they be about relativity, cosmology, or Fermat's Last Theorem.

Is anyone else (Hi, MarkGall!) able to say whether the paper is bullshit? Yes, we know that Andy's conclusions from it are bullshit.

Gauss (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the paper is bullshit, but here's one by an actual physicist that says: "The work of Vera in no way refutes the account given above of energy conservation." [...] "The fact that this article has never been cited by journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science database tends to confirm that Vera has not made a strong case against any important part of standard physical theory." I think it's safe to say Andy's conclusions are bullshit. --MarkGall (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A correction to Gauss's comment: the paper was actually published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, which is a proper peer-reviewed journal - not an incredibly well-known journal in the field by any means, but I've read some interesting papers from it. However, this is the only paper listed on the author's website as having been published (conference proceedings aside); there's a long list which are tellingly described as "Sent to <journal which rejected him>". Although that doesn't necessarily mean anything for this paper, I'm rather sceptical. If I can work up the courage I'll try reading it in the morning.. alt (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

By that logic perhaps they should make the word "numbers" as a conservative term as well because 1) it's a book in the Bible and 2) scalar field is a 1 dimensional vector field (There should be no rotation in an 1D vector field, right?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, as long as they're not those nasty liberal complex numbers. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Soccer denies intelligent use of the hands, while encouraging unintelligent use of the brain"

Amazing. You know something that denies intelligent use of the hands? Hotdog eating competitions. Ace^{Liquid Room} 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know something that encourages intelligent use of hands? Pleasuring oneself. You know something that requires intelligent use of brains? Managing infidelity. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"(By the way, I wonder if "rise to the bait" is a cp:mixed metaphor -- uh oh, we need an entry about that)" No Andy, it's not. It's just a metaphor. It's about fishing. Get it? Another sport many consider boring, but some enjoy. ħuman 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, check out Andy's brilliang new article I just fixed link to! ħuman 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be stupid Human, fishing is clearly a conservative activity as people who fish can the sell to the free market. Jesus endorsed fishing himself on the Mount. Ace^{Liquid Room} 02:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet all these activities, including Jesus's fishing ventures, deny the intelligent use of the appendix. I sense a socialistic takeover. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I never fully grasped the concept of sour grapes until I read the neoncon reaction to the US's performance in the World Cup. DickTurpis (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Their reaction to Obama winning was sour grapes by the bushel. - π 05:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer football actually requires restraint of the hands, conscious control over automatic reflexes. Surely that would make it a conservative trait? Use of the hands would be a filthy liberal tactic and bad-sportsmanship. Andy & TK's ridiculous posturing to score political points (more like own goals) is a just a gossamer veil for their naked xenophobia.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I play in goal, which pretty much requires use of the hands (unless I want to lose really, really badly) - does that make me a conservative football player? Worm^{(t | c)} 09:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I deliberately left the goalie out because it's such an obvious, allowed exception. But yes, goalkeepers by nature are extremely conservative their role being to defend the status quo; there even used to be a saying as safe as the Banks of England.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins dislikes football. Doesn't that mean that those who don't like football are machismo-challenged?Toffeeman (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would have thought that scum-sucking miserable excuse for a human Uruguayan piece of shit (no, I'm not bitter) using his hand to block a certain goal was a clear case of liberal deceit. But if he used his hand, then it must a conservative trait. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of my most conservative friends is rather disgusted by his fellow conservatives' loathing for soccer. Of course, his love of soccer is practically genetic -- his grandfather was a huge fan of the game, helped establish organized soccer in Maryland, and is in the American soccer hall of fame. MDB (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Andy and TK are not the only ones to think that "soccer" is a socialist sport. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess Soccer doesn't require using the one real distinctive feature of humans in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, out large brains. Except of course, like all sports, it does, because it requires tactics and skill.

What I really do not understand is CP's weird obsession with the sport. They obviously follow the World Cup based on the repeated front page pronouncements about various national teams winning and losing, but for some reason, they hate the sport they loyally follow. I suspect it represents the hate-love schism thay have for themselves as individuals. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Capturing this gem from the pianist just in case TK doesn't think it's funny: Talk:Main^img --MarkGall (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic. I'm very impressed. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

TK responds with a pretty weak, cut-and-paste comeback^img. "I rest my case" indeed. Junggai (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah didn't the moron say exactly the same thing a day or two ago? WTF, deja vu? ħuman 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, though he's quoted just about every other dubious assertion from that blog. Junggai (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember if all of these nonsense 'Spirituality and political conservatism = Sports prowess' CP blog posts were going on during the Olympics, or is it just for the World Cup? Also, TK wrote "Soccer is the only sport in the world where you cannot use the one tool that distinguishes man from beast: opposable thumbs". Actually, most primates have opposable thumbs, as do pandas and some marsupials[4].--Leotardo (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz, I know you're reading this. Seriously, all you can do is quote the same dumb blog over and over? Some peple are unoriginal, but you're pathologically so. Get some ideas, little man. Junggai (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Really hot in the N.E. USA, what is God punishing us NOW for Andru?

It's got be the gays, or liberals, or UK people, or "BCE". If I'm really really un-liberal, like telling Andru his Bible is awesome, do you think God will turn down the temp? Thanks. Jimaginator (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

is that a star trek reference to landru? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a liberal, I'm probably lying, but Yes... Jimaginator (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's because the Queen of atheistic Britain is visiting us in New York today. God is giving her a preview of the scorching fires of hell. --Composure1 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew there had to be a logical reason. Who says God works in mysterious ways. Once you say it, it's so obvious. Jimaginator (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

She's the head of a liberal, atheistic church after all. Webbtje (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Summer here is hot. And humid. Not unseasonal yet in my clime, although predictions were for crazy heat levels that never occurred. ħuman 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's effing hot here but I've been drunk on pre-mixed margaritas for 4 days and haven't noticed. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we know it isn't global warming. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka?

Concerning that WIGO about CP's newsline on abortion-breastcancer research, what's meant with the bolded Sri Lanka part? Does the location of the research impact its validity, or am I missing some kind of joke or something? To me it just looks disgustingly racist in a way, it might as well say "How could those loons at CP use a source that's a study conducted by Asians?". --GTac (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say racist but certainly "Heh, those 2nd worlders! What do they know?" a bit of cultural superiority perhaps. Anyway, change yes. Ace^{Liquid Room} 08:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Ace^{Liquid Room} 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka specifically isn't known for their high academic standards. For instance you can get a mail ordered MD from Sri Lanka, that's what "Dr." Nick Begich MD did. It's also third world, second world is the soviet union and their allies. But it is war torn, and that always boosts the level of academic research right? --Opcn (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, right? How can anyone possibly trust their lying, liberal statistics?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever. To use the parlance of our times, Sri Lanka is a developing nation. Still, the WIGO betrayed an unnecessary cultural superiority. Ace^{Liquid Room} 09:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like my irony was too subtle.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even read your comment, Lily. Ace^{Liquid Room} 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Soccer

Guess that means that socialism and liberalism are the most popular philosophies in the world with conservatism trailing a very distant last. Guess Numbnuts didn't think that one through. Whoops, no of course, he did think it through, it's just another sad attempt to make Andy look like a dribbling imbecile.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See also here (I beat TK to it, it seems) 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The butthurt is strong with that one. (that ought to have been a WIGO's title). So, since I don't watch socialist football, I take it the US lost or something? Sen (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically every four years the Yanks get reminded that they suck at the world's most popular sport. Instead of admitting that they suck they pretend that it doesn't matter because it's a girly game and lacks macheesmo. Meanwhile Terry Koeckritz picked up the link that was posted in the Saloon Bar and used it as part of his CP Parody - he's getting almost as good as Bugler these days. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious why CP has such a downer on football (i.e. the ball game played with the feet). The USA has a pretty good team which almost always gets past the group stage at the World Cup. But the trouble is they then lose to homosexual-loving, dope-smoking Dutchmen or socialist-voting, nudity-tolerating Brazilians. True Murr'cns who play true Murr'cn sports - sports that no-one else plays - conservative sports - don't have the problem of meeting people from other countries who are not completely identical in every way to Murr'cns. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer is a socalist sport until Heathen Germany imports Christians! Ace^{Liquid Room} 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the biggest star is muslim - Mesut Oezil - but somehow, CP is a little shy about mentioning that... The Real James Brown (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at who holds the (now defunct) Rugby Olympic title, where handling the ball is of course encouraged. 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That proves it. Goddidit. In fact, Goddunnit so much he's cast a spell (or whatever it is he does) to prevent anyone else organising rugby at the Olympics and thus depriving the Murr'cns of their status as champion ball-handlers. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheistic, Socialist NZ holds the Rugby World Cup Next year. Hope Andy catches it. If not I am sure I can dangle some bait for TK. I would really like to see CP's take on Rugby which is far more brutal and replete with machismo than any American sport. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago I saw a comparison between the max forces on the bodies of American footballers and Rugby footballers. The momentary forces on the American Footballers were higher, but, after allowing for the body armour, the actual stresses on the individuals were the same per tackle. having said that the rugger players stayed on the field for the whole game being involved in up to 40 tackles - not just in 4 - 5 minute patches and possibly only participating in two tackles per game (apparently?) The were all Americans btw - even the rugger players - from California somewhere.

Reasons why Rugby is not a conservative sport. 1. Throwing the ball forwards is illegal - an example of liberals making up rules as they go along. 2. Tackling players off the ball is illegal - i.e. people who play liberal sports are panty-waists. 3. Players don't wear padding - i.e. people who play liberal sports don't take good care of the bodies that God made for them. 4. You only get five points for a try (touch-down), not six - so liberals undervalue individual effort and initiative. 5. You get three points for a drop goal (field goal), not just one - so liberals overvalue sneaky ways of taking advantage of your opponents' lack of organisation. 6. All the players stay on the field for the whole game (more or less) - so who's on the bench praying for divine intervention????? Go on, have a go yourself. Try "why cricket is liberal and baseball is conservative" or "why it is more conservative to play hockey on ice than on grass". The Real James Brown (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nearly forgot. 7. Rugby players can hold the ball with their hands even though the game is called Rugby football - an example of liberal deceit. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Correction: a field goal is USian Football is 3 points, it's the conversion after a touchdown that is worth 1. ħuman 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal denial; open your mind. Meanwhile, I'll be trying to figure out how the oversight function works again. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction to Human. In American football, a touchdown is worth 6 points (with an extra point conversion worth 1 for a kick, or 2 for running or throwing it in) and a field goal (kicking it through the uprights from the field of play is worth 3 points. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing one myself: Why is tennis a liberal sport?

• 1.) The scoring system, using words such as "love" and "deuce", is derived from French terms - a language spoken by a country plagued by universal healthcare and un-creationist beings.
• 2.) Of the eight current Wimbledon champions, only two hail from the great US, and both of them happen to be female - there is clearly a liberal, anti-American conspiracy going on here. Not to mention that they are both women, who we all know to be intellectually inferior to men.
• 3.) When a player makes a serve, it must land in the opposite service box without touching the net, all while the player uses correct footing - an example of strict and complicated rules held by the common power-hungry liberal.
• 4.) The wacky and patternless scoring system (15-30-40) can only be the figment of a liberal mind - who else would make such a scoring system that has no math base whatsoever?
• 5.) Conservative President Richard Nixon used "Ping Pong Diplomacy", with ping pong being a sport similar to tennis. The liberally-biased Wikipedia, however, censors this fact on their article regarding ping pong.
• 6.) The server has the advantage of winning - an unfair setup, similar to one that a liberal would often use at the beginning of a debate to give himself an advantage, such as using liberal assumptions or statements that put the opponent in bad light. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy complain about the rules of Soccer? I mean, American Football has more convoluted rules than just about any other sport. For a guy who boasts that his wiki has only a few straightforward rules, he certainly isn't using the same criterion to judge his sports. DickTurpis (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that cricket is more convoluted, but given that the NFL rule book is 289 pages and the ICC rule book is a measly 116 pages, I have to take my hat of to the yanks, you are the owners of the most confusing sport in the world. - π 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Simon, you are guilty of the liberal trait of giving undue weight to the number of pages without regard to page, margin and font size. Also Cricket has 42 rules while NFL has only 18, therefore Cricket is more complicated! However, looking at the NFL rule book there are so many sub-sections, exeptions, penalties, official signals that gives me impression that it is intensely rule-bound. The paradox of course is that, for me, it is more liberal to have fewer rules. There was a dsicussion about the UK constitution on the radio yesterday and whether we should have a single codified document similar to the USA, but it was pointed out that the US constitution is not a single document with its 27 ammendments but also includes 270 volumes of case law.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The FIFA Laws of the Game] has only 17 rules and 140 pages, all available as a freely downloadable PDF file - now that's socialism.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The rule thing is Terry Koeckritz's parody.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence of their article is a delicious combination of parodies, mocking CP's politicization of anything and incredibly poor writing/editing style: "Soccer is a popular Socialist football sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot." ħuman 09:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

JDWpianist's point

Actually I didn't notice early but he noted the effect of unionisation in the NFL. Next year there might not even be an NFL due to a players strike, but each year the best soccer players keep getting paid more and more in a open market where you can be traded freely between leagues. Also, I don't know the rules of soccer management, but in the NFl you can only sell a team with the agreement of all the other owners, seems very socialist to me. - π 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that most big UK (and I assume European) clubs are publicly listed companies and many others are propriety companies. Also, let's not forget that one of the most successful teams of the early days was that nasty bunch of Commies, the Old Etonians. Altho, let's not mention that to Andy; I couldn't stand explaining to that mental midget how an English public school is actually a private school. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in anyway true I'm afraid. The majority of clubs are private companies, and some of those that are listed are seeking to delist and go private again. That I can think of from the so called 'big' 5 Chelsea, Stretford Plc (man u), Moss side rovers (man shitty), Liverpool and Arsenal are all private companies. Going down further off the top of my head Fulham, Birmingham, Tottenham, Wigan and Newcastle are also private. I'm not sure about Everton, Bolton and West Brom but I think they are. I can't think of a single club listed on the main market. One or two may be listed on AIM but that's about it.

The sad truth is that almost all league football clubs in the UK, English and Scottish, are private companies wholly owned by a small number of shareholders.

There are a couple of supporters trust run clubs and a very small number in which supporters have some stake, normally through the auspices of a co-operative society or the like, but true listed companies or fans owned clubs are few and far between even down so far as the 7th level of the league.

The honourable exceptions including the wonderful AFC Wimbledon and clubs like Telford and Wrexham.Oldusgitus (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, I wish JDWP had mentioned the byzantine beurocracy involved in the football rulebook, and how damn wordy and petty it is.

Secondly, are the national teams really the big ones? Here we have multiple teirs of teams, and when it comes to an international competition (like the world cup, or the olympics) we cheer for the national team, it seems like TK couldn't possibly know what teams people cheer for outside of the world cup because he has a pretty lousy sample, i.e. what people are excited about during the world cup. --Opcn (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Homework Questions

Has then been mentioned before? What a pile of utter gibberish. Ace^{Liquid Room} 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw it a while ago. I like: "Teaching more people how to read: that benefit one political side more than the other?" - dunno, Andy, but you really ought to learn how to FUCKING WRITE! (sorry - he just gets me so mad- that thing pretends to teach!) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: "Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course." Say No More! 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I like: "Why should it matter what the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution was?" Because Andy is attempting to (re)interpret the "Original" meaning of the Constitution from a letter by George Washington to use that to recall some NJ Senator. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

His first lecture is now up, along with some more "homework". First order of business: teach your students how to pull numbers out of their asses, Conservapedia-style. Röstigraben (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics is like icbergs

The midterm elections; what it affects, and what it does not affect

Andy Schlafly, the great miseducator.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, these are his first draft lecture notes. He will IMPROVZZEZ them in due time. ħuman 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to make sure you count independents as democrats... I actually can't wait to see the turned in the homework and see Andy grade them just to see if he calls any of the "students" a liberal.Quazywabbit (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is one enormous trick question in the list - Define conservative and liberal.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From Conservapedia: Liberal: One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative.

Now if I say Conservative is the to opposite of liberal do I get full marks? - π 09:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

These two have always seemed like good working definitions to me:

Liberal: Politically "Left", whatever that means.

Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.

From the Illuminati card-game's rules. --Gulik (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Defining 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'

I wish I could remember the exact wording a very politically astute friend of mine came up with some years ago, but...

Conservative: Favors what is proven and traditional, often attracted to candidates with strong background and experience.

Liberal: Favors bold new ideas, often attracted to candidates with a vision.

One of my more smart-ass friends responded with:

Liberal: Sexy, bright and witty. Generally favors candidates with brains.

Conservative: Mean, bitter and nasty. Often smells of steamed cabbage.

MDB (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Children preying on children

fun stuff^img courtesy of the Ken

. --Opcn (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Egad, it is the equivalent of someone placing an "I am a moron" sticker on the back of your t-shirt and instead of taking it off, you wear it with pride. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Question evolution? Yes, of course, question everything. Don't forget to also question GOD. 00:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If they were actually questioning it I'd be all for it, sadly what they are doing is denying it and saying that they are questioning, skipping past that whole pesky inquiry step. --Opcn (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DING! Yes, they made up their minds quite a long time ago on evolution and it wasn't through rigorous scientific scrutiny. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what did Noah do with all the freshwater fish?82.23.208.15 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a miracle! You see when you misunderstand Occams razor then "The toothfairy did it" always passes muster. --Opcn (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha. But two can play at this game. Using almost as much time as Collected Morons International did, Anti-Aliasing-What's-That? Productions proudly present The science vs. stupidity store. Gorge yourselves on its goodness. Or not. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves FTW!!!! 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Guns in church

Not only Andy's reaction, but the news itself shock me.

If I've understood correctly, as an American you do have the (constitutional) right to carry guns - however, the owner of any non-public place such as a workplace, a private property, a church etc, also has the right to forbid you from bringing the gun (or just about anything else) into these facilities.

And, as I see it, this bill somehow forces churches (and only churches) to allow anyone to enter carrying a gun. Or, is it some kind of previous ban of guns in churches (and only churches) that now has been lifted?

Either way, I cannot understand how Andy thinks this is a good thing. Etc 07:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. NH is a "will allow" concealed carry state and two techs next door, well, pack heat at work. And at least one of them has poor judgment in my opinion. The other one is just a redneck. ħuman 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know why? Are there lots of people who feel the need to wander about armed to the teeth? Broccoli (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

St. Gabriel Possenti approves of this bill! -- 11:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I note the article CP links to says that the law says that it will allow guns in "“any church, synagogue, mosque or other similar place of worship.” (emphasis added.) Just wait till the "ZOMG! Muslims are coming for us!" crowd sees a Muslim heading into a New Orleans mosque packing heat. Their little brains will melt into oil and add to the Deepwater spill.

More seriously, I seem to remember this law was discussed earlier on RW, and one of our Louisiana resident members said that the law made it legal to carry concealed weapons into places of worship (presumably it had previously been completely prohibited, or perhaps the new law expressly allows it where it was unclear before), but said houses of worship could still prohibit guns on the premises. MDB (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably guns in church are good because of the horrible Conservative parable. Cantabrigian (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am curious, the article is rather vague on this, were firearms specifically prohibited from being brought into houses of worship beforehand? From what I can gather, such places can now allow concealed weapons rather then being required to allow people to carry them to such places. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In a state other than Louisiana (I can't remember which one, but I want to say it was my birthplace of Tennessee), a similar law was passed. Churches had to post very official looking, ugly signs to state that guns were prohibited. My instincts are that most churches would probably forgo the sign and say something on the order of, "While we will not officially prohibit weapons, we ask that you remember this is a house of worship and leave any firearms at home or, at worst, in your car." MDB (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Guns not being allowed in churches is actually fairly common, churches and places where alcohol is served. Private property owners can forbid guns as well but that's like forbidding nicks caps, hard to enforce. The thing of it is that it was religious people who had guns forbidden in churches, its not something that the left enforced. --Opcn (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it funny...

... that the evolution talk page at CP still has the big CPanel decision at the top? Do you think Ken

diligently submits all his edits to the homskollars for approval? This remarkable archaeological remnant of an age before CP was surrendered entirely to insanity is certainly worth preserving in a screenshotimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is all the defence Ken needs on why no one else can edit it. He was made a sysop so he could edit the locked page. - π 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On CP 'irony' is just a part of the periodic tabley. However, I'd love to know what kind of credentials guys like Ken, Karajerk and User188 gave Andy, given his abhorrence of "unfounded claims of competence", for him to sysop them just days after signing up? Even lil'Phyll had to bake cookies for two years before she was sysopped. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but she is female, and we all know how Andy views women as inferior. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On that note, I see it's been a year since Jallen last edited. How long before she gets demoted for inactivity? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Murican Gummint 101 course.

What a shame Andy calls it "in our fall, free course", it would sound so much better as a "free fall course".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got 100 internets that say we see all of Andy's Obama hatred condensed into one easy to read tirade, plus all the good of St Ronnie and a special mention of George Washington's recall letter. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken! Ken!

Just so you know, cp:Homosexuality and language is top of the wanted pages list, with 71 links (all created by you, no doubt). Quick, quick, run along and write some drivel. Show us your ma-cheese-mo! Make sure to include "ainderby quernhow' - "One who continually bemoans the 'loss' of the word 'gay' to the English language, even though they had never used the word in any context at all until they started complaining that they couldn't use it any more." --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can read it in all it former glory here^img. - π 14:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of 'Polari'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A rainbow is a "childhood symbol of happiness?" And here I thought it was a trick of the light. -Lardashe

Hi Karaturd! ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 19:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obama's unlawful acts"

This doesn't even make a pretense at being true. Half of these things aren't "unlawful" even if they were true, and almost all of them are grotesque distortions - with only one citation. I was expecting Andy-style citations, with "Obama has murdered millions of women", but this is just pathetic.--^talk 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you must remember, even the most gifted parodists, like Bugler, Terry and little Johnny boy, let the mask slip occasionally. It's hard work trying to be the perfect Conservapedian all the time. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed "Lies to the American people, too many to list". C'mon JPatt, I'm sure you could [list them if you put your back into it. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice how extensively sourced these claims are. Andy, don't be content with just listing Obama's crimes on your blog! Do the right thing and sue him! Röstigraben (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't elected officials have some degree of civil immunity regarding the job they are doing? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"If the President does it, it's not a crime" - Richard Milhous Nixon. ħuman 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you that ANDY SCHLAFLY RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990 because it's not true that ANDREW LAYTON SCHLAFLY RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990. Half the article is that over and over again, only with out the parts in little text and with Obama instead of AS. the other half is stuff that they wish was illegal. --Opcn (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tzoran

How did this character manage to fly under the radar for so long. He's even been given Andy's gift of blocking rights. Still it's good to see another resident parodist moving up the ranks. Then again, with comments like, "we do not censor information here. the studies speak for themselves" how can he not? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr, does he have checkuser? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^/Talk 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but neither did JPratt until November and that didn't stop him sucking IP addresses out of his ass. --PsyGremlinPrata! 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Parodist policy, Guys/Gals? Or does that not count people with blocking rights? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone is a parodist is fine now, because it doesn't have any weight over at CP. Firstly, we've managed to get possibly-genuine editors blocked by calling them out as parodists (sysops are aware of this, so they don't take our word for it any more) and secondly, we've called out editors as parodists before and nothing was ever done. The only way to get a parodist blocked is by pointing out evidence of the parodist status (and over at CP, even that is difficult). ^{ONE / TALK} 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We really should have a page on "parody policy", actually. It doesn't have to be a real, enforced policy (it's pretty unenforceable really), but I think the debate would be good. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We could have !voting and stuff! ħuman 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

CROSS-WIKI DEBATE MAP! - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. And I've given it a sloppy name: Debate:WIGOCP_parody_exposure_policy ^{ONE / TALK} 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BenjaminO is twice the suspected parodist TZoran might ever be. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Troll King, back with a zinger

Paraphrasing: "Only the top two cable news channels reported on the NASA/Muslim story." – Nick Heer 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Germany

So now that Germany lost what is CP going to say about the World Cup and who do they expect to win. They first predicted Ghana for there religious nature but they are out, they then picked Germany since they have members from [what they consider] christian countries and they are out. So we have Netherlands with its legal soft-drug usage and red light district and considered to be very liberal and Spain. Quazywabbit (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain: Catholic country. Bondurant (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I predict one of two outcomes... 1) The winner will suddenly become the great bastion of Christendom, its articles whitewashed of liberal accusations, and its history declared Conservative™ in the defense of Andy's convictions that only Christian Conservatives can win at sports. 2) Soccer and the World Cup become liberal cesspools of deceit and treachery. No Christian could ever win because of liberal bias, everyone that lost early will now have lost from persecution by atheists. In either scenario, any insinuation that Conservapedia said anything different before will be met with swift banning. HumanisticJones (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, Spain is laxer on personal use of drugs than The Netherlands, but can't find a ref. just now. CS Miller (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Andy does not like soccer he has spent quite a lot of time talking about it--Tlaloc (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Csmiller: Yup, in spain one can grow as much weed as one likes legally, as long as you don't smoke it in public or sell it[5]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Tlaloc, I don't remember the main page ever being as overrun by sports of any kind. Very strange. ħuman 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain just liberalized its abortion law. A World Cup defeat would be a logical result of that. M the T (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

They will just declare Soccer a liberal, socialist sport, that is why leftist European nations are in the final, it won't matter wither Spain or the Netherlands wins. TK is already setting it up this way through his regular rants against the sport. This way they can attempt to claim they were "ahead of the curve". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain does have a longer history of Muslim-bashing than any other country. Santiago Matamoros and all that.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"They will just declare Soccer a liberal, socialist sport" - already done!^img. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The US did win women's world cup twice, and in the top 3 every time. Ergo, US is a liberal, Socialist country. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)On a related note, about TK's rant about 'soccer' only being popular where it doesn't 'compete' with other sports, if you bothered to simply check Google, TK, you'd see there's leagues for basketball, ice hockey, wrestling and even American football in just about every European country, including the UK, which many consider the 'home' of football (or 'soccer', as you'd call it), and Italy, who are famously mad for the sport - it's just they're nothing like as popular as football. So, no real surprise to note that you're just plain wrong about that. Oh, and, as for your comment about 'X Games', 'X Games' is an event set up by the American broadcaster ESPN, and, as such, is, of course, in America. Other places have similar things, like the annual Ekstremsportveko event in Norway, so, again, you appear to simply be wrong in your little rant. 92.6.214.109 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So much clueless

Andy might know all about the teams' religious views, but he's clueless about everything else. The "Trustworthy" blog proudly displays the "World Cup arena" where Spain will play the Netherlands.^img Ok, Terry, now listen closely, because I'm only going to say this once.

• It's not an "arena", it's a stadium.
• The photo is of the Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenburg and is captioned as such.
• This stadium hosted it's last match on June 26.
• The final is at Soccer City in Johannesburg on July 11.

Now, I know that when Andy was faced with all this socialistic sport and liberal multi-culturism he probably got a bit confused, so be a good lackey and run along and fix Andy's fuck-up on the main page, will you? Run along now. Good boy! After all, I'm sure that not even you want Andy's ignorance displayed for all to see. You're welcome. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.

• It's not the World Cup championship.

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear as if Jaoquin reads us too.^img Now about that "championship"... --PsyGremlinTal! 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

US Cyber shield

Very droll Terry Koeckritz, of course the US government is installing a cyber shield against "vandals", not terrorists. Have essential utilities been targeted by atheists and evolutionists? I don't think so.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Next they'll be bleating that the liberal govt hasn't included Andy's blog on it's list. Btw Terry, seeing as you curry so much favour over there, how come Andy still hasn't implemented your flagged revisions idea? Could it be that he doesn't know how? Or that he doesn't trust you enough? People want to know. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooo~ I never read this tidbit. I hope we become like China with their Chingching and Tongtong (or whatever their virtual cyber patrol duo is called). Silly Mr. Cat 07:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Night Edit Mode

The day before yesterday, I became annoyed by CP. Again. This time it was the about night editing. Once, there was a little applet on this site which allowed to check whether Conservapedia was in night-editing-mode (done by psygremlin, if I remember correctly). I tried something similar at home, and the right pic is the result, the left one is generated with older data from 2008:

night editing at CP in 2008

night editing at CP in 2010

So, switching off night-editing-mode in the morning seems to be automatized (it's now at 7h, one hour down from 2008), and generally seems to work. But the use of night-editing-mode over the day is arbitrary... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't me - but thank you for the faith in my wiki-fu. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday afternoon must have been nappy-time for Andy. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was Interiot who did the night edit thing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it was him - thanks for the correction...

Night-mode during nappy-time is an inconvenience only for the common editor, i.e., the vandal to be, so there is no haste to switch it off again.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock finds a nut twice a day...

... and even TK is right once in a while.

TK seemingly agrees with the majority of Americans that banning Islamic head scarfs is wrong. MDB (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't work out if they were pro or anti that. Does that mean Americans are more liberal than Eurpoeans? - π 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's those atheist uropeons: hate religion whatever brand! 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be seeing the real TK here. And when commenting about homeless conservatives.

What I've never been able to figure out is why he spends so much time at CP. I mean, sure, it's obvious he likes confrontation and playing all sorts of mind games. It's also obvious he likes winding people up on here - witness his World Cup comments.

But... if he's going to let the mask slip and expose himself as a reasonable but patriotic conservative American rather than the unthinking ideological rabid right types like Schlafly from time to time, what's the point?

He seems to have much too much time on his hands. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in April, on my talk page on Wikipedia, TK described how he was sick and tired of all the endless debate on Conservapedia. In addition to what Ajkgordon said, it would be more the reason why one would question and wonder why he spends all that time on Conservapedia. Of course, he stated that he was just tired of the endless arguments, and not the project itself; I think it would be safe to say that he still loves the project. He may not be a wackydoody as Andy, but it's still a conservative-friendly encyclopedia, so if one's got the time, it would make sense to contribute to it if one is conservative. I mean, you don't have to be an unthinking ideological rabid right type to contribute to it...right? Or are all contributors to the project automatically unthinking ideological rabid right types, due to the fact that they are willing to work in an environment with, err, certain people and their works? (e.g. pantywaists and ma-cheese-mo) ~SuperHamster Talk 23:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And/or he is a cunt. Ace^{Liquid Room} 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As strange as it may sound I think conservapedia would be a whole lot more reasonable and productive a place if TK were in charge and not Andy. Sure TK has an itchy banning finger, but that's because he needs to stop people from giving Andy and Ken problem, no Andy and Ken, and TK might be a force for not exactly evil. --Opcn (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. TK is in charge of CP. He is the gatekeeper, rulemaker, and executioner. Andy's just a blissful idiot who doesn't realize why no one is arguing with him finally. ħuman 03:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK runs the show, but he doesn't own it, that was my point, sorry if it was unclear. --Opcn (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If TK genuinely cared about CP and wanted to improve its quality and image, he'd have already gotten rid of Ken, at least after he started the whole machismo business. Ken has obviously fallen out of favour with the great leader, as that string of unanswered posts on Andy's talk page indicates, and it probably would've taken only a small nudge to get Andy's consent for either stripping him of his sysopship and deleting his stuff or throwing him out altogether. Maybe he simply has some lucid moments or feels the need to do something useful once in a while to bolster his charade? Röstigraben (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK cares for nothing but TK. He won't do anything to disturb the status quo, that being that he is allowed to be as nasty as he wants to anyone - including Andy, by making him look stupider than he is. He is incapable of original thought and consequently he revels in destroying others' work. He's a classic school bully type who's as thick as two short planks and takes the piss out of the nerdy clever kids. (I don't like him, btw) 07:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If TK were in charge, CP would be entirely sane since it would also be entirely content free. TK bans everyone and never writes anything. Hell, if the 90/10 rule still existed, TK would be guilty, guilty, guilty. OK, none of the other sysops really write any articles as if they were still trying to create an encyclopaedia, but they do have their own little main space projects to attend to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was just TK it would be a staright copy/paste of Wikipedia with the liberal bits taken out.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia translation project"

God's intervention in World Cup: falsifiable hypothesis

Just looking at this World Cup thing from a zany CP point of view, the hypothesis that God intervenes to give victory to the team of his choice is testable in a scientific manner. If Spain wins, God will have favoured the minority of devout Spanish catholics against the atheist majority in Holland. If Holland wins, God will have supported the minority of Protestant fundamentalists against the majority of catholics in Spain who rarely if ever go to church. There you are, one hypothesis or the other disproved, whoever wins. The Real James Brown (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia has always adapted facts to suit theories. They never miss a chance for self-promotion or slandering what they consider to be an opponent. It is not going to change for the World Cup. --Maquissar (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If a "good" team/country wins, it proves that god was on their side; if a "bad" one wins, it doesn't matter because "soccer" is a liberal, socialist, atheistic sport. QED. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If Spain loses, it's because of the new abortion law they introduced; if Holland loses, it's because they legalise drugs & prostitution and have funny accents. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do a tongue-in-cheek prediction of what teams would win based on Andy's Christianity/conservative hypothesis, so we could actually have something to test against, rather than post facto justification. The first round went pretty well, with the Andy-o-meter predicting 5 of 7 matches. It fell apart thereafter, however, as the final 4 should have been all South American countries, while in actuality only 1 of them made it. A Netherlands/Spain match was not predicted, but according to the Schlafly hypothesis Spain should win. I'm rooting for Holland. DickTurpis (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)