Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive191

This is an archive page, last updated 9 August 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <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)

Conservapedia never even called the FBI

So, who of you is Historiographic Anarchy? Very nice effort! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have liked to see a search for more relevant terms than just Conservapedia, and I hope they didn't just search for Conservapedia.org. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 23:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Nevertheless, this is good stuff, much as I'd always suspected. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Boo-ti-ful! So once again Andy gets shown up for the lying skunk that he is. with apologies to skunks everywhere, of course --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, brilliantly stupid. It's conservapedia.com. ħuman 07:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Counterexamples to the Bible

What I love about this is that two fairly valid refutations are presented (are they though?), then we are presented with the fantastically hand-wavey 'Genesis is obviously proved by the amaztasticulous field of Creation Science'. Ahem. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 08:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What I love about this is that it's not far off from being a tumbleweed article. Andy could have just done that and called it a day. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite counter example to the bible is the talking ass in Numbers 22 --Opcn (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If I ask really nicely can I install disproofs in the other counterexamples articles? --Opcn (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They are right in one regard, on Coservapedia there are no Counterexamples to the Bible, because any attempt to create any, no matter how well founded or researched, would be deleted by the sysops and that user banned. You can pretty much claim anything on your site when you completely censor any other point of view. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite contradiction in the Bible is the question: "Who is Jesus's dad's dad?" (Paternal grandfather.) No, I won't give any spoilers, I wouldn't want to ruin the surprise. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Arthur. Seriously. ħuman 07:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The CBP's Fame Spreads

The new issue of Mother Jones magazine (July/August 2010, with Glenn Beck on the cover) includes a short article on page 70 about some newer Bible translations.

You guessed it, they included the CBP!

Specifically, thy quoted Luke 11:46:

"He replied, "You lawyers will be accountable too! For you impose burdensome regulations on others, but will not lift a finger to help those who struggle with them."

Intriguingly, the rest of the translations they quote are parodies (or at least intended for humor), things like the LOLCat Bible. So, either MoJo doesn't realize that the CBP translators are serious, or the only thing they could find to compare it to are intentionally jokes. MDB (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Good find! Sadly there appears to be no link on their website. However, given the topics of discussion, it would appear to be Andy's target market, and if they're calling it (or comparing it to) parody, then that just shows what an epic fail the CBP and Conservapedia are. Any chance of making a copy of that article for us please? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There's really nothing to make available. It's just quotes from seven different translations. The translations they chose are:

* LOLCat Bible (that's the lead)

* CBP

* Cockney Lord's Prayer

* Hipster Book of Job

* The Manga Bible

* Da Jesus Book (Hawaiian Pidgin)

* Technical Slang Bible

I'm not sure why you say Mother Jones is CP's "target audience" though. It's a very leftie opinion journal. MDB (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong on this but I thought that Da Jesus Book (Hawaiian Pidgin) was not meant as a parody at all. Some religious person thought that translating the book into Hawaiian pidgin woudl open it to a new audience who would not read the more 'normal' versions of it. And I think the cockney lp isn't meant as paraody either Oldusgitus (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the website for the Da Jesus Book, and you may be right. I don't know enough about Cockney to say whether the Lord's Prayer translation is serious or not. Perhaps some of our English members could comment. MDB (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Same for Manga Bible, or at least one of the four works of this name. I saw a copy (this one, I think) down our (quite mainstream) local Anglican church on the books for sale table. Translations having become acceptable, Christians work very hard in great seriousness to translate the Bible into every conceivable language, dialect, creole or patois - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and Andy and his children have translated it into "moronese". ħuman 04:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems as if the ArchB of Canterbury approves of the cockney Bible. I'm not sure what Andy et al would make of Jesus walking on the "fisherman's daughter" or breaking "Uncle Ned". Worthy of a RW article? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the linked article about the cockney Bible indicated it was done to make it "more fun" for students, so I don't think it quite qualifies as a serious translation.

And even if they re serious, I doubt any of the other translations have fantasies of becoming standard translations, unlike the CBP. MDB (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My Letter to Mother Jones

I just sent the following to Mother Jones magazine.

Your article about new Bible translations (July-August 2010, page 70) included a quote from the Conservative Bible Project. While the other six translations you quoted are parodies, or at least written for humor value, the CBP, as its translators call it, is intended to be a serious work. (Though it has been rather heavily infiltrated by parodists.)

The project is the brainchild of Andy Schlafly (yes, he's one of Phyllis Schlafly's children, and he's just as right-wing as his mother.) His inspiration for the translation was his belief that the story of the woman caught in adultery was a "liberal addition" to the Bible that should not have been in there in the first place. This led to a belief that the history of Bible translation was influenced by those awful liberals, and an attempt to create an entirely new translation of the Bible.

Schlafly does not view this as a mere conservative commentary on the Bible. He views it as a legitimate translation, and expects that it will someday be treated as a serious scholarly work, despite the fact that he and most of the translators involved have no, or very limited, knowledge of Greek, Latin and Aramaic, or any theological training outside of being regular church-goers. Despite that, and to the surprise of many, they managed to complete a translation of the New Testament, and are working on the Old Testament.

Schlafly's translation effort has been, as you might expect, met with near-universal scorn. Even Joseph Farah of the ultra-conservative web site World Net Daily savaged the idea.

The Conservative Bible Project is itself an outgrowth of Schlafly's web site Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com), which he created to counter the "liberal bias" on Wikipedia. He insists it's a legitimate alternative to the much better known web encyclopedia, but it is, in effect, a blog for him and a few other editors, run in an incredibly dictatorial style.

There's a web site that's devoted to monitoring the goings-on at Conservapedia, including the Conservative Bible Project. It can be found at http://rationalwiki.org/.

MDB (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but referring to it as a translation in any other way than to describe how Andy views it gives far more credibility than is deserved. It is just a simple rewording of the KJV and should be acknowledged as such. Kallium^talk 04:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

July at Conservapedia, RationalWiki and Citizendium

July has always been not such a good month for Conservapedia. Needless to say, that this July is the worst of all in their history, according to account creation, overall edits, active editors, etc.

Conservapedia	only ≈ 6000 edits were made, 10 users contributed over 70% of these edits (including one boring vandal hyperactive newbie*).	RationalWiki	Citizendium
Conservapedia	JacobB fell out of grace, he now has only edit rights...	RationalWiki	Citizendium
Conservapedia	much of the day, Conservapedia is benighted
Conservapedia	Number of active editors are down While the number those editors who contributed to Conservapedia over the previous 28 days by surpass RationalWiki's number from time to time, the daily number of active editors (and the weekly number) are always lagging behind. But compared with Citizendium, well, they are doing marvelously!	RationalWiki	Citizendium
Conservapedia	and many of these active editors are (perceived as) vandals, parodists, etc.
Conservapedia	As stated above: worst July in the history of Conservapedia: let's wait for August.	RationalWiki
Conservapedia	But at least they know how to block...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

*sorry, my bad...

I'm a little slow---can you explain the right pie chart on the first row? Jdellaro (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a breakdown of edits by user rights, i.e 45.5% of all edits were by user with oversight rights, 12.8% by users who were then blocked, etc. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Oo, oo, I know sir, me sir, I know sir, oo,oo. :)

It show what rights the user has who made the edits, same as shown on the next chart. So the majority of edits were made by users in the 'oversight' group - Andy, Ken, Ed, TK, JPatt et al., 12.8% were made by users who are now blocked, 18.5% by 'commoners' - i.e. bog-standard users, and so on. Damn, PsyG got there first. Guards....seize him! Worm^{(t | c)} 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

*hyperactive newbie = ? I guess I can't find where the * points. or is that person you? Ricardo 15:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought of HaywoodJ larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

LArron, maybe you can do a chart on pageviews. 1 million over 10 days is pretty good for CP in July.--193.200.150.152 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LArron, you are an asset, as always. Thanks for the graphs. ^theist 14:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy..

...fell out of bed and hit the grumpy tree this morning. "lousy" followed by "liberal claptrap". Just the kind of language you'd expect from an institute of higher learning like CP aspires to be. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy remains a moron. For quite a long time now many four year colleges/universities have been changing their names to "X University" to distinguish them from two year colleges/junior colleges which more and more have the name "X College" instead of "X Junior College." This has been all over the US, in red states, blue states, conservative schools, liberal schools, private secular schools, private religious schools, and state schools. Once again Andy wields the (largely defensive) weapon of stupid. Corry (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Massachusetts is the 46th state to make its state schools universities, officials said." He ought to criticize them for being Johnny-come-latelies. I like how he calls the Mass. State College system "lousy", though! ħuman 04:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other states, but here in Colorado there is a distinction. Colleges are institutes that offer Undergraduate degrees, universities have masters programs and higher. My School (Metropolitan State College of Denver) has just been accredited for a couple of masters programs, and as such, we have to change the name. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass senate bill 23, anyone I have the skinny?

MPR has a reference to WND talking about state senate bill 23, and how it make it impossible to petition the govt. on issues dealing with a person's right to "the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws." I get the strong impression that outside of the quotes the bill is talking about making it impossible to remove the right/liberties/property of people. Does anyone have more information on this? Any Rational wikians in Mass? --Opcn (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So here is the skinny. this bill would amend this section of the state constitution To make it impossible to use a petition to take away “The rights to freedom, equality, and civil liberties; the right of each individual to be protected by society in the enjoyment of life, Liberty and property, according to standing laws”.Yet this is some great evil in conservapedias eyes. The people must have the right to take away the rights of the other people! The mob must get what the mob wants! --Opcn (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion -- and it's just suspicion, nothing more; I have no evidence -- is that the intent of the bill is to prevent anti gay marriage petitions. Hence Conservapedia's outrage. MDB (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As if anyone listens to those petitions. I work in a mass liquor store, and we set up 2 petitions to have the sales tax on booze repealed. it hasnt worked. I WANT CHEAPER BEER DAMNIT --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A ballot referendum becomes law, you get enough signatures on the pages, then take it and file it, and then it gets on the ballot and the people vote on it, and it becomes law. --Opcn (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A referendum REVOKES a law, an initiative' becomes a law. Small legal distinction. Either way, these referendum/initiatives are the petitions that are legally binding, and thus actually meaningful. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This amendment would mirror the laws put in place by the District of Columbia. Their initiative/referendum law has a "Human Rights Exception", whereby the certifying authority may reject as a valid petition anything that would revoke a human right. This actually came to importance, because some people passed a referendum to revoke gay marriage within the district, and the certifying authority rejected it. Naturally, the petitioners sued.

The court upheld that the action was valid. One of the most interesting parts of the decision was that the District of Columbia was granted its legislative authority by the US Congress, not by the citizens of the district. Thus, comparing the legislative actions of the district to a state was erroneous. The states gain their legislative authority from the people, and thus the people retain their rights when the wording is vague. However, the district, gaining its legislative authority from a higher sovereign is limited in what it could pass on to its citizens, and thus the district retains their authority when the wording is vague. </lawgeek> --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If Andy is so all-fired up about allowing petitions to deprive someone of their rights, I wonder how he would feel if his neighbors drafted a petition stating

We, the undersigned, have no desire to live near a ultra-conservative loon. We demand that the State of New Jersey revoke all rights of citizenship pertaining to one Andrew L. Schlafly, seize his property, and remove him from the state, via excessive force if necessary.

MDB (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken

Jeebus, feel the crazy. Andy cleared that page sharpish. Mind you, not fast enough to avoid the almighty CaptureBot, bastardised offsprog of a Dalek that it is. 0 in mental problems indeed.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the Debt Collector thing... it's also on Karajou's talk page^img because... I dunno, really... and I don't think I want to know. This is a Class-A trainwreck, and I hurriedly switched my Ken Filter back on to avoid the craziness. --Sid (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once, a spammer, always a spammer, I guess. I wonder where else that exact paragraph will pop up? --Kels (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading all his gibberish on aSK I sent PJR an email asking that perhaps, if PJR knew how, he could call Ken and see if he's OK because he isn't making any sense right now and sounds seriously demented. Ace^X-102 21:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Either he's trolling us, or he's not as well as he claims to be. Either way, Andy does not appear to be impressed. EddyP (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that he's splurged on PJR's^img page as well… well put it this way, if it was me doing that then my psychiatrist would be describing it as an episode of paranoid psychosis. Maybe Ken is pulling our leg, but it doesn't feel like it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheists trying to find out where he lives? Getting funding from churches to go after them? Up until know I thought he was merely cranky and clueless about how silly his postings are, but this is genuine paranoia. I don't know what triggered this outburst, but yeah, it looks pretty serious. Given how this site represents most of his audience, maybe we should stop WIGOing his stuff for a while and see if he calms down? If he seriously thinks his edits at CP are an important part of some epic struggle against atheism, not responding to his antics could help to put things in perspective for him. Röstigraben (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Christ, I just read his Talk page on ASK. He wrote from "48 hours to stop cyberstalking me" down today. That's not good reading.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should look him up on one of those find people sites and link him to where he can find his last 10 addresses for under 3 dollars, and remind him that the internet has changed the hiding game. On another note, how did we find out that his name is Ken DeMyer? --Opcn (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out if he actually believes we're cyberstalking him, or if this is just spin trying to cover up the fact that he's seriously bad at hiding his true, and rather infamous, identity. After all, he's also still pretending that we have no idea if he's male or female, young or old, or even what continent he's on. --Kels (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish somebody would sit Ken down and explain pronouns to him. He doesn't have to start each paragraph with Karajerk's name. That said, I think it's clear than Ken has suffered a major breakdown. Let's see if his fellow sysops show some Christian charity and help him out. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

I've just read some of his crap over at PJR's blog^img, and the man is seriously unwell. This is not even funny any more, it feels like we're pointing at the kinds on the sunshine bus and laughing at them. Does anyone have direct contact with anyone who could urge Ken (in the real world) to get some help. I really think that Schlafly should be doing far more to help Ken, I think he takes Andy's blind-eyeness as tacit encouragement. Surely there's at least on person semi-sane enough at CP to get Ken the help he so clearly needs. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Contacting PJR, as someone did, strikes me as a suitable first step. PJR may be infuriating to argue creationism with but he's not void of compassion, and PJR may be able to get IP numbers, etc. to contact Ken's ISP if he feels Ken is a serious danger to himself. He's in Australia, though, and probably only has net contact - does Ken talk to any of the Conservapedians other than online? - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PJR is a better bet than anyone at CP, as we've seen. Although I doubt PJR has any more of a direct line to Ken than any of us, none of whom he'd listen to. Add on the fact that he seems to think he's well (which in a lot of people is the step before going off their meds "because they don't need them any more"), and I have doubts he'd really listen to anyone telling him he isn't. --Kels (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's under a doctor's care for a serious medical condition and has been for some time (info comes from CP sysop google group, leaked by a member). If his mental state becomes too bad I am fairly certain his doctor would act. There is really little to nothing anyone else can do. It's admirable that RW people have concern and compassion for him, but ultimately none of us can do much about any of the crazies we encounter on the internet. Not Andy's warped views, not TK's evilness and paranoia, not Rob Smiths's commie conspiracy terrors. I think the kindest thing to do is just leave Conservative alone. FJF (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Somebody would have to alert his doctor that he's unwell for the doc to do anything. Contacting anyone at CP will be a waste of time, we all know how they feel about mental health issues, as far as they are concerned if Ken's has problems it's because he's not pious enough. Best thing to do is just to keep an eye on it and if he starts talking about harming himself or others contact the authorities and let them deal with it. Otherwise it's pretty much going to be up to Ken and/or his family/friends to call in help if he needs it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I emailed PJR yesterday as I know PJR has spoken to Ken before. Ace^X-102 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stop talking about him. It's not funny anymore. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The joke is more that it is allowed up than that a mentally ill man made it. Ken isn't nearly as ill as time cube guy, and he is still fair game, but if ken were posting to his own website (which you should totally do Ken) than it wouldn't be on WIGO CP. --Opcn (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys think it is "not funny" any more. You may not have picked up on Ken's ravings' target and intention, but I think it is deadly serious. ħuman 04:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is getting dangerously close to stalking, but he seems to just be threatening the equivalent of a boycott. So far. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it I'm afraid. From my reading he's refering to one person specifically, and if I were that person I would be mildly concerned to say the least. After all, this is happening in America where so many people already have or can get hold of those largely defensive weapons remember.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the great things about the NHS in the UK, and there are many many good things. in this situation I would call the NHs and the police, explain what is going on and the history behind it and leave them to (possibly) section for the guys own good. In truth what I suspect he really needs is someone to sit down and listen to him face to face instead of over a keyboard.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been advised by my "inner lawyer" to not discuss this topic with anyone but an attorney. ħuman 06:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Stopping to talk about him won't most likely fix anything, as long as he is writing his crazy rants there will be people mocking him. So he either has to find a way to cope with it or stop his crusade agains evil liberals and atheists. I dont think there is too much anyone of us can do to help him. If we stopped commenting everyone in CP whose mental health we question, there wouldn't be WIGO. Timppeli 06:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Apart from us, who else cares about what is happening at CP? Who else follows Ken's projects and mocks them? It's pretty clear that he thinks RW is stalking and threatening him. Also, I didn't get this at first, but it's no longer just about getting Ken to take it easy, but discouraging him from threatening one of RW's editors. If we voluntarily stop commenting on his antics, he won't have an audience anymore and might get around to realizing that he's taking this stuff way too seriously. This case is completely different from anyone else at CP - Andy, for example, might be "crazy" in a colloquial sense, but I've never seen anything from him that would suggest he's actually a threat to himself or others. Röstigraben (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahhahaha..... *wipes tear away* "if we stop paying attention to him, he'll go away." That's classic... omg, I've not laughed that hard in a long time... hahah... I mean. *deep inhale, but then breaks out laughing almost choking* The problem is that he's inventing his own audience. This shit is psychotic, and there's no reason for it even if we WERE the only reason he were doing it. He's simply lost a screw somewhere. Or, he's a parodist trying to see how far he can ratchet up the crazy before someone will do something. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he's lost a screw and is acting like a fucking psychopath is the whole reason why I suggest ignoring him. It doesn't gurantee that he'll "go away" or anything, but it might help to snap him out of his current mindset. There's a difference between pointing out stupidity on CP and making fun of someone who appears to be seriously mentally ill. Röstigraben (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow - if he thinks this makes him look mysterious and enigmatic he is wrong. It makes him look ill. StarFish (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity is serious business, billions of dollars every year, it's not something unique to him. However, Kens exploits are mocked roundly all over the internet, and in several different languages. --Opcn (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Right - I think this is getting slightly clearer. The bizarre stuff he is typing in (audi relays, etc) are google search terms for a company called Human Speakers (http://www.humanspeakers.com/contact.htm) so it looks like he has offered his services to this company to improve their google rankings - with some success. Obviously he then needs to splat it all over Andy's and PJR's wikis because - you know - he's Ken. I thought the funniest comment was where he said they are getting so much traffic they have asked him to stop. That's not the reason... StarFish (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Speakers, why does the name Human ring a bell? I think he is threatening to try and sink Human's business with his mad search engine optimization skills. If he is he is more delusional than I realised. He has moved into the region of plain scary now, I for one am going to stop poking him. - π 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes more sense Pi. It's a threat that he will turn his amazing internet skills towards harming someone on this site. StarFish (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To those of you who would rather keep pointing and giggling: if he does turn out to have lost his remaining marbles and does something stupid, be it over t'internet or in real life, will we still be laughing? At what point should we have stopped laughing? If he's having a fit of paranoia, continuing to write WIGOs about him will only make him worse. Webbtje (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To my mind he appears to be threatening a negative SEO so that Human Speakers are linked to customer dissatisfaction.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is, what can we do? We've raised the issue often enough here, plus with his bizarre CP posts to Andy and Karajerk, surely they must realise that something is wrong and help one of their own? Maybe we should ask PJR to use checkuser on ASoK, like we did with WoS, and somehow get the authorities round to Ken's house. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold out much hope for Andy and the Koward (or any of them, really). Compassion and basic humanity don't really seem to be big priorities for them, so I doubt they'd even go so far as to say two words to him about it, let alone take positive action to get him help. As to comparing Ken to WoS, he doesn't strike me as such an urgent case where he's threatening harm to himself or others. If he actually does start a one-man smear campaign, that can be dealt with appropriately, but what I'm seeing seems to be more of a cyclic deterioration, and it's likely that his doctor(s) and family/friends are well aware of it. From personal experience, there's no quick fix for that stuff, merely strategies to minimize it. We've already done all we can reasonably do, although it speaks well to the people here that we want to help him, even though he's long been an adversary, where his online compatriots don't seem to be interested. --Kels (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine has bi-polar and recently, in his despair, threw himself out of a 3rd floory window occasioning a 10 hour operation to rebuild his left leg and hip. I may dislike the people at cp and all they stand for but if we can help to stop anyone going through the same thing then as caring humans we should do it. There are few people I would wish the kind of thing Ken seems to be going through right now on. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Andy (and Ed and PJR) thinks he's got as much compassion as Jesus. The problem is that he's so gullible and willing to confirm that all Ken would have to do is say he's fine or that it's just a joke. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point there Kels, given that Andy's idea of charity is praying for the poor, rather than actually giving to a charity. Then again, given that Ken posts to the ZB under at least 3 different names, chances are they have no idea who he is. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that Ken's a threat to himself (well not deliberate self-harm, although his marathon editing and obsessive behaviour cannot be good for him) as suicide is regarded as a sin. Of course he might engage in a course of action that may harm other people's livelihood but I doubt very much that he's the violent type, even with all his working out.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I can easily see Andy ignoring Ken (with the exception of the occasional 'trimming') just because admitting Ken has a problem would be damaging to Conservapedia. Also, he would have take back his statement about Conservapedia having "0 in mental problems by its contributors". If a human being suffers for this stubbornness, then so be it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting lots of errors?

Getting a lot of errors when I try to view CP. Anyone else? EddyP (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I just got an "Internal Server Error" when I loaded some random articles there. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Too much oversight borking the engine?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Can it do that? EddyP (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably 1 in 4 pages that I try to load will not. --Opcn (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was trying to look at some diffs^img but was getting 500 errors - I thought it was someone manually deleting shit from the database. Hmmmmm. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Runaway cronjob. Sorry. Should be back to normal now. mb 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

American government - lecture two!

Andy has starting drafting lecture two, and I'm on the edge of my seat. I'm particularly looking forward to concept of "turnout", and how the turnout of homeschooling graduates is much higher than that of public school graduates ^{ONE / TALK} 10:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a possible source for that. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked to see it's World Nuet Daily. MDB (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

tk doublethink

I enjoyed this news item^img where we find that the association comprised of the librul lamestream media has voted unanimously to move Fox News to the front row of the White House briefing room. Considering it are fact that 99% of the media are liberal propaganda outlets^img, you have to wonder what the mainstream media was up to? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this was lib-burr-ull deceit to cover their true agenda. In his great wisdom, TK's wasn't fooled. MDB (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else hit the point where they know in advance what the site linked to will be on CP's borken news? ħuman 04:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand why all politicians are thin

because they partake in politics. Wait... I just notice the last reason on the list^img. Does he have a bitterness with overweight people or what? Ricardo 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The last reason on the list contains a beautiful Freudian slip: "the alternatives to participating in politics can be hurtful, such as getting fact ...". No danger of getting facts then in politics? (He's corrected it) Him (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm assuming Andy's fat thing is because he was the fat kid who always got beat up on the playground. But then again, he has so many crazy toes, it's impossible to guess. Suffice to say, in Andy's world, conservatives are fit, trim and healthy and liberals are all fat slobs. Of course, guess what the fattest US states are. I see Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina make up the top 5 - guess how those 5 states voted.

Also I love how they cite the Poland example for abortions, whilst conveniently forgetting the Romanian example.--PsyGremlinParla! 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought only the liberal politicians were fat? Anyway, that whole part about politics as a team sport is actually a nice illustration of how hyperpartisanship develops once you bring the mindset of sports fandom into politics. There is no neutral ground, you've got to choose a team. Once you've made your pick, you stick with it for better or worse, and loyalty trumps everything else. When you lose, blame the referee. And of course Andy will teach his students how to pick the right team. Röstigraben (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I note he's asking his students to predict the fall election results. Will he accept anything less than Republicans take both the House and the Senate? (Which is not an unreasonable prediction, mind you.) MDB (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was tempted to register just to answer some questions in a slightly 'liberal' way, whilst pandering to his ego by answering others in exactly the way he likes to use as model answers, to see how he reacted. But then I realised that a) my isp is range blocked by tk and b) I really couldn't be arsed. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Andy has never been wrong, it's obvious that liberals living in conservative states have higher rates of obesity. I'd like to hear Andy hypothesize as to why that may be so. 2 internets. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comfort eating to make up for the constant slaughter of the liberal sacred cows. EddyP (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"All issues are political issues"... My God, Andy really likes to use that quote by Orwell out of context, and to pretend that Orwell was secretly on his side. I wish I could bring Orwell back to life just to read what he'd have to say about Andy and CP. --Maquissar (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could bring Orwell back to like so that he could punch Andy. Well, actually I want to bring every deceased person back to do that. Vulpius (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I so badly want to ask Andy if that is all abortions or just legal ("safe") abortions. --Opcn (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a conservative >> must be a liberal

Does someone want to point out to andy that this logic means that conservatives are far outnumbered by liberals?--Opcn (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He already uses this as part of the scare tactics. "They're everywhere! We must keep ourselves holy, and resist the liberal community!" Then he turns around five minutes later, when it's convenient for him to claim that conservatives are everywhere to claim that "The US is majority right-of-center conservative." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rereading 1984 and thought this describes Assfly nicely:

“”To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Holding two conflicting ideas does allow for the principle of explosion. --Opcn (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is an example of Poe's Law?

is it now?^img Ricardo 03:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm the most confused that I have been in, well, forever. Why would one redirect the talk page of the Poe's Law article to the article on evolution? Does Ken want his article to get more views or something? Well, either way, that just goes to show how little regard Conservapedia, or at least Ken does for discussion of their content. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone take Ken seriously? Lately he has been creating random Essay's and articles and having a fear of atheism (why else would he be so obsessed with trying to prove it wrong and comparing it [and atheism] to tumbleweeds) Quazywabbit (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you've just insulted about a third of RW's content. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That redirect is just weird. ħuman 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Evolution article on CP is an example of Poe's Law? 92.21.49.79 (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mom's in the news

"Unmarried women, 70% of unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick your husband out, you've got to have big brother government to be your provider," said Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum and infamous for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Will CP impose an iron curtain of silence on this, or try to defend her? Taking all bets.--^talk 07:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Another article on it.--^talk 07:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would they impose silence, this isn't wrong or embarrassing at all from their point of view. --Opcn (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

She is an odious cunt. No more please. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 08:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as I totally disapprove of profanity ridden name calling, Nutty be smacking the nail on the head there. ^theist 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Or you might say nutty is nailing Mrs. Schlafly. --Opcn (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob Derek, you silly little man.

I've just noticed that Rob has sneakily changed the cp:Barack Obama article there from "aka Barry Soetoro" to "birthname Barry Soetoro" (I can't be bothered trawling through that shit-heap to find the difflink). What makes it really funny, is that next to it, they have Obama's birth certificate, clearly showing name: Barack H Obama. The refs Rob uses are Pravda (ho hum), Israel Insider, which only shows a school record thing about Barry Soetoro and not a word about his birthname, and Newsweek, who in their opening sentence say "Barry Obama decided that he didn't like his nickname. A few of his friends at Occidental College had already begun to call him Barack (his formal name), and he'd come to prefer that." Now I know expecting honesty and integrity from Rob is like expecting priests not to bugger altar boys, but I wonder if we'll get an explanation? Or just a non-sequitur about the oil spill and Maoism?--PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's funny because it makes no sense. Soetoro is the last name of Dunham's second husband, who she presumably hadn't even met when lil Barry was born. How could Soetoro possibly be his birth name? I realize Rob is a complete idiot, but I thought basic chronology at least was something his feeble mind could grasp. 6 year olds can understand this concept. I guess I overestimated Rob, which is not difficult to do. DickTurpis (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is DerekE? [1]^img Ricardo 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, firstly, SORRY ROB!! Looks like there are other people on CP as dim as you. I take back the above. As for DerekE, another potential parodist, joined oct 09, Andy gave block and edit rights in July, for making edits to all the right articles. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What does the edit right do? I thought any normal user could edit right away on a wiki. I think I could here at least. Ricardo 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Night editing. Him (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The laughable thing is, is that it's already been mentioned on the talk page [2]^img, although there was no reply. CS Miller (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the change was made on 7th April this year, cp:user:hsmom commented on it on 1 May; I assumed that the change had been reverted and then recently redone. My bad. CS Miller (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah good ol' HSMom. One of the few who actually cared about the project and wanted it run properly. But was chased away by TK et al splashing their testosterone all over the place. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

*ESTRORAGE over testosterone and machismo making life suck for women* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall pointing this put back in may, but I think maybe I did it before HS mom and was blocked then oversighted. --Opcn (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Hsmom has ever been blocked other than by MikeSalter, which was quickly undone. She was a terrific asset to the project. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nutty, please reread my sentence. --Opcn (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Best new conservative selection bias

Has anyone been watching the fun?. Someone added a few from the 1600s (much more sensible than some of the desperate examples the Assfly added), and as expected Andy squeals and squirms and removes them. Are there any scholars of the English language who could help this project by finding some irrefutable 1600s conservative words? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RUFKM? Did you just refer to "conservative words" as anything but a machination of a deluded sycophant? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "irrefutable" in Andy's mind when it comes to his list o' words. If he says it's a conservative word, it's a conservative word. If he says it's not a conservative word, it's not a conservative word. QED. MDB (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The best part of that diff his how Andy admits one of the words is conservative, but it doesn't fit his pattern so away it goes. DickTurpis (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I assumed it was dated wrong, but sure enough, The Dictionary (Merriam-Webster) puts "nefarious" at 1609. Pretty funny. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By "the third is not within the right time period", Aschlafly is referring to "The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written virtually all of his plays." --Xyr (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch....but arbitrary on Assfly's behalf. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else notice how ugly their templates are? On "conservatism", one can barely read the "show" link. On "conservapedia", with its blue background, it can't be read at all. Fucking morons. ħuman 04:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ALSO ALSO ALSO that cartoon is so much funnier nowadays... "It fits perfectly" sums up Andy's entire stupidity on this topic. ħuman 04:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, with their templates they have an "edit" link. Of course no non-sysop is allowed to edit a template as they are all locked.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But why did they oversight the edits? Is that just done as a matter of course these days? --Horace (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Right About One Thing

See cp:Public schools ^{— Unsigned, by: School Sucks / talk / contribs}

Public schools exist?--Opcn (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deny that and lose all credibility. MDB (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Face it, without public schools which are actually private schools in the UK, go figure) most of Britain's male aristocracy would know nothing about the joys of teh butt seks. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting trolled ...

Andy Schlafly - American Hero!

I usually avoid glorifying TK's obvious trolling but this open parody is too funny not to share: a guy whose output is assiduously avoided by the right, including by his own mother, and who exasperates appellate judges with his stubbornness in the face of contravening authority and refusal to address direct questions joins the ranks of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and Washington,^img among important others. Congratulations Andy! This is very very meaningful! ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Merging my section into this one since I got sniped) Suggested^img by SayidR and confirmed^img by TK: Andy Schlafly (check out the new picture^img) is an American Hero, just like Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and John McCain. --Sid (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That was fast: Andy headdesks^img and deletes^img the nice picture. (I got screencaps of the pic and the pic itself - though it seems that Andy isn't making the photo available under CP's license, so I'll just upload the screenshot in a minute) --Sid (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy removes it under the auspices of "trim" ... Ricardo 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Oh, modest Andy took it down already. Come on, Andy, that list doesn't have nearly enough white men on it yet. Röstigraben (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Things are going weird over in CP land. First Ken's psychotic episode, now TK is getting his troll on in an obvious fashion. I have my fingers crossed for a total implosion this week. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded the image rather than screencapped, if anybody wants it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy getting simultaneously demolished at Talk:conservative words and Talk:relativity ought to strengthen the siege mentality this week too... could be fun. --Benod (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm completely baffled that they not only allow LArron to take CP's law apart, but Karajou even uploaded those graphs for him. What is going on at Conservapedia? Röstigraben (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah, an excellent example of a trim. I've added it to Conservapedia:Schlafly Trimming. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cropped screencap uploaded. It's a nice photo, really; we should ask if Andy can release it under a CC license or something so Wikipedia (and RW) could have a more flattering photo to put on his article. --Sid (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He's wearing an ill-fitting suit and a casual shirt. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a lot better than what's available so far... ---Sid (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Augh! It's like someone took a photo of a petri dish. ^{ONE / TALK} 19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He looks so like John Major in that photo it's untrue. For those of you who don't know, the nerd Major was a centre right former pm of the UK who inherited the witch thatcher's poisoned chalice. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if not Andy, then Phyllis^img - thanks to Jpatt. --Sid (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr Schlafly. I presume?

I got blocked for doing the exact same thing. - π 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be an amusing week, indeed. Also, cheap suit looks like crap. ħuman 02:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it a cheap suit? It reminds me of the inverse of the WIGO-World female Australian banker "She claimed that management indicated that... [she] had breasts too large for the clothes she was wearing". Schlafly looks like an aged tortoise stuck in a shell that is too large for him.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, can someone tell me why McCain is an American Hero? I know he thought it Vietnam or Korea and managed to survive a pow camp and I don't want to belittle that, but a lot of other different soldiers suffered the same faith. I wouldn't really call it a special achievement which puts you in the gallery of heroes. Or is it merely because he tried to stand up against the Nazi Communist Kenyan Affirmative Action President? --GTac (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Vulpius (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You know... all of you need to be fair when realizing, that to get a properly tailored suit, Andy would have to allow someone near his crotch. Since his wife isn't a tailor, then it would totally be a sin to do so... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see it now. "And which side does Sir dress?" "Dress? I'm a man, you must be blinded by liberal deceit!" "No, I mean which way does Sir dangle Sir's wanger?" "WHAT!! How dare you! I'm not falling prey to this evil extension of the homosexual agenda!" /leaves store and enters US version of Oxfam to buy a suit without being manhandled. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To JacobB's handler

JacobB's done sod all since his unblocking, despite clearly having been in correspondence with various CP admins. Is this his fate, to fade into obscurity? EddyP (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just caught up with the JacobB story. IMO he played an absolute blinder. By taking a leading role in the Conservative Bible project, he made sure the project got finished, and by behaving a complete git to other editors, he made sure the translation had little if any input from genuine Bible scholars. Altogether, by making sure the translation was completed and was done to a very low standard, he helped to earn CP the utter contempt of the rest of the Raving Right. His cunning plan has done more for the destruction of this particular anti-rational website than all the other parodists and socks put together. Well done JacobB, whoever you are. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TRJB couldn't have it more wrong. JacobB didn't chase away any "scholars" from assfly's project because it didn't draw any. On the rare occasions somebody remotely intelligent came along, it was usually not to contribute to it but to chastise it, and they got shut down by Andy before JacobB got a chance to shake his fist at them from behind him and yell, "Yeah! What HE said!" He also had little to do with getting it completed - that was the work of minor, less lauded parodists and TerryH and Andy themselves.

Describing him as cunning is dumb, and saying he contributed to the decline of CP is the most moronic thing I've ever heard. CP is dead, and RationalWiki, or at least that part of it that focuses on CP, is not so much a forum for laughing at morons than it is a grim reminder of the fate of mankind, to huddle around dying stars in the twilight of the universe, eeking out an existence on the few lols provided by their contracting mass.

That may be a poor analogy for RW, but I have a good one for JacobB, and any other "parodist" who contributes over there. Imagine a really big pile of crap. And imagine there are four or five quys squatting over the pile, making it bigger day by day. These "parodists" are new guys who comes along, shit on the pile, and then say "LOL I ruined your pile!" while dancing around the original guys who continue to shit on the pile.ChesterTheFatass (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Parodists don't make the Engine of Madness run - they simply lubricate it so it runs smooth and fast. --Sid (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"RationalWiki, or at least that part of it that focuses on CP, is not so much a forum for laughing at morons than it is a grim reminder of the fate of mankind, to huddle around dying stars in the twilight of the universe, eeking out an existence on the few lols provided by their contracting mass." That needs to be a cquote on some suitable page - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Members of the CP's Shadow Parodist Wing simply encourage Andy's self-destructive tendencies. Anyway, does anyone know if Andy has named some one to carry out his project should he become incapacitated (well, moreso), and, if so, is that person a parodist? --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If anybody, then I'd guess TerryH. He had been the most devoted defender of "Andy's opinion is The Truth!" on TZB (to the degree of pretty much explicitly saying just that) and claimed (if memory serves correctly) to have met him in real life. I'd normally vote for family first, but both Roger and young Phyllis don't seem to chant the "Andy = Truth" mantra. --Sid (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

CTF had me until he referred to CP as a dieing star. --Opcn (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To continue CTF's analogy, the parodists don't shit on the pile, they supply the laxative that keeps the other guys shitting.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Whoever deserves the credit for completing the Conservative Bible, it's this that's finally destroyed the credibility of CP with their fellow extremists/ fundamentalists. Blasphemy is the unforgivable sin for these guys and tampering with the so-called Word of God is considered as blasphemy. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be Andrew Schlafly, then - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Either Schlafly is such an arrogant tosser he doesn't think the stuff about blasphemy doesn't apply to him, or he's a deep-cover ueber-parodist working to discredit the US conservative movement. The latter would be a more logical explanation of his behaviour but who knows. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina? Obama's fault.

Ken's insight of the day:^img

Trend forecaster Gerald Celente who predicted the current financial crises and the Tea Party Movement does not have any confidence in Obama [...] They can’t fix BP, they can’t fix Katrina, education.

Man, I love the smell of reading comprehension fail in the morning...

(Self-clarify: "Obama is responsible for BP" is an old meme, so I took it as a given here.) --Sid (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Oh crap, busted! Quick, let's remove the quote and hope that nobody actually bothers to read the link!"^img --Sid (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, is Ken a survivalist? It's hard to picture him surviving a squirrel attack, let alone obamageddon. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean the liberal apocalypse, because when the liberals start eating brains, we'll need to make sure that we're safe... (and have plenty of gold) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on that charlatan Gerald Celente. He makes a lot of predications these days about how terrible Obama's policies will be, but shucks if he isn't short on specifics.--^talk 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to hand it to the guy, though. He does seem to have a talent for getting newspapers to print his press releases. It's just rather a shame he didn't seem to predict that littering your website with animated gifs and java applets would go out of style in 1998. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ooh creepy.

You saw it here first folks:

• 

  Evil Lizard Alien Invader
• 

  Founder of Conservapedia

--PsyGremlinHable! 10:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From our Andy Schlafly article: "Schafly looks like a poor-quality action figure of Stephen Colbert." - Some Evil Liberal Mocker at Cracked.com. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick

Regarding this WIGO.

"Cheeks" isn't a nickname; Cheeks is her maiden name. MDB (talk)

Boy, is my face red. I thought it was Andy having more "liberals are fat slobs" fun. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair... she does have well-defined cheeks... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's like people who say B. Husein Obama, sure technically they aren't doing anything wrong, however they are still racists. --Opcn (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not like that at all, Opcn. See, the link assfly gives SAYS her name as Cheeks the very first time it refers to her. ChesterTheFatass (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. *cue eye roll*--Opcn (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell is Richard Harris?

Is he like Sam Dawkins?^img--Opcn (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to bet (Andy's "counterexamples to relativity" heats up)

...that the only reason Andy is so hung up on the notion of a "conservative field" on this talk page is because he's convinced a "conservative field" is somehow related to conservative politics. DickTurpis (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be true. Here's the chronology. Can't be bothered to do screencaps.

• 23:43, 19 Jan 2009: SamHB (that was me, by the way) adds a note to "conservative vector field" pointing out that it is not related to political conservatism. This was done as a defense against anything Andy might say in the future along those lines.
• 13:21, 4 July 2010: Sure enough, Andy adds "conservative vector field" as a "conservative word". Though he doesn't say that the existence of the word "conservative" is the reason for this, he gives no other reason. (Unlike his compelling reason for including the word "transistor", for example.)
• 14:15, the same day: Andy, being all enthused over his new-found erudition about vector fields with curls of zero, realizes that this disproves relativity, and says so on the "counterexamples to relativity" page.

You see, it's easy to follow Andy's logic, once you get used to it! Gauss (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're SamHB? EddyP (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And 14 other people. See my user page. Gauss (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Great user page. ħuman 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to bet that liberace was gay. --Opcn (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If only the principle of Conservation of Energy was known as Energy Conservatism. Schlafly-esque thermodynamics would be fucking fun. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suckers bet. Using his reasoning (and I use that word very loosely) a magnetic field should be suspicious since in most cases it's not a conservative field (only where the current density is zero). I've only seen these kind of irrational arguments against relativity in one other place (a shiny internet to any parodist who convinces Andy to describe relativity as "Jewish Liberal Physics"). I also loved when he said "please do not imply that people should just accept what someone of undisclosed political views claims"^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This stuff is really delicious! KyleT is doing an absolutely first-rate job of pwning Andy, and Andy is doing an absolutely first-rate job of saying stupid things, and digging himself in deeper and deeper. I'd go back there and help, but Kyle doesn't need anyone's help.

I'm going to upgrade the "Conservapedian Relativity" pages when I get the chance--the material has gotten a lot better since those pages were written. Gauss (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Andy is the gift that keeps on giving. And, Gauss, promise me that if you ever discover a new field of force or anything that you will call it "Gay Marriage Field", just so Andy can spend his time trying to prove it wrong based solely on the name. DickTurpis (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this^img correctly? Is Andy taking the "Hm, the definition doesn't prove my point, so the definition is wrong!" approach? I'm no physics specialist, so I dunno the technicalities here, but Andy coming up with physics definitions raises several red flags here. --Sid (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's about right -- and when I see Andy talking about a "conservative theory of motion" all I can think of is intelligent falling. --MarkGall (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

LMAO! "conservative theory of motion"^img :D :D :D . It's really hard to capture how silly this "conservative field" objection is. It's like objecting to 'stellar evolution' because of Social Darwinism.

@ Gauss, yes the article needs updating. It doesn't even mention how the speed of the Jesus' healing powers disproves relativity! --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And with this edit (immediately WiGOed, I see) Andy goes off the deep end. This man really thinks all scientific principles are either liberal or conservative, and the liberal ones are suspect, at best. Until anything scientific as been deemed acceptably conservative by a True Conservative$^{T}$$^{M}$, it is not to be accepted, regardless of the evidence. What planet is this guy living on? We need to make a list of Conservative and Liberal scientific discoveries. Who wants to start? DickTurpis (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, electromagnetism is liberal since, as I mentioned before, magnetic fields generally aren't conservative vector fields. In addition to relativity, the Big Bang theory, evolution and global warming are also probably liberal. Andy seems to be claiming Newtonian mechanics for conservatives. And...owwww....thinking like Andy actually hurts my brain. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Andy has really gotten himself into a pickle here, thanks to Kyle. This "conservative theory of motion" stuff is truly amazing. And now he's complaining the Simeon (that was also me) left the discussion! Usually Andy doesn't like "talk talk talk". The reason Simeon left was that Andy's claim to the effect that "It's very telling that when I Google this combination of unrelated words I get very little" was the stupidest thing I had ever seen. Up until that time. That was yesterday. Kyle has continued the fight, and now Andy is being even more outlandish. This guy studied scientific matters at Princeton, no? Including the rudiments of what vectors are, and Newton's laws of motion, and all that? I mean, at least freshman physics?

In Andy's defense, I don't think he is directly talking about the political leanings of vector fields or laws of motion when he uses the word "conservative". I think he actually believes that, by some bizarre stretch of the imagination, he is talking about physics, and that this is related to the (very legitimate) concept of a conservative vector field, that is, a field with a curl of zero. And he will do anything to convince people that relativity violates that "principle", whatever he construes that "principle" to be. Of course, the fact that vector fields with curls of zero contain a word that Andy likes is part of his motivation, but what he's really trying to establish is that Einsteinian relativity is bogus.

All this crap about path invariance is bullshit. He is just throwing concepts around. Concepts that he just doesn't understand at all.

By the way, I just Googled "vector+spinach". 1.5 million hits. Who woulda thunk it?

And Kyle does not appear to have email enabled.

Gauss (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy is after all an electronics engineer or something so he should know all about that sort of thing. He has degree and all. Hamster (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I loved the "Simeon has abruptly left this conversation" line. It would be hilarious if some moron had blocked him in the meantime, but I know it refers to the "I give up", which Andy takes as VICTORY! OLE OLE OLE! ħuman 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy is an electrical engineer, with a minor in Engineering Physics, so he does have some physics knowledge. However, I wish that he would justify his claims a little more. As I wish Gauss would return to the discussion - it's starting to get interesting. Quantumcat (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of really old SciFi TV shows I used to watch where one man knew that the earth had been infiltrated by aliens, and each week he'd get close to exposing them, but then all the evidence, bodies, etc would be disapeared by the conspiracy at the last moment. 'Simeon' didn't "give up", isnt it obvious that the Liberals got to him and posted that last message on his behalf? My advice, keep wearing the tin-foil hat Ashlafly, If that really is still you.

You've gotta love little PhyllisS weighing in against her dad.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

10,000 internets to little Phyllis. Indeed. ħuman 08:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another 5,000 internets for those who can spot her error when defending Daddy's GPS-does-not-need-relativity^img nonsense! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I claim it! She said "seem to", after Daddy had berated Franky-boy for a very similar phrase! (PS. round my parts (oo-er!) a PC is refered to as "an internet", ergo you owe me 5000 computers. I'll take 3000 laptops, 1500 netbooks, and 500 desktops please.) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Several pallets of old 486es running Windows 3.1 with Netscape 2 are on their way to you as we speak - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

She's even talking about black holes. Does that mean she's stopped reading the bible, which everyone knows is the effect that black holes were invented to cause? Cantabrigian (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Her 'defence' is a non-defence really. it actually supports the contrary position. Her source doesn't say adjustment for relativity isn't needed for GPS, it says adjustment for relativity is not needed for acceptable accuracy in GPS - but it does have an effect. And when you go and actually read it, it goes on to say (after the part that was selectively quoted) a new class of users, who employ satellites that obtain time and position in space from GPS, cannot be satisfied with the approximations in the current OCS and we show how large or small the differences are, and how and for what applications those difference are large enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics . So, err...fail. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just like how she calls her father "Aschlafly". DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Lil' Phyl seems to be a closet liberal. Witness her essay Darwin's The Origin of Species: Supplanting William Paley's Notion of Creator^img, where she discusses what Darwin meant when used the term Creator. Her essay could (and probably should) be a RW article in its own right, but she discusses if he meant natural selection alone, or a supernatural entity? She comes down solidly for the former. On Darwin's

“”As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts and improves the inhabitants of each country only in relation to their co-inhabitants; so that we need feel no surprise at the species of any one country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalized productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect ... Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.

—(Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1st Edition, 395-396)

she answers with

“”But there is a deeper feeling hidden in this passage; Darwin seems to be teetering on the verge of mocking intelligent-design followers. He implies that those who do not accept natural selection reject that “the secondary causes ... determining the birth and death of the individual” influence “the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world.”

Does her Daddy know what the athiest indocurnation at Princeton has done to her? On the Essay's talk page^img, TK and Ed Poor seem to think that the easy is supporting, not rejecting ID. CS Miller (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I *knew* I should have searched first. According to an earlier WIGO, it was copied from three other sites. CS Miller (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone point out to me why her essay seems to be copied? I read her essay, and also looked at the three other sites, and they didn't seem similar to the essay except for the fact that they were all about Darwin. Could you maybe clear this up for me? Quantumcat (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case of the WIGO writer making crap up and nobody else actually checking it -- the essay looks completely different to me. I see it got more down votes than other stories from around then, maybe those voters noticed. --MarkGall (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Debate

So, chemistry: liberal science, or conservative science? Let the mob decide! DickTurpis (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Alcohols and fatty acids, liberal. Stern chains of starchy compounds, conservative. ħuman 05:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find the answer on CP's article on chemistry, but it's pathetically short. Anyway, any field which has a principle named Beer's law is probably liberal (and let's not even mention Gay-Lussac's law). --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Likely Scientific Education

Like Andy, I have a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (EE). While we went to different schools (he to Princeton, me to the University of Tennessee -- Knoxvile) and he graduated about five years before me, here's the courses I took that would be relevant to this topic. I doubt our courses of study were that different, considering the accreditation process for our respective schools would have required them to teach similar courses.

• A year of freshman chemistry
• Statics and dynamics (essentially, Newton's laws, in bodies at rest and in motion. There are the most basic engineering courses.)
• Introductory thermodynamics, plus a year of thermodynamics for non-mechanical engineers (I hated thermodynamics passionately, as do most EE majors, but that's besides the point. Most of us called it "thermo-damn-namics".)
• A year of sophomore physic. My courses covered introductory electromagnetic field theory, optics, and "modern" physics, which took us up to about Einstein. (The freshman physics is stuff we covered in our freshmen engineering courses.)
• Two years of calculus, plus more very math oriented courses focused on engineering applications
• Some introductory courses that basically boil down to "how transistors work at the atomic level"
• A year of basic circuit analysis (no transistors)
• A year of electronic circuit analysis (transistors)
• A year of electromagnetic field theory
• Most everything beyond that was either
  • Courses every undergrad takes, like Freshman English
  • Non-technical electives, or
  • Courses focused on which specific branch of electrical engineering you chose to focus on. Since Andy's first job out of college was in digital microchip design, I'm guessing he focused on computer design, like me. Those courses are beyond the scope of this discussion, though. That's really getting into applied science, not theoretical science.

So, Andy was almost certainly exposed to plenty of physics. MDB (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Knoxvile" - was it really that bad?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It has its pluses -- I wouldn't trade the scenery of the nearby Great Smoky Mountains for anything in the world. Being a college town, it has at least something of a cultural "scene". (Including a very good art-house cinema movie theater. I've seen more art films when I visit Knoxpatch than I have in the DC area. The fact the Regal Theaters chain is headquartered in the area helps with that.)

But the political, social, and religious culture is not one for a gay, geeky, politically liberal to leftist, free thinking Christian. And God help you if you actually admit to not caring about the fucking college football team. (I like to say UT-Knoxville is a football team that happens to have a college attached.)

Incidentally, not only did I go to college there, I grew up there. So, the fact I've got family there helps, too. MDB (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted in engineers and woo, engineers are some of the most arrogant knowledgeable people on Earth, to the point where science itself may happily be questioned. As long as the engineer knows stuff that works, everything else is just raw material for the distinct task of engineering. (I remember one of my first engineering lectures where they pointed out something like "if the plays of Shakespeare were a reliable guide to building bridges, you'd be studying them as part of this course.") Even engineer cranks don't usually take it as far as Andy does in questioning complex numbers, but engineers can get away with all manner of gibbering delusion as long as they stuff they design still works - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy questioning complex numbers stuns me. At least half of the year of introductory circuit analysis he presumably took is constant complex numbers. If it weren't for complex numbers, you'd have to analyze circuits with nasty differential equations (which, now that I remember my diff-eq's, would probably require complex numbers to solve anyway!) And that's just sophomore level coursework. There's plenty more complex math in junior level courses. (Not that much at the senior level, at least if you specialize in digital design. It's all ones and zeroes at that point.) MDB (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed out to Andy that you can construct the complex numbers by just taking an ordered pair of real numbers and defining a special multiplication/addition? Ordered pair, real numbers, addition, multiplication and subtraction. All it takes. I'd love to hear his counterargument. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been pointed out repeatedly -- off the top of my head PatrickD does it at the end of cp:Talk:Elementary proof. Unfortunately in that instance I jumped in with another comment before Andy had time to reply, and he just accused both of us a high talk-to-substance ratio. cp:Complex number was totally rewritten by PatrickD from a reality-based perspective, but Andy appears not to have noticed this liberal vandalism. --MarkGall (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd never checked their article before, but it does more or less describe the formal construction of the complex numbers. It even lists the many fields (ho ho!) in which they are useful - there doesn't seem to any criticism or even mention of their well-known Liberal bias. The powers that be should be alerted to this heresy! Cantabrigian (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just had a thought: it's possible Andy would acknowledge that complex numbers are useful as a form of mathematical shorthand for doing things like circuit analysis, but insist that they don't really "exist" in the sense that, to him, there is no such thing as the square root of negative one. That's still a stupid viewpoint to take, but it would at least explain why someone with a degree in Electrical Engineering apparently does not "believe" in complex numbers.

That, of course, completely ignores the fact he apparently thanks "liberalism" is behind complex numbers. I can't imagine a field of study less involved in the liberal/conservative spectrum than mathematics. MDB (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're clearly overthinking this, but your hypothesis is plausible: he's probably filed it in his brain as "a useful fiction that gets the job done is quite different from reality" - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it's even simpler than that. Andy firmly believes the Orwellian quote about "everything is political' and applies that rigidly to his life. He also doesn't have the imagination to see there might be grey areas. Thus everything is either conservative and good, or liberal and must be derided. What makes it even more fun, is that Andy applies this maxim with no other basis than his own biases. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if part of it was also that he simply got a bad mark in a complex analysis course. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually am waiting for Andy's brother Roger to jump in. Last time I saw Roger on the Theory of relativity article him and Andy were going at it and if it was anyone else Andy would have banned them already. Quazywabbit (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say that I just Googled "general relativity"+"meatloaf". 241 hits. Very suspicious. Why are atheists saying so little about this?

Now, about complex numbers—after months of people being reverted, bullied, and blocked by Andy and his minions (especially Foxtrot) over Andy's belief that the ambiguity in the square root of -1 makes complex numbers bogus, PatrickD (that was also me) wrote an absolutely airtight presentation, which is the current cp:Complex number page. Exactly along the lines that Night Jaguar described above. (That page is also at Wikiversity.) And there hasn't been a peep out of Andy or anyone else, on the bogosity of complex numbers, ever since.

On Kyle and relativity—Kyle is really beating Andy to a bloody pulp. I haven't seen Andy so reduced to gibberish since KSorenson was around! And Andy still hasn't 90/10'd him or asked him why he isn't reading the Bible more. It's in its second day.

Gauss (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberals are saying so little about it in order to preserve their hegemony on the subject, which they only maintain through silence and deflection, obviously. Oh and there are 475 hits for "rimming" and "general relativity". Just saying. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 16:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy might be playing semi fair because he knows his daughter is there and will probably call him out on not wearing a seatbelt. --Opcn (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lack of ability to consider hypothetical situations

This kind of bleeds over from the issues I've been having over on aSK, but that Andy would deny complex numbers as existent kind of suggests to me a further data point in the ideas going on here... these people absolutely refuse to consider hypothetical situations. Entertaining a novel idea as a hypothetical situation is absolutely and immediately impossible for them. They're bound so tightly and grasping so firmly to their reality, that considering anything that would change it, is immediately discarded as idiocy, or lies. I remember getting in trouble with Andy about something for something where like, it was "what if God commanded you to kill babies", and they come back with "But he didn't!" and it's like, "no!!! HYPOTHETICALLY YOU DIPSHIT!" ... it explains why they fail to falsify and expand their understanding of the world... Perhaps this is a trait of all conservatives? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Developmental stage thing. See also wp:Splitting (psychology), where only seeing everyone and everything as either good or evil is a sign of lack of personality development - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, for more detail, from an introductory text on educational psychology. Neither AS nor PJR are unintelligent, but it's clear they feel a moral obligation to cripple their own thinking skills for the sake of their religion, and haven't realised how deeply this needs to go to maintain integration of their personality. I'm not sure what the psychological term for deliberately crippling your own thinking skills is - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Willful ignorance? I definitely will grant you this one, however I think they also have an inability to actually consider hypothetical situations. They basically reject everything that isn't "real" according to their existing world views, meaning they reject hypothetical situations. PJR talked about "I can imagine flying to the moon", but dismissed it as pure nonsense, and didn't recognize that this would falsify the theory of gravity. To him, if it can't be done in reality, then it doesn't matter. This also perhaps explains their rejection of evolution through the tired meme of "you didn't see it; no one was there." But then, I'm operating under the adage, "never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity". Doesn't that have a name? It should have a name. Someone find a name, and make an article on here for it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly why so many people fail to grasp the anthropic principle: "Okay, let's hypothesize what our perspective on the universe would be if it didn't arise by special creation." "But it did! QED!" Kallium^talk 08:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

TK finally snaps out of his daze

So much for RonLar debating conservative words, I guess. And he took FrankC with him. Plus 131,072 IPs --Sid (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, like the big problem here is that he was debating about "Words" the article has long since abandoned "words" alone, and switched over to simply "terms". "Ambulance chaser"? That is not a "word" that is a "noun phrase"... Basically, Andy can pull together and phrase he wants... dictionary be damned. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

TK reminds me of the weird bastard offspring of Achmed "Silence! I block you!" --PsyGremlinTala! 11:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah. I predicted it all. I'm like a latter day Gerald Celente. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Conservapedia's user list and couldn't find the "blocked user Larron". Did I look in the wrong place, or is TK just plain wrong? 77.176.76.82 (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy is the one that called TK off. Andy is the one who sicked TK on them. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really my place to answer this (there is a better authority but he's not here just at the moment) but Larron was DiEb at CP. TK is just being lazy (as always) and showing that he reads us far to much.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Karajou catches on with the doublethink: "Those images I happily uploaded before? Unsourced POV, obviously!" --Sid (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It all just goes to show what a cunt Andy is. He crows about how 'liberals can't prove my bullshit theory wrong', then when somebody does prove him wrong TightKnickers burns and salts the earth and you don't see Andy saying, "No hang on, I was having a debate with that person." He just keeps on crowing. He is intellectually and morally bankrupt and Terry Koeckritz is lower than the black stuff between dead people's toes. /rant off. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another founding pillar of CP blown away in the cause of crushing dissent. I guess "we welcome original research" is now, "we welcome you to make shit up that confirms the crazy stuff we already believe, everything else needs a source." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here: my new mail to A. Schlafly. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well: A. Schlafly unblocked User:RonLar. That will have no effect, of course, as TK covered all the bases, i.e., the IPs.

And the comment ‎ (second chance, please do not simply engage in talk here) borders to an insult... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to link Andy to the rangeblock so he can fix it. ħuman 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, theoretically, you could make 9 talk posts for every 1 substantive edit made, but as we all know, that rule is complete bullshit. I say walk away; yes it's frustrating, but at least you hold the moral high-ground. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy must have laid down a smackdown. Kara's undeleted the graphs. Now if it wasn't for that pesky IP address that's blocked... --PsyGremlinHable! 16:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the very existence of "conservative" words seems to have been conclusively shown to be subjective bullshit, am I reading correctly that the new response resolves to him chiding you for not recognizing that there's such a thing as "best" "conservative" words? What are the objective criteria for determining "best?" This has gotten even more stupid. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 17:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, if it is only the "best" words that are increasing at a "1-2-4-8 pattern rate" then the selection is completely arbitrary.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Andy ask if anyone was able to prove his pattern as incorrect? It would seem as though this type of request would be an invitation to talk and debate along with set aside the 90/10 rule. Quazywabbit (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In a reasonable world, yes. But if he did that, there would be a chance of his bullshit actually being disproven, and we can't have that now, can we? No, no. You must disprove Andy's pattern while at the same time being a high-quality contributor (bonus points for realizing that these goals are mutually exclusive). In other words, we're right back at what we knew already: Praise Andy or be ignored/banned. --Sid (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I give Aschlafly oh, being generous, three days before he starts crowing about how he's unblocked the editor and still they've "run away" from his "irrefudiatable" (toth S Palin) points, oil wells and whatnot. He's clueless as to the range blocks (even though he hisself instituted the damnable things. 03:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

"irrefudiatable"? You realise that when you wrote that, 10 angels died. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Projection much?

Essay:_You_obviously_don't_understand_how_science_works... - π 12:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Given how Ken's essays are just a bunch of pictures (which, let's fact it, are infinitely better than long rambling sentences with a gazillion "in regards to"), I can't wait to see Joaquin's 5000-word "Gallery of French painters." By the way, where is Speedy Gonzales lately? Think the Arizonans shot him, or maybe he just finally realised what TK meant by "liberal multi-culturism"? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's tragic that whilst the people on here seem genuinely concerned about a certain persons health and tried to help, the morons at cp continue to allow him to post rambling, gibbering, rubbish. He's on a one way spiral with those type of 'friends'.Oldusgitus (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but remember, if they were to help Ken, it would be an admission that there is a conservative with mental issues, and Andy would probably rather see somebody die than admit his little ivory tower has flaws. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken is just a bigoted nutter. He has now protected the talk page of cp:Essay: Atheists clinging to 19th century "science" after redirecting it to Evolution. And done the same for cp:Talk:Essay: You obviously don't understand how science works....  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, flinging around accusations that atheists cling dogmatically to 19th century science doesn't seem the wisest thing for those clinging dogmatically to 1st century superstition to be doing. Olé! Olé! Olé! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the way I look at it, if they push Ken out, then he will simply fragment the wiki, and run off with his own material to his own aSK-like wiki. So, it's entirely possible that they're attempting to avoid this sort of fragmentation. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, he won't. Unlike PJR, Ken is totally incompetent. He has no idea how to do the first thing involved in setting up a website to host his own shit. He's utterly dependant on other people to propagate his shite on the net. If he were banned from CP, he'd have to go back to spamming forums and blogs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit, you're right. I totally spaced out on the other side of my "you can only argue this if you're stupid or moral dishonest." AS and PJR are raving lunatics, but at least have some brain power... but you're right Ken fits quite firmly upon the later former... I meant to imply that he's fucking retarded as all shit. (I failed to implicitly state his stupidity properly, so I needed to make it vulgarly explicit.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And the dribbling continues. How long is it going to take Ken to realise that not even the folks at CP are paying him any attention anymore?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how I love Ken. He's finished talking to Andy and has moved on to Karajou^img, as Stunteddwarf points out. I can only assume that it is because Andy keeps on removing Ken's constant gibberish that he posts on his talk page, so now Karajou has to deal with his crap. Humorously, it also seems to be Karajou's new job to forward messages from Ken to Andy, as Ken asks Karajou, though rather jokingly, to tell Andy that he should upgrade the servers, as their new article on Poe's Law has earned the amazing rank of 5th on Google. Funny, though, how it cannot beat an article on the same subject coming from a certain known vandal site. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

400 jokes and not a single one that's funny. That takes talent of a sort, I guess. --Kels (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, the flying kitteh thing is TOTALLY hilarious. Of course, that's just because it's a cute kitteh joke. As always, a broken clock is still right two times a day^{[please find this article, and link it, I'm too drunk to do so.]}. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken can't do that, Geocities doesn't exist any more. (So where do conspiracy theorists put up their stuff these days? Blogger?) - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikia doesn't have high technical barrier to creating a wiki. CS Miller (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WOW^img.....I'm speechless. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely satire of this quality belongs to the main page. Vulpius (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thought that the kitty was bad enough?^img Ken should make another "essay" where he displays the antigravity kitty, one of the greatest wonders of all. Scientists are baffled as to how the kitten evolved to have a buttered piece of toast attached to its back. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Ken even realize that is wrecking the last remaining tatters of credibility CP has with these posts? Who is going to take these "essays" seriously as satire or parody when it's obvious he doesn't understand what either term means? It goes so far as to damage the Young Earth Creationist cause overall, even "Dr" Kent Hovind wouldn't be this stupid. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget his latest essay of epic fail!^img --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a great point there, BeeMac; whilst ourselves and others in the reality-based community have always held CP in the disregard it deserved, it may well have had some credibility amongst the religious right. Now with the Assfly's rewriting of the bible they've alienated much of the christians they had, and Ken's recent appalling behaviour must be an embarrassment to even creationists. I wonder if the youtube idiots will even distance themselves from it? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great point on Dr. Dino there BMcP --Opcn (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. If it was anybody else, I'd say they were trolling the crap out of CP. I'm not sure which is worrying me more - Ken's apparent manic episode, or the fact that Andy et al seem to think what he's doing is actually benefiting CP. And meanwhile, whilst proudly displayed on the mainpage, the socialism, abortion and Dawkins projects lie rotting in the bottom of their septic tank of knowledge. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I'm really hoping he takes it to the next level and puts the flying kitty on the front page. It's really where the trajectory of CP is heading. I wonder if even then the rest of the CP inmates would feel compelled to do anything about this one particular lunatic? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that would be the ultimate Poe. I'm not sure what the point is of all this. I can only assume it's his idea of crocaduck (or is it duckadile?). It's gone beyond bizarre. I wonder if anything is going on in the ZB. I'll have to wait until Terry Koeckritz forwards the weekly instalment to me to find out. However, it just goes to show that even Andy is only interested in his 'babies' and the rest can go to hell. Come on Karajou, TK, we know you read us, put your foot down and stop Ken from turning CP into an even bigger joke. Who needs parodists when you've got ken? --PsyGremlinParla! 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that he's trying to write a satire on the flying squirrel. They are sometimes used as an example of a transitional form to bats. It is a squirrel, but bats, although they look liked winged mice, aren't related to rodents. However, the flying squirrel does have a bat-like winged membrane connecting its fore and hind limbs. It can't actually fly, just glide (and not even powered glides), but it is the first step on the way to a bat-like mammal. Next the flying squirrel will have to get stronger limbs, so that it can do powered gliding, then limited flying, then full flying. Along the way it will have to loose the fur on its wings as fur causes too much drag. CS Miller (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You just gave him so much more credit than he deserves, it's likely to cause another economic meltdown. The real reason he's doing what is doing is because he's a half dozen crab paste sandwiches, a blanket, some pimms and a wicker basket short of a picnic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Youtube contacts won't abandon him because it's obvious they have a deal. Lil' Kenny promotes their obscure videos on the CP mainpage and they feature Conservapedia in their videos. For both sides, it is all about the hits, not the substance. This is the same sort of deal Ken has with that "True Free Thinker" blog, who creates material so Lil' Kenny can reference back to the blog in his pet articles, otherwise it would languish in complete obscurity in the blogosphere. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now featuring flying Beagles

Because saying the same thing over and over but with swapping pictures of different animals is satire!^img Is there any sort of point Ken is making other than demonstrating his lack of originality by re-writing the same junk over and over? At least Lil' Kenny delivers the lutz. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken's flying animals also left a mess in the Double Redirects^img - time for TK to clean up while pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong here! --Sid (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

numbering

wigo 3637 doesn't show up because it's out of order with 3638... I tried to fix but don't know how to keep the votes correct. I put in the next as 3639 and that one works. Kallium^talk 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

wigo 3637 is commented out (<!-- wigo 3637 -->), and shall not be shown: so, nothing to fix there larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what the <!--... --> was. I rarely post 'em so I was confused by that. There's my new thing learnt for the day. Kallium^talk 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't enter the code and WIGO numbers manually, just highlight your entry and click the clicky! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Highlight my entry where? and what clicky? I've made a few wigos, but I do it by hand, because I don't know how to use the automatic tools. (An example of being so smart, that you have to take the difficult road, because the other road confuses you. "What do you mean there are simple rules to derivation? I've been doing the limit ratios this who fucking time!") --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I hope I don't sound patronising, but you see right at the top of the page (when editing WIGO) it says:

How to add new entries:

1. Type the new entry somewhere on the page, usually above previous ones.

2. Select the text you just entered and click here.

The "click here" being the clicky clicker on which you must click. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Laries and gennlemen. I give you DeltaStar, our very own graduate from the Donald Rumsfeld School of Clear, Concise Public Speaking. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For mine I tried the clicker several times but it didn't work. My confusion came when putting in the number manually because the wigo before it wasn't showing up, but that's the one that was voted down. I just didn't recognize the "commented out" formatting. Kallium^talk 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Like, seriously, no, I never saw that before. As I think I mentioned, I knew how to do the limit ratio thing, so I never bothered to figure out the shortcuts. Call me blind, or call me whatever, but I had no reason to look... I knew what to do by hand, already. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Intellectualism at work

Conservapedia headline: Liberal claptrap claims more victims: PhD programs, journalism, theater and music all have this in common: they are among the ten worst fields of study now. Forget about getting a good job if you major in this junk ^img, actual FoxNews link[5] does mentions journalism, and "Performance and Fine Arts", but also investment banking, corporate work, and architecture as among the top ten worst fields for graduates in 2010. You think those latter three are not seen as "liberal claptrap" by CP, especially banking and corporate work.

Bonus weird: Since when were PhD programs a "job field" for graduates? I do enjoy how CP suggests that earning a PhD a waste of time and therefore those who have PhDs are somehow irrelevant, or worse. I suspect that Il Duce was rejected when applying to enter a PhD program and holds an every lasting bitterness those those who where accepted, and especially those who went on and successfully earned their PhD. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The PhD thing struck me as weird too. I'd ask about it, but I don't want my sock to get banned. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As an attorney, doesn't Andy have the equivalent of a PhD? MDB (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, which makes his tirade again earning PhDs or at least pursuing such a degree as "liberal claptrap" even more bizarre. Maybe he only means PhDs in fields of science as such? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

With that particular choice of words, it's also possible that he's trolling his resident pianist (see first line of his profile). Junggai (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the Juris Doctor is actually a really funny story behind it. So, the government decided that they were only going to pay people based on what degree the person had. If they had a Bachelor's, X, if they had a Bachelor's + a specialized professional degree, Y, if they had a Master's Z, and if they had a doctorate, they paid $$$. Realizing that lawyers stood to lose a substantial amount of money by being relegated to "Bachelor's plus a professional degree", they quickly revised the education, and decided that they were going to hand out Juris Doctors, to ensure that every Law School graduate had a "doctorate", and thus qualify for the bonus cash. Note: a Masters of Law has had more study than a Doctor of Law. That's how the system got setup because of loopholes. So, while "legally" ASchlafy has a doctorate, he doesn't have a Ph.D., and he did not go to 6 extra years of education to get his doctorate. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And they used to be so proud of all these guys, but I guess they're just suckers who have fallen for liberal claptrap after all. Röstigraben (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so now Andy's hating on journalists (ok, so they're the liberal MSM), but the arts?? If it wasn't people studying that, he wouldn't be able to attend the theatre, or an opera, or a recital. Then again, given that he spends every night on CP, it's unlikely that he does. What's doubly ironic, is he's somehow wishing his homeschool classes will send his kids onto science and whatever degrees, while he's actually gearing them up for a job where all they need to know is 'Do you want fries with that?' --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Altho, given that these have cp:Poe's law as an 'see also' I can only assume that these are based on Ken's complete misinterpretation of the law. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If it turned out empirically that promoting fries with that tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just so hard to read the bible sitting in my lap over the enormous set of man tits I've been growing after eating all those french fries. --Opcn (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

65th Anniversary of the Hiroshima Bombing

...what? A symbolic sign of warmth, friendship and partecipation towards Japan, 65 years after obliterating two of their cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Obama truly has no backbone! --Maquissar (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This trolling brought to you by Terry Koeckritz. Nothing to see here, folks. Junggai (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm? What do you mean? --Maquissar (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The post was written by TK, aka TrollKing. Not worth taking seriously. Junggai (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, about 95% of all posts Terry Koeckritz ever makes to the main page, are for our benefit, rather than CP's. Deny this and lose all credibility. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Altho, as I've said, being Republican means never having to say sorry. And sending people abroad just smacks of that nasty liberal multi-culturism Terry Koeckritz is so racist shit-scared about. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RonLar

(just to get the captures :-)

RonLar thanked Aschlafly for unblocking his user-account^img, while asking for the range-blocks of his home, workplace, etc. being lifted. He closes with:

Of course, if you got convinced that my contributions are detrimental to your site, you don't have to do anything - and I will stop to edit, as the process becomes to cumbersome.

Aschlafly seems to like this option very much, as he totally sidestepped^img this plea to get the blocks undone, but instead he denigrates RonLar's edits: Ron, your "contributions" have been mostly talk. (I like the apostrophes!) While lecturing about the essence of his wiki (as in Substantive edits to entries are the essence of this wiki), Aschlafly forgets that RonLar just followed his advice to raise objections on the talk page at Conservapedia, when he just tried to pick up the gauntlet thrown by Aschlafly himself^img on the mainpage om July 13, 2010:

That is the new number of Best New Conservative Terms by century as we find the next layer. Liberals doubt our observed doubling per century for these words, yet every layer reproves the remarkable growth pattern. Still looking for 6 more. Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

Of course, RonLar couldn't disprove the pattern - but he showed that it is very reasonable to think that this pattern is just an artifact of the biased way Aschlafly is choosing his conservative words.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to crib you some substantive edits to make? --Opcn (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically the only comment Aschlafly excepts as being substantive is you are right, Andy

So, no, thank you, RonLar won't go this way: he made very substantial edits, albeit on talk pages - RonLar's work on the cp:Geometric distribution is indeed negligible.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not even biological information about unborn children? I haven't been able to sleep all night, but after I get sleep I could probably write the articles lil-phyl and been asking for. --16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy realises what a douche he's being. 'Liberals cannot refute my claims', and then when you do refute him, he moans that you're just talking. Maybe create an article cp:Refudiation (damn now I'm doing it) of Conservapedia's law. That way he can't moan that it's just talk talk talk. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

[3]^img

[4]^img

a mistake or what? Ricardo 18:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just Terry Koeckritz crapping on the front step of somebody's castle. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Palin in the news

here^img Apparently she thinks Obama has been screeching? I don't know how you could consider his rich deep voice screeching, if anything when he gets mad he barks, but really the tone of his voice is the absolute last thing you could possibly criticize the man for, yet here it is atop MPR for the whole world a select few with no lives to see.Opcn (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I like more how CP is claiming Palin is saying what the mainstream media won't even though the article linked to is from Fox News. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Foz News isn't mainstream media. And of course they will put Palin's words out there. No one else will. Quaru^{god-botherer - You can't explain that!} 23:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't they just got a front row White House seat? Doesn't that make them MSM? 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends. In the context, I was extending it to be "mainstream news". And then they are only for very, very special definitions of "news". Quaru^{god-botherer - You can't explain that!} 23:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, JPatt?

Did JPatt really just upload this image to CP, forcing the assfly to come to the rescue? Wow, things are getting really bad over there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he had cropped it, but it's still hilarious that he kept the URL in the upload message, letting everybody see where true conservatives get their material from. ;) --Sid (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Really?

Beware of liberal revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified. It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman. The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--Andy Schlafly^img (my emphasis) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just plain rubbish at math. Ace^X-102 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you the amount of times I've attempted to carry out an equation only to break down in tears at how notoriously weak I and by extension the rest of my nation is at mathematics. SJ ^Debaser 23:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I heard that Englishman, Issac Newton, just sucked at calculus. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just the British either, down here in the colonies we also suffer from the failings of our mathematically challenged for bearers. Ace^X-102 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Newton immediately sprang to mind, someone should point that out to Andy. --Opcn (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Newton used the Bible for his insights, not the British public education system. So there. I hear Stephen Hawking can't do simple arithmetic though. Ace^X-102 23:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No-one better tell him that he's typing on a keyboard of a machine that was made possible by the homosexual enigma breaker Alan Turing. 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, there was a programme on telly recently called Science and Islam, which discussed the contributions made by "Islamic science". I didn't watch much of it because I couldn't help keep screaming "No! You mean scientists who happened to be muslim, or live in an islamic country". Just as Turing was a scientist who happened to be homosexual, rather than putting the computer down to "homosexual science". (Although to be fair homosexual science has made some great discoveries.) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Time magazine in naming Turing one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, states: "The fact remains that everyone who taps at a keyboard, opening a spreadsheet or a word-processing program, is working on an incarnation of a Turing machine". WP. 23:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he obviously was not gay. That's just the Gay Agenda trying to claim new people for their own. Next they'll claim Liberace, or some shit. Quaru^{god-botherer - You can't explain that!} 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC3)Also, since when is Poland known as the land of great intellectual achievement? Poland has been sacked more times than Lindsay Lohan; When Adam smith reached for an example of the poorest country in Europe Poland was his example; Poland didn't have nearly the money to pour into pursuits of higher education that the English did. So in Andys example he uses a historical stereotype to prove that historical stereotypes are no good. Bravo Andy, for your next trick why not show us how to hatchet off your own hands?--Opcn (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is really stupid. G.H. Hardy, Bertrand Russell, Newton, Alan Turing, Roger Penrose, Andrew Wiles (guy who proved Fermat's last theorem), Arthur Cayley, William Rowan Hamilton, George Boole, Charles Babbage, Augustus De Morgan .... if you wanted a country without many influential mathematicians, Britain is one of the worst choices you could have made. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be true that the Poles were the first, but apparently their method was heavily constrained to exploiting a certain weakness in the code that Turing correctly predicted the Germans would eliminate. Why does Andy hate the UK so much? Any insight into this, anyone? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

They played the bad guys in Star Wars? Quaru^{god-botherer - You can't explain that!} 00:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Still pissed off about the Revolutionary war? (Impressive, but he also still holds a grudge against Galileo.) Because he mistakenly believes they don't have freedom of speech? --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because a) People in the UK (apart from Cameron, obviously) still point out that the US was late to both World Wars but want to make up for it by arriving at the third early. This upsets people like Andy who think we should be pathetically grateful to the US instead of calling them war-profiteering, money gouging bastards, and b) The UK does all the things that Andy hates and yet is almost ridiculously successful. Everything that we do is an affront to Andy and their continuing success constantly proves Andy wrong, and we all know how Andy loves being proved wrong. And c) our comedians came out by far with the best material about Bush and Reagan. Constant denigration of the holy cow by the British must really get on Andy's tits.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just few diffs later, Andy: "If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!" I can't believe he is typing this crap. ħuman 04:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would ask what the flying fuck however I realize that this is inadequate. Instead I'd like to ask, what the extremely high flying, utilizing a primary carrier aircraft in order to take to sufficient attitude and then igniting its main rocket engine, flying fuck. Sen (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Read this in the voice of the robotology preacher from futurama

it's actually really funny that way^img Too bad they blocked him --Opcn (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions about CP?

Still new to CP, RW etc, and I have a few questions (things that do not make sense).

Someone said above that they turn off the editing at night? How does this work?

I watch Recent Changes a lot when I can, but many of the editors I see edit have no information here. Who are these people? foia, tzoran, phylliss, I think other I don't know. I see a lot that makes a lot of the edits, but no info here. Sorry if I'm new to all of this. I see these in Recent Changes but I think it doesn't go back forever.

Are rights structured differently on CP than on RW? I see here that we have many "sysops" but I don't know how many CP uses. I don't know about Mediawiki to see how to tell.

Sorry to be ignorant (and maybe poor grammar too). I'm learning bit by bit.Ricardo 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets see...

• They switch over the permissions when Schlafly isn't awake and in front of his computer to oversee his royal domain so only people with the "edit" permission can make edits. This is basically only the sysops.
• If someone doesn't have a page here it's because they aren't a big wheel at CP...
  • FOIA is a one trick pony who is obsessed with the communists in the closet. Generally people like him and KAL007 keep to their own little worlds and don't do anything interesting.
  • TZoran is probably a parodist and will get banned in the fullness of time after playing out whatever endgame suits him best.
  • PhyllisS is Schlafly's creepily named daughter. Distinctly less crazy than her dad, and hence uninteresting for the most part.
• Not really. Here most everyone is a sysop. Stick around for any length of time and you'll be one too no doubt. At CP, there are perhaps 6 or so active or semi-active sysops and no hope of getting any more, since everyone they promote turns out to actually be against them. That's what happens if you're promoting insanity, I guess.

Hope that helps. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What Jeeves said, but read in the voice of Stephen Fry. --GTac (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ricardo, in addition to what Jeeves said. Certain people at CP have siteadmin rights which enables them to turn the database off and on so if Andy was away from his computer and there was a vandal attack they could lock the system. I think this is similar to switching the night edit mode off and on but one of the tech gurus would need to verify that. Sysops have the ability to lock/unlock, delete and move/rename pages in addition to block other editors. As moving page names around can be more difficult to undo CP restricts the number of sysops to only a "trusted" core group. At RW we consider that sharing the ability to undo page moves amongst a large group makes any clean-up operations relatively easy. Andy would like to think that the sysop position is given on merit but really you need to show a degree of brown-nosing to his world-views to really succeed. Giving people block rights is largely a minor thing as other people wih block rights can undo their own block, so it only inconveniences the disenfranchised plebs.

I suggest that you read our CP articles, particularly about Andy and the main sysops, as it will give you a lot more background about them which would take too much time to elucidate here. Suffice it to say that Andy's mum is called Phyllis Schlalfy and has been a grande dame of the Republican Party for many years and is known for her right-wing virulently anti-feminist views. A lot of Andy's thinking has obviously come from her. Andy has two kids, imaginatively called Andrew and Phyllis. Many people think that saddling his daughter with his lizard-like mother's name is tantamount to child abuse. Andrew junior has shown little interest in CP but was spectacularly given sysop rights (CollegeRepublican) after two edits in contrast to the many thousands of edits required of anyone outside his innner circle. When CP started it was largely edited by Andy's homechool pupils and they were obviously given sysop rights as incentives to contribute. By and large they have all disappeared; some, like BethanyS, directly because of Schlafly's views about the inferiority of women. Генгис^mutating 10:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you go about checking the logs?

Is there like a tutorial that we can send to Andy about how to check the logs, so that he can finally tell just how much of his traffic comes from us? Kens articles are the most popular on conservapedia, due in no small part to there popularity here and as a source of ridicule all over the internet. Is there any simple set of steps Andy could theoretically go through in order to see what the anchor text leading to his site is? Thanks. --Opcn (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be extremely surprised if Andy ever looked at the server logs for Conservapedia. Someone here got server blocked during that push to 100m for July 4th last year, which would have entailed viewing the logs, but I really don't think Andy's the one who did it since he's so far deferred to the webmaster for anything under the hood. In any event, they're real easy to read. The first entry will be the manner in which someone arrived at a particularly page - there will be the google search terms or referring website listed right there. All he'd have to do is open the logs in an editor and search for rationalwiki. Done. More sophisticated analysis might be available from the control panel on his webhost's site showing graphical detail of the number of referring sources. I'll give an internet and 2 trouts you're right that RW is a huge single source of referrals, but we couldn't come close to covering the hits they get. What Trent just said below. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 03:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sitegrounds uses a program called awstats which prints very nice reports from the server logs (I use their graphing functions all the time to post info here about RW). Andrew has mentioned several times that he checks these reports in the "special discussion group" postings. He even says "most of our traffic is still coming from that site." I think it was the original SDG that was last mentioned. But these reports are available with a push of a button from the cpanel which controls the server management so it would not be hard for Andrew to have that information. There is no doubt in my mind that we dominate his referral traffic. tmtoulouse 03:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, we had to work our asses off to get them to 100,000,000 by last July - after the site had been up 3-odd years - andnow just a year later his bragging self is up to 165,000,000? Jeepers, someone is still clickbotting the hell out of that dump. And, oh, yeah, website logs are as easy to read as 2+2=school prayer.00000001. ħuman 04:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1 million page views over a ten day period in July at CP. If RW had just 1%, well you get the picture. I doubt more than 3% of traffic is RationalWikians.--193.200.150.82 (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Page views are a notoriously bad measure for traffic, and the larger the page view counter gets with MW the less accurate it becomes, keeping in mind that page views are also bumped by bot programs as part of practical joke operations. We will never know but I wouldn't be surprised if RW accounted for over 70 percent referral traffic. tmtoulouse 04:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, last year we ran it up something like 20 million in the same time frame. I'm sure some people have left click bots on and all that jazz. We also have to consider that not all of our traffic is referral traffic. I open up my browser and go straight to CP to see what's new, then I swing round rational wiki, and sometimes I'll view 500-600 pages at cp a day. --Opcn (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I just thought about it, I am 3% of that figure for traffic over the last 10 days. --Opcn (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Back in May, I considered trying to clickbot them to 200M pageviews by July 4 2010. They had on the order of 160M pageviews back then; there would have had to be about 40M pageviews over the course of 49 days, or about 820k hits per day, or about 32k hits per hour. Unfortunately, their server will still not sustain more than 22k hits per hour, so it was way too late already. mb 08:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just from looking at the Statistics:Popular pages, you can see that at least one of those has been clickbotted heavily. EddyP (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the most viewed pages used to be a lot better. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No permission to view that file :/ --Opcn (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy the URL and paste it in a new tab. It's just protected against hotlinking, apparently. --Sid (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think two things are extremely likely to be true:

• RW is the #1 referrer to CP.
• Most of CP's traffic is generated by RW.

What's likely not true is this similar, but different statement:

• Most of CP's traffic has RW as its referrer.

Keep in mind that if you simply browse CP, there is no referrer shown in the logs, so it's hard to determine how much of the overall traffic was caused by RW. Especially the WIGO-focused crowd is bound to click around on CP a lot more than on RW: If I'm looking for WIGO material, I spend maybe a hundred clicks on CP and five on RW. There is no doubt that if all of RW seriously stopped visiting (not like those "boycotts" where everybody still kept going to CP =P), CP's traffic would hit rock bottom. CP only attracts serious numbers of other visitors when Andy pulls a stunt like Lenski or CBP. --Sid (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Who ever is doing the clickbotting (Hitler really?) should switch to gay bowel syndrome, that should be buoyed up to the top again.Opcn (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pro-Life Gentlemen at a Rather Silly Conservative Blog

I certainly have no problem with your pro-life stance. Just as long a JPratt doesn't take one of his many guns to a clinic, of course. However, I have just one question to ask you fine, upstanding, opinionated gentlemen. Ready?

“”How many unwanted, or orphaned, children have each of you adopted?

After all, you care so much about the lives of these children, you must want to do something to help them. Right? Or is it easier to preach than to act? I know you won't reply, so I'm guessing (with 95% accuracy, which should impress Andy) that the answer is zero. Which also equals the amount of money you donate towards looking after abandoned children. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also please let us know how many of you have donated a kidney. Kallium^talk 10:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And how many hospitals have Conservapedians built? Röstigraben (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Their answer on hospitals would include every one of those built by the church, including the liberal likes of anglicans and catholics. Or just every single one of them as Andy would just make those guys conservative. But then Doctors are trained in liberal universities by liberal professors. My... Head... hurts... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit below the belt, but a fair enough question. However, it might be a little off as Conservatism with the Big C requires this little thing called "personal responsibility", which is sort of code for "if you get raped its your own fault". This makes adoption "socialism". Also, Hitler. So they won't adopt orphans or ask to adopt kids of women considering abortions. ^theist 17:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some snooping

Here. EddyP (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. To recap EddyP's discovery, There's a recent story involving a group called Digg Patriots, around 100 ultra-conservative like-minded people bent on suppressing what they see as "liberal" or progressive stories and articles (called Burying) on Digg, which in turn advances their conservative likes in a mass censorship conspiracy. In other words, IT'S A CABAL! ZOMG! Digg strives for neutrality, and now that they've been exposed, Temlakos has been one of the named suspects. Temlakos = TerryH. I don't ever recalling TerryH stating that he stood for freedom of speech or was against censorship, but that's just yet another spoke in the wheel of Conservapedia. It's a good read! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)