Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive194

This is an archive page, last updated 22 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>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <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)

Andy's Latest Wikitable of Fail

Think he is trying to capitalize on all the attention to that "Counterexamples to Relativity" article^img with his latest mainpage "statistic"? What is a "Bible Avoider" anyway? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you weren't such a Bible Avoider, you wouldn't need to ask... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it got trimmed^img... by the other Schlafly. --MarkGall (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting block reason

And by interesting I mean Ken is full of himself Opcn (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Obsession with someone you think is a woman"? What, unlike Ken

's weird obsession with ShockOfGod^img?

TYT just did a little blurb on CP and it's article on the theory of relativity. Should we make a list of all-time best block reasons and send it to them?--Thanatos (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cenk did touch upon that it's only written by a few people, but he didn't go into detail about why. I think there's only so much you can cover in a single podcast, though. Anyway, I wouldn't want to raise the place's profile any more than necessary, comedy or otherwise - the theory of relativity stuff is hilariously stupid but the stuff on homosexuality, atheism and Islam (and many of the liberal articles to boot) is genuinely hateful content that I don't think should be promoted in any way, shape or form. ^narchist 11:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He's ba-a-a-ack!

Yes indeed! Sole remaining parodist, DouglasA, strides manfully through the dust left from JacobB, and does what he does best. This time, he's helpfully removing jargon from CP. Just remember, whomever is running Douglas tonight, I take over at 7 sharp. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Get in line and wait till we toss you the token, punk. mb 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's gone official

Go New Scientist!-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, not even archived. Weird how I missed that.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, it can now be a reference to the article on WP, which should drive the Usual Suspects (even more) nuts, which is always entertaining. --Kels (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahahaha awesome. Ace^X-102 22:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I added responses by news outlets and some physicists in the Conservapedian relativity article. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed quotes conservapedia

"not the best source"^img but a news site reporting on conservapedia is an outside source right? --Opcn (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a paragon of cherry picking. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Ed-its, I noticed he started cp:Sexual restraint... I was expecting something kinky, but was sorely disappointed. I wonder what the kinkiest article on CP is. ^{ONE / TALK} 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What physicists don't believe the theory of relativity (which one?!) is ultimately incorrect because it doesn't square with quantum theory? 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm. More or less all of them, as far as I can tell. See wp:Quantum gravity --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's what super string theory is all about, and quantum gravity. They are trying to find some theory that covers all observable phenomenon. --Opcn (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

But don't they talk about different shit? Relatives and quatnums? Strings? Superballs WTF? 22:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they are using different words for different theoretical means to explain real phenomenons. The Xtian theory that a giant sky wizard with two lines crossing on his shirt made the world was replaced by a number of theories about things called gravity and evolution, many people discounted the replacement because it wasn't a sky wizard with a different emblem, like it should have been.--Opcn (talk)

Quantum theory and string theory just make the universe even weirder and further pushes Physics away from Andy's ideal of this ordered universe based purely on Newtonian methods. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy will just cross that bridge when he comes to it, which of course is never. --Opcn (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely Andy will simply burn that bridge after he crosses it? Tiatton of (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Verbatim

“”I, Thomas Finn Brown, believe that this website is far greater than any website that has ever come before. No only does it display the greatest truth this world has ever known, but it defends the right to spread that truth, and that truth only. Wikipedia is run by atheistic scum who believe that we are monkeys and make sure that the true Christian believe is expressed. God has shown his true opinion on Wikipedia. When Wikipedia crashed a month ago, that was a sign from God that what they are doing is evil. God will make sure that all satanic website will be distroy, and only Christian ones will remain. This site will be the great leader! Believe in the one true God and his son, our lord Jesus Christ, or burn forever in the great and painful flames of Hell! Amen. [[User:Thomasbrown|Thomasbrown]] 00:32, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

—Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or badimg

My gOD! 04:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What, can you no longer tell a parodist from a legitimate user now, Susan? It's a parodist. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? There was me trying NOT to out him! 05:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And it was reverted within a half hour and the user blocked, that was far too obvious, even for CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, it is kinda funny to watch. Criticise CP - blocked; gush with enthusiasm about the site - blocked. Just another indication of their laager mentality. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Quietly add articles on completely apolitical subjects - blocked. mb 11:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

John of England

I've just read their article on John of England - bad King John if you know your Disney stuff. An interesting character for Conservatives as he was the last true King of England in two senses; Firstly he ruled by divine right until the Barons forced him to sign Magna Carta, and secondly he was the last King crowned with the Crown of England (he lost the crown jewels in The Wash and subsequent monarchs have had to make do with two replacement sets). The current CP article looks almost liberal, though it airbrushes out his lechery and omits his fundraising from the Jews by extracting a tooth a day until they paid his levy. WSC (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia mention on CNNET

Ok, its a CNN blog... and its actually about digg... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20013668-64.html -

I visit Digg's front door often, and what I usually find is hardly proof that conservative groups are succeeding in any way. Here's a very unscientific sampling of what I've found as some of the most-dugg (top 10) submissions as I randomly visited the Digg front door during the last few days. "Fox News is shockingly old" and "Conservapedia:E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy and "Liberals Start F*** Tea Party Campaign." (I've omitted the last ink because the original headline uses three letters of a four-letter expletive.)

But its still on CNN. --Shagie (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh you must mean fuck . HoorayForSodomy (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Isn't that CNET, not CNN? Or am I missing something? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail at reading comprehension today. CNET. CNN. Still, its not a little blog or minor wiki mentioning it. --Shagie (talk)

My e-mail to professor Tribe

I just sent this to Professor Tribe

Subject:A question about a matter of little consequence Re: Andy Schlafly and one of your papers.

Body:

Hello Professor Tribe, I hope my e-mail finds you well. My Name is Emerson White and I am an active member of RationalWiki, an online community that, among other things, monitors Conservapedia. As you may or may not know conservapedia has been in the news over there attempts to overthrow the theory of relativity. Now Rationalwiki has been aware Mr. Schlafly's long held contempt for the theory of relativity for a while (he mistakenly thinks it supports moral relativism) but no strong answer as to why he stands so stubbornly by this wrongheaded belief has been forthcoming. It recently occurred to me that you might be the key in all of this, his evidence for tying the two unrelated theories in two non-overlapping magisteria seems to begin and end with this, a paper by you. Now in spite of my intent for the last few months I have not found time to read that paper, but others who have looked at it tell me that it is not a sound basis for an argument like that on conservapedia.

I am writing this letter in hopes that you might be able to shed some historical light on the issue. While anything that might have happened with Mr. Schlafly would have been 20 years ago and I'm sure not at the forefront of your memory anything you might remember that would explain his strident stance against special and general relativity would be very well received at Rationalwiki.org, or in a reply e-mail which I could then pass on to the community.

Thanking you for your time, Emerson white

It is one of my pet theories that Andy is mad at Professor Tribe over something (a bad grade or a refusal to write a letter of recommendation perhaps, maybe just shutting him down in a class), so hopefully we will get a reply and find out more. --Opcn (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

should read "Conservapedia has been in the news over their attempts"

Is there any reason to think that without a word of explanation, this guy will have any idea what Conservapedia is, or who Andy is, and by extension what you're talking about? Hopefully he'll at least figure out what paper you mean from the extremely vague reference. And why bring RationalWiki's good name into this inappropriate attempt to have a professor comment on someone who may have been a student years ago, which seems probably unethical anyway? --Benod (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The paper in question is available here. I just glanced at it, but it does seem like a metaphor taken way too far. However, some random article in the Harvard Law Review is hardly proof that relativity "is heavily promoted by liberals", as Andy asserts. Also, from Tribe's Wikipedia article I see he has described Obama as the "the best student I ever had" and has supported many liberal causes. Plenty of reasons for Andy not like the guy :D. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy handed in any assignments in Law School with references like this^img:

“” References 1. Dinner conversation between the late Chief Justice Warren Burger and Andrew Schlafly in late 1991.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Perhaps I should have explained more, I was trying to be concise. 2) Rationalwiki doesn't have a good name, we get skipped in virtually all the press coverage. 3)Tribe remembers Obama, who at the time was a charming nobody, Schlafly was a repugnant somebody at that time, so I think there is a good chance he will remember him, or at least recognize the name Schlafly. I could not find a link to the study readily, but figured he would remember that time he wrote a paper about physics. --Opcn (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed up on Prof Tribe but his "liberalness" may have influenced Andy more than in regards to Obama - don't forget Andy's obsession with Professor Values. I could well imagine some behind the scenes event at the HLR when Andy was made to look stupid in front of his fellow editors by a combination of Tribe & Obama. Генгис^mutating 08:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Belatedly I look at Tribe's WP article and notice that he is a professor of Consitutional Law. Andy seems to consider himself an expert on the Constitution so there probably was some resentment especially if Tribe showed his star pupil some favouritism. Генгис^mutating 08:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP's entry on Phyllis Schlafly say that her husband (John Fred) was an attorney. Is it known what area of the law he worked in? CS Miller (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a Westlaw search for Illinois and Missouri appellate decisions with Fred Schlafly's name on them when I get back to the office. 16:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I won't. I don't care whether Andy Schlafly's dad litigated some appeals in Illinois. I also think this letter is stupid and inappropriate and I wish you hadn't mentioned RationalWiki in it. 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanking you for your time, Emerson white

Fuck me, if you can't sign your own name you really shouldn't be a critic.82.23.208.15 (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A critic of what? ^{ONE / TALK} 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

White should be capitalized because I am a proper noun. I'm like a perpetual child when it comes to writing, I really am. --Opcn (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only typo. Tiatton of (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone feel like hounding me about it? I spent years and years in special classes working on it, despite my inability to spell I've managed to do alright and learn to think clearly, and I have a strong memory. Stop harassing me, some people have learning disabilities and cannot grasp spelling and mechanics. --Opcn (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling has got nothing to do with not knowing the difference between there and their (and probably they're). No one is 'hounding you out', it's just that when you criticise or mock someone in writing, you must ensure that your writing is above reproach, and as you have mentioned RW, the community feel the need to point this out. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a learning disability, it took me years to learn how to write at all, there and their is ABSOLUTELY a spelling issue. The two words have a different SPELLING. The part of my brain that would normally spell is wired wrong, I also have Dysgraphia to go with my Dyslexia, would you care to make fun of that? I have a friend who stutters, I can give you his phone number and you can call him up and call him out when ever he bothers to criticize someone with the spoken word.

It's when you go after someone for an error in writing that you must make sure your own writing is beyond reproach. Dyslexia runs in my family, My great-grandfather had it, my grandfather has it, My mother has it, my uncle has it, My cousin has it. Should we all be completely restricted from criticizing anyone in writing? I've worked really really hard to get to this point, where people can actually understand me in writing. I keep notes around to remind myself of things that I know that I will forget (like which direction is left and which is right). I know that I've put in more work than you have, it's not out of laziness that I can't spell, and I'm not stupid. Research that I am contributing to in the academic sphere will probably eventually pinpoint the genetic defect that I have that causes me to have this monumental barrier to overcome, in 20 years time I'll probably be able to point to a place on a map of my genome to show you where the problem is, in the mean time do you think maybe you could try and be a little less of a condescending asshole? --Opcn (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa! Chillax homey! And lose the persecution complex, it's not attractive. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Opcn, I sympathise with your difficulty which you obviously are aware of. However, you should try and use that awareness, particularly when writing to professionals who do not know of your dyslexia and might regard poor grammar or spelling as an indicator of lower intelligence - no matter how ill-founded that conception might be. If you can present your request in a coherent and intelligent manner then people will give it more regard. So rather than dashing off a letter or email in haste, ask someone you know and trust to review your work especially if you are claiming to belong to a wider group. Even coming back and re-reading what you have written after a break will often help. When posting to a talk page most people will overlook common typos because it is an informal medium but more formal postings should involve greater care because it looks like you have thought through what you have written rather than rushing off an intemperate blast. Генгис^mutating 08:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was an informal correspondence with someone who happens to be a professional. It was coherent, the typos were of a sort so as to serve as a hindrance to the understanding of only the exceedingly small minded. I had an idea and I punched out a quick note to the person who might be able to add more to the conversation. --Opcn (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The greatest counterexample ever?

I do love this "counterexample"^img<capture>: "In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether." It is obviously parody but somehow it has continue to survive Andy's numerous reverts, <capture>as it is still listed two days later^img. There are other parodist inserted examples in there but this one stands out as so blatantly obvious, how can he not notice?? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I do wish Andy had kept the one about the muons and the exploding Earth. Lyra § talk 03:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The batch of 6 (from 25 to 30) were all put in by the same person, and were, IMHO, quite witty. All parody, of course. Andy took out 2 of them because they didn't "withstand scrutiny" or whatever that phrase is that he uses. So he has accepted the other 4. Of course, they are all parody, including the ones that Andy put in himself. People are still adding more, and most of them are being reverted. These people are totally clueless. Gauss (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, so this is basically hinting that they're turning into modern aether supporters too? I mean, come on, please SChlafly, someone, anyone, restore my trust in human sensibility and delete that one, it's on par with proclaiming a flat Earth. ^narchist 11:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we assuming that someone on CP are intelligent enough to know what luminiferous aether is? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

TK's Godspeed board

What was its address and does anyone have screenshots? 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about marra, but it sounds mighty interesting... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He used godspeed here is this it?

Nah, that's just TK being an MC again. Andy always used(?) to use it and TK's saying, in his usual roundabout I-wanna-be-a-thug way that he knows the editor is taking the piss out of Andy and is going to block him.

That said, I would love to know what this board is. Details, man! Details! Maybe we can add it next to TK's "I love getting forced enemas in a cage entry." --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

this. I'm looking for more details. 19:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the most damaging thing TK ever did was let Andy be himself, by removing all the social checks that would normally save a man from himself. I wonder if that kind of treatment would be enough to send any of us spinning off into our own crazy little worlds.--Opcn (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Opcn. TK very cleverly removed, or discredited, anybody who might act as a voice of reason, even though evidence shows Andy rarely listens anyway. Still, no doubt he's been whispering in Brother Leader's ear, urging him on to greater things. Maybe he's doing the same with Ken, because the CP today, is a far crazier place than it was 12 months ago. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I have:

[00:24] ewig10: Can you at least see my thinking on long range plans?

[00:25] Genghis: I'm not sure what your ultimate aim is

[00:25] ewig10: My wanting to participate is only my own good idea

[00:25] ewig10: My god! Haven;t I made that clear enough for months?

[00:26] ewig10: In spite of the dozens of socks protected, in spite of the hundreds of IP's unblocked

[00:27] ewig10: I really want to know where some of you have the gall to continue to say I have betrayed the cabal or RW

[00:27] ewig10: because I am simply missing those "facts" that keep being posted about.

[00:27] Genghis: Terry, I know what you have done but what is the ultimate aim of it all?

[00:28] ewig10: And I have not asked for any more information, or wanted to know more "information" than I needed to know to help, and not run afoul of any of you

[00:29] ewig10: Ultimately, as Ames has told me, none of you want to work with me, and most of you do not trust me. So no matter my goals, what advantage or help to my goals is working with any of you?

[00:30] ewig10: If all evidence there is shows I haven't betrayed anyone, knowingly, and such, and you guys keep holding to your idea I do, what can I do?

[00:30] ewig10: Is it simply because I have played my role better than any of you? Is it really all boiling down to spite?

[00:32] ewig10: And since you have been gone, let me tell you, I was given the password, it wasn't tricked out of someone, and they are a bloody damn liar for saying so.

[00:32] ewig10: And I never asked for it, either.

[00:32] Genghis: Terry, lets keep this short for tonight.

[00:32] ewig10: http://godspeed.boardoo.com/index.php

[00:33] ewig10: Flippin and GL is there

[00:33] Genghis: more stuff that I'm not aware of - I'm too old for all this iternet

[00:33] ewig10: I will work with anyone to trash CP, if they will work with me. Those who don't want to, they can suffer the consequences if in playing my role on CP, they get in the way.

[00:34] ewig10: My only reason for asking to be a part of the cabal was to avoid that happening

[00:34] ewig10: The others, well, they want revenge for me blocking them, I guess, lol. So silly.

[00:35] Genghis: So how do you want to trash CP? There wouldn't be a lot happening without Rob and Ken's obsessions.

[00:35] ewig10: Ok, I do have errands, as I said, we can chat in the morining if better for you....

[00:35] ewig10: I think the original plans, you can check with Godless, are good

[00:35] ewig10: I was willing to turn over server access to Trent.

[00:36] ewig10: but those plans seem impossible now.

[00:36] Genghis: wiil do, talk tomorrow

[00:36] ewig10: I was serious before, I can do lots, but I also need to learn from those better than me....and you certainly are.

[00:37] Genghis: Me? My forte is piss-taking

[00:37] ewig10: If you apply at that link, you can read up in the morrow

[00:37] ewig10: lol

[22:32] Genghis: I signed onto blackbox

[22:32] ewig10: ahhhh

[22:32] ewig10: yes, Godspeed!

[22:32] ewig10: they make the name of the skin bigger than anything

[22:33] Genghis: a bit too dark for my liking

[22:33] Genghis: aand my eyes

Генгис^mutating 10:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have this one that came my way. --PsyGremlinParla! 10:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Caveat. If we're thinking of using this to discredit TK, just remember that Andy believes:

He's never vandalized the site and his self-initiated "double agent" work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely that. It was not a sincere effort to harm the site. (TZB 250/f10bbe861e1bb6aedf1e674aba293b1e.html

In other words, TK opening the SDG to all and sundry was to get at us, not CP. Go figure. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading news story

yet again^img This psychology professor thinks that monkeys can learn human social norms (an idea rejected by evolutionary psychology, which views most human social behaviors as adaptations to human social structures, which monkeys don't have). Since this anthropomorphising clod had a paper yanked he is now an example of evolutionary science failing. Damn I'm too upset about this. --17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And if you hadn't known, the author is Roger Schlafly. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that, I sat back at my computer and was puzzled by why I had singular values up, because just like every one else I don't read that blog. --Opcn (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Too funny.--Brendiggg (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see CP uses the phrase "tamarin monkeys" which to my mind is a tautology. However, looking up Roger's profile I see that he has his mum and [Andy] in his Blog team. Following up Andy I get to his Blogs I follow - The Fifth Great Awakening which has four posts in it, the last one from 9 Sept. 2009 "After only one week we already have 6 followers, and we are continuing to expand the blog, with the goal of creating a substantial reader base". Looks like AddisonDM's 'Fifth Great Awakening' was actually a bit of a Rip van Winkle. Генгис^mutating 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed stutters

Ed blocks "Bird" and tells him to

"Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial ",

nothing unusual so far but, of course, he's blocked with

"account creation disabled";

still not unusual although a little stoopid.

Not satisfied, he reblocks with

"autoblock disabled"

and duplicates the

"Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial".

Now he's on a roll so why not give Bird a third

"Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial"

(that's six altogether!) while adding

"e-mail blocked"

to ensure the poor dear Bird a) really knows why he's blocked and b) can't do anything about it.

Silly User 180! 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What does autoblock mean? Senator Harrison (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocking is, in essence, the automatic blocking of the IP of a blocked user. For example, let's say that I'm editing Conservapedia with the username "SuperHamster" while my IP address is 92.31.120.139. If they block my account and select autoblock, then my IP address, along with my account, is blocked. This prevents me from editing after my account has been blocked, since I could just log out and cause further damage. Autoblocking also causes any accounts that log in under that IP address in the future to be automatically blocked. So if my IP address is autoblocked and my friend decides to come over to my house and he logs in to Conservapedia with his own account, it'd be automatically blocked. That can cause problems, since IP addresses can by dynamic and go to different users. Also, if someone with an autoblocked account decides to log in under a different IP address, that IP address is also automatically blocked upon logging in. It's basically a spiral effect. See Wikipedia:Autoblock for more. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Top notch work from Uncle Ed there. Poor Brian Ird will never get a chance to contribute. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on user188. He's only had 5 or 6 years' experience in being a wiki admin. He'll get the hang of it eventually. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that autoblock was so contagious. If you are autoblocked then you could start an epidemic by attempting to log on at every available machine, particularly in public places. Of couse that would be a lot easier with WP than CP, where the editor base is much smaller. Генгис^mutating 10:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. The CP editor base is less than a mere rounding error of the WP editor base. ħuman 10:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Solid Gold from the SDG

Although those conversations were leaked by Terry Koeckritz yonks ago, I don't think they've received the love they deserve. Was browsing at random last night (Google Desktop rocks) and came up with some wonderful posts:

From StevenM (Level_1/8e8f9cc6724ae796.html)

Andy on blocking (25 Nov 2007): (Our emphasis)

StevenM: his name looks legitimate, his IP address looks legitimate, and his edits look legitimate. I even said I was 99% sure he was legitimate, citing how an online student ("Wally", I think) had made a few dozen homework-related entries, only to be blocked!

A few days ago I mentioned the problem of overzealous blocking. Today TK then blocked StevenM.

Why??? I don't mind that much, and I've unblocked StevenM, but I'm really starting to wonder how many good editors, and good future editors, we're losing this way.

From User:Conservative again (Level_1/bc71204f541c6e18.html)

Karajou on Conservative (30 Sep 2007): (Our emphasis)

Did Conservative ever at any time tell us where he's from? Did he ever make postings of any kind outside of Conservapedia or CreationWiki? Does anyone here know his real name?

I'm saying this becaause I'm still not convinced as to his honesty with regards to CP. Yes, I agree he has made an awful lot of contributions to the site, but even Hitler has done good things as well.

First is the accusations that he is user:Newton at RW. As proof of that, I have submitted his postings of what he intended to do regarding the Atheist article and a picture of a prominent ex-atheist, both of which are born out by the times they were happening in both sites.

Second is the RW accusation that he is Ken DeMyer.

In doing a search of where this Ken DeMyer lives, I went to Privateeye.com. I can type in relevent info about a person's general whereabouts, but the more private stuff (SSN, jobs, etc.) I would have to pay for, and I don't. Typing in "Ken DeMyer," and adding, on a hunch, the state of New York, and I get the following: Ken DeMyer is 45 and from Buffalo, New York. Remember troll and user KDBuffalo? Was KDBuffalo trolling against us before or after the Ratwikians claimed he was Ken DeMyer?

If the above is true, then we got someone with a clear Jekyll/Hyde personality. If it's not true, then we've got one hell of an elaborate ruse going on. Either way, I am of the opinion that Conservapedia should not have to suffer this. It's already established that Conservative is user Newton in RW. That's a fact. But there are two additional accusations here, one of which is just plain bad.

--PsyGremlin講話 13:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic stuff, well found Psy! (Where are the SDG messages located? I've got TZB, but not the SDG) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

SDG stuff can be found here. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it was the StevenM block that caused TK to swear at Andy and thus led to him being desysopped. It was certainly his last block before his first fall. Генгис^mutating 10:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

was reading some of those mails yesterday. Good fun; TK pounding his chest and playing the victim; TK accusing Rob of being Kevin Conley and of working with the cabal; accusing Rob of having his e-mail hacked and being the source of the SDG; and of course the "Starchamber" mail. Shame, what a poor, misunderstood litle fruitcake our Terrykins is. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanitas Vanitatis

(moved from RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Vanitas_Vanitatis) Two years ago, I became a member of RationalWiki, and on 27 August 2008, I uploaded my first pic. It isn't a surprise that it was concerned with blocks at Conservapedia. Since then, I have uploaded over 600 files to RationalWiki, resulting in over 350 pics currently here at view.

To honor this biannium (and to get some feedback) I present you with a selection of ten pics and the possibility to vote for the ones you like.

9 Vote 18 Vote 1 Vote 5 Vote 6 Vote 2 Vote 6 Vote 2 Vote 9 Vote 3 Vote	An animated gif of the rangeblocks in June 2009 which are affecting the region of London
	Active editors at Conservapedia. Done for the first time in June 2009, updated regularly
	Boxplots of blocks at Conservapedia arranged by sysop. Additional information at the top: number of (infinite) blocks. July 2009
	Recurrence of editors at Conservapedia after being blocked: illuminates that even short blocks repel the majority of the editors. First: March 2009, updated irregularly, current version: February 2010
	Something completely different: Who cratted whom at RationalWiki. June 2010
	The wikifactor for RationalWiki, Conservapedia, Citizendium and AStorehouseOfKnowledge. Really, you could write a paper on this one :-) March & July 2010
	Rangeblocks at Conservapedia, ordered according to a Peano-curve. Got mentioned in Wikipedia Signpost (thanks wp:User:Wwwwolf :-) May 2009, updated regularly, current version: August 2010
	Following a claim of A. Schlafly that Great Awakenings could have influenced the creation of New Conservative Words, this pic shows that this is bogus, as usual. July 2010
	just showing how many short stubs Ed Poor has created - and that many of those never get elaborated. February 2010
	The number of edits per editor in a month, the editors arranged by the date of account creation. For Conservapedia, it shows the influx of parodists, the presence of editors who keep up editing over years without gaining any trust, and the regime of the old guard. February 2010, monthly updates for various wikis

I left out some of my favorites (like this or this), but I hope to have given a querschnitt of me œuvre :-)

Of course, if you didn't like any of my work, just say so, too.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I like Minard's graph of the Grand Armée better. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I love Minard's illustration. Also, no offense, LArron, but wouldn't this be better placed at talk wigo CP? ħuman 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple that don't relate to CP.

It'd be hell, but very interesting, to see a graph of who sysoped who here. Lyra § talk 02:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LArron's already done that, actually. Not surprisingly, they're my favorites. Her His entire "best of" list is disappointingly CP-centric, really. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You all are right: it's a little bit conservapedia-centric (though I've done versions of the graphs for other wikis, too. Here, I always took conservapedia's graph when there were graphs of various wikis) So, I moved the whole section from the Saloon Bar to this place.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I see now, good point. Anyway, I tried to vote (for the same graphic) twice, but of course, from the same IP. Damn. In the end I'd simply vote for "LArron as the ruler of graphic reports on the universe" and leave it at that. ħuman 09:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Has the Onion been reading CP?

Honestly, this could almost be Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Take out the use of the word "damn" and you would indeed have Andy in a nutshell. Got love Poe's Law. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 11:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly is Obamagedon?

I thought it was supposed to be a financial meltdown as predicted by leading trends forcaster what's his name. However it seems to be everything from Obama loosing his democratic majority to the collapse of morality to a major disaster that kills a lot of people, does anyone know what it is supposed to be? --Opcn (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has a nice ring to it, so Republicans are calling pretty much any bad phenomena/trend related (or unrelated) to Obama "Obamageddon". This might be a shock, but silly things like consistency (especially with that kind of jargon) don't count for much in politics. This sarcastic answer brought to you by JArneal 08:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just a financial meltdown, but a social meltdown too. Ken's

favourite youtube nutter believes there'll be rioting in the streets, armed gangs, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria! Did we mention that we were selling survivalist stuff? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's closely related, if not the same as the liberal apocalypse. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this Kenservative?

Creationist Ken

just made some articles on cp about youtube and linked to some creationwiki articles that look like his work, only a little better because creationwiki probably wouldn;t put up with quite as much garbage as CP. --Opcn (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The style is eerily familiar, indeed. He's been there for years, apparently. I've only been there for a few months. ħuman 10:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it is him - that article doesn't contain a single "regard" --PsyGremlinTal! 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's one of his known aliases. Генгис^mutating 11:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Proof. Генгис^mutating 11:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ah yes, deffo Ken --Opcn (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "Andy Schafly, who I believe is the owner of Conservapedia, gave me permission to copy Arguments against evolution which I wrote at Conservapedia to CreationWiki. Is there any problem with that?" is a dead give away. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason it looks too coherent to be a Ken

masterpiece is that he didn't write most of it. He's just added a bunch of references to his good buddy shock of goat to it, in characteristic style using a million tiny edits to do so. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I love this edit. He raves about how useful alexa et al. are for seeing how good websites are. Then he goes and checks all the websites he just mentioned on alexa. Oops! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And now he's blatted it all over Main Page^img Worm^{(t | c)} 15:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF? It's basically saying, "If you break the law by filing a false claim against another user, beware their tactics! Don't fall for it!" My head hurts. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodness me, just how pitiful must Ken's

existence be if he considers that an exciting new resource? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Best of the public

Account creation switched off again. Clearly Andy feels he has enough of the public helping him at the moment. Of course, it also keeps out the conservative hordes Karajerk is expecting any day now. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Goalposts

Not entirely sure if this is worth a WIGO, seeing as it's so commonplace over there, but it seems strange to me that CP doesn't really know what 'moving the goalposts'^img actually means when they have a grade A example of it, by no less than Assfly himself, here^img 92.9.146.243 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous expressions and fallacies that CP has articles on. However, they often twist them in ways to make them seem a little more pro-creation (hurr hurr). The Moving the Goalposts one I think had one of the best examples, where it said something like "evolutionists move the goalposts when they say that evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of life". Wrong on many, many levels. ^narchist 13:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I like how they are using google results for "moving the goalpost + evolution" as an argument somehow. Especially seeing as how rationalwiki is the 2nd result (underneath an irrelevant link about social media). --GTac (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Another example is the Ad hominem article were they not only defend its use, but enter into an non sequitur ad hominem about Richard Dawkins. - π 14:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well... Straight from the fingers of the Poe Generator. 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, that's some top notch CP right there! You don't often see such non sequiter ad homs rolled together so clumsily. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

CP needs a "Schlafly's Jihad on Britain" category to keep all this stuff together. I'm hoping Ken gets on board with this memette. I want to read about Britain's popularity with Asian and Latino ladies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

More TK-CP fun

Speaking of the deceitful one, I find it wonderfully amusing, that he deletes any and all posts on his WP talkpage, claiming that people shouldn't talk about non-WP stuff there, yet has no problem bringing non-WP stuff in, when deleting posts, because the editor is "Admin at known, identified vandal site by the press". Irony is never far away from our little friend. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do people feel like they're authorized to delete stuff on their talk page in general? I mean unless it has been there like a month or two and no one has commented on it in weeks, WTF? Oh and people getting upset that we're vandals on our own page after calling us vandals in public... HILARIOUS. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What I find to be of quite a humorous state is that TK applies that explanation to everything. He has accused me multiple times of making posts on his talk page "on topics unrelated to Wikipedia", in addition to making posts that "promote your vandal site" (My vandal site? Am I the owner now?) and that I have harassed him, when I have never done such a thing. I asked him for just one example of me doing so, but I just got a big "shut up" from him (literally). You can read the discussion here. Further more, at one point on my talk page, he said "I think a look at your edit history, and those who also think you are a vandal, is enough for the average user to decide." He promptly removed that from his message, though, as he probably realized how wrong that statement truly is. Anyway, in reply to Eira, TK-CP is technically authorized to remove any messages from his talk page whenever he wants. It's discouraged, but it's not against policy to do that. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

== Sorry Ken

==

Research has shown that women higher in testosterone are more attracted to more macho behaviour in males (near the bottom under the section titled Testosterone)(additional reading:[4][5][6]). Looks like any conservative that has a light, fluffy and submissive wife isn't macho.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This does explain all of they're machismo nonsense. OVER COMPINSATION--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

P not NP and the internet

One of the very interesting things about the Deolalikar proof is how the internet has been used to analyze a 100 page complex proof in a matter of days instead of the months it used to take. The major issues with the paper were pointed out as comments to a blog [7]! Wiki's have also played a major role [8]. This is a fabulous example of the success of web 2.0 and how it is finally changing the fundamental nature of the game in academia.

Andy seems to want to frame this as a best of the public+internet versus the evil liberal professors. The internet did play a major role in this, but Andy (unsurprisingly) fails to grasp even remotely what that role was. It is amazing how much the man misses by trying to shove it all into his world view box. tmtoulouse 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the people commenting at such blogs and collaborating at such wikis experts? That is, eeebul librul professors? (Seriously, I have some math background, but that blog comment scared (and scarred) me. I hadn't even bothered to look at the proof itself - I knew it was beyond my level of math education.)--ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's roughly my point. The internet and its collaboration tools are being used by experts to change the landscape of how academia processes information. Andy is trying to set this up as the evil liberal professors fighting against the best of the public, but the best of the public has the...internet! So they can't lose! It reminds me of when CP was first starting out and I told Andy in an e-mail conversation that he had to make room for what he saw as the evil liberals or else his wiki would fail. There isn't a ground swell of conservative, bible fearing, southern, racists waiting to embrace web 2.0. tmtoulouse 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, he wouldn't recognise the BotP effect when amateur sceptics swarm all over the latest outpourings of the Baraminology Research Group, or the "Answers" "Research" "Journal" and rip their work to shreds? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's been some other similar stuff happening in math in the last year or two, and it seems to be picking up speed. Gowers posted some interesting ideas about "massively collaborative mathematics", and the first go at this actually lead to a proof of a very specific conjecture and a couple publications. Another site that seems to be growing fast lets people ask and answer "reseach-level" math questions (and earn points for good answers). This doesn't lead to new theorems, but it's extremely helpful in hunting down references and finding out what's known. There are already a couple very big names hanging around there. I've heard Michael Nielson is writing a book about "open science" that's due out next year and ought to be a good read. --MarkGall (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Terence Tao is a Fields Medalist and a professor at UCLA, hardly BotP. He is simply The Best. - π 13:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Tao of Mathematics surely must be his autobio. Генгис^mutating 07:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Relativity: All is lost

The relativity counterexample talk page has reached the point where Andy openly doesn't pass the Turing Test anymore.

This reply^img already makes no sense ("GPS makes relativity adjustments... GPS disproves relativity!"), but when you look at the exchange^img before^img it...

It's obvious shit like that which makes me wonder why non-parodists like Ed are staying. At what point are their benefits outweighed by the idiot-by-association stigma of being a Conservapedia Senior Sysop? --Sid (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That exchange was particularly painful to read. Am I correct in my interpretation that some of the changes they calculate out and others they just wait and measure afterwards because it is easier? --Opcn (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not fully sure if that's what you mean, but from what I read and understand, GPS makes adjustments for the larger relativistic effects while ignoring the effects that simply don't matter at current accuracy levels of the system. --Sid (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Were there ever benefits that outweighed the idiot-by-association at CP? Especially given that personalities like Creepy Ed, Koward, Ken

and the rest are all Andy-class idiots in the first place. --Kels (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that CP is the only place where people like Ed and Koward get to assert any kind of auth-or-i-tie. In order to do this, they will put up with any amount of supidity... without actually contributing to it. besides TerryH, which sysop worked on the CBP? How many worked on Conservative Words, besides JPratt. They'll put up with anything and will never question Andy, lest the little bit of power they do have is taken away from them. With nobody left to keep Andy in check, the insanity of the past 18 months ensues. --PsyGremlinSermā! 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but my impression is that the "large effects" are about the velocity and altitude of the GPS satelites, relative to a fixed point on the ground (e.g. somebody standing still and holding a GPS receiver). The "small effects" could be (if I'm reading the sources right) caused by somebody driving a car while using a GPS; the car's velocity can't be accounted for in the GPS satellite, but the car isn't going fast enough for its velocity to matter. But for a supersonic aircraft, or a low earth orbit satellite, that might matter. Anyway, Ashlafly seems to think that *all* effects must be accounted for, even if some of them make no measurable difference. Reminds me of the time that somebody pointed out that QED made a prediction to more than 10 significant figures, and his response was something like "so what? eloctrostatics is *exact*". He doesn't have a clue about measurements, error bars, and the like. Fawlty (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish Ksorenson were here. Well. Not here, but rather over there. It'd be like that Mercury thing all over again. She'd pull out obscure physics papers and cite sources and make charts and oh, the fun we'd have reading it. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And .. Roger weighs in^img (not on Andy's side) 01:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy: Bluster, bluster, waffle, waffle^img. BUT I'M RIGHT! Gonna Tell Mommy if you're nasty to me. (That's what he's sayin' in my head anyway) 01:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the best conspiracy theory comments ever. Anyone feel like loosing a sock to ask him where he got the mercury data and the pulsar data if it can't be published? I suspect that the real reason no journal can publish relativity conflicting data is that it doesn't exist. Oh, maybe someone could convince Andy to write it himself (using numbers and calculations, not hand waving generalizations and assertions), maybe start the conservapedia journal of physics if they turn him away. --Opcn (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mercury and binary thingy sound vaguely familiar - you could check the relevant CP talk pages (Theory of relativity and the counterexample one) and maybe do a T:WIGO archive search *points up at on-page search box* That being said, Roger's comments are fun, especially where he calls out Andy's "You can't name the guy who made the relativistic calculations because nobody did them!" by asking for the name of the guy who did the Newtonian calculations. Such a shame that I'll be out most of the day... --Sid (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the pulsar business, but the Mercury anomaly stuff was covered completely on this talk page. Short version? Andy doesn't know what "perihelion," "precession," "anomaly" or "margin of error" mean, and he apparently can't do basic arithmetic. Either that, or he just doesn't care. You pick. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You bastid, you beat me to that Newtonian bit by 3 minnits! ħuman 10:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Fawlty - The major effects are the large velocities of the GPS satellites. Even their altitude is essentially irrelevant. As for the speed of the ground receiver, even for a supersonic aircraft, the speed is irrelevant. To the satellites, a supersonic aircraft is essentially stationary on the ground. The difference between the Lorentz factor of a stationary observer and a supersonic jet, in the frame of a GPS satellite traveling 7000 mph, is slightly beyond the precision of civilian GPS units (although it is entirely possible advanced militaries compensate for this effect in precision munitions). YourEnemy? (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely this [9] has to be compensated for in the design otherwise it would introduce an error that would build up over time? It wouldn't necessarily break anything, but it would make the GPS clock show the wrong time eventually (separately from the leap seconds hilarity). There's no explanation for such an effect in non-relativistic physics. Or am I way behind the conversation here? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Runner up champion glutton Roger for the win: "Who did the Newtonian calculations?" ħuman 09:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy only wishes he could ban that liberal, professor, expert-on-something motherfucker. I love it when RSchlafly drops a fact in Andy's path. Andy's all like "shoo! shoo!" ^{ONE / TALK} 11:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And by making well-sourced edits^img, RonLar tries to get the range-block of his ISP at home lifted... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't want well-sourced edits, he wants substantive edits. Are your edits substantive, LArron? Are they? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, you've been sentenced to quantify your openmindedness. LArron, do you think that there that there must be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies? --MarkGall (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually loved this one. Andy says "All you do is talk and I am not going to answer your questions, but take my test and tell me your score rather than talking about the subject at hand" Quazywabbit (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI Rachel Maddow on relativity. Sterile kitten 11:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fields medal

Andy never fails to amaze me. I mean first of all, he sees the girls he teaches as inferior (due to chivalry and not wanting competition), but surely his world-view isn't that distorted that he can't see any women having any kind of influence in any technical field. Gawd, his mother must have done a great job on him.

Does he also not realise how boorish he sounds in his headline, "Expect liberals to award the Fields Medal -- the highest honor in mathematics -- to a woman for political reasons for the first time on August 19th."^img Of course, no explanation of who the woman is, or why it's even political. Well, it must be, because conservatives would never give such an award to a woman. I guess in Andy's world Marie Curie is a jumped up little trollop who rode on her husband's coat-tails.

Btw - Andy's wife was studying medicine, wasn't she? Any bets he made her give up and be a proper woman, just like mummy? The man is a pig and a buffoon. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A search at the AMA's web site reveals no MD's named Schlafly in NJ. I also checked her maiden name; no results for that, either. MDB (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't she be AAPS though? I can't see Andy allowing his wife to associate with liberal doctors. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The AMA's site also lists doctors not affiliated with them. Plus, googling "doctor catherine schlafly" reveals no results except those connected to Andy or her kids. Nothing about her office hours or practice or anything. And, if you go to the New Jersey board of medical examiners web site, there's no doctors named Schlafly. I think we can say that if she is still a practicing MD, she's not doing it in New Jersey. (Which may well be possible -- I'm not quite sure where in NJ Andy lives, but it's a small state and she could well live in one state but practice in another.) MDB (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a web-search for one of the clan, and it found a page where that member stated zer home town. It's somewhere that (IIRC) has been previously mentioned as Andy's residence, and is near the middle of NJ, but as MDB said, NJ is small (only about 80km radius), so its easy to commute out of state for work. CS Miller (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never bothered to find her, because my level of care is pretty near don't, but from what I recall she goes by Cathy and is an opthomologist. --Opcn (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone here like to help me research the disparity in math accomplishment, credentials, honors, or academic position between men and women? We might start with America, which is so open about stuff like this. But watch out, your fellow liberals might seek your early retirement if you challenge the shibboleth that the disparity could only be due to sex discrimination - and not due to factors like personal inclination, desire to sacrifice career for family, or even (wait for it ...) innate ability.

Since I know nothing about the topic, I can be completely openminded. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're only just now proposing the research? Well, since you have such a good record for finishing what you start I'd be very interested in seeing what you come up with. 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, Ed, I know a little bit more than nothing on this subject. Nearly all of the evidence in the United States points to cultural factors being the reason why girls perform worse in math and science tests; yes, gender stereotypes play a huge role. Research has strongly suggested that the difference is not genetic or innate. Perhaps the reason why you're all so hung up about this is that you're combining the fact that there are physiological differences between girls' and boys' brains and that boys do better on math tests, but that would be too logical for you guys. Perhaps it's because you, for any number of reasons, want to encourage gender stereotypes. It's been made very clear you don't think girls are on the same level as boys in society. Lyra § talk 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Research away, Eddie-boy. I'm sure you'll find that men have made many more accomplishments in math than women (and maybe, just maybe, you'll find that men have also made more accomplishments in this field, and all others, than teenage boys, much to the chagrin of Andy). But what of it? Will you use that as proof that the only way a woman could make any contributions worthy of a Fields Medal would be through some sort of affirmative action? It seems clear that Andy has decided that is the case. Perhaps you are more openminded than him (hell, it's basically impossible not to be; the man in the epitome of closed-mindedness); let us know what you discover. DickTurpis (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you will also find that the overwhelming majority of discoveries in mathematics have been made by highly educated mathematicians. Hell, many of them were even professors and the like. Women or not, that discovery will likely blow rather a large hole in Andy's insane best of public rubbish.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an aside, but when has knowing nothing about a topic ever stopped Ed before? --Kels (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So this is just a despicably sexist thought

The people who are good at math (high scores on tests etc.) and the people who are great at math (fields medals) aren't necessarily the same people; rather that is to say the subset that is great may be radically different from average than the subset is good. Just in the math crowd I know I am good but far from great. It seems to me that those that are very good (I do not know any great mathmaticians personally) tend strongly towards being strange, perhaps mis-wired mentally. Since men are missing a large chunk of DNA there is no fail safe to keep the brain running normally, that is why there are so many more autistic men than women. With a higher (but still small) number of miswired men than women running around, and a higher percentage of miswired individuals doing well in upper division math than normal people, you might expect a stronger showing of men even with out the strong and obvious social factors (which aren't necessarily independent of biological factors). --Opcn (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. I used to do karate here in the UK with someone who apparently worked at GCHQ and had once won one of the prizes for solving one of the old theorem (prize of about 200k gbp apparently which he bought a lambourghini with) and he was VERY strange. Quite quite brilliant at maths, far and away better than me or anyone else I knew or know, I have a first degree in physics. But he was very strange, in a not nasty or threatening way. His mind was simply working on levels to which I can only aspire and never begin to reach .Oldusgitus (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Living in central Maryland, I've known several employees of NSA (the US equivalent to GCHQ), including some very brilliant mathematicians. In many cases they are as strange as they are brilliant. MDB (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fields medal

Andy now proudly proclaims "Conservapedia exclusive: this Thursday liberals will likely give the coveted Fields Medal -- math's highest honor -- to an underachieving woman and to a communist-trained mathematician from Vietnam. Is the lamestream media holding back stories about this to create a bigger splash on Thursday?". Evidently Andy googled/aol-searched for likely winners and found out that everyone (CP exclusive!) agrees Ngo Bao Chau will probably win for proving Langlands' fundamental lemma. But further googling revealed that -- horror of horrors -- he went to high school in Vietnam, which is why the libs picked him! I guess this explains all the Russian winners too. I wonder if he'd be willing to share who the woman is; Mirzakhani's ("underachieving", hah) name has been tossed around but it seems like a long shot for a woman to get it this time around... --MarkGall (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's biggest two achievements where being born to Phyllis (a woman) and marrying Cathy (another woman). Outside of that he has had very little in the way of success. Roger is more successful than he is, Andy may just be the least successful of Phyllis'children. If he bothered to run conservapedia well it could be a real achievement. --Opcn (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to get all armchair Freudian, but I always figured that Andy's disdain for women stemmed from living in his mother's shadow. That he had so many advantages and still isn't a fraction as prominent as Mama Phyllis has to hurt, especially given the sort of rhetoric he heard in his formative years. If he can prove that women and men are so different in capabilities that they shouldn't even be in direct competition, then he doesn't have to worry about being compared to his mother.

I'd like to add that I appreciated how Andy spiced up his misogyny minestrone with spice notes of xenophobia/racism. Honestly, that WIGO stunned me. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 03:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember any talk about the fields medal in the MSM? I think it was only pearlman rejecting gobs of money that made it a story. --Opcn (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone with a sock over there should point out to him that his favourite BotP Perelman was "communist-trained" as well...Röstigraben (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to think the media treats the Fields medal with the same degree of fervency they take for the Super Bowl (for us Yanks) or the World Cup (for the rest of the world.) Perhaps in Andy-land, there's a line of people wagering on who will win the Fields medal this year. And a day or so after the announcement, we'll be seeing commercials, "Professor Snrub, you've just won the most coveted prize in mathematics! What are you going to do now?" "I'm going to Pythagoras-World!" MDB (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy shows his true colours

We just can't make this shit up.^img Tao sucks as a candidate because he's "an outspoken Obama supporter" AND teaches at UCLA. And he simply can't grasp the fact that a woman might be eligible for a maths award. He really is a horrible little man, probably so soured by his own failings despite an expensive education, that he is incapable of acknowledging anybody else's achievements. --PsyGremlin講話 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I really wish he would clarify the "political factors" in giving it to Ngo. Is he actually going for "communist-trained" here? And I'd like to know who he can possibly think has done more important work than Ngo and ought to win instead. --MarkGall (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out Mr. "Girls Can't Do Math" has a daughter who is an engineering major. MDB (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, she certainly wasn't going to major in any of the LIBERAL Arts. DickTurpis (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Truly beautiful Jack Hughes (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ashafly says "No one dares put forth the names deserving the prize based on merit, given the likelihood that politics will govern", and also that"Tao is an outspoken Obama supporter and it's not persuasive for you to repeat, over and over, that you think Tao is somehow such a genius. I'm not certain if you're also an Obama supporter, but I do know that liberals often promote other liberals." So (1) others on the talk page (PStevens et al) are talking about mathematics, while Ashafly talks about politics, and (2) he accuses the mathematicians (=liberals) of talking about politics while, presumably, Ashalfy talks only about merit. Fawlty (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty well established that Tao is a genius. He's been exceptionally good at math since his childhood. To take one quote from the WP page, New Scientist said "Such is Tao’s reputation that mathematicians now compete to interest him in their problems, and he is becoming a kind of Mr Fix-it for frustrated researchers. 'If you're stuck on a problem, then one way out is to interest Terence Tao,' says [Charles] Fefferman [professor of mathematics at Princeton University]." One might also try (and fail) to point out to Andy that Terence Tao has contributed to his own former field of electrical engineering in monumental ways, namely in the field of signal processing, by finding that minimization of the ell-1 norm for an underdetermined system of equations can be solved using linear programming. ScientificRigor (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly makes arse of himself in public again

I wonder why we never got to hear about this on CP? Check out the first 7 seconds or so of the video. What the fuck is he wearing? The article promises even more arsehattery to come. I really hope he gets another day in court, the lulz his last appearance offered were superb. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just Andy hanging out with hos AAPS quacks. They do pay his mortgage after all. Then again, I wouldn't employ Andy to have a parking fine challenged. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, anyone know when we can expect a ruling in the case of Committee to recall democrats for no good reason v. Sanity? That should be funny too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling bullshit on that. The so-called "Andrew Schlafly, Esq." isn't making absurd arm-waving gestures. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting... I know that The Young Turks recently did a piece on CP and relativity; well, they also just did a piece on this group, exposing its near total lack of actual physicians. At its latest rally, members were apparently (according to TYT) asked to rent white lab coats :D Anyway, TYT didn't make the connection to Schlafly and neither did I. That article looks like dittohead nonsense, by the way. Bluefish (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I found this story, while looking in to the truth of the TYT thing. As it turns out, it seems like they've rather, er, exaggerated the original reports. Still, good going on pointing out the Obama mind control thing. I still think it was Schlafly himself who penned that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the dittohead article and the actual group's site, it did seem that while the AAPS may be obscure and partisan-fringy, they might not be as pathetic as portrayed by TYT - in that there are some actual obscure, partisan-fringy doctors who are members. I do love the hypnosis bit though; I think it's likely that Andy did write that, it's definitely a degree more insane than your typical Tea. Off topic, but how exaggerated was the TYT report? Bluefish (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, I've noticed I've begun to have a new reaction to Andy's public stupidity, and that is it makes me feel bad for his daughter. We all had our parents embarrass us during our formative years, but none so brazenly, consistently, and publicly as Andy. It's like having a father who constantly goes outside wearing his pants on his head then takes a shit on the sidewalk, and they replay it repeatedly on the evening news. On top of that, the guy named his daughter Phyllis Schlafly for fuck's sake. Luckily, I'm sure that means nothing to her peers of her generation, but every time she has to give her name to someone over 40 she must be self-conscious, knowing the reaction could be an incredulous guffaw, a snicker, or an unspoken "surely you're not named after that ancient bitch?" He might as well have named her "Charles Manson Schlafly" to be honest. Young Phi seems like a decent, reasonably intelligent girl (who clearly must take after her mother) and it must be very difficult having a complete fucktard for a father. For her sake Andy should really stop making a public ass of himself. DickTurpis (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You know I had the exact same thought when lil' Phy turned up to edit some of the Assfly's and Kendoll's more embarrassing crap off the front page of CP in the wake of Einsteingate. I can't help but imagine the little conversation she and her housemates have when this happens. "Hey, you'll never guess what your dad said this time!" "oh, goat, what now...." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, she's leaps and bounds closer to normal than Assfly, but I doubt that she's as far from the tree as you'd like to think. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that she is really really conservative (like the grandmother) but it's also a safe bet that she can think things out and can in some circumstances change her mind and give up an undefendable position, unlike her father, who has a slavish devotion to foolish consistency but no ability to be consistent where it counts.Opcn (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jumping jerboas. I just noticed. he's oversighted his own daughter. Luckily, ve have ze evidence. What a little turd he is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

She'll see the irony of her name when she's having her third consecutive abortion so she can finish her PhD/get that big job/whatever with a guy she doesn't want to marry but likes having around. 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good thing we have disHonest Ed to tell us there's no censorship on CP. --Kels (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Of course there is "censorship" there - we omit lurid, gossipy or lust-inspiring stuff. But that's probably not what you mean. It's my policy to encourage CP writers to describe all viewpoints fairly, even if it's case of "give him a fair trial and THEM hang him." As I never tire of saying, the point is to summarize the idea, along with evidence and reasoning that supports the idea. No one who seeks the truth can object to that.

Please provide examples of an ideas which has been removed because it was accompanied by evidence and reasoning that supports it, i.e., on a recent topic of importance like Einsteingate. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, your challenge is beside the point. Well-reasoned ideas and a fair representation of the opposing viewpoints are censored on CP regularly, not "because" they're supported by evidence and reasoning, but because the founder of the site believes that said evidence and reasoning does not exist. Junggai (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh Ed. Did you perchance suffer a near fatal brain haemorrhage that blotted out your memory of the entire of 2007? You poor dear. A certain vandal site (according to the LA Times) I hear has an article on Conservapedia that might point out to you some ways in which the party of the second part enjoys censoring ideas supported by the party of the first part. Just helping you with your rehabilitation. You're welcome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Also. "lust-inspiring stuff"? Are you now consciously parodying yourself? You, Edmund "pre-teens, bestiality and rimming" Poor, are telling us that CP isn't about the smut? You sir owe me a new irony meter. 2 meters even. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, "two meters". Srsly, I really did lol. Twice. ħuman 06:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good and nicely worked Jeeves. Ed, you really can't be serious both about the lurid gossipy stuff (of which you are major contributor) and censorship of opposing viewpoints which is routinely done by Andy, TK, Conservative and Karajou. Please try and monitor what is really happening at CP rather than creating one-line stubs which contribute nothing to "The Project". Генгис^mutating 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here, Ed - mentioned below on this very page. And despite it being pointed out that even prominent creationist sites believe it to be real, Andy refused to allow it and the article as it stands contains no reference of this, only saying how it was exposed as a hoax and Fred Hoyle was persecuted for his part in it. I'm not sure whether to attribute this to stupidity or maliciousness on Andy's part. EddyP (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a real tribute to the delusional state of the sysops at Conservapedia that one of them will willingly come here and seek to defend CP in relation to censorship. The examples of blatant censorship based on blind ideological prejudice at CP are just too many to enumerate. And we all know it. How is it that Unky Ed is unaware? Why are all those articles locked Ed? Why are thousands of us (including me) blocked from editing Ed? In one way it pleases me that CP sysops come here to discuss matters, because we all know that there is no free discussion on CP. Let me say that again for your benefit Ed: There is no free discussion on CP. Anyone who has ever tried to argue a point with Andy knows that. If you make a good point, you will be blocked by Andy or, more often, one of his sycophants, with the block comment, "Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk". But another part of me wants to say how dare you. The only reason this place exists is because so many good editors were wrongfully banned from Conservapedia. The hypocrisy involved in you coming here and talking about censorship makes me nauseous. That is all. --Horace (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BOOM!

Sorry, that was the sound of one of those unmentionable little monitoring devices going to the Great Battery in the Sky, as Ed poor writes "The ability to concentrate single-mindedly on your most important task, to do it well and to finish it completely, is the key to great success, achievement, respect, status, an happiness in life."^img
Ed, here's a tip: Less Ed Stubs (and thinking about little girls) and you'll find the path to peace, happiness and tranquillity. (Respect and status, however, have long since passed you by) And you won't have to show Rev Moon your holy handkerchief every time you have it off. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

“”And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do. We do follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of "describing all viewpoints fairly". It doesn't require censorship to show that a bad idea is bad. Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.

—Ed Poor

[10] 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, please stop. Генгис^mutating 19:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus wept. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

All that remains now is for Ed to sit panting at Andy's feet, going, 'Look Master, look! I maded all these pretty thingses for you." maybe Ed's jealous of all the attention Ken's getting. But he's got a long way to go to beat that kind of crazy. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to him Ed, I believe in you! --Kels (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ed recently did take a stab at "correcting" Wikipedia's GPS entry, so it's likely he gained Andy's approval. And CP somehow never can make up its mind if it follows or rejects NPOV. Sometimes they claim they do, other times they emphasize that they don't... --Sid (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

TK, Andy, and I disagree on the value of "describing all viewpoints fairly" (which is the Original Point of NPOV Policy). Anyway, I've rarely been stopped from "writing for the enemy" [11] at CP - wish I could say as much for the competition: WP, CZ, RW. I'm just a rational voice crying out to be free! --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! he said "competition"! WP is in competition with CP, CZ & RW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

CP is competition to WP in very much the same way a crow is in competition with France. --Kels (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. ħuman 04:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed - do you have an NPOV on what you all ought to be doing about Ken? If you have a shred of decency anywhere in any of you, you would reach out and offer to help him in whatever way you can. I hope you have. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From experience with science related articles on CP, I see no sign of NPOV from either Andy or Ken

. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the SDG discussions, the sysops couldn't even bring themselves to fix Ken's evolution article even though they agreed that it was a complete mess. When someone with an explicit anti-evolution, anti-homosexuality, anti-atheism agenda is so firmly in control of the evolution/homosexuality/atheism articles that not even the site founder dares to interfere, how can anybody say that there is even the tiniest hint of NPOV? --Sid (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

CP is to NPOV what the Boston Strangler was to door-to-door salesmen. By the way Ed, how many people who visit CP are searching for "adult child sex"? Just wondering, because you seemed to think it warranted a redirect. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus even more instantaneous than previously thought!

Andy insists^img that the miracle of the healing in Capernaum happened exactly at 1 p.m. - and that 1 p.m. was exactly the time Jesus spoke with the boy's father in Cana.

Well, here's the rub: at this age, all times were local - there was really no need for a synchronized time (and no way to realize it).

Now, Capernaum lies at 32° 52′ 52″ N, 35° 34′ 30″ E, while Cana is traditionally located at 32° 45′ 0″ N, 35° 21′ 0″ E - it lies to the west of Capernaum!

So 1 p.m. happened in Capernaum (the location of the boy) ≈ 54 seconds before 1 p.m. in Cana (the location of Jesus) - Jesus healed the boy in the future! Nothing can beat this action-at-a-distance!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

the purpose Andy is talking about is removing his ass from the fire. --Opcn (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FFS, did Jesus wear a watch then? Hours weren't even of equal length until the Muslins smartened things up around the 12th or 13th century. And it wasn't until the invention of railways that there was a need to synchronise the time between different towns. What an utter moron. Генгис^mutating 21:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cana is well known as a town of drunks. Jesus did that water into wine thing there to prevent the whole town getting the DTs. The time given by the boy's father cannot be trusted as he was probably drunk. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well even on a more basic level, where did he get 1 p.m. from? It certainly isn't mentioned in the Bible, in fact no specific time is given, just that it happened right then and there. Of course putting all of this aside, there is the problem that his only evidence of "counterexample" is the Bible passage itself and the automatic assumption that was is describe actually historically happened (and if so, wasn't a magical supernatural event where Jesus could break the laws of physics but nearly a nature event within his abilities). Only with his absolute grip over CP is he allowed to make such stupid claims unchallenged. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

John 4:52: "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him." Andy says in a comment to that passage in the CBP that the hours were counted since dawn, which he claims would have been at 6 am (no seasonal variation is considered). Anyway, I would have been more amused if Capernaum had been to the west of Cana - then we'd have Biblical "proof" that even Jesus' miracles are slower than the speed of light. 77.176.65.181 (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Originally, an hour was 1/12th of the time between sunrise and sunset. From the greek . The Egyptians had 10 hours in a day with 2 hours for sunrise twilight and sunset twilight. A bit more on the history of the hour. And some more. It should be no surprise that time keeping is less than exact then. --Shagie (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that when a god snaps his fingers, it must take time for the message to travel is pretty silly. We're talking about a magic man. However, Schlafly's idea that the method he used must work through the physical framework we live in (and therefore potentially violate the laws of nature we experience) is equally ridiculous. This god could sidestep easily sidestep time and/or the laws of physics, not breaking anything in the process. Schlafly probably knows this, but likes to argue stupid positions anyway. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy said on the Counterexamples talk page that "As our Conservative Bible Translation project is revealing, Jesus said his works were not miracles, but signs." and then defines signs as "a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it." So he acknowledges that God can do it, but that he didn't. Which isn't less silly, really. --Sid (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

THIS IS AMAZING!! Yesterday, I was watching TV and the Simpsons went on at 8 pm. According to relativity, the show should have started several microseconds after 8 pm since the signal is broadcasted via satellite, but it didn't! The show started exactly at 8 pm!!! Relativism is hereby disproved. Deal with it, bitches. Etc 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted scene from Life of Brian. Otto addresses the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad:

"OK men, synchronise your hourglasses... now!"

Just imagining.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheist men are smoking pot!

Ken sure loves his rolling pin pic!^img Funnily though, with a little RW intervention, Atheist Men are Smoking Hot! Ace^X-102 22:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw you make this section and totally thought you were going to link to a picture of youself. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, that's be "Atheist men are hot smokers". Ace^X-102 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing as RA. But anyway, Ken

just got his ass rolled up, deep-fried and handed to him in a burrito. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And it looks like he immediately made like a pantywaist and pulled the pic. What's the matter Ken, no MA-CHEESE-MO? --Kels (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

He removed it from his "essay" but it is still used for the main page reference. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That nice lady wins some points. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred Hoyle

Just when I was about to forget about Andy's "Fred Hoyle" fetish, we get... "Insult prize"!^img

And for those of you just tuning in, some reading material:

• http://www.conservapedia.com/Fred_Hoyle
• http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Fred_Hoyle
• http://www.conservapedia.com/Archaeopteryx#Evidence_of_fraud
• http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Archaeopteryx (this is one of those fun conversations where Philip has to play the voice of reason and where Andy is perfectly willing to dismiss what Creationist sites say in favor of his own "insights" - a nice prelude to Lenski)
• http://www.conservapedia.com/Nobel_Prize#Fred_Hoyle

Mhhhh, memories... --Sid (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, lord. And it comes full circle, why? Hoyle is/was a BRITISH scientist. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, Philip was a weasel even back then, wasn't he? I like him removing a reference that he hadn't read because he thought it was inaccurate. The intellectual dishonesty is strong in this one. --Kels (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That was fun. Nice to see Andy arguing that Hoyle argued for Hoyle being correct by pointing out that "Hoyle is the best British scientist of the 20th century". This obiously predates his "best of public" insight and the subsequent war against experts. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What the- (Ken yet again)

Dunno if that's made T:WIGO yet, and I'm normally all for ignoring Ken, but I just saw this replicated on the mainpage: Watch out, atheists^img - Christianity will BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN

Or maybe this is one of these "Hello, atheist! Nice house... would be a damn shame if anything happened to it..." things?

Either way, I totally feel like embracing CP's flavor of Christianity now! :D --Sid (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, the Piranha brothers take up missionary work. "Yer know, people what doesn't, like, believe in Spiny Norman tends to meet with 'accidents'." "Yeah, nasty 'accidents'." --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the metaphore, homes are predisposed to burn (being made from wood[wood being a product of unburning, or photosynthesis as those fucking scientists call it]) and sometimes a home is lost just because the resources are not placed properly, but that doesn't mena we should stop building homes, or that fire is a good thing. --Opcn (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that make Dinsdale Satan? --Kels (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I like how the caption includes "Please see:" with a link the the article, which contains:

• The exact same image
• The exact same caption
• Nothing else except a collection of see-alsos and external links

^{ONE / TALK} 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Killed^img<capture>. At least Aschlafl Y knows it's a bad idea to depict Christianity as a raging fire. --Sigma 7 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I like how <capture>Andy's edit^img somehow manages to make this "essay" even dumber: "Atheism trying to stop the global rise of Christianity trying to stop the global rise of Christianity and the rapid rise in Christian internet evangelism." --Sid (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another screen-shot faked by the evil LIEberals at the site-that-shalt-not-be-named. CS Miller (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty amazing, Andy is not only reading Ken's drivel, he's actually adding to it and endorsing it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

An hour later, and Ken has found a new image - still on the theme of someone trying to put out a raging fire. I excitedly await its appearance on mainpageleft. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure^img Ken

really understands the criticism. Impressively, he's managed to make it worse by staging atheism as the noble fire fighter tackling the ravenous and destructive Christianity. The first apt metaphor he's ever conjured. *golf clap* --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand there we go^img. Shame the image is so intrusive - on my work monitor it's squashing the In The News section. Ken, please do me a favour and shrink the image from 400px to 399px. Thanks love. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Top stuff Ken

! Christianity is a massive destructive force and only atheists can stop it? I guess that's what his message is.... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can sort of see his point, but it's still a wonderfully epic fail, because if you had to extrapolate the analogy further, the fireman would ultimately win. Ken

just a suggestion, but a better option would be to use Canute as the atheist. Use it, don't use it.--PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC) 

Canute? That would involve cultural literacy on the part of Ken. This is a guy whose idea of culture is amateur photos on flickr. DickTurpis (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Get with it guys. Modern historians call him CNUT.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Another inferno is up Christianity is still coming to burn down your house --Opcn (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That new image is amazing. It says that Christianity is like a fire, destroying all that man has built and his civilization (as represented by the building). The noble firefighter (representing atheism) stands courageous before the fire, trying his best to save that same civilization before the all consuming fire of Christianity. In essence being all that stands in the way of complete destruction of all mankind has accomplished. Bravo Ken

! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe DouglasA dams isn't a parodist

as I see it no parodist would kill such lulz Ken is an embarrassment to any group you might put him in, but isn't that typically what parodists are after? --Sid (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, interesting! Aside from the parodist issue, how will the powers that be side here? King Kendoll atop his homosexual/evolution/atheism castle vs some upstart of a junior sysop! I'd love to see the Assfly defending some of Ken's

shenanigans, although as Assfly himself deleted the last pic, it might be unlikely.  Can those with access please forward the discussion group messages to the usual address, cheers. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Any legit CP sysop would 1) know better than to touch this hot button and 2) express concerns about a fellow traveler conservative off-wiki. As a parodist established in the ranks, he is able to push buttons that no one else can. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Occasional - this is great parodist work. None of the real sysops would dare to shitstir like this. EddyP (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

*turns off KenFilter* Occasionaluse (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, I've seen through Douglas's cunning plan. He has to delete at least 2 crazy articles, so he can blend in with his 1000s of genuine article deletions (yes, I know, how does a 1000 blend into 2, but this is CP logic, remember) and plus he leaves behind carefully selected pockets of crazy - especially where creepy Uncle Ed is concerned. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Has someone grabbed these pages for posteriority? I think that at some stage they are going to get wiped and it would be fun to have a scrapbook of Ken's insanity.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you don't worry your pretty little head, young lady</andy>, we have an archive with copies of everything. mb 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy on expensive colleges.

He's outraged^img that Ken­yon charges $200,000 for a 4-year degree (actually that is a lot - R1.4 million in my language). However, let's have a look at what Princeton and Harvard charge (which are also full of liberal claptrap, I assume)

• Princeton: $52,180 [12]
• Harvard: $50,250 - $52,650 [13]

Now if Andy had been to something like Oral Roberts ($27,560)[14] I could understand. But how can the little weasel bitch about fees when his mummy paid some of the highest fees to get him educated. Of course, not that she saw much return on her investment. Maybe he's feeling it in the pocket and wants lil' Phyl to enrol for free at Eagle. --PsyGremlinParlez! 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy's been on record as saying that the colleges he went to were good at the time, but have since been overtaken by liberalism. I'm pretty sure he's not exempting them from his critique. DickTurpis (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So then why is he allowing his daughter to attend Princeton? Perhaps he's so confident in his conservative uber-parenting skills that he's not concerned the evil libb-burr-ulls will corrupt her. MDB (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're seeking consistency from Andy? How long have you been part of this site? DickTurpis (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. MDB (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides, homskolling and liberty university are for Other People^TM. People who don't realise that the leaders of the religious ignorance movement don't believe a damn thing they say. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC^3) I think he grudgingly admits that education is good in terms of finding a job but also is convinced it can indoctrinate people. Kind of reminds me of this, in a weird sort of way. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's just free-market Keynesian economics; the universities are just charging what they think the market will bear. CS Miller (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course Andy will trumpet those truly conservative schools like Oral Roberts and Liberty, but even he knows that outside the Bush Whitehouse ain't no one hiring people with degrees from there. So of course his little girl is going to go to a real school, which he will justify (not entirely spuriously) by saying Princeton is the most conservative of the Ivy Leagues, or something. And good thing to, as sending anyone to the fundie schools is practically a form of child abuse. To Andy's credit, he appears to care more about his daughter than his retarded ideals. DickTurpis (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has Andy only started bitching about expensive colleges since Phyllis went to uni? I'm just glad I'm at uni in the socialist UK. EddyP (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that College Republican is presumably enrolled in a college as well, so he should be used to the cost. Then again, I suppose it's one thing to drop 200 grand on a male who can actually understand all the teachin' and another to drop it on a lady when that money could be better spent on cook books and cookie sheets. DickTurpis (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but perhaps the girls could be enrolled in Patriot Bible University. With a couple of grand one could pick-up a doctorate with enough change to buy a nice dress and some sandwich making equipment. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Although li'l Phyl did attend some of Andy's homeskollar classes (according to Kettleticket) she did attend a proper school for the important stuff. I hesitate to post a link but a Google on Andy and his wife's name brings up the requisite pdf. In addition, I believe it was mentioned that Andrew Jnr. is at major Ivy League establishment. Генгис^mutating 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He may have already graduated, but CollegeRepublican went to Harvard. For some reason, I get the feeling that Andy thinks his son is a lost cause...or vice versa. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pot calling the tea set black?

I thought this was funny We really need to figure out what exactly Andy means by substantive, it's not a simple as agreeing with him. --Opcn (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Something that Everyone (including Conservapedia) can Agree on?

Hey people. I'm new here and this just inspired me to make my account here. For once, I think Conservapedia depicted a picture and described it in an accompanying statement that RationalWiki can agree on. Picture was plucked from http://www.flickr.com/photos/foreversouls/4803469/

http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page^img

Conservapedia's Description: An atheist trying to stop the global rise of Christianity and the rapid rise in Christian internet evangelism.

Now I've graduated from high school and I'm sure anyone else who has would be able to get the deeper, if not obvious, meaning behind this image.

The 'rapid rise in Christian internet evangelism' destroys stuff, i.e. the building. The 'atheist', i.e. firefighter, courageously tries to put out the blazes, i.e. evangelism, and save the real world before evangelism destroys everything.

I'm inclined to think that whoever put that image and description on the main page is a parodist or otherwise more obtuse in purpose than the Westboro Baptist Church. --Canadian (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See the section #What the- (Ken yet again) above. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Glad to see this Ken being exposed for liberal biases--Canadian (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Matrix Agenda

Bar chart of matrix additions by month

Liberal jibber-jabber

Please to enjoy the attached animation. Red squares indicate articles that are currently deleted. Sadly, I can't find out when the deleted articles were created, but in most cases I imagine they were the same day, let alone same month. Also, if someone could run capturebot on this page to pick up the dregs, that would be grand (I haven't figured out how to run it on other pages...). ^{ONE / TALK} 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work my son! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Useful and oddly hypnotic. One, you still need a hand with the capturebot thing, or did you get that sorted out? I had a look at the link, and everything seems to have been captured. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So it does! Not sure who did that - thanks :) ^{ONE / TALK} 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority had been there when I checked, and I placed the rest in the Capturebot Sandbox. Dunno if anybody else had been using other means in the meantime or not, though. --Sid (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well done! Which program did you use to create the animated gif? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not tech-savvy at all, so I just copied and pasted stuff out of an excel spreadsheet that I'm using to track the matrix into a tiny gif program called "unFREEze". It's quite effective though :D ^{ONE / TALK} 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hail, o prophet Schlafly

He's not even waiting for "liberals" to say things any more before he puts the boot in. Now he's predicting in advance what his fantasy nemesis is going to say. I'm rather hoping they award the damn thing to men now. Maybe Ed and JPatt can burn the assfly at the stake for casting false prophecies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't even say "2010" in the date. CP, the "encyclopedia" that liveblogs the future! ħuman 08:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see above at #conservadia prize or some such header. ħuman 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem doesn't get any better than this. Генгис^mutating 10:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Every time I think the rabbit hole can't go any deeper, Andy provides another few meters of hilarity. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, Andy never fails to amaze me. I mean, he's never bothered with the thing before, but now he's so outraged that they dare possibly even think about giving the medal to a woman. What a repulsive little creature he is. I wonder if one of his home scholars piped up and said, "Sir, why are you still giving separate tests for boys and girls, when a girl is getting a top maths award?" I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. Plus, I wonder if he subscribes to his mother's feelings about marital rape? --PsyGremlinParla! 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Marital rape? Possibly twice. Генгис^mutating 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire" But just think. If you did you could have the immeasurable pleasure of then setting the repulsive little shit on fire again. And just when he thought you'd saved him as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is so boring when it's Ken and TK and FOIA and so entertaining when it's Andy. Fawlty (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it like this. Andy's first big 'mistake' was the Lenski affair, which brought all kinds of unwelcome attention to CP. Thus, he decided to do something to deflect attention away from Lenski and back to how awesome CP is. Sadly, this project was the CBP, which also backfired, necessitating another intervention - Best of the Public. Ditto this as failure, followed by relativity is a liberal plot. Further fail. Now he's got Ken running interference for him, whilst he used the Fields Medal as a new platform to show just how awesome CP is. I can't wait to see what his wildly flailing mind comes up with next. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Psy, I think that you ascribe too much reasoning to Andy's actions. He's more like a drunk staggering from pillar to post and quite oblivious to any past mistakes. Unlike TK I would hesitate to call Andy an alcholic though. He's probably teetotal as he seems boring enough and it would fit in with some of his religious nuttery. Генгис^mutating 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more along the lines of Andy focusing his attention only on the immediate "Shiny", in this case the shiny being that next great supposed insight he comes up with, that and he is impatient. He becomes bored with a project before it is completed and that project will just ground to a halt. Ken

is the same way.  This is why the CBP is dead even though most of the Old Testament still remains to be done.  Andy got bored with the idea and moved on tot he next conspiracy theory. After the Conservapedia version of the math awards this week, the issue most likely will not be revisited for 2011 (if CP still exists). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I like how it contains Schlafly's usual grasp of numbers where 74 is nearly 100. - π 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Π, typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as Bernard Riemann's famous mathematical lecture. 74 is indeed nearly 100, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone added "Liberal Claptrap" to the matrix? --Kels (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, if the woman doesn't win the Fields medal then Andy will end up with quite a bit of egg on his face. Although he'll probably just stick his head on a frying pan and scream "Conservative values triumph!" Word cubic Hoover! 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember, he's made two predictions -- "a woman" and Ngo Bao Chau, for being "Communist-trained" in Vietnam. (One of the people debating Andy considers Ngo far and away the front-runner, but says it's because he's truly brilliant.) If eitherr of those is true, Andy can claim victory. MDB (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Bible wasn't that keen on fortune telling? Isn't it in Dante's Inferno, where they're all doomed to spend eternity looking backwards. (then again, you don't get much more backwards than CP) --PsyGremlinParla! 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. 2 Peter 2:1-3 (NIV) describes Andy so clearly that I may have to begin believing in biblical prophecy: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping" Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's several Bible verses that could apply to Andy. Here's two:

• Andy is argumentative: Proverbs 18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.
• He continues to run CP, despite the fact it is supported by only a few editors, and most of its traffic is the internet equivalent of drivers slowing down to gawk at a highway accident: Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. MDB (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Fields Medal winners

Elon Lindenstrauss, Ngo Bao Chau, Stanislav Smirnov, Cedric Villani. No women -- we'll see what Andy has to say about this. --MarkGall (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, I forgot that Andy thinks applications of ergodic theory to number theory are controversial^img, and that's what Linderstrauss does. So one deceitful person solving made-up problems, two communist-trained mathematicians, and a Frenchie... the liberal conspiracy has triumphed. --MarkGall (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He'll just claim that Conservapedia's last-minute campaign to expose the politics behind the award was all that stopped them from giving it to a (gasp!) woman. But Andy should definitely do more of these precog strawman arguments, that was fun. Röstigraben (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

CP is on fire^img. A vandal appeared about an hour ago, blanked three pages, and it seems 40 minutes later he realised he hadn't been blocked or even noticed and has resumed blanking pages. Shouldn't have left the front door open... ^{ONE / TALK} 11:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Typical day's editing at CP: Andy writing drivel, Ken posting cats everywhere, FOIA on his Hiss kick, Terry Koeckritz blocking everything that moves, and a whole bunch of wandals tearing the place apart. So much for the conservative hordes Karajerk's expecting. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Next Conservative Awards

Post your predictions here for the next Conserva-Prize Andy will establish, and who the likely winner(s) will be.

For Excellence in Movie-Making

Known as the "Ronnies", in honor of the greatest actor, President and American ever, Ronald Reagan. First winner, Mel Gibson, for The Passion of the Christ and generally being a true exemplar of conservative values. MDB (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Conservapedia Peace Prize

Known as the "Ronnies", in honor of the greatest peace-maker, President and American ever, Ronald Reagan. First winner, George W. Bush, for his exemplary efforts in bringing peace to the Middle East.

Mother of the Year

Known as the "Ronnies", because... Reagan had a mother, right? First winner, Phyllis Schlafly, for producing several wonderful conservative children, only one of whom turned out to be a homosexual.

Expand as you see fit.

MDB (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Phyllis Snr. for all of them. At the risk of being a bit Andyish myself, you can almost guarantee that some brown-nosing toe-rag will suggest the old lizard. Генгис^mutating 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you win Two Ronnies? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The greatest honor any conservative could hope for -- night editing rights at CP! MDB (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It means you are a mastermind.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The winner of two Ronnies gets fawcandles. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's good night from me... --Kels (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

...and it's good night from her.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's a G-G-G-G-G-G-Granville! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In the height of Assfly's math rambling, he divides by zero

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageleft&diff=prev&oldid=807144

Why isn't he using the limit definition? Does he want the universe to explode? Mr. Swift (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The benefits of reading the Bible are undefined!? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So relativity was scientific knowledge rather than foreknowledge right? So technically he may be correct on that account. However if we are talking predictions that turned out to be true then you have things like nuclear reactors and bending light. --Opcn (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeez. He's exactly like Ken

. He's so pleased with his creation that he repeats it ad nauseum, getting less and less coherent with each repetition. I suppose on the small mercies score, at least we're spared the flying kitty telling us the benefits of reading the Bible are Not A Number. I guess it's just a temporary oversight. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So...Let me get this straight, the benefits of reading the Bible is either some undefined or unrepresentable value, or if we just use ordinary (real number) math, the expression is not meaningful, or at best ambiguous. Why do I need to read the Bible again? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because doing so lets you burn down the houses of atheists? (*points up at the Kenferno section*) --Sid (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side if you are allowed to divide by zero you are also allowed to make 2+2=5 ...--Opcn (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Truly the next Andy insight! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the whole wording gives the impression that he can't count beyond two, either. Röstigraben (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that zero is being used at all. For centuries it was considered evil, and the work of the devil. You don't even know your math history Andru. Jimaginator (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he has bitched in the past about the existence of the empty set, which is the direct equivalent of zero, in the past. Or am I just making it up? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he said Jesus invested zero, or something like that. Ace^X-102 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This? X42bn6 (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I saw this section and thought of a wigo :) ^{ONE / TALK} 05:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Phyl

Oh dear, one semester at that nasty liberal Princeton, and lil' Phyl's gone all Commie. Or at least it looks like it from this strange borked news post^img where she appears to be lamenting the lack of coverage of the 60th anniversary of chairman of the Communist Party in Belgium. Maybe Rob can get head her to name names. Or does she seriously think that "killing people we don't like" is a good thing? --PsyGremlinFale! 20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually, I'd call anyone who complained about a celebration of her own right to vote a stupid bint who should relinquish her spot at an elite university to someone whose life ambition extends beyond meeting a neanderthal who'll drag her off to his cave to spend the next 20 years of her life pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink. But considering who her dad is, it probably isn't her fault. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Boy you people are rough. 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Huh. Funny. Kinda looks like she's defying the standard Conservapedian position on both what deserves to happen to belgian commies^img and showing sympathy to the damned Japanese^img. Would Andy really wield the banhammer against his own beloved daughter, will his hired thugs do the dirty work a la On the Waterfront, or will a simple revert and pat on the back suffice? Would love to see how this one turns out.--Centimeter_INCHES 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that neither Hiroshima (August 6th) or Nagasaki (August 9th) happened today (August 18th), which the anniversary of the 19th amendment. So why she is using the bombings of Japan in her rant is beyond me. Is she upset women can vote or is she just trolling? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What I find funny is that, in the past, they've criticized Google for celebrating the anniversary of foreign events, but not American ones that happened on the same day. So when Google fulfills their complaining and celebrates the anniversary of an American thing instead of a foreign one, they still get all pissy and aren't satisfied. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The former. It's a central plank of daddy dearest's world that women are inferior to men and should exercise no authority over a man. It doesn't do her much credit that she's bought in to it either. Argh. Dawkins was right, fucking child abuse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, I wonder, does she vote, or will she vote in the November elections? Does Andy's wife vote? I have no doubt that his mother does. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Andy's circular logic comes back around to bite him on the ass again

Andy is actually anti-bomb, this is because the bomb was made using relativity and he is anti-relativity. When he said no useful technology uses relativity someone piped up and said "The Bomb", and he said (IIRC) "no, it just killed a bunch of Japanese needlessly, that's not useful". However, if St. Ronnie did anything to topple the Soviet Union it was maintaining a Nuclear superiority that would push them to race until they collapsed. However if The Bomb is not a useful technology then St. Ronnie did nothing. There for the foreign policy achievements of Ronald Reagan (and his predecessors as far as the U.S.S.R. is concerned) are meaningless with out the theory of relativity. Q.E.D.--Opcn (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the bomb really use relativity? Isn't it all about mass/energy equivalence? Or is that the same thing? Inquiring minds want to know. --Horace (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:Mass–energy equivalence.--Opcn (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not useful except to all those servicemen who didn't have to go and fight for the next 2 years in Japan and possibly never come back. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy's said on a few occasions that mass-energy equivalence has nothing to do with relativity. The logic goes like this: "Relativity is false. Nuclear bombs work. Therefore, nuclear bombs must not rely on relativity." 23:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy is right. I direct you to the wikipedia article explaining it. YourEnemy? (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the theory of relativity relates to E=MC². Ace^X-102 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Enemy? is correct that the theory of relativity isn't about the atomic bomb but, rather, about gravitational pull and atomic mass. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jacob, how's it going getting the JacobB consortium its rights back? 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your handlers have told me they are very keen on getting some rights back. Ace^X-102 00:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it really hard to believe that measuring the energy in terms of mass differences had nothing to do with the development of the Atom bomb. --Opcn (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

More Fields Medal idiocy from Assfly

It just gets worse and worse. Andy continues to make a fool of himself (section of his rantings and some rational replies) and is now flat out saying that whether or not someone supports Obama is more important than their mathematical contributions when being awarded the Fields Medal. Then, for good measure, all but states that a woman cannot deserve to win. The mind of Andrew Schlafly is a scary and twisted place. DickTurpis (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see someone WiGOed much of this already. I'm starting to think we can replace WiGO with a link to the contributions of Aschlafly. DickTurpis (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This really gets into Andy's two most basic delusions:

• Everything fits into the liberal/conservative dichotomy. He probably picks breakfast cereals based on which one he thinks is more conservative.
• Those evil liberals are everywhere, constantly scheming to promote their Hideous Ideology by making sure liberals advance and conservatives are held back. If he was on the Jersey turnpike heading to a teabagging rally, and got held up due to a traffic jam, he's probably assume an evil liberal has caused the accident just to make sure Tea Party members couldn't get to their circle jerk.

When I was in college, I'd mentally try to blame every trivial problem on Ronald Reagan, but I was doing it as a joke. Andy is fuckin' serious. MDB (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gods, I'd love it if some of the female 'journalists' (and I use the term exceedingly loosely) at sites like AFA, OneNewsNow and WND called Andy on this. Having the WND once again barrack (ho, ho) Andy for his point of view would be priceless.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@MDB: I would imagine that if Andy ever saw this, he probably would start selecting his cereals more carefully in the supermarket. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

KyleT asks for the 5th time a reasonable question [1]^img. tk reverts [2]^img and then for blocks kylet after bullying him into submission [3]^img Oldusgitus (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

KyleT did in fact retire himself. Ace^X-102 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep Ace, I misread tk's crap and was posting a corretion as you posted. Correction posted above. Sorry Oldusgitus (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, after skimming Wikipedia, Andy has understood the Langlands program so well that he knows that it "consists of conjectures that seek to connect different fields of mathematics" and (incorrectly) asserts that Tao proved something about it. Based on this, he deems it of "dubious significance". I guess that's another two Fields medals (Lafforgue and Drinfeld) we can throw out because of liberal deceit. --MarkGall (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's line of reasoning

It seems to be really that simple:

premise:	I'm always right.
argument:	The British are notoriouslyimg weakimg in mathematics.
counter-argument:	The Fields Medalsimg say otherwise.
conclusion:	The Fields Medals are crapimg.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That line of reasoning is hysterical...but, sadly, very representative of the way Andy thinks. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken deadicate an article to his new idol

Minor Youtube user ShockOfGod now has his own article page^img, thanks to the fanboyish ^{(but totally straight)} desires of Ken

to show off is idol.  Of course the talk page redirects to "Essay: A YouTube atheist trying to pwn Christian shockofgod", which then has it's talk page redirected to the atheism article. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope Ken didn't spill his seed writing this. (Probably did though)--Thanatos (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)We should have challenges on RW. Like "How fast can you go from [Article X] to [one of Ken's pet articles] just by clicking links in articles (and their talk pages)?" --Sid (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I used to do this on Wikipedia. I'd click random page and see how long it took to get to "Hitler". So, without further ado:

Random page = The World Bank -> Loans -> Promise -> Consideration -> Right (Which lead to Right-wing...) -> Liberal -> Evolution!! YAY!!! It doesn't help that their articles are like 5 words long. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Random Page = Ned Brooks -> Meet the Press -> Soviet Union -> Adolph Hitler (Ha! Closing in now!) -> Evolution!! Double YAY! Beat that. --Horace (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you guys ever checked out this? It's the game as Senator describes it, except it's all fancy with accounts, score keeping, and live competitions with other users.

Anyways...MECP2 -> Gene -> Natural selection -> Evolution -> Adolf Hitler. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! I think we've found a new game on CP: Six Degrees of Adolf Hitler. --PsyGremlin講話 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

SuperHamster got it wrong - you have to get to one of Ken's pet articles, not Hitler ;) Of course, that only means adding one step. I'm sure Hitler has links to all three of the Atheism-Evolution-Homosexuality trinity. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And to contributed:

Vic Snyder -> Same-sex marriage -> Homosexuality :D Well that was easy. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be Six Degrees of Gay Bowel Syndrome. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ego -> Freud -> Nazis -> Evolution (or any Liberal X article of my choice). EddyP (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To make it harder (no pun intended) you should always start from an Ed Poor stub (they usually don't have any wikilinks). :) Генгис^mutating 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

Dreaming and success -> Henry David Thoreau -> Philosopher -> Scientist -> Science -> ATHEISM!!!!! ^{ONE / TALK} 10:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a fun game. I've only failed one so far. New rule: You get more points if you go through an article cited to "Exploring Creation With Physical Science." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's too easy :) cp:Cell phone health scare -> cp:Mobile phones and brain tumor risk -> cp:DNA -> cp:Gene -> cp:Theory of natural selection -> cp:Evolution win! Now to code something that finds the optimum route... ;) Worm^{(t | c)} 11:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

cp:Cell phone health scare -> cp:Media -> cp:Liberal media elite -> cp:Evolution. 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I got cp:Super Nintendo Entertainment System and I thought I was stuffed. I originally went with Japan, I know I would have got there eventually, but it was taking a long time. I went back and found a shorter path: cp:Super Nintendo Entertainment System -> cp:Video game -> cp:Liberal -> cp:Evolution. - π 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was impressed by this one: cp:300 BC -> cp:Archimedes -> cp:Physics -> cp:Scientific method -> cp:Scientific bias -> cp:Homosexuality. - π 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

cp:Pope -> cp:Roman_Catholic_Church -> cp:Homosexuality. Yawn. 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallery of Fleming and Dutch Painting -> Vincent Van Gogh -> Netherlands (rd from Holland) -> abortion -> evolution. I gotta say, I can't believe I couldn't get to atheism from The Netherlands. WTF Andy? They're about the most atheistic nation on earth. You just cost me one degree of separation. DickTurpis (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn, this could easily turn addictive. Tried again and got Chivalry as my random article, which tickled me immensely (and was just 2 degrees from atheism), then got cp:Mortar, which made me think I was screwed, since there's only I blue link: shell. Luckily, in true CP fashion, their shell article is not about explosive shells but about biological shells, and once you're in the field of biology evolution is never too far away (still took 5 steps, as I had to clear a few substubs). I think for comparison's sake I'll try this on WP. What are the official targets: evolution, atheism, and homosexuality? DickTurpis (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Ken Trio. We should call the game "Six Degrees in regards to Separation :)" ^{ONE / TALK} 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I hereby endorse that name. It might also be fun to aim for "liberal" or a "liberal [noun]" page, though. (Also, my run hit a dead end: unauthorized user <-> authorized user. They only link to each other...) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We can also play with the Assfly Trio: abortion, gun control, classroom prayer; although these are more talk page issues than article subjects for him. Of those three abortion would clearly be the ultimate destination of 95% of the links. DickTurpis (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone reckon this fun little game is worth its own article in the CP or Fun namespace? Or would it peter out too quickly? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It defiantly needs its own article. - π 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One of us should be defiant and write one. Though I'm not sure we'd get results terribly different on Wikipedia (at least on my first try I didn't). It generally is a pretty quick shot from an article to a country, and then from their religious demographic section it's probably a click or two away from some reference to atheism. So if the point is that on CP all roads lead to atheism, evolution, or homosexuality, then we might want to make sure that isn't terribly atypical. I'll do some more trial runs at WP, but since their articles are much longer and have many more links, the maze is exponentially more complex. DickTurpis (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to write up an article on this - I'll start working on it now (if someone else has already started, tell me now so I won't do all of this for nothing). ~SuperHamster Talk 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What shall we call this magnificent game? "Six Degrees in Regards to Separation", as suggested above? I think a name that isn't specific to Ken is the best, since I like the idea of alternatives (the Ken Trio, the Assfly Trio, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk 20:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In some ways it's like Mornington Crescent, but how about Buffalo Soldiers, Springtime for Hitler, Beyond our Ken, or Hunt the Sausage? Генгис^mutating 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

All righty, I went with the last one, since sausages taste good (and you can put that into whatever context you want). First things first, of course, it needs a logo.

~SuperHamster Talk 01:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And now here's the article. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tests on WP:

1. Zonenkinder->Germany->irreligion->atheism
2. Deadly Strangers->Sterling Hayden->United States->atheism
3. Roxborough State Park->Coyote->Animal->evolution
4. Coney Island (1943 film)->Charles Winninger>Judy Garland->Gay icon (which itself should probably count)->homosexuality

Looks like preliminary tests show that 3 or 4 steps to a Ken subject isn't atypical. DickTurpis (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, just like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon it should take less than 6 steps. Secondly, I've seen the latest Cadbury's ad (Spots v Stripes) on TV a couple of times now and can't help but think of Ken with all those cutesy fish. Генгис^mutating 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So I had a go, clicked on Random Page > Lebensraum. Bingo! Генгис^mutating 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely unrelated: why does Ken patrol his own edits?! 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He's a sysop, so it's automatic, innit? It even says "(automatic)". I just checked and I marked all my edits as patrolled here apparently, and I've never marked anything that way. DickTurpis (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Smarty. 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)