Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive195

This is an archive page, last updated 30 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>, <194>, <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)

OH LOOK

No women won the Fields Medal afterall. However, the communist Vietnam-trained mathematician did, so I'm assuming Andy will focus absolutely all his spit on that and ignore/revert any mention of his predictions that liberals would award it to a woman. A mini-FBI, if you will. Or will Andy gracefully admit error and overzealous presumption? And what will happen to cp:Liberal claptrap based on Fields Medal?? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My WP page says "TBD". Are you also predestinating the futurama before it happened? ħuman 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the 2014 one. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For extra laughs, the communist Vietnam-trained mathematician did his post-school studies at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in France and obtained his PhD from Universite Paris-Sud. He's also a naturalised French citizen. But yeah, those nasty Commie Frenchies with the socialised medicine and refusing to believe Bush's lies about Iraq... --PsyGremlinParla! 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post something similar. Typically the liberals have made a political award though; what with the left's current love of anything Israel they've given a gong to an Israeli, and as you point out the communist Ngô Bảo Châu based in his liberal ivory tower in that bastion of liberalism New Jersey has also received one. Hopefully the ConservaMath medals, due out today I believe, will set us straight on where the real credit should go. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"The rim bears the name of the prizewinner." Well, so much for the lack of gossip and immorality. ħuman 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My predication, Andy: A woman didn't win because women are bad at math. Andy never loses! --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we make it thing where instead of "Assfly" we call him "Andy 'I Despise Women' Schlafly"? More accurate. --_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TK, of course I am also MarcoT2. Did you really believe for a second that there were TWO people in Italy who had heard of your website? By the way, good job protecting a useless, outdated, arrogant article by your master Andy. What exactly is its purpose except show to the world your intellectual inferiority? Sincerely yours, --Maquissar (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC) PS: Who on earth is Leopedo?

You forget, you nasty liberal European you. CP is a conservative American encycloaedia, thus anybody from outside the US is immediately suspected of inserting liberal multi-culturism into articles. Add to that the fact that TK(Hello sailor!) is an utter moron, and you get that you are all Italians, Sid is all Germans and I am all Africans and/or Japanese, depending on who you talk to over there. --PsyGremlin講話 13:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh-oh... I think MartinC is trying to get banned too! No one edits the sacred word of Andy, not even when he's making an ass of himself! --Maquissar (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on, everyone, make accounts and edit the Fields Medal article :P Let's give TK some work! --Maquissar (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "Half of the recipients of this morning's Fields Medal are communist-trained mathematicians."^img Commies! They're commies! WTF? Is Andy stuck in the 1950's? --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia zero divides by YOU! - π 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, what's with "None of the highest-achieving American or British mathematicians were selected." I thought the British were weak at math? --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They've probably gotten bored of saying we're weak at maths. Raging (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice they call the Fields Medal "once the most coveted award in mathematics". Is it not anymore? Or are they, perchance, referencing its usurpation by the ConservaMath Medal? DickTurpis (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for the CBP to yield the phrase "The NIV, once the most coveted version in Bibles," ^{ONE / TALK} 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Or "Wikipedia, once the most popular wiki encyclopaedia"... --Maquissar (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair the wolf prize does come with a bigger purse($100K.) and the Abel with nearly a million. --Opcn (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pavlov's CP Senior Admin

I see Terry Koeckritz is on a block/delete/burn/pillage rampage again over there. I'm guessing he's pissed off about something. I wonder what it could be? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I pissed him off. Well, my sock MarcoT2 did, actually. First I politely noted on the Liberal claptrap based on Fields Medal talk page that the article was outdated, because what they predicted did not come to pass. He blanked the page. Then I edited the page and changed every tense: "Here is a growing list of liberal claptrap that could have been expected had the Fields Medal -- once the most coveted award in mathematics -- been awarded on Thursday, August 19th based on politics rather than merit:" ... after which he decided to revert my edits and block me. :) --Maquissar (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And once again he manages to mention the unmentionable "vandal site." What a masterful little troll he is. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to start a manhunt against me and block every IP from Italy anyway, TK... if I burned my sock so gratuitously it's because I'm fed up with your website and I don't plan to waste any more time with it :) --Maquissar (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Screencap of oversighted edit. - π 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO-worthy, but an interesting omission

Jpatt accurately points out that a national math competition has banned homeschoolers.

He leaves out a key fact: gifted public school students were being labeled as home schooled.

Now, you can quite reasonably argue banning home schoolers was an over-reaction to the problem (I don't know enough to comment), but leaving out the reason for the ban really distorts the story. MDB (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the omission is that only teams of homeschoolers were banned, they still can take part individually.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, though the article argues that's a pretty major limitation. On the other paw, the article is hardly from an unbiased source. MDB (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to their rules, teams can only be formed from within each school. If you'd allow homeschoolers to set up teams of their own, they'd have an unfair advantage, because they could team up in any way they'd like. From hundreds of thousands of homeschoolers in the relevant age range, you could assemble a couple of ace teams that no public school could match. Röstigraben (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but they could get around that easily -- for instance, require each home school team to come from some defined, reasonably sized, geographic area. MDB (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they had such rules in place, but it would be much harder to verify if individual homeschoolers meet these requirements than to simply require real schools to hand in copies of their participants' student IDs. With all the cheating that apparently went on, I can understand that they feel like they're not up to that task and just solved the problem by banning homeschool teams outright. It's a shame we won't get to see Team ConservaMath in action, though. Röstigraben (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that its fair to say that, no matter how you feel about homeschooling, the homeschooled kids got screwed because someone else was cheating, and that sucks. MDB (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much for homeschooling, although certainly not all of the parents do it so they can indoctrinate their kids, and some might even be able to provide them with a much better education than they'd get at a public school. But the homeschoolers aren't screwed, they can still compete as individuals, and they're just forbidden from setting up teams on an arbitrary basis - even if they sticked by rules like the ones you mentioned, what's the point in forming a team of pupils who each received a different education from his or her parents? When a school team performs well, it's indicative that the teachers they share are doing a good job, but the performance of a motley group of homeschoolers doesn't really tell you anything. Röstigraben (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia Prize

Andy thinks Conservapedia should give out its own prizes because the Nobel Prize and Fields Medal is dominated by liberals. I'd rather win an Iggy. MDB (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Which will last as long as it takes Andy to realise that each Fields Medal costs US$15,000. Although, his local fire station has a nice conference hall in which to hold the awards ceremony (wasn't the one and only Conservapedia Conference held there?)

Lol, I love how the International Mathematical Union is suddenly liberal. oh ok, they do have the words 'international' and 'union' in their name, so that's a dead give away.

Also, can somebody please ask Andy to name 2, 3 or 4 mathematicians aged under 40, that he thinks are conservative enough to qualify. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what other awards Andy will create rivals for next? Perhaps he'll establish a rival to the Oscars and call them the Ronnies. MDB (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

cp:ConservaMath Medal --MarkGall (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LMAO!!! ConservaMath! Andy, pleeeeease let the person who designed these^img design the medal. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the ConservaMeth Medal for drug-fueled editing sprees

Which? The good or the bad? 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The bad. Funnier that way :). --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, now I'm even more worried about Andy than about Ken ... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"The conservamedal is awarded annually for those proving in interesting and novel ways that 2 + 2 = 4. Deny this and lose all credibility." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you canproved that 2+2 = beautiful autumn foilage, you're a winner. Seriously tho, how sure are we that Andy isn't a cokehead? I'm just trying to think what else could account for his messianic complex. Also, whatever happened to CP's award to the Conservative of the Year? Did that die along with Brian U? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You know how this works. The Assfly gets a bee in his bonnet about liberals infesting some area of life, escalates to about 3 steps past insane then in a couple of weeks entirely forgets his obsession and moves on to the next way to humiliate himself. If he actually had any follow through at all, we might be saddled with the prospect of his homskolling special needs kids by now. Remember that brief obsession? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The SEA application? Funny how we've not heard anything more about that. EddyP (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

W. Dembski or R. Marks - or a tie between those two? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Conservapedia Medals campaign is one of my favourite bits from CP history. The crap ones were all done by Geo.Plrd who claimed to have some expertise in PhotoShop while the good ones were done by arch-parodist Rod Wethers. BOTP at its finest. Also Geo's choice of categories was always bewildering; Dentistry, Forestry, Pharmacy, etc. (Didn't we have a Goat Dentistry medal here?)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, cannot wait to see who wins the esteemed ConservaMath Medal (brilliant name!). Could it be, perhaps, the only nominee? The suspense is killing me! What I really want to see is how the winner (whoever it may be) is presented with this illustrious award, and the winner's reaction. My god, he (assuming it is he he, who knows?) will have to be immensely honored by this. Will it go on his CV? Will he send an email to Conservapedia accepting the award, stating how honoured he is? Will Andy post it on CP? DickTurpis (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Assuming the e-mail announcement doesn't get caught in the "honored" winner's spam filter, it would be amusing to see any response, like "I refuse to accept your so-called 'prize'", "please do not associate my name with your ridiculous web site ever again", "I have retained an attorney", or the ever-popular, "fuck off and die." MDB (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think the "winner" might be clever enough to ask about a purse, because many people with money are conservative. After finding out that its just a certificate Andy printed up at Kinko's, then they tell him to go eat it. --Opcn (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

it makes no sense Firstly how did this guy win the ConservaMath prize four years before it was thought up (and what kind of prize is it). Secondly why would Tao winning the Fields medal (or the CMP) hurt his ability to support Obama. Thirdly who cares about his ability to support Obama? --Opcn (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the deal is: Andy thinks that Ben Green "earned" the Fields medal four years ago, but the liberals gave it to his Obama-loving collaborator Tao instead. His name has come up for the Fields again but Andy thinks that it would decrease Tao's substantial political effectiveness if Green got it. Thus, Ben Green appears to be the front-runner for the ConservaMath medal.

Is Andy not aware that Green is thoroughly British? Surely he can't be worthy. --MarkGall (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think someone should nominate Ed Poor for the ConservaMath prize. --Composure1 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't one of the Schlafly brothers a mathematician of sort? Seems an obvious candidate. Unless it's the gay one Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dofgy Roge, the Weiner Eater? Ooh, no he's disqualified for daring to argue with Andy about Relativity and just about every other math/science entry Andy refudiates. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see it's Roger Schlafly. Anyway has anyone else noticed they seemed to have abandonded this and haven't yet made any announcement despite it supposed to happen at the same time as the Fields Medal. I guess Andy realised even the people he tries to award it to are going to laugh in his face. Probably the lack of the predicted women Fields winner didn't help, nor does the fact he can't seem to decide whether he gave it to Ben Green in 2006. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Good point. Has Andy's ADD kicked in already and he's forgotten the ConservaMath Medal? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero Mosque" - maybe I'm just bent out of shape...

because although I haven't been a practicing or believing Muslim for almost 6 years, I'm someone who "looks Muslim" based on what the perennial witch hunting posse that is the American right has decided upon, but this^img just drove me nuts. I personally have no problem with the mosque Islamic center (it's nooooot a huge building with a minaret....) being built, as long as it's not used for anything harmful. Exactly how I would feel if anyone else tried to put a building on that spot. I mean DAMN. Maybe I'm just biased because I don't enjoy people telling me to "go back to Islamistan" or some other pile of crap, but still... for me personally, this one takes the cake. Putting up a building is going to make all Muslims (and probably ex-Muslims, "Arab-looking people," people with black hair, facial hair, and a tan, all foreigners... etc) just start murdering people left and right because it's "bloodshed in the name of Allah." </rant>

I'm new here, obviously, so sorry to make my first edit a complete rambling rant; I'm gonna go murder American babies calm down now. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 17:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the way that they quote the organisations building the mosque that it would be built to foster tolerance in a spirit of compassion, then immediately say that it's viewed as insensitive. Educated word Phantom! 17:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh it gets better! Now Muslims are like Nazis. Just apparently not as bad? [1]^img ghazi alizm, ^comments? 18:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it was incredibly insensitive of them to plan initially to name it after the Cordoba Mosque, which was built to commemorate the Muslim conquest of Wester Europe. Typically if you want people to believe you when you say "we want to foster tolerance" you ought to make it seem like the tolerance you want to foster is for others as well as for yourself. That having been said has anyone looked at their constitution? There isn't much we can do about it. Oh, also guy who isn't signing his posts, keep in mind that those of use who were religious still have a lot of the rationalizations we made where we were floating around in our heads, I still defend catholics even though I am not one.--Opcn (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing comes down to Christians' fundamental right not to be offended. If the founding fathers thought otherwise, they wouldn't have based our constitution on Christian values. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba, at the time of the Cordoba mosque in the 11th century, was a city where Muslims, Jews and Christians all lived relatively peacefully together. As far as I'm concerned, commemorating that time is a very good thing - even if it's done by a bunch of folk who follow a religion that, frankly, I find completely insane. Of course, what makes this even better is that this building is, in fact, already a mosque, for all practical purposes, as Muslim prayer services are actually held there already. What the people who own it want to do is simply do a large-scale renovation or rebuild to make it into a Muslim community center, which includes a mosque. 92.1.146.121 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The unsigned post was mine; I simply forgot. Trust me, I perfectly understand the rationalizations, even though I left my faith several years ago and was still in my mid teens. I try to defend any one that I feel is being accused of unfairly, but I am only human. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 18:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Christians and Jews were allowed to live with a stiff infidel tax under the Caliph of Cordoba (Sorry about the "v", European history was 8 years ago for me), but it was also the seat of power for the failed conquest of Europe, surely you can see why that is of concern BON. @Ghazi, of course it looks that way to us, I still get upset when people go after the catholic church for being anti-science, I feel like they aren't giving the full breadth of respect due to the work of the Jesuits, My defense of the catholic faith seems perfectly fair and just to me. --Opcn (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The "stiff infidel tax" is somewhat of a misnomer, though, might I add. At the time, and in most cases still today, Muslims were required to donate a portion of their income to charity, often Muslims who were living in poverty. Since non-Muslims were not required to pay the zakat, many governments imposed the amount required of Muslims as a tax on non-Muslims. A bit unfair, perhaps, but also an egalitarian measure aimed to benefit the poor, at least on the surface and mostly in practice too. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it it was an additional tax that they had to pay. The infidel tax (though I believe it was called an "offering", infidel tax is my word choice) was pretty steep and is largely credited with converting the majority of Spain within 100 years of it being levied. Most people were poor, and on the Iberian peninsula most of the Muslims initially came in with the conquering army and virtually all of the poor and destitute were non-muslim. --Opcn (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I left out some other interpretations. We're talking about the jizya tax here, which traditionally has been a tax levied on non-Muslims in predominantly Muslim-run societies. Even though there's been a few schools of thought on the subject in Islamic law, one of which was the use of the jizya as a substitute for the zakat, like what I talked about above) the other most common reasoning for its issue was as a substitute for military service. Although in some cases, non-Muslims under Muslim rule were still required to serve in the military (the Ottomans for example) the payment of the tax was often used in exchange for that. Also, it was sort of a "you pay us this tax, and in exchange, you get to live with us, get protection from our militaries, whatever social services, albeit rudimentary at the time, that we might offer, and be able to lend money to others without interference." From what I've read, however, tolerance of non-Muslims in Iberia differed wildly between different rulers of the Caliphate, through different time periods, etc. In some cases, pogroms against non-Muslims (especially Jews). In other cases, relative tolerance and acceptance into a mostly secular-geared society. Not an excuse, just a comparison: not much different from many other medieval societies of Christian origin or governance. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I copied the struck section to my talk page since as Opcn pointed out, we quickly got off topic of anything related to CP. We're continuing the discussion on my talk page. I copied it instead of moved it there, though, in case anyone objects to my doing so, it's still here for archiving too, but I think we can continue the discussion on my talk page or elsewhere. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally we move it to forum or a debate page. - π 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that; I'll remember that for the future. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, imagine being an incumbent Democrat on the stump trying to defend the president's desire to build a Memorial to the terrorist suicide killers on the 9/11 site. I pity them guys. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Geez, imagine being someone with the ability to put two coherent thoughts together. Junggai (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Karajou...

... OK, it's every American's right to get all their news from the wackaloon fringe interweb sites like newsbusters. But could you at least read and understand it before getting your outrage on. Thanks. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What a fucking idiot. --Leotardo (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Karajou is easily the angriest and most likely the dumbest CP regular. I've never seen someone so blinded by rage. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuh uh. Uncle Ed may not be angry, but when it comes to dumb... fuhgettaboutit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Ed is the most stupid, but Karajou's rage causes major brain lapses. --Leotardo (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for the klassic karajerk response to this. I'm not sure he can ignore it, but I don't think he is a big enough man to admit he's wrong. I'm trying to guess what he'll "order" the unsuspecting user to do. EDIT: Jpatt fixed it. :( Occasionaluse (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For certain values of "fixed." JPratt has failed to notice the central point of the news item is now totally demolished. "CNN has guest on who has dumbshit opinion. Film at 11." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference between Creepy Ed and Koward is where Ed is aggressively stupid, Koward is aggressive and stupid. --Kels (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a strange situation. Simmons has a big mouth, but what he said here is basically what the default position on the left AND right would be if any group other than some dirty Muslins wanted to build a community center at that site. It makes me sad that the Newsbusters article needs only quote this guy expressing a perfectly reasonable position for it to appear as editorializing since people of conscience have become so painfully sensitive to the kind of hate that's implied merely when the right even mentions us. I can only imagine how poorly this serves us overseas. I mean really. This country was founded as a place for these very religious zealots' ancestors to escape persecution. These protections are written into the very fabric of our national being. Yet it's somehow OK (for a fucking Democrat Senator no less) to say, "no no no, we're not saying they don't have a right to build that mosque, it just wouldn't be respectful to the Christians (since we blame dirty dirty Islam for all terrorism everywhere" when the entire reason American Muslims find themselves in this position is that the knee jerk reaction of these fundie assholes is to exclude anyone and everyone who's different and engage in the worst kind of genetic fallacy blame a religion (!) for terrorism. I mean fuck me. Do these people not see the writing on the wall? They were subjected to the same shit hundreds of years ago and this very lesson should have been nearly a decade ago when we started trying to figure out how to handle the rhetoric we use in even referring to our imperialist conquest of the Middle East. Hint: crusade is a bad word. Fuck me. 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Otto von Hapsburg wrote an editorial maybe ten years ago in which he made the point that, being part of a family with several centuries of experience in making history, he had had to learn a lot about history, and his conclusion was that: "The more we learn of history, the more we learn from history that no one learns from history." I think that sentiment is very appropriate in this "debate". We just don't remember our lessons, and rarely bother to go back to check and see how various situations worked out in the past. Instead, we keep on making the same mistakes based on the same faulty thinking, the same misinformation, the same fears, and so on. It is sad, but that's humanity for you. (and not to be too anal, but it's "Democratic", not "Democrat" Senator. Really, though, it is Harry Reid, who has a backbone made of jello). Kaalis (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And that is very similar to Hegel - "What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it". However, one of my favourite quotes about history is "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." - Mark Twain (allegedly). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And then there is Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, and second as farce." Also rather appropriate in an age of the Tea Party. Kaalis (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for extra laughs, doomed editor says, "Please be careful, there's no way Simmons could be a CNN reporter." TK, "Nope, ayhuh, I don' see no nothin' wrong wid dat. It aint'nt confusing me, no siree."^img Because, as you know, the one thing CP sysops have in common with the Pope is covering up child abuse infallibility. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberals are smug jerks

Lil' P-Schlaf added a comical bit to Main about Popular Science reporting scientific evidence that liberals are "smug jerks". I didn't explore the link, as this evidence is apparently embedded in a photo caption of picture 7. I didn't bother. But I found it hysterical coming from a site that puts a retarded table about the IQ of liberals being 0 divided by 60. I wonder if Phyllis is embarrassed by her father. Jeeves in one of the threads above mentions that she removed that dumb table her dad put up, and then Andy oversighted her removal of it! --Leotardo (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dividing zero by a nonzero number is a legitimate mathematical operation- it just produces 0. Dividing a number by zero, however, is undefined. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We know, but just because it's a legitimate mathematical operation doesn't mean it's not both smug and retarded. --GTac (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Smug jerks are smug jerks, regardless of political or religious affiliation. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If smug means "not a fuckin' right wing wanker" then yes, I'm smug and smug about bein' smug. (possibly also a jerk?) 10:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pfft dividing by zero is fine, so long as you aren't stuck in some puny intuitive system like real number arithmetic. Nobody here has a problem with the imaginary numbers, right? So why not go from a commutative ring to a wheel, defining division by zero in the process? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's something which has been proposed by republic-trained mathematicians, but was ultimately censored by liberal bias in academia. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange, don't I remember reading about that study at the SB like, months ago? ħuman 20:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

TK on NZ.....

What the fuck are Mori's?^img Ace^X-102 08:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Native pollsters or possibly Asian immigrants. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

When the moon hits the sky, like a big pizza pie, that's... a Mori! --GTac (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GTac FTW! Ace^X-102 11:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same but it should be "... hits your eye ..." Eggsellent though. 11:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say he's referring to Maoris, but misspelled it, but, if he is, then what he's actually saying makes no sense. Unless, of course, TK thinks that the Maoris aren't really part of New Zealand society at all? 92.2.93.96 (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing TK watched "Once Were Warriors" (which was flippin' AWESOME!) and bases his entire opinion of NZ on that. Or he's trying to make some nasty comment about segregation, whilst conveniently forgetting "Reservations." --PsyGremlinHable! 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course he could be thinking of "Moria" bein' as tLOtR was filmed there. 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the "less talk" principal of dropping unnecessary liberal vowels.--115.117.154.186 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

First they came for the 'U's, and I said nothing; then they came for the 'A's and I started to get confused. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Confsed, surely? Unless you're part of the resistance smuggling vowels into Bosnia? Gaurds! Seize him! --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No leave him - he's probably smuggling vowels into Wales: they could do with 'em. 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a stockpile of English vowels hidden where nobody can find them. If Plaid Cymru ever decides to secede I will hand them round to all the right-thinking people in our lane; we outnumber the Taffs by 4 to 1. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think his problem is more fundamental then that. In modern usage, including a macron for the a in Maori is often encouraged as it's a long vowel hence wikipedia:Māori (see wikipedia for example). TK probably copied this but then panicked since he couldn't use such an evil French looking character so just removed it all together and ended up with Mori. He may also have been confused by half remembered bullshit tales of the wikipedia:Moriori Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Welsh has like 8 or ten vowels! (Granted, some are multi-letter combinations, like ddllchwch...) ħuman 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Random musing

Why does Ken's

new essayimg remind me of the quote "A theologian is like a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat which isn't there - and finding it!"? - π 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This^img defiantly reminds me of this. - π 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is his whole "proof and evidence that atheism is true" meme wrong. Maybe it's the use of the word true. I think I know what he's trying to say, but - as with all things Ken - it's an epic fail. And I wish he'd fucking learn that 1 picture does not an essay make. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The "proof and evidence that atheism is true" is this friend's shockofgod's question he thinks "pwns" atheists, but fails basic logic. Proposition: The set A is empty, There is no proof that A is empty, therefore A in nonempty is such weak line of thought and doesn't show anything. The simplest way to show A is not empty is to find something in A. However all A-is-not-empty apologist evidence basically goes assume A is not empty, A is not empty therefore B, as B therefore A is not empty. - π 14:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tofu fucking insane to believe.

So, I had a look at CP's Tofu^img article. Which contains the following: "Tofu is also high in isoflavones, chemicals with similar structure and properties as the female hormone estrogen. This has led to fears of possible feminizing effects of tofu and other soy products." The reference takes us to WND - Soy is making kids 'gay' - and Brother Roger - Tofu is feminizing. At least Roger is a bit sceptical about it. But WND's Jim Rutz looks like a whole new kind of loonie. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he really is a total, total loony. He believes dozens of resurrections happen every day, for example. Only whirled nut daily would let him publish a book. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. He also thinks the whole world is going to be Christian by 2030 or some such. Yeah, Loony. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gay? Gay? I had heard that tofu causes spontaneous decapitation. Which one is it? Do I have to choose? Jimaginator (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed poor - disingenuous cunt

Wow! Creepy Uncle "Bad touch" Ed Poor really knows how to dodge a question:^img

• Ed: Show me proof of censorship.
• RonLar: Here you go.
• Ed: Oh before I can answer you, let's see if TK's going to block you.

Way to man up Ed. Ken must be loving your ma-CHEESE-mo. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

wow, that's really something to behold. First he shouts Bring it^img on^img, now he is hiding^img under TK's skirts. No doubt that not only Ed Poor, but also Andy Schlafly will be relieved when TK silences RonLar at last...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Member of the site that dare not speak its name in 3... 2... 1... BANHAMMER! CS Miller (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's depressing, but not really new - SDG/TZB have made it crystal clear that TK may be a loose cannon who just covers up his completely random bans with some handwaving, but that Ed systematically tries to widen the gap between The Perfect Beings (a.k.a. Senior Sysops) and editors contributors. IIRC, Ed pushed for putting every new user on parole, suggested banning them if he doesn't deem their contribs worthy of his arbitrary standards, came up with the Writing Plan and stated that people at first don't even have the right to edit random articles (at the same time, it's been established that they also shouldn't jump into the controversial ones - Catch 22, anybody?). --Sid (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course what you should do is go to talk pages and ask about what edits you should or should not make first. Communication is the key. It's not like they ban people for making lots of edit to talkpages. Oh, wait- DickTurpis (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And following up on the question-dodging, TK surprises everybody by- oh, who am I kidding...

TK at 4.05pm: *quietly removes the evidence* "Don't listen to him, Ed, he's a bad person, so obviously, the evidence is bad, too."^img

Ed at 4:07pm: "About time I got an excuse to ignore this!"^img

So lovely to see the Dynamic Duo working so smoothly together! --Sid (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And...after TK answers^img predictably, Ed makes it all disappear^img. Censorship? What censorship? Junggai (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sniped by seconds! Curse you, Junggai! =P --Sid (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) this edit^img and the one before it... wow. Perfect blindness. ħuman^img 20:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaand the biggest surprise: Andy doesn't mind that RonLar will never prove him wrong again! --Sid (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gold. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

More Karajou idiocy

Whoowhee, Popeye is so pissed off that the Koreans are calling a boat they stole their own, that Karajerk completely mangles the English language.^img But what else would you expect on CP's borked news? --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

dememoryholed. CS Miller (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the press is censoring that this particular boat was stolen in 1968. Cool story bro. 15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I like how he seems to endorse a state-controlled media with his headline. DickTurpis (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly gives you insight in to world according to Karajerk. Does he really think that US journalists ought to act as the propaganda arm of the government? In any case, stealing another country's boats and employing them yourself is a time honoured naval tradition. Why does Karajou hate seafarers?!? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad memories mist likely. EddyP (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A funny story, not well WIGOed. since someone always has to fix what I fuck up when I WIGO someone else should just save a step and fix it. --Opcn (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the press isn't 'censoring' it at all, and North Korea aren't claiming the ship is theirs. It's another example of CP leaping to conclusions. Take CP's source, click the right arrow twice, and you get exactly the same story, but with the details of which ship it is added. It seems pretty clear to me that the reporter thought it was a North Korean navy ship, and so that's what they wrote - then realised their mistake, and rewrote it to correct it. 92.2.93.96 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fields Medal women problem

Has Andy explained why his prediction of a female winning the Fields Medal didn't come true? It seems he has an obvious way out. Just say this scary French dude [2] is almost a woman because of his long hair, and that must be what the awarders thought. Incidentally CP (or perhaps it's only Andy) jumped on the 'communist-trained' bandwagon so hard they seem to have missed the fact that wikipedia:Ngô Bảo Châu nearly went to Hungary for his post secondary training but couldn't because the collapse of communism meant they stopped giving scholarships. So he went to France instead (who aren't communist but they are socialist French so I guess that's the problem). The other 'communist trained' wikipedia:Stanislav Smirnov started his undergraduate education around the time of the collapse of communism, went to the US for his Ph.D and has seemingly not been back to work in Russia since. Both of these would seem to be an example of people who may have failed in a communist system which CP could have jumped on but hey it's better to just demonise them as evil communist trained matmeticians stealing all the glory that rightfully belongs to born and bred Americans I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Il Duce Andy didn't make such a prediction friend, oh and we have always been at war with Eastasia. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy would never expect that from those misogynistic atheists. Big Brother invented the helicopter you know. --Opcn (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the name for a self-centered, uncharitable person?

And who censors classroom prayer? According to Il Duce, you an atheist^img.

One edit later, Andy is putting his borken newses on main page left now? ħuman 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief

So I went on holiday for a week and there am I thinking that CP is finished, only to come back and see the laugh-a-minute stuff about the Field Medals. Schlafly has truly torpedoed his own pet project. What a total fruitbat. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading comprehension fail fail

The source seems to confirm that 500,000 jobs were lost that week. I think I've heard normal levels are between 300,000 and 400,000. The proposed 8-12k number is farcical. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the source is hard after all, it seems. The number of first-time claims ROSE by 8k to 12k, but the magnitude is at ~500k. Still, oh those silly conservatives! 173.10.105.29 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - apparently Occasionaluse also has reading comprehension problems as he made the exact same mistake Rob did. --Leotardo (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking retarded? Are you telling me you think that in this economy only say, 4 out of 100,000 people lost their jobs last week? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking retarded. This is from your own source: "In the week ending Aug. 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 500,000, an increase of 12,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 488,000. The 4-week moving average was 482,500, an increase of 8,000 from the previous week's revised average of 474,500." Is it really that hard to figure out that the number increased from the previous week from 488K to 500K? It's in the first paragraph. I also bolded the number for you, since you think in one week half a million people lost their jobs. --Leotardo (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Retard, there are 307,000,000 million people in the US. 500,000 lost their jobs last week. That's 16 out of 10000. Think about it. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly can't read fucking idiot. I wouldn't be so quick to call people retards and idiots when your own source shows an increase in unemployment claims was 12,000 over the previous week. --Leotardo (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

12,000 more than the 488,000 initial claims made in the previous week. Shoot yourself in the head. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind these are not net unemployment numbers, they are one half of the picture - lost jobs. One has to subtract the number of "found" jobs to get the net effect on total unemployment. ħuman 19:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but these numbers aren't total unemployment, it's just for unemployment insurance claims, not total unemployment. --Leotardo (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. These idiots are so quick to think everything CP says is wrong that they can't think straight. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GAH!!! Enough with the retard-talk. RobS wrote a douche-y headline, but his source DOES say there were ~500k first-time claims. Quibble with his headline-writing, but he's not WRONG. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And to think some folks here wanna do RW in foreign languages. Personally I'm proud to say that I'm illiterate in over 4000 languages but do English good. 23:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Leotardo, do YOU have a job? Because it is comical that somebody is trying to defend this economy during the daytime in the US when if the economy were so great, he should be working.

Human is theoretically correct. However, I could pull up the stats from BLS which I believe indicates that gross hiring is at a low right now. Additionally, not all job losers apply for unemployment benefits. Occasionaluse is correct that we are talking about INITIAL claims here.

Look at the employment to population ratio on BLS. It is at a 27 year low or pretty close to a low and it's only a few percentage points up from the 1950s. Spinning currently bad economic data to make it sound good is laughable. This economy sucks and it is going to continue to suck for quite a while longer. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize economics involved so much ad hominem. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 09:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Only a complete and total moron would think it does. Kallium^talk 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent parsing of the data, CE! Now help me with my math if I screw it up... 2010-27=, oh, heck, where's "calculator" when I need it, let's see, carry the 3, I hate long division, got it! 2010-27=1983, double checked by adding 27 to 1983. So unemployment is at its highest level since the third year of Saint Ronnie's presidency. Fascinating. ħuman 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh also also, go back as far as the fitties and of course the E/P ratio should be lower - most families supported themselves with only one "employee" on board. Now it takes two in most cases. ħuman 03:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith, Ed Poor style

DrewJ introduces^img himself, and Ed instantly assumes bad faith^img - while assuring Drew that he'll assume good faith! Yep, I bet Drew is already feeling welcome! :) --Sid (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's that warm and fuzzy, Eddy-Baby feeling that one gets so similar to the guys that are required by law to post signs on their front lawns. Jimaginator (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

TK chimes in^img with random accusations since his crystal ball told him that Drew is a RW admin and that we here give everybody sysop status to hide posts from him. Oh, and Drew's long "I come in peace" post mentioned the rules, but not the guidelines! And finally, the good old Persecution Card: CP is a conservative place for conservative people! Why won't you nasty liberals leave us in peace so we can call our liberal-bashing The Truth???

God, I don't know what sickens me more - the content of the posts or the way Ed and TK are openly tag-teaming today. --Sid (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

TK has been pretty bent out of shape recently. I think I know why too...21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the guidelines is that the sysops set the rules, so basically the whole place is run under rule 9. I just realized that it's not the conservative version of wikipedia, it's the conservative version of 4chan.--Opcn (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part: Drew joined during a vandal attack and spent around two dozen edits reverting page blanks. That's gratitude, I guess. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 21:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is how they spot the trouble makers, anyone who tries to contribute meaningfully to the site. --Opcn (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Rob Smith actually say that outright at one point? (warning: statements by Rob Smith were made by an idiot so may not reflect reality) --Kels (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The League of Conservative Gentlemen: Ed "Tubby" Tubbs, "This is a conservative site, for conservative people, there's nothing for you here." --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

VICTORY!!!

Hitwin, triumphant after the long battle, happily claims victory, having vanquished creationism and Christianity from the internets.

If I have learned anything by observing Ken

lo these many years, it is that the important thing is to claim victory, whether or not any such actual victory exists in the real word.  Accordingly, in the spirit of fighting fire with fire, I hereby claim victory for evolution and atheism.  And I do so in a manner that can be readily understood by Ken

and those at CP: by having my poster boy pose under a banner that says "Mission Accomplished".  --Horace (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I taste vomit? --Opcn (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a little bit, in the back of your throat. ħuman 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That picture is a healthy source of win. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we in danger of Obamageddon?

It occurs to me that CP can help us answer one of the most important questions of our age: When will Obamageddon come? It's kind of like the rapture index, but it works by counting the number of pictures of Obama currently displayed in CP's broken news. This gives us a rough estimate of the rate of evil doing the Obama administration is perpetrating. If this ever gets towards 8 or, goat help us, even 10 then Obamageddon is nearly upon us.

	Obamageddon Meter

By the way, if anyone wants to make the template prettier, please do. (Works in FF and Chrome, can't be bothered to test others ;) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Right adjust it and add it underneath the chalkboard in the heading section. - π 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Needs to be a permanent fixture somewhere. Also need to track highs and lows from here on. DickTurpis (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Is using javascript really the best way of doing it? At the moment you have to wait for the conservapedia mainpage to load everytime you open the page. Wouldn't a bot that updates a switch everyday be more efficient? - π 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but javascript has the advantage of loading it in your client so they can't just block one IP to stop the thing updating. Shouldn't take terribly long to grab the page, and it can't block the rest of the page loading since it only starts after the rest of the content is already loaded. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just hit "edit" (I have show preview on first edit ticked off) and it loaded quickly enough (and appeared to be recalculating itself). But perhaps I don't understand this discussion ;) ħuman 03:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Counterexamples to Andy's attention span

Apologies for dredging up the relativity business, but there are a couple items at the bottom of the list that amused me. In #30, Andy cites a freshman-physics "paradox" used to illustrate the illusion of simultaneity (events which appear simultaneous in one reference frame may appear sequential in another reference frame), but instead of wrapping his head around the explanation he just declares "this is obviously illogical" and stops. Even better is #29, where Andy bemoans the money wasted on a set of equations that are too complex to solve fully, which makes me want to create an account just to school him on Newton's 3-body problem, which is literally unsolvable and must be numerically approximated. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Skweee!

Atheists have cute dogs!^img Yay us! By the way, are dogs even allowed at funerals? Maybe the wake, where it's been scrounging sausage rolls. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 08:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I can say my funeral won't be joyless, I want my friends and family to have aty to remember all the good times. The dog is cute though.

What really worries me in regard to the essay is I wonder if Ken

fantasizes about "sending atheists to hell".  Or how many like him would be more then happy to expedite that if those darn American laws against killing people, even heathens, just weren't in place, preventing them from "doing God's will". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, Ken emphasizes that Christianity is at its most basic founded on a terrible fear of death. Well done, Ken! --Kels (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring BMcP's comment, um, Ken, most (but not all!) funerals are joyless, you idiot. ħuman 03:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only come to the conclusion that Ken likes it when his family members die, since they're all going to heaven. Party hats and streamers around, unlike us, in which we're all going to hell. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is stupid that I just want to set myself on fire. I can't stretch my imagination to even begin to grasp the basis for the "satire". I showed it to my 13 year old nephew, who said, "What's it even mean?" First, the dog does not look that forlorn. Second, we're supposed to find it plausible that the dog went to a funeral, and returned home to mourn his master, his atheism and his eternal damnation (all dogs go to heaven?). So stupid! --Leotardo (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you also show your nephew this? ~SuperHamster Talk 04:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, that's still around? I would have expected Ken to have a lucid moment and delete it by now (or someone else delete it out of embarrassment when Ken wasn't looking). Just incredible. --Kels (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I, too, was shocked. I went looking for it, thinking that Ken would have deleted it by now, but nope, I was wrong, to my delight. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What bothers me most about that is the weird grammar in the title. "The transitional animal the flying kitty?" sounds like the beginning of a child's run-on sentence with a question mark abruptly thrown in. --Leotardo (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Shocking

You're very easily surprised, Andy Jammy (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That "article" is another Andy-ism that's full of fail. I like how he's surprised that baseball didn't coin the term (Hint - Andy, football is older) and I'm pretty sure Hamlet and the Scottish Play refer to 'foul play' or at least 'murder most foul'. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet, Act I Scene 2: "I doubt some foul play. Would the night were come! " --MarkGall (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Foul Play" used to be used when there is suspicion that a person has met a violet end, but there isn't enough evidence or even a body to prove it. CS Miller (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That whole page is delightful. I love the way Andy ponders such head-scratchers as why we don't call dinosaurs lizards and how people used to greet each other before "hello" came into common use. Such are the great mysteries, that we may never know. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is her trying to popularize his list for troglodytes or just being ignorant? EddyP (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it -- why would I expect "foul play" to originate with baseball? I don't even think it's a baseball term. "Foul", sure, but "foul play"? --MarkGall (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard the phrase "foul play" used in relation to sports. --Kels (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not being funny Kels but is that for real? Or are you in the US? 'Foul play' in sports is old, possibly centuries. I'm sure I've heard it used by people reading contemporaneous reports of 'football' matches as far back as the 1700's or even the middle ages. And it was certainly used in rounders before that game became baseball.Oldusgitus (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely used in baseball, but only in the broader sense of "cheating" -- not really a baseball-specific meaning. I figured the baseball bit was Andy thinking the origin of the term had something to do with "foul ball", but I don't think it's possible to use "foul play" in any way that's related to that. --MarkGall (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Football defines "Serious Foul Play" in The Laws of the Game, 2010/2011 law 12, page 118. CS Miller (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious here. I've heard "foul" and "foul ball" in baseball, but that's it. Can't speak to football since I grew up in an area that really didn't give a crap about the game. The full phrase "foul play" is something I can only recall hearing in the context of a crime or something similar. --Kels (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a UK thing, althought the exiles in other countries like south africa use it as well. It's used in rugby as well.Oldusgitus (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Football defines "Serious Foul Play" in The Laws of the Game, 2010/2011 law 12, page 118. I think it was previously known as "Violent Conduct", but I could be wrong. CS Miller (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no baseballitician, but isn't a foul ball the opposite of a play? Play stops when the ball is fouled. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A foul ball that hasn't hit the ground is still in play in that it can be caught for an out. ħuman 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard foul play in relation to sports a few times, but it's always about people corking bats and drugging horses. --Opcn (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, lots. Hitting below the belt, for example, is foul play. ħuman 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to Jammy's original point, the article actually reveals a lot about the man's ignorance. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So about the time zones...

Anyone know when this^img went up as compared to when the news broke that the prosecutors threw it out? All I heard about it today (from very early this morning) was that the prosecutors didn't put any stock in it and threw it out. He was never arrested at all though was he?--Opcn (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. But it's another good example of TK making an objectively false statement of fact, isn't it? 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I checked the linked FoxNews article when TK put up that link, and it hadn't been updated with the "drop arrest warrant" bit back then. I don't know if the FoxNews article had been outdated at the time already, of course, but it certainly matched what the mainpage headline said. The edit summary was a bit misleading, though - he had been arrested in absentia, IIRC. --Sid (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess I jumped the gun, then - I just WIGO'ed it, as I merely thought it was a more blatent than usual example of somebody at CP saying something that the source they link to says the exact opposite. Let's see if I can change it a bit... 92.20.97.71 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You get arrested when your person is taken into custody. The warrant is just a writ authorizing that. And that's all that had been issued when the story broke. 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how this crap works (especially not internationally), but people claim that he had been "arrested in absentia", apparently (but not anymore). Whatever that means. *shrugs helplessly* --Sid (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what that means. It's not legalese in any system I'm aware of. Oh well. I take it all back. TK is as honest as the day is long. 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems an awful lot like being executed in absentia, physically impossible. To arrest someone is to deprive them of the liberty to move, something you cannot do from far away. --Opcn (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My new guess is translation error. --Opcn (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The news [3] says he was not arrested ("arresterad" in Swedish) but declared "anhållen", which - I believe - is best translated as "remanded" in English.

Being "anhållen" means that the police has questioned witnesses and/or examined evidence and decided that there is sufficient reason to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, and that the case should be handled further by a prosecutor rather than policemen.

The news also says he was "anhållen i sin frånvaro", which means "in absentia".

While being "anhållen", the suspect could be arrested and held in jail if deemed necessary for a maximum of 30 days awaiting trial.

Although being "anhållen" does not imply an arrest warrant, it is expected. I can't find any direct mention of an arrest warrant on any of the Swedish news sites, but most non-Swedish sites seem to have translated "anhållen" to "arrest warrant".

He was, however, never arrested, only contacted by police. He agreed to come into the police station for questioning, although he never did this before the charge was dropped, apparently less than 24 hours later [4].

The last link also mentions that although the "anhållen" status and the charge of rape have been dropped, the investigation also includes a charge of "sexuellt ofredande" (sexual assault), which has not been dropped. Etc 13:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why five years?

I'm willing to bet that there's an answer to this somewhere, or that there's a conversation on here that already covers this. But since I myself am unaware of such a thing, I'm going to ask it - why does Conservapedia block users for five years, even when they're vandals or their usernames are not allowable? Do they think that, in five years times, that the user will have thought about what they did and return to positively contribute? Or do they trust that the user won't be back? Perhaps they want to make it look as if a large majority of users aren't indefinitely blocked? Or do they think that Armageddon will be happening sometime soon? I dunno. Bestow me. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

obamageddon is coming soon.--AMassiveGay (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it just allows them to keep them in the user count whilst effectivly blocking them forever. Remember, deceit doesnt have to keep you out of heaven, just call 1 800 ACCEPT JESUS ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.232.106.244 / talk / contribs}

Apparently they were having problems with their system glitching out on the infinite blocks and letting vandals through. --Opcn (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Was that ever confirmed? I heard rumors (or maybe just read about them in SDG/TZB) about such a glitch, too, but I don't think I ever saw an infinite-banned person edit... Besides, I think I saw a couple of infinite bans recently, too, so I think they're just being arbitrary? --Sid (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the infinite blocks I've seen were for inappropriate names and certain persistent vandals, for what it's worth. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

http://cptransitive.com anyone have the backstory

I have no idea what it is, I found it on google canada and it seems to be just plain old conservapedia. Is this something someone is running themselves and I'm fucking it up for them? --Opcn (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it belongs to Andy (check WHOIS here). Not sure what the in-depth story is, though. If I had to guess, I'd say testing/backup server? --Sid (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling it's like a CP mirror. IIRC it acted as a mirror during the week that wasn't. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So when CP gets swamped by a media mention could one theoretically go to CPT and not have such a shitty browsing experience (and by shitty I mean slow, not merely full of crap)--Opcn (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they're the same physical server. conservapedia.com == cptransitive.com == 65.60.9.250. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is just a redirect that was used during the server crash of January 2009, when we learnt CP has an extremely poor backup system. - π 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Account creation...

...why is it still on? It would have been a handy roadblock for the idiotic vandal bot waves that are currently crashing down on them. I really don't get this - they have this tool ready and used it for far more trivial stuff in the past, but now they leave the floodgates wide open? --Sid (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

2 words: persecution complex. How else could Karajerk whine about their enemies trying to bring CP down? whilst conveniently ignoring the lack of conservative editors to fend them off. --PsyGremlinHable! 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that TK simply enjoys too much blocking and reverting. For him, having no-one to block or revert would result in a boring weekend. But in the middle of it all, oblivious to any vandal waves, we have this character (using the moniker "Conservative", of all possible choices) happily flying his kitty. I honestly think that he's an artist at heart, performing for our entertainment a surreal Theatre of the Absurd. --Xyr (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

All traffic is good traffic as far as they are concerned. Look at how the Assfly boasted about the edit count after that last bot attack. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand account creation is disabled. --Sid (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And night editing is on. Wah. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The book of Andy

Can someone with some api know-how collect and combine every talkpage saying Andy has ever uttered? I think it's make for good lols to have a searchable reference to find contradictions. MediaWiki's built-in search doesn't seem to do the trick. Like when Andy rails against scientists or refuses to yield to authority, but then pleads that "It wasn't just Hoyle, though he's impressive enough alone. It was a team of scientists who examined the specimens firsthand. Have their critics done that? I'm open to valid, meaningful criticisms of their findings, but I don't see any yet." That way, parodists could, in a sense, make Andy talk to himself. "Gee, Andy... It wasn't just Einstein, though he's impressive enough alone. It was a team of scientists who examined the findings firsthand. Have their critics done that? I'm open to valid, meaningful criticisms of their findings, but I don't see any yet." I'm pretty sure Andy could be made to explode. Thoughts? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, how exactly is s script going to pick out what is a "saying" as such? Anyway, the quote generator does a pretty good job: DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply the content of his post in a talk namespace. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Occasionaluse" (obviously your parents were atheists to give you such a pagan name so you're probably obese), we don't fall for the self-serving liberal claptrap here. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and you deny that Obama is a Muslim, which is undeniable, so I'm confident you're a sociopath. Your atheistic worldview has led you to deny that intelligent design helps resist murder. Believe what you like, but I respect person's own talk pages. You might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. Stop wasting my time. Contribute to this encyclopedia, or move on.--aschlafly 03:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, but it would take a lot of work to assemble and a long time to read through. If you know how to go about doing it, I would say go right ahead. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd be easy enough for someone who can use the api (which I guess I'm sure I could if I tried..). It wouldn't be so much for reading through, more likely grep'ing. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been some Andy impersonators on CP. Pretty easy to do: Judging from your long winded rant I'm 95% certain that you practice Liberal deceit and want to keep prayers from our public schools. Open your mind and try to find out what the liberals don't want you to know. Godspeed. P.S. British women are terrible at math. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of Andy's talk page contributions can no longer be accessed through the API, either because the discussions they were part of have been "archived" or because the article the talk page belonged to has been deleted as parody. My archive preserves much but not all of what has disappeared; I didn't start archiving until June 2009, a time at which roughly two out of three parodist articles must have already been shitcanned. Another problem is that the archive does not contain every single revision ever made but takes snapshots at semi-regular intervals. This means one cannot build an index of Andy utterances solely from the meta data; one would have to parse the dear leader's proclamations out of the actual body text. mb 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be easy enough to plow through Special:Contributions&contribs=user&target=Aschlafly&namespace=1, grab the URLs, download the page and parse for additions. I think that would take care of 95% of Andy's talk space contributions. I'll work on that later... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My liberal style bot did exactly this to get its "words per talk page post" count -- I can give you the code if you want to adapt it. (Disclaimer: I'm no programmer, so it's probably a mess). --MarkGall (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Better than nothing! Thanks, I'll contact you via email later. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The changes were trivial enough that I just went ahead and did it, I'll run it later tonight. Stuff like Talk:Main and Talk:Aschlafly has been deleted many times, so we'll probably miss out on a lot of stuff if we don't use the archives. Here's a good find from when I was testing -- maybe not completely contradictory, but...

Andy, 2007^img: "'Faith' is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions. The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well."

Andy, 2009^img: "Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, and that modern conservative language can express well." --MarkGall (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft

I have a draft of such a compilation ready now, containing all Talk: and User talk: edits that are still available (I guess I forgot Essay:Talk:). Email me if you're interested. Below's a draft version of a plot of the frequences of some favorite Schlaflyisms in these posts.

(ah, looks like it counts words in the URL of the talk page too... so the huge values for "deceit" are probably when there's a big debate at Talk:Liberal deceit. I'll fix it tomorrow). --MarkGall (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Mark.

I'm just now starting to go through. This one is not the best, but I'm sure it will be the first of many...Andy on consensus:

"Most academic scientists today claim that man-made global warming is settled science, and that government can stop it. Such consensus does not make that claim true or logical." [5]

"Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness." [6]

Occasionaluse (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good one:

• "This is Conservapedia, and we don't censor the truth here. Obama's Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan" should not be censored here, and it has been restored." [7]
• "it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent"" [8]

Occasionaluse (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that ASchlafly seems to use the word liberal more than conservative. Maybe he defines his own ideology more or less strictly by opposition to the more well-defined 'liberal' ideology?--70.53.43.206 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall he uses it about twice as much. Here's what he's talking about when he uses them, as counted by the frequencies of the following words:

I threw out all terms appearing three times or fewer, which accounted for 41% of the liberal X and 48% of the conservative X. --MarkGall (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably also want some stop words. If Andy says "and" or "the" more on some subjects that's probably noise, whereas when he uses "deceit" or "gossip" that may be significant. Off the top of my head, ignore 'and', 'the', 'but', 'or', 'to' 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think these charts are quite illuminating!

Could you make a pie chart including only nouns - and perhaps combine the occurrences of singulars and plurals (like liberal trick(s)?

And could you give the actual numbers?

Thanks, larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good points -- I'll fix them up tonight and post new graphs (and the numbers, somewhere). I think there are also some problems because I didn't ignore capitalization, and because he often wikilinks "liberal" and I didn't count those. These tallies are easy to generate, if you have any other ideas for good ones let me know. I also tried [Oo]bam([a-zA-Z]*), but I think that would be more interesting for mainpageright posts from Jpatt et al... --MarkGall (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated versions posted. I'm sure there are still mistakes, but hopefully it's about right. --MarkGall (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Futurology: You fail at it. (Or: It doesn't add up)

Prediction: Once a woman and a communist-trained mathematician are announced as the winners on Thursday, expect a torrent of nonsensical tributes in the lamestream media.

Reality: About 40 stories in total. Mostly from the Israeli and Vietnamese press, plus popular science sites.

Who knew the world could be so totally uninterested in the proceedings of mathematicians? Oh, right. Everyone but the Assfly, who thinks that big celebrity mathematics professors swing elections with their endorsements. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait for the next edition of Heat magazine. I'm sure they'll soon be adding a section dealing with news from the world of mathematics. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for OK! or Hello to feature the weddings and families of celebrity mathematicians. I bet mathematicians also have some really neat tattoos. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical tattoos. And I have a friend who has the hexadecimal values of his daughter's name in ASCII tattooed on his arm. MDB (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I can't wait for the celebrity mathematician sex tapes. "Oh yeah, baby. Stick your manifold perpendicular to my plane. Right there!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That assumes mathematicians ever have sex, or would know what to do if offered the chance. For instance, this story I have no doubt is one hundred true...

A graduate student of mathematics who used to come to the university on foot every day arrives one day on a fancy new bicycle. "Where did you get the bike from?" his friends want to know."It's a `thank you' present", he explains, "from that freshman girl I've been tutoring. But the story is kind of weird..." "Tell us!" "Well", he starts, "yesterday she called me on the phone and told me that she had passed her math final and that she wanted to drop by to thank me in person. As usual, she arrived at my place riding her bicycle. But when I had let her in, she suddenly took all her clothes off, lay down on my bed, smiled at me, and said: `You can get from me whatever you desire!'"

One of his friends remarks: "You made a really smart choice when you took the bicycle."

"Yeah", another friend adds, "just imagine how silly you would have looked in girls clothes - and they wouldn't have fit you anyway!"

MDB (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Makes me think of the time there were a group of undergrads in our tea room, don't know what they were there for but they had free food. I bumped into a girl that was in one of my tutorial when she was in first year. I was chatting to her for a while and she quite candidly admitted to wearing low cut tops and pushing the girls up because it got her better grades and more individual attention from tutors, especially when she was doing a few comp sci subjects. - π 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

An acquaintance of mine used to teach college level physics, and claims to have slept with some of his students. He says that, as long as there wasn't a "sex for grades" trade going on, his university didn't care. Note that this acquaintance isn't the most trustworthy person I know, however. MDB (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never really have heard of that going on in my department, the only one I have heard of was several years before my time and it is still uncommon enough of an event that people mention it years later. Most of the postgrads seem partnered up already, so I guess it does not really become an issue. Even fairly banal things like a lecture who is married to one of their former PhD students tends to raise an eyebrow. - π 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

'And I have a friend who has the hexadecimal values of his daughter's name in ASCII tattooed on his arm.' Reminds of an old joke - there are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't. 92.2.93.96 (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The only other related joke I know is - Did you hear about the mathematician who got constipation? He worked it out with a pencil. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those who are looking for a dictionary. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Two young men were trying to decide whether to study math or engineering, so they went to visit an engineering professor. They asked him how to decide what they should study, and he said, "I'll give you a very simple test. You walk into a room, and in the center of room is the most beautiful girl in the world, so lovely you must immediately rush up and kiss her. There's a problem, though -- with each step, you can only cover half the remaining distance between you and her. What do you do?"

The first young man replied, "You can never reach her", so the professor said "go talk to the head of the math department."

There's two options for the second young man's response:

• "Kiss? Girl? I don't understand."

or

• "Well, in theory, you can never reach her... but you can get close enough for all practical purposes!"

In either case, the professor said, "welcome to the college of engineering!" MDB (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I going to rework that into a pure/applied maths joke for my students/the puries. - π 13:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In my second year at university in London, I was in the Halls of Residence for the first night of 'Fresher's Week', also knows as 'Fuck A Fresher Night'. I spent the night chatting to a very nice curvy brunette and describing the many wonders of uni life, my love of mathematics and science, and generally did my best to be normal. As the night wore on, we went back to my room for 'coffee'. She sat on my bed and I gave her coffee and ... a book. A really good book. Never spoke to her again.

Sadly, this is a true story. Worm^{(t | c)} 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

These tatoos lose points for using 8 bits for the ASCII, which is actually a 7-bit standard. Although there is one of the Y combinator. I wonder if you could get that Coq proof of the 4-colour theorem onto a tatoo. Educated word Phantom! 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, indeed, Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Educated word Phantom! 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of bad tattoos, I have a fri-... colle-... acqua-... some complete stranger I met in a pub once, purely by chance has the LSD molecule tattooed on his forearm. I, on the other hand, have Hobbes tattooed on my shoulder. Um... what was the topic again? --PsyGremlinHable! 15:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The philosopher, or the tiger? --Gulik (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - make up your mind!

Sort of a follow-up to this discussion:

• Ed: "We do follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of 'describing all viewpoints fairly'."^img
• TK: "Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV."^img

Mostly just pointing it out because the two remarks are both recent and beautifully highlight a major flaw of CP: Its rules and even the most fundamental policy questions such as "What POV does Conservapedia have?" are extremely fuzzy and basically grind down to "That depends on which sysop you run into". And all this just because the admins are afraid that nasty liberals will actually expect them to stick to the rules themselves (yes, this is confirmed, check TZB and maybe even SDG - whenever they discussed policy, they worked hard to avoid ANY specifics because they didn't want to be confined by their own rules). So every sysop just enforces his personal interpretation of what he thinks the rules should say. --Sid (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The easiest definition of CP's POV policy is "do I like what you're written?" Stuff the commandments, or any references you might have. If there's even the slightest doubt that what you've added isn't 100% conservative, it's revert and block. Hell, I used to do that, and I was the nice one. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 19:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TK! =D^img --Sid (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, he makes every effort to drag a certain libelous vandal site (as reported by the media of course) into everything, doesn't he? ~SuperHamster Talk 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. While at the same time insisting that its mention in the media is non-notable. He always wants to have his cake and eat it, too. --Sid (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, "Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks". Haven't we got TK on record here somewhere referring to Andy as an alcoholic? --PsyGremlin講話 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that TK! He's just so smart and clever and brilliant! Just look at the SuperJosh reference! I love you, TK! Kudos for the effortless and perfectly accurate explanation of Conservapedia's POV policy. Not a single inconsistency. Other admins would use words to muddy the subject and prevent any action from being taken, but not you, TK. Lots of love, JArneal 21:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Even though TK, as I see it, is referring to article content when he says "Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks", I think it would be only fair and logical if the same standard was applied to how they treat their users. They are, after all, a family friendly wiki, so there is no reason to go namecalling. Let's check out some the last 500 blocks alone:

"Wrong answer, idiot."

"1 idiot + 1 class in bad math + 1 course in cheap science - the $ spent for both still makes you an idiot"

"and idiots like you are filtered out of this site rather immediately"

"You forgot two: acting stupid and dressing like an idiot"

"yes, they are dumb, aren't they? (lol)" (referring to liberals)

"adios, el stupido"

"bye, stupid"

"No matter how many user names you use, or how many IP's you break into, you'll still be stupid."

"Blocking you for the lulz...how's that, stupid?"

Mmmhmm. Family-friendly all right. A quick skim also reveals some name calling in past versions of mainpageright:

"More Proof That PC Was Created by Liberal Idiots"

"[...] boneheads in the state legislature of California"

Oh, and one cannot forget Ken's lovely essays, "Gallery of liberal pantywaists" and "Gallery of clowns", in which he labels various people as, well, pantywaists and clowns. Of course, it's in the essayspace, so it doesn't matter, right? Oh, wait, nevermind, Ken calling people clowns has also sneaked into the mainspace. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

TK: "Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, often liquor induced. ..." HSMom: Orly? TK: You are a liberal, etc. GaryJ: "Biden says he doesn't drink, dude." TK: "Eurotroll coward!" Wash, rinse, repeat. 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, TK has a long and glorious history of accusing people he doesn't like of being alcoholics. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"So every sysop just enforces his personal interpretation of what he thinks the rules should say" They are christians after all. --Opcn (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"We don't call people drunks...except Gary Coleman on the main page when he died" --Leotardo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Some people may not be aware of this page, it's the transcript of an AIM chat between TK and Jazzman (RIP) 11/30/2007:

(10:11:59 PM) Exculpatory1: I am beginning to suspect alcoholism
(10:12:16 PM) jazzman831: andy?!
(10:15:00 PM) Exculpatory1: yah
(10:15:16 PM) Exculpatory1: ever notice how he gets more wound up later in the day/evening?
(10:15:23 PM) jazzman831: HA
(10:15:31 PM) Exculpatory1: [personal information redacted]
(10:16:04 PM) Exculpatory1: functioning alcoholics maintain their jobs, etc
(10:16:50 PM) Exculpatory1: drink only when not at work....[personal information redacted]] owned a business, functioned well, but after he got home, about 3-4, he went through almost a fifth of seagrams 7
(10:17:01 PM) jazzman831: wiow
(10:17:22 PM) Exculpatory1: andy gets shrill and more weird as the evening goes on
(10:18:14 PM) Exculpatory1: typical of a drinker

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Terry Koeckritz just loves calling people he doesn't like alcoholics. From his last love letter to me (20/06/2009): "This is becoming a bit too much like stalking, and indicates a lack of self esteem, inasmuch as you keep emailing people you repeatedly say you dislike or do not trust. If, as it seems, you have a problem imbibing, I urge you to use this link and get yourself help: Welcome to Alcoholics Anonymous - South Africa." It makes me wonder how he would react if we were to start calling him a homosexual? --TokyoRose 15:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to another fun little (IRC) chat with TK - early days at CP. http://gofg.wikidot.com/tk-conversations FJF (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see how he's just as much of an arrogant jerk in real time. Also for someone who has supposedly been on "IRC" since 1985 (I assume he means bitnet, since irc is from 98), he sure knows shit-all about it. He's even on trillian. Not that there is anything wrong with trillian, but it's very much aimed at the people who just know MSN and don't want to know anything about any in depth functionality of irc. --GTac (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this ...

...since living in the UK I'm not going to be impacted by it, but I'd be interested to hear what our colonial cousins think... http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:College_Guidance^img --Mick McT (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrumph....it won't put my name on it...bloody condem system!! MickMcT

There is this old Carthagian tradition of putting your child where your mouth is. As none of Andy's offspring attends Liberty university, the whole thing can be ignored. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to reconstruct your sigs. Your closing capture tag was missing the "/". --Sid (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say; at my age I'm lucky to get close to a tag, let alone be able to capture one! Mick McT (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone perform an autopsy on that "graph"? Is it normal for 3 or 4 unrelated scales to be crammed into one box? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Only if one wants to manipulate them to create the impression of some sort of "fact" based on the slopes. ħuman 04:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very common to show two scales, with the implication (sometimes very justified, but not always) that they're related. I don't think three or four makes this any worse, particularly when all of the scales are at least in roughly the same units (dollars, dollars, and dollars per capita). The line you're asked to compare against is inflation, which has no units, and makes the arbitrary scaling possible (because $1.50 with 10% inflation becomes $1.65, and $1.5Bn becomes $1.65Bn, so everything scales nicely).

The main way its possible to do evil with a chart like this is by your origin choice. Often by choosing the origin you can give different impressions, e.g. that something has or has not overtaken inflation over the long term, or that recent fluctuations are or are not extraordinary. The origin choice should be justified (e.g. no data exists prior to 1957, so the origin is there) or else clearly arbitrary (e.g. 1900 is a round number)

And of course (scientists are sometimes guilty here too) you should link the raw data so that it can be re-analysed, including any post-processing you've done. = 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that the lions share of the data is interpolated. Typically you could compare inflation with the others based on the relative slopes, but with most of the data missing you are just left the guess really. --Opcn (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thought that looked familiar. 92.1.39.237 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting in that it shows that when Reagan became president, university costs suddenly started rising at double the inflation rate - then when W got in, it got even worse. Tax cuts, anyone? ħuman 01:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it normal for 3 or 4 unrelated scales to be crammed into one box? Generally, such kind of a graph comes without different scales: the data is normalized to a common value at a certain point, and than the relative values to this point are given (Compare for instance this one).

So, the scales are a bonus, helping to get the absolute values right.

That said, I can't imagine that Jorge Cham likes his work to be reproduced at Conservapedia without any credit (heck, I don't think he likes it to be on display there with credits given)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That graph puts everything on the same abscissa (?). The one in question is just a fucked up mess. And, yeah, I doubt the owner would be happy that CP stole it. ħuman 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So has anyone contacted Mr Cham? As the copyright holder he's the only one who can do owt about it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look into this?

Can someone make a chart of usage of WorldNet Daily articles a few months before and after Farrah blasted the Conservative Bible Project. I'm curious if CP has forgiven him or forgot--Thanatos (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as Andy et al can find somebody who supports CP insanity, they'll use them. (Even Pravda in some cases) I'm sure Andy won't be having sundowners with Farah any time soon tho. The man does know how to hold a grudge. --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Except for that lying, treacherous, plagiarising Terry Koeckritz. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits CP might have found a [new best friend. But... but... it seems to be coming from those nasty, heathen, baby-eating Canucks up north! Is nothing sacred anymore. Oh wait... it's bashing King Barry. That's ok then. --PsyGremlinPrata! 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy and NJ immunization rates

Apparently New Jersey's immunization rates are among the lowest in the country. The article says it's a "medical mystery" as to why, but I wonder if it has anything to do with Andy's personal opposition against vaccinations. Hopefully a link to the article will show up on mainpage right claiming Conservapedia's victory in the war against unnecessary liberal vaccinations. --Composure1 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's influence begins inside his own head and pretty much extends a few inches beyond his Lego man hairstyle. Still, it us a great Conservapedia victory! CR. 62.40.36.13 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For interest: Immunizations: "If your children have been vaccinated against xyz disease, why would you care if others are NOT vaccinated" 10:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mystery time!

Andy's priorities

Gotta say, so far, my favorite point of this mystery is the "Liberals want to pretend to be God!" one. Also, Andy really needs to work on his priorities. Insulting liberals should be less important than reverting epic vandalism... --Sid (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Says the man who was happy to go on TV to promote his personal pet project. --Kels (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the mystery of why Ken craves attention. --Opcn (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to agree with Terry Koeckritz, I have to say he may be right, this seems like the ravings of an alcoholic (see above). "Hey! Yawanna know wha I really hate 'bout them liberulz? I tink they wanna be god! They's always cravin' attenshun. And, let's face it... they ain't doin' shit!" DickTurpis (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Those who can, do; those who can't instead crave attention to make up for their lack of genuine efforts." Says eminent constitutional lawyer Republican hopeful great educator master of Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly. Röstigraben (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New Mystery

Conservapedia:Mystery:Why does Andy crave attention? – Nick Heer 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tea party strong in AK?

I only listen to talk radio and NPR, I haven't heard one word about the tea party in Alaska. I'm a member of the anchorage young republicans, I haven't seen one word about the tea party in their emails, or on the pages of any of my friends who are in it. I don't catch anything on the news or see anything in the papers, I see no tea party bumper stickers and no teaparty lawn signs. I see people standing at corners waving signs all the time, none of them mention the tea party. If this is what it's like to live in a state with a strong tea party movement then Fox really has manufactured the entire thing. --Opcn (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They'd have a much better argument for here in SoCal. There were lots of tea party people waving signs, and it was mixed in with the "Impeach Obama" crowd. They had an impeach Obama petition and everything. But Fox doesn't care about us Californians. We're a lost cause. -- JArneal 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

from the Daily Kos He is 9-32 points behind and two days out. --Opcn (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Foxy News has been the only legit coverage of the Tea'ers.

• Alaska Tea Party Patriots (The Greatland)
• Alaskans for Liberty (Anchorage Alaska)
• American Patriots (Fairbanks, AK)
• Common Sense Tea Party (Kodiak)
• Don't Tread On Me Patriots (Alaska)
• Fairbanks 912 Project (Fairbanks)
• Ketchikan Tea Party (Ketchikan, Alaska)
• Kodiak Island Tea Party (Kodiak)
• Kodiak Tea Party (Kodiak)
• Patriots of Valdez (Valdez Alaska)
• The Bears (Kodiak)--193.200.150.137 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I knew that there were tea parties, there are communist parties and neo-nazi parties and even an [Akip.org Alaskan Independence party] (which I believe has a larger percentage of registered voters than any third party in any state, and included Tod Palin for a while)--Opcn (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Department of Conservative Vehicles?

“”Conservapedia stays open on Fridays and you get more from it anyway.

—Andy Schlafly, on the subject of state employee furloughs in response to the California budget crisis, August 23, 2010, Conservapedia.com

Does this mean I can get my California driver's license at CP?^img MDB (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting a year and a half to hear Andy Schlafly say the dumbest thing he could possibly say. Someone call social services to pick up the man who thinks Conservapedia is more valuable to food, medicine, and housing assistance for the poor, disabled, and elderly, roads, bridges, laws, schools, universities, prisons, etc. Schlafly is truly deserving of whatever scorn one heaps on those blinded by their stupefying arrogance and marginal ability. 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's consistent with the best of the public idea. I wish that Andy would rely more on the medical skills of his editors - particularly if he ever needs his colon sutured. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but remember, he's married to an MD. Since Andy would only pick the best possible wife, she is, therefore, the BotP. MDB (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He couldn't possible allow a woman to see his manbits, except perhaps if her blindfold slips off when its time to make another Schlafly. Mind you, blindfolded surgery could be pretty amusing to watch. I'd still prefer the spectacle of Ken trying to perform surgery while TK wanders around randomly banning lesser editors from the operating theatre. Andy, open your mind (literally)! Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New Mystery Solved

It's times like this, that I seriously wonder if Andy isn't a parodist. I mean, in his latest mystery^img he's basically describing himself to a T. Let's have a look at them:

• liberals are jealous of God, and seek attention so they can pretend to be like God - um, yes, we're jealous of that big invisible magic man in the sky. This coming from a man who decided that when God dictated the Bible originally, He didn't use the correct conservative vocab (after all, if God is omni-everything, then surely he must know all the best conservative words that have been, and will be, created?) Instead, Andy puts himself above God, and basically says to God, "No, this is what you meant."
• liberals are self-centered and highly selfish, and most of what they do is focused on themselves - wow, this from a man who rules CP by decree, where comments are made like "you will return to Conservapedia under Andrew Schalfly's pleasure"; "Schlafly is the founder of CP and you will not question him"; "No, the ZB is not for sysops to discuss policy, Andy decides that" etc, etc. Not to mention that Andy is the only face of CP you ever hear or see from (besides Terry and Brian getting a mention in the LA Times).
• liberals are unable to do anything meaningful, so craving attention fills the vacuum - as the conservative movement in general ignores CP, Andy is forced into ever more hysterical (not the funny definition) attempts to draw attention to CP - Lenski, CBP, Moo letter, Fields Medal, Relativity, Colbert and his biggest attention grab yet, making an ass of himself in front of the NJSC.
• those who can, do; those who can't instead crave attention to make up for their lack of genuine efforts - actually, the correct phrase is "those who can, do; those who can't, teach" - Well, I think it's pretty clear that Andy can do neither. Certainly, despite his education, his skills as a lawyer are questionable at best, and as an educator - even, or because of - an unqualified, unregulated educator, he is a complete failure in all aspects - quality of teaching material, quality of tests and marking, quality of student/teacher interaction, open discrimination against certain sectors of his class. No wonder he has to keep jumping up and down yelling, "Look at me! Look at me!" Oh yes, and the whole "750,000 page edits" crap - as if that somehow justifies his existence. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was better out than in. I'd lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. You should be right as rain by opening time.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

David Gerrold extended the "those who can't" quote to include "those who can neither do or teach become critics." Another of his was "Every ass wants to stand with the King's horses. This may explain why there are critics", which also fits Andy nicely. --Kels (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, "liberal" is just those people who do not agree wholeheartedly with Il Duce's "vision" of conservatism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"liberals are self-centered and highly selfish, and most of what they do is focused on themselves" And that's, bad, why? ಠ_ಠ Ayn Rand (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WIGO Fail

The latest WIGO about Jpatt "breaking the pattern" is a failure. The new "layer" will require 84 "conservative words" from the 1800s. Jpatt's addition makes 81. Aside from the obvious that there is no real underlying pattern, the closest thing you could get to "breaking the pattern" would be adding 2 words to the 1600s or 3 words the 1700s or 5 words to the 1800s or 9 words to the 1900s. This would mean Andy would have to "skip" a "layer" while trying to "perfect the doubling". Sorry, Eira. Andy moves one layer at a time. That doesn't mean he does it chronologically. In fact, the first new word in the layer was in the 1900s and added by Assfly himself. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't counted (or paid much attention at all for that matter), but didn't Andy recently make the grand announcement that they had perfected their geometric growth last week? And wouldn't that mean than any additions to any century would involve adding a slew of new words to recreate that perfection? DickTurpis (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He announced that the layer was completed (like he does for every layer). He also announced that the search for the new layer is on (like he always does). The only way I can think of "breaking" his "pattern" would be skipping a layer by adding more words to a period than one layer would require (like 2 to the 1600s). Andy would then have to trim/"improve" the list by deleting one so that he could finish one layer at a time. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, they look for layers - they add 1 word of the 1600s, 2 of the 1700s, 4 of the 1800s and 8 of the 1900s. So, it doesn't matter in which century they start, they just don't allow themselves to overshoot it...

They had just a little problem lately, when a liberal recount of the best conservative words that the had miscounted the words of the 1900s: there were 10 words less than expected.

So, they had to find quickly ten words of the 1900s - and they were able to do so in short time, undisrupted by words of other centuries.

Either they are remarkably blessed (the probability to find ten conservative words of the 20th century in a row is ≡ 0.1%, assuming that the Andy's underlying distribution), or they are remarkably biased...

All these actions only showed that the idea of the Conservapedia's law is just a figment of imagination.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah crap... I missed that the hit 160 already... Occasionaluse and his liberal reality have shown be to be an idiot. *whines in a corner* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberal reality is a bitch that bites us all in the ass from time to time. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Science: MOAR POWAHFUL THAN GOD!

Quoth the Assfly: Did you know the the Bible was right about the number of stars? Article: The Bible says the stars are enumerable. Fortunately modern science provides an enumeration. I know you are required to switch your brain off when you read the Bible, Assfly, but do try and turn it back on when you're finished. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are competing scientific views about the number of stars. And what that scientist made plain was that their enumeration only refers to the visible universe and he's quoted as saying that the number may be infinite - one of the competing views. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the number of stars corresponded with the number of visible stars, which ranged in the thousands. The star catalog of Hipparchus recorded about 1020 stars and was the base for Ptolemy's of stars. However they counted the easily visible (and thus distinguishable) stars and never stated the total was "1020". Back then they were well aware the number of stars was much higher and couldn't be accuracy counted, especially looking at features such as the Milky Way. The Bible passages saying the stars were "innumerable", is just a vague notion repeating what people then already knew, there were a crazy number of stars and it wasn't possible to count all of them. Learned scholars then focused on the stars that one could easily recognize each time and cataloged those. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a bullet/foot interface here, enumerable means able to be counted by one-to-one correspondence with the set of all positive integers while innumerable means too many to be counted (often used hyperbolically). Sort of opposites really. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I know. The CP article says innumerable, I made the mistake in my summary due to thinking of enumerations too much. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I read that last night and thought "aha, a great pawn on Schlafly", but no, it was a silly typo by Jeeves. I started an edit but finally couldn't be arsed and got myself a whisky instead. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bah. Lies! God says stars innumerable, science provides enumeration. pwnd. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful, typical Andy: "The Bible says the stars can't be counted. Scientists count them. Science thereby proves the Bible was correct, QED."

I wonder when CBP will officially replace all instances of the word "innumerable" with "approximately 7*10²²". Etc 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, assuming that everyone gets married has quadruplets and dies at the age of 30 and starting with 6 billion people in the year 2000 I worked forward. I ignored the pitance of people who have lived already. If Abraham is going to have as many offspring as there are stars and the population doubles every 30 years then the rapture CANNOT happen until the year 3260. At which point the population density of the earth will be approximately 51347598448819.2 Correction:55455406.32 humans per square meter on the Earths surface.--Opcn (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the 0.32 that will really screw everything up. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the volume of the earth is zero, pi=3 and the average human is 60kg. First I convert kg to liters because humans just barely float. then I calculate the volume of the people, because humans are liquid right? That gives us a radius of 466209 km, roughly 2/3rds the radius of the sun. --Opcn (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More I say! MORE!

Ken

creates another essayimg Using the same Vox Day quote that appears on 8 other essayimg. The man is an idiot. AceX-102 00:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. More Pox Day? 00:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I like his fart on the front page about how long it'll take to create an atheist who can win debates against Creationists. Presumably about five minutes after Creatards start arguing honestly, which is why they don't. --Kels (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Every time I see that quote, it reminds me that I really should write up a Vox Day article for RW. Goddammit, Ken. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My favourite part is that the "Why do liberals crave attention?" mystery is now right above Ken's

attention seeking. Classic. I think he must just have discovered that fstdt has lots of quotes from CP. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm responsible for many of those FSTDT Conservapedia quotes. They're just way to great not to share with the whole world wide web!

Also, as been mentioned here before , Vox 'totally pyscho' Day links to Ken's article on Evolution and Atheism on his blog and Ken links to Vox 'totally pyscho' Day. It's the circle jerk of no life. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else perplexed by the title of that 'Essay'? It is obviously a reference to that site but... none of the quotes are from atheists! Only from religious people bashing atheism. What gives ? --Ireon (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There are one or two secular fundies that appear on there saying some absolute batshit things, although they're rare and often get down voted by idiots who completely miss the point. ^moral 11:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd take that as a compliment. Autism/Aspergers (which is really just a medicalised term for "socially awkward" in all but the most extreme cases) tends to correlate with intelligence. Or more specifically, people with high intelligence aren't as likely to have good social skills, Dirac being the archetypal example from days of yore and then, at a guess, near-enough everyone who frequents this site too. A particular someone must be in a very backwards world if he thinks "social autism" is A) a per se bad thing or B) proves them wrong. Sigh. I suppose this is another "satire", but the word for someone who only makes himself laugh isn't "comedian". BTW, we appear to be lacking Vox Day/Theodore Beale, as a WND pundit and one of those authors who can only sell books by dropping the names of other authors in there, he's worthwhile. ^moral 11:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not very good, but it's a start.--Centimeter_INCHES 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)The thing about Asperger's in particular is that a) A lot of people self-diagnose and b) Psychiatrists are known to overdiagnose as well. It's actually pretty rare, except among certain subgroups (Ashkenazi Jews, for instance). Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought Ken

's silly essays were fun to read because of the unintended hilarity, but now I am beginning to ignore them. They have become very boring, it is the same copy and pasted text over and over again, just arranged in different orders on the page. It looks now that Ken has run out of ideas or material for his atheist bashing "essays" and just repeats the same ol' tripe just with a new title. Ignore until he comes up with something new and original. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We created the article for you people.--Centimeter_INCHES 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the first time I heard of the guy, and after reading some of his stuff, I can only say that even for blogger standards, this is one fucked-up, pompous, arrogant, lunatic sack of shit. Bringing this idiot in to testify about Dawkins' "abrasiveness", "lack of appeal to women", "quarrelsomeness", yadda yadda must mean Ken's quote mines are nearing expletion and he's scraping the barrel now. I'm glad I stopped replacing my irony meters. Röstigraben (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it mildly Ironic that a libertarian complaining about someone else's demographics would go to the trouble of hiding his own. --Opcn (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Essay" Talk Page takes one to the Main Article: Atheism. Interesting. Nothing to talk about on that "essay" I suppose. It is just that darn good. Jimaginator (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh all this atheist bashing "essays" do that and a good deal of the related articles as well. Just another way to control opinion on CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Karajou wigo

The second newest wigo says Karajou, but the quote is from TK. 174.131.57.14 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --Onion <talk> 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

it's kind of ironic that a wigo criticising TK for not reading sources carefully had such a mistake. 174.131.57.14 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It sure is. Good job irony meters are no longer in use here. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

People are paying less and less attention, but for good reason. Karajou was, in fact, the person who didn't read the source. TK is the one who explicitly said it's okay not to. The WIGO could have been written either way, but with the diff that's in there now, I guess it should say "TK" (which stands for Terry Koeckritz). Occasionaluse (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What is there to be careful about? Reading sources is a dangerous, fruitless, practice. It is better to not read them because there is always the risk that they could be misinterpreted.Jimaginator (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of the WIGO is that it's a paraphrase of what TK is saying. Jeez. We've only been doing this, what, 4 years now? Yes, it's a crap WIGO and I wouldn't have posted it, but it does make sense. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just plain not true. The wigo read:

Stop confusing poor Karajou with concepts like "reading," "fact-checking" or "accuracy" in the news. In his own words, "what is there to be careful about?"

Only one name has been mentioned in the whole wigo, so the "his" there undoubtedly refers to Karajou. But no such words, paraphrased or not, have ever come from Karajou (and if they did, the wigo should link to that quote, not a quote from Terry Koeckritz). ^{ONE / TALK} 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "his" to "TK's" yesterday, I think. Did it get changed back? ħuman 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RichardsK

Weirdest block log entry I've seen in a good while...

It's 4am, so I can't decide if Andy is just banning the guy on some hunch or if A. Schlafly is banning K. Richards for not following the "real first name, last initial" letter properly, but seriously, why is Andy so keen to ban potential contributors before they even make their first edit? It really boggles the mind. --Sid (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The funniest bit was his comment - If that is not your real first name and last initial, then please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial. But perhaps that is his real name? Ace^X-102 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the only active sysop who even comes close to the rule is Ped Poor. "conservative"? "TK"? "Karajou"? Yeah right. ħuman 03:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

“”Skinner: Good morning class. A certain...agitator...for privacy's sake let's call her...Lisa S. No, that's too obvious...uuuh, let's say L. Simpson -- [Lisa slaps her forehead in a slient D'oh!] has raised questions about certain school policies. So, in the interest in creating an open dialogue, sit silently and watch this film. -- Instructions in obfuscation, "Lisa the Vegetarian"

--Opcn (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Terry Koeckritz was right in his thoughts that the Arsefly is an alcoholic; his actions to get even more bizarre as the nights drag on. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Kettleticket say that when he was at the Schlafly's he rarely encountered Andy, as he was mostly holed up alone in his study? Classic alcoholic behavior. There's no way we can run some sort of program tracking his typos are relating them to hours in the day, is there? DickTurpis (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Holing up in your office could be a natural result when your teenage daughter has a boy over. Let the wife deal with it while you pretend your daughter doesn't have a vagina and edit your blog. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A sort of hands-off Clay Puppington? [Think Moral Orel.] 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

How Curious....

TK posts this on the mainpage^img which elicits this from Andy^img. How curious.....Ace^X-102 04:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I imagine Andy laughing I hear Squidwards laugh. So... Yeah.

Its the "your victory" that makes me wonder, and the congratulations. I wonder what bullshit TK has fed him. Perhaps something about how he (TK) worked on the campaign? Ace^X-102 05:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is he just noting that TK, the centrist, supports McCain while Mr. Schlafly, the wingnut, supports Hayworth? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

damn you LX! Ruined my fun! Ace^X-102 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly foxed by this one, is it simply due to Andy's usual hatred of admitting he is wrong? On the McCain victory, the Main Page says Both men had the backing of various Tea Party organizations - did McCain have the backing of any Tea Party group? He is widely reported as the anti-Tea-Party candidate. I know CP is generally anti-McCain, as far as they can be given he is a veteran and his outstanding record on many things they hold dear. He's not a big fan of creationism though, so they can't truly support him. If he did something stupid, they'd drop him like a sack of spit. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Something stupid? 10:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing Sarah Palin wouldn't be stupid, it would be fucking hot. The whole sexy librarian thing really does it for me though. But Palin is the point. She is a tea party leader and she supported McCain. In other news I heard about a shit ton of democrats crossing the line to vote for Miller in the primary against Murkowski (for whom I cast my vote) simply because he is by far the weaker candidate in the state race. Wouldn't it be awesome if Sarah Palins pick lost in her home state? I just hope Parnell can beat Burkowitz, that fucker wants to kill the goose that laid Alaska's golden egg. --Opcn (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan flood and Andy's idea of "order" again...

Could someone take a look at my addition to the "God designed new bacteria to clean up the oil spill (instead of simply preventing this or countless other oilspills in the past)"/"Pakistan flood was disorder" WIGO? I'm not certain that I parsed Andy's comment correctly or that I managed to pinpoint the whole WTH of it. Feel free to edit mercilessly if needed, I'm away moving around books and stuff. --Sid (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I've changed my mind about missing talking to Terry Koeckritz on Skype. He's a fucking asshole [9]:

“”Imagine what the damage would have been like if instead of wasting billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and maintaining them, and giving millions to the Taliban and terrorists, they had invested in their own people, invested in flood control projects!

Yes, God^TM destroyed homes and killed people in Pakistan because their politicians weren't good with cash. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You spoke to TK on Skype? Sick. Ace^X-102 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I liked talking to him. He was fun. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An even better example would have been the 2004 Tsunami, an entirely natural occurrence that people had no control over or could prevent. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

“”Imagine what the damage would have been like if instead of wasting billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and maintaining them, and giving millions to the Taliban and terrorists, they had invested in their own people, invested in flood control projects!

Remind me, who was behind the arming of the Taliban with Stinger missiles and who was in charge when Katrina did a bit of damage?82.23.208.15 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite example of God stepping in

My favorite example is that time when there was too much citrate in some erlenmeyer flasks, and God stepped in to make a species of E. coli to soak it all up before anyone could get hurt.--Opcn (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Excellent observation. But did anyone check the raw data? Someone's got to point this out to the Assfly!DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't flooding be more ordered? Since the water is in the flood, isn't that more ordered than it being spread out? Occasionaluse (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Massive flooding in a soft mud plain - hmm, I guess we can expect to see something like a mini Grand Canyon when it all drains away. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy and Ken's picture

Fantastic WIGO and fantastic demonstration on Ken's complete and utter powerlessness at CP. Ace^X-102 03:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ken is a fool, and the rest of CONservapedia knows it, they just don't want to say anything. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I really like how Andy's caption implies that it wasn't carved by flowing water.--Opcn (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially from the image, you can tell it was carved by a river system. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Ken planning a sabbatical of some sort? Hopefully he is going away for residential treatment, I wish him all the best. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think he's just responding to the things said yesterday here, or possibly being scolded by email. More likely the former, since he's now reasserting his control over the front page. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed his message about how he isn't going to muck up mainpageleft unless something happened in atheism/creationism/whatever. Like someone writing about Dawkins or shockofgod making a new video or stumbling across a new pic of a cat/clown on flickr.. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Obamageddon et al.

< begin rant >Okay, so this has probably been addressed a zillion times on RW, but allow me a newbie (somewhat) observation: repetition = death. They repeat Shepard Fairey Obama knock-offs sometimes 5 to a page. But witness Ken's recent mainright over-use of "quarrelsome" and the ever-present "Obamageddon". Is it too much to ask that they think in their own warped fundamentalist soundbites? Say what you will about the slag, but Phyllis never took cues from nobody... how far her progeny have fallen. I only read Conservapedia when I want to learn tea party/evangelical talking points; never for original intellectual thought. Which is why they need to quote others so much in their articles. < /rant > --Leotardo (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Chippeterson

OK, what's the deal with this guy? He flies under the radar and avoids being WIGOed since he never talks, just writes bios of conservative politicians and news stories. None of the other admins are anything like this. I've always figured that he's run by a secret RW cabal to get access to the admin group -- it's easy job to take turns with, since he really has no character to break, and it isn't much work. Other theories? --Benod (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

He's a legitimate editor who doesn't enjoy throwing his weight around for the heck of it? -- JArneal 00:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I refuse to believe CP has any of those anymore, and if there are they certainly aren't made admin -- that takes some brownnosing, look at FOIA. Chip's contributions don't look at all noteworthy. There must be more to the guy. Or maybe I just missed his early days. --Benod (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Kinda sad, actually. He's apparently a sane conservative who's continuing with the loons at CP. He could probably find a lot better forum. Assuming he's not a secret RW plant. MDB (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Chippeterson account is my sock of my JacobB account. Please don't write about him any more, many of the CP admins read this page. (Can a 'crat please memory-hole this section?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, you were JacobB? Some people may be surprised by this. Ace^X-102 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean the people who are running him? Not all of us kept the login secret, sorry. ħuman 04:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I am, especially since JacobB is sill on CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But they haven't given me my rights back yet. 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh when will they give our rights back! Ace^X-102 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"What do we want?" "SYSOP RIGHTS!" "When do we want them?" "NAO!!" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd settle for being unblocked and upload rights. But I am tame by CP standards. ħuman 03:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)