Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive196

This is an archive page, last updated 3 April 2012. 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>, <195>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Andy becoming like Ken?

Andy's weird pronouncements on the mainpage left^img are starting to sound like Ken's bizarre, repetitive rantings on atheists. I expect flying animals on the mainpage any day now.

Atheists apparently:

• pretend you're smarter than you really are - Oh the irony of this statement, the irony! No need to go on, just looking up "Conservapedia" combined with "Relativity" or "Lenski" is enough.
• increasingly self-centered - The irony of this from the man who treats the "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" like his personal kingdom.
• lash out in bizarre ways, e.g. (like Dawkins) demand that the Pope be arrested - Lashing out, or trying to make a point through a publicity stunt by drawing attention to sexual abuse in the Catholic church?
• refuse to give the Bible equal time - Equal time in regards to what? Internet? Sex? Work? Sleep? The Qu'ran?

--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with you, especially with the last one since I asked myself the exact same question when I first read that. And "lash out in bizarre ways": cp:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty? and (since Dawkins was mentioned) cp:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? should nicely add to the irony/hypocrisy theme you started off there. --Sid (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Or the irony of continually saying atheists are "quarrelsome" in the same breath that you are goading one to debate you. --Leotardo (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy really has no sense of irony when he writes stuff like this, or this? I mean, this is the man who pontificates on everything from relativity to breast cancer, via Hollywood and micro-organisms; who enjoys absolute power (indeed as prove by sayings such as "you will return under Schlafly's pleasure" and "only Andy's trust is important to me"; and who thinks God made a mistake when he dictated the Bible, because God hadn't thought of the right conservative words. Seriously, for all CP's talk about the cult of personality, I think they should start looking closer to home. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Now cut to three reasons^img, "lashing out" no longer considered an atheist trait. Additional update, atheists no longer pretend they are smarter then they really are, they just think that other atheists are smart^img. I am beginning to wonder if he is reading this.. Hi Andy! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Terry Koeckritz - your trolling is getting more transparent

I see you blocked Amccloud for Deliberate insertion of false information^img for daring to say that Canberra experiences tornados. Well, imagine what a 30-second Google search produced? Now, will you restore the editor and apologise, or are you too busy masturbating over your block log? --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Next he'll be saying that we don't have tornadoes in the UK. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just about anywhere it would seem. Come on Terry, show your ma-CHEESE-mo; admit that you made a mistake. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a few screen shots the other day detailing TK's dishonesty. Alas they are on my work server and I am watching Ancient Aliens on TV. Ace^X-102 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That show sucked dick. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is still one of my fave bits of TK being a dishonest cunt - changing the conditions of a block, then accusing Justine of undoing his block. The man is incapable of telling the truth - even when it comes to his age. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I sway betwean really disliking TK and fealing sorry for him. I think on balance I feal more pity than anything - the man needs help. But then so does Ken and half the others at CP. StarFish (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you probably haven't read this. Can't feel sorry for someone so bloody evil. 15:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. The man embodies all that is bad about on-line communities. And I hope I'm there the day he gets his come-uppance. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Y'know I've never been quite sure what is going on with TK. There are tales from people who have been here longer than me that seem to indicate that TK was once a member here? Or something? And that shit went down and now he's not, and people dislike him, and all that jazz... but seriously, even I, in my ignorance of the full history, have come to the conclusion that TK isn't worth following. Can we please just stop talking about him? It's obvious that his entire purpose at CP nowadays is simply to be an asshole and get our attention. He follows the WIGO and the talkpage and leaves little messages and nods and winks to let us know he's doing it, and he's been doing it for ages. When he's not doing that, he's just being an asshole. Not an entertaining asshole, just an asshole, and a predictable one at that. It's not shocking, or surprising, or even interesting when he says something nasty, or controversial, or stupid, because we know he's faking it just to get attention; he's not like Ken, who seems (somewhat) amusingly unbalanced, or like Andy who is amusing simply because he's so arrogant in his beliefs and attitude, he's just a douche who walks in to your room and slaps his dick on the wall because he knows you'll tell him to stop. At first it's shocking and annoying, then it gets tiresome, and then it gets so boring that you stop paying attention. That's where we are now, surely? X Stickman (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Call it morbid fascination. He's already screwed Andy over once, then made him believe he did it for CP's good, so Andy let him back in and he's doing exactly the same all over again. In some ways it's a kind of game, we keep poking him with a pointy stick, egging him on to more excesses each time he gets away with his latest trolling. Meantime, he's constantly making people aware of the "vandal site," as well as apparently still leaking the inner sanctum's secrets. Meanwhile, we're just waiting for him to join Douglas and Jacob and take his mask off. --PsyGremlinParlez! 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nutty Roux slaps his dick on my face, but that's because he likes it. SJ ^Debaser 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's at times like this that I love Twitter :) --PsyGremlinSprich! 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Onion is appropriate. http://www.theonion.com/articles/marilyn-manson-now-going-doortodoor-trying-to-shoc,459/

Hi TK!^img Still shows that you block first and never ask questions after, however. --PsyGremlinTala! 21:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way that TK could call this person a vandal site member. User:Amcloud is known to me personally and his ip and account have never been associated with RW or vandalism. TK = liar. I'll upload those other screen shots on Monday where in TK lies publically. Ace^X-102 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TK is such a fucking moron it's painful to think about it. That isn't vandalism. It's an editor making a mistake, if you can even call it a mistake, which HAPPENS. Saboteur my ass. That's some sabotage he's doing, TK. I HATE YOU. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aschlafly set the precedent a few months ago. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Christian Humor

While reading the CP Bible article [1] I noticed there was a section titled 'Humor in the Bible.' This section only mentions humor in the Old Testament, and has a link to humor in the Bible [2]. It looks as if CP contradicts Andy again, Pre-Christian humor did exist prior to Jesus. Mr. Swift (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, Freudian

TK reaches out^img with his usual tact and wit. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 06:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Boring. ħuman 08:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, Hughmun. 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not seein' it either, and anything by TK is boring by definition. --Kels (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides calling Bert Brent, I'm also not sure what else there is? --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Read it four more times. Apparently joke too deep for my brains. ħuman 04:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a joke. Burt Schlossberg has been editing Conservapedia since December 2007. You'd think everyone would be able to get his name right, especially in the context of the single issue this monomaniacal editor as been fixated on for many years. But TK is above no petty unpleasantry. Because he's a douchebag. 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I'm with you. Yes, just like Terry to show utter disdain for who must be CP's longest surviving non-sysop. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess I see that. Also, Bert's name is spelled out in his sig. I guess I am so used to seeing my name misspelled, even by people who know me fairly well, that I just don't impute any malice to it. But, yeah, this was intentionally rude of him. ħuman 19:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wandalism WIGO

If only we had some sort of large, bold banner at the top to advise people to not WIGO vandalism. If only… – Nick Heer 02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but this guy totally did the most epic vandalism of all time so we need to make an exception for him because he is so clever because nobody has ever thought of using a bot to vandalise a wiki before. </sarcasm> - π 02:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It was almost as entertaining as when I would sit in a chair and stare at a wall. Those were craaazy times. Kallium^talk 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, but I take it you guys really hate it when people replace articles with PENIS PENIS PENIS using bots. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you questioning the inertness of the balls!? ಠ_ಠ (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One funny to come out of all this is while Andy, TK and Karajou frantically revert the wandals, Ken is running around, filling up Andy's talk-page with more^img spam.^img Just goes to show that outside of his obsessions he doesn't give a shit about CP. --PsyGremlinTala! 09:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What Π said. Boring wandalbot is tiresome. Kid should get a life. mb 09:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One positive thing is that it keeps Andy busy so that he doesn't have time to talk about how geologists don't build hospitals Senator Harrison (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the script-kiddies get a chance to tear their lips away from the barrel of a loaded gun for a few hours... and insert some gag about parent's basements while you're at it, the material is there, just assume it's witty. I can't be arsed to give it enough thought. ^postate 17:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, please explain your idea of NPOV again...

• Ed: "We do follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of 'describing all viewpoints fairly'."^img
• Ken: "[...] the atheism article grinds up atheism into a fine pulp for those who honestly read it (I do have a few other additions planned for the atheism and evolution articles though as I like to grind up the opposing ideology exceedingly fine in an article :) )"^img

Yep, a single editor completely controlling the articles on homosexuality, atheism and evolution with the stated goal of grinding opposing ideologies into a pulp indeed sounds like "describing all viewpoints fairly"! --Sid (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait... you're expecting consistency... or even an answer that isn't a totally unrelated quote-mine from User188? You have high aspirations from Uncle Bad-touch. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I have noticed from the link above that Ken is again spamming Andy's talk page (and the main talk page), once again being publicly ignored. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's such a wonderfully dysfunctional relationship: Andy lets Ken turn CP's 3 main articles and the mainpage into a steaming pile of shit, because he believes it brings page views and Google ranks; Ken is happy to use CP as the outlet medium for his seeming ever-increasing insanity. Outside of that, Andy ignores everything Ken says and Ken couldn't give a stuff about the day-to-day running of CP. Then again, neither do any of the others. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition please

I'd love to know what Ken means by "if you improve the left side of the main page".^img Judging by past experiences I'm guessing squadrons of flying cats, a matador and a cute dog, would probably suffice. Lol, "any word of mouth advertising" - trust me Ken, any woming that's going on, is hardly painting CP in a favourable light. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

More likely he has a new deal with Shock, if Ken can post Shock's annoying videos on CP's main page, Shock will openly and regularly promote the site on his videos and radio show. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've figured it out

I know why Ken is creating all these stupid essays. He knows they're stupid. As such, anyone who ever encounters one will instantly head for the talk page, keyboard at ready to type a scathing review. But what's this? The talk page redirects to cp:Atheism. The pageview count goes up. The Atheism entry, Conservapedia's flagship article, climbs the ranks of the internet search engines. Patrons flock to the article in their thousands, converting to Christianity instantly. Atheism on the internet draws to a close. As atheism draws its final breath and releases it in a last, dying gasp, Ken rides his faithful bull to the top of a pile of clown corpses, surveys the vanquished ruins with Richard Dawkin's skull held under his arm, and then turns and rides off into the sunset. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That would help the article climb the ranks of the internet search engines how? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two possibilities at work here in regards to what Ken might believe. One theory is that interwiki links to the main articles increase their optimization. The other is that a redirect increases the CP mediawiki pageview count for the target article not the page with the redirect. Is either true? 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Intrawiki links are followed, but I don't think an internal link does anything optimization-wise. I don't know if pageviews are in google's black box, but I doubt it. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how Ken's crap is creeping up the main page? The Assfly is so spineless that Ken is literally staging a takeover of CP. I'd say it's the lunatics taking over the asylum, but this particular asylum was built by the lunatics. Also, I love the Richard Dawkins debate challenge. It isn't Ken challenging him to a debate, it's "Conservapedia." Alas, it'd never happen, but I'd love to see Dawkins call his bluff and actually accept. Ken'd shit himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretending as he does that nobody knows who he actually is, he'd have to be keep being the sniveling shit he is and cowardly tuck and run. Little bitch. 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nobody knows who you are. ..." 14:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins should accept the debate challenge with Conservapedia, but only if the debate is done in a Best of the Public chess-match style. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken having plunged headlong into even the even rarer than usual waters of lately being incapable of mounting anything but an ad hominem attack lately, what with the autism and Aspergers insults, the debate would have to be moderated by someone sane and stern. 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they should do it with ma-CHEESE-mo, Andy & Ken vs. Dawkins and PZ, no holds barred wrestling. First to three falls wins. 'Stone Cold' can be the ref. (That way Ken can wear one of those funny Mexican masks and we still won't know what he looks like) --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clinton should demand that Ken puts up a significant cash deposit like Andy did with AmesG, so that he soesn't waste his valuable time. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, seems that the Richard Dawkins project is definitely dead--Tlaloc (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can give it a funeral and bury it next to all the other dead half-done CP projects: The anti-abortion project, the anti-socialism project, the Conservative Bible Project... --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Foolish atheists! Can't you see that in regard to atheism on the internet, as well as Senor Dawkins' ability in regard to proof that atheism is true, they have been smashed by the combined forces in regard to multiple squadrons of the transitional flying animal the flying kitty as well as in regard to the derision of many Hispanic and Asian women and roller-pin-wielding mothers. In this regard, atheism is dead on the internet. I will now launch operation Lolicon-desu in my attempt to conquoer the Asian ladies and a sweet voiced Korean lady for myself. ole! Ole! Ole! Love and huggles, Kenny-baby.

The idea of lolicon and CP together I think would puncture a hole in the fabric of reality. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

...or Ed's trousers. (I feel so dirty for having said that) --Kels (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken: "Gentlemen, my work is done here!" ħuman 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RobS backs away slowly, keeping his hands in plain sight. (BTW, have you noticed how shy kendoll has been about spamming the Assfly's page since he let his pleasure be known? A little discipline pays off, dude. Keep that nutter in line.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic Human & Jeeves! Those two links taken together with both your comments genuinly made me laugh out loud and is funnier than any WIGO I've seen for a long time. A genuine coffee out of nose moment. StarFish (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll spam the wigo page with it. It, um, didn't occur to me to put a link to what was going on at CP on the page "what is going on at CP". I must be losing it. ħuman 04:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would assume "The only thing I ask is try not to be too politically correct on the left side of the main page." translates as "DON'T YOU F*CKERS TOUCH MY SHIT! I'LL CUT YOU!!" --Kels (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jpratt, Karajou, Joaquín, RobS and TK but no Andy (nor Ed). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"[I may] mention any big happenings in the atheism/Christianity/evolutionism/creation arena" = "I reserve the right to completely own the main page whenever it pleases me." --Sid (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken's work in regards to the left side of the main page has been sterling, but regarding the left side of the main page, he will be editing the left side of the main page less now. Unless, of course, the left side of the main page needs work, in which case Ken may step in to add to the left side of the main page. The left side of the main page is an important part of the battle against everyone who is wrong, but left main page should not be left unattended for long. In regards to the left side of the main page, Ken will be keeping an eye out for left main page, but others can contribute in regards to the left side of main page. Dear God, how I wish he would "Gentlemen!" us again. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 09:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote that one up purely on grounds of humor. ħuman 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that in typical Ken fashion, the hideous buttons he was spamming everyone's talk page with are gone. Luckily I kept some screen shot whilst RW was in for repairs.

He keeps going on and on about this. If this is due to Andy telling Ken to stay away from the Main Page, he made a huge mistake, because Ken will just spam his talk page with instructions and suggestions instead. Röstigraben (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the weird things about Ken's style of writing is that, apart completely from the endless repetition of his given pet-phrase-of-the-moment ("In regards to", "regarding", "machismo", "left side of main page" etc), there's something eerie about his writing which makes you feel like your head is stuck in a Groundhog Day loop - he's the WORST writer over there. He could make instructions to heat up a can of baked beans impenetrable ("Take the can, then take the can, now in regards to the can, take it, and heat it, and regarding heating it, do so until it is fully heated. Then heat the can. In an oven. Or pan. After heating the can, check the can for heatedness. Eat the can, if it's fully heated, but not the can-the inside part, the beans. Gentlemen! I have increased the heat of the can!"). I mean you get to the end of a paragraph and you feel like you've read about <s.>ten five words repeated over and over, no matter what he's written. An eejit of quite spectacular proportions, and I love him for it. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably due to his SEO schemes. Hey, maybe we're the #1 result for "heating cans" on a search engine starting with G now! Röstigraben (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh thats exactly his intention, and that's what leads to such moronic writing. He still believes that endlessly repeating a phrase or word group will have the entire internet flocking to his shit drivel in lemming-like hordes. Numpty. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually hope there is some discussion going on in the ZB group, because otherwise Ken is starting to look a bit demented. He's now made 21 edits on Andy's talk page without reply. Feel ignored much? Worm^{(t | c)} 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Grand canyon

No less than the Assfly states on MPL that Liberals claim that the river at the bottom carved the entire Grand Canyon. Erm, aside from the what the fuck does someone's politics have to do with geological history, isn't it cretinists who claim that the canyon was formed by a river during some big flood? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems use 'liberal' to mean anyone who disagrees with him. It's annoying when he does it while talking about politics, but absolutely hilarious when the topic is science or math. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My favourite part of it is where he tells people to look at the shape of it. Because, apparently, a river at the bottom with receding sides and clear indications of water wear is just too convenient. – Nick Heer 20:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait.. I have to know, how does Andy think the Grand Canyon formed? It was always "just there"? I need to hear this because I bet his ideas on geology are as hilarious as his ideas on evolution, physics, and astronomy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was caused by worldwide flooding which no one credibly denies occurred. Ace^X-102 21:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Was it not creatd for beauty, like the autumnal foliage? (FrefulPorpentine)

Creation science has already shown that the Great Flood also affected Mars. Read a book! - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While I like the fact they admit that there was once (and still likely) water on Mars, the idea that it was recently flooded is pretty hilarious. Sadly they didn't say what happened to all the supposed flood water, let alone where it all came from on a planet with an atmosphere and geology that clearly could not sustain surface water for any real period of time. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I look at a canyon with multiple meandering hairpin turns over hundreds of miles, I think sudden and cataclysmic torrents of water. You know, as proven by the identical "little Grand Canyon" observed to suddenly form in the Mt. St. Helens eruption _{oh, wait...} Kallium^talk 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing the massive canyon in the wake of the Pakistan floods. Ace^X-102 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Déjà vu?. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the real key to its formation wasn't just the many layers of sedimentary rock and the presence of a river, but the fact that the Kaibab Plateau was being slowly lifted, forcing the river to keep cutting deeper and deeper. ħuman 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Kent "so-called-modern-uniformitarian-geology-has-absolutely-no-possible-explanation-for-why-the-Canyon-is-a-big-dome-because-water-flows-downhill" Hovind says otherwise. Sometimes it's the simplest insights that say the most. Kallium^talk 11:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact most of the usual YEC arguments for Canyon formation are analogous to saying "science can't explain why extreme winds cause windows to blow out, because winds push on things". Kallium^talk 11:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just another of the many, many ways in which the qualified engineer fails at... well basically everything. I'm expecting a "if believing a river caused the Grand Canyon causes you to read the Bible less, would you still believe that a river caused the Grand Canyon?" any day now. I'm starting to wonder if Andy isn't just making stupid comments for our benefit, as we really are the last bastion of people who actually react to what he says. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It always seesm that the YECs can't look further than their own back yard for evidence and even then don't know how to interpret it. Although there are copious amounts of softish sedimentary rocks the lowest V-shaped part of the canyon is actually hard, folded metamorphic schists & gneisses. The soft stuff would have eroded quite easily by river action until it reached the disconformity and the meanders would have progressed along the valley bottom to give it more of a U-shape. Once the river started cutting through the metamorphics then erosion is caused by abrasion from rocks carried along by the water, this tends to cut downwards quicker than eating into the walls. But hey, they claim that all these rocks were also laid down by the same flood in the first place so would be incredibly soft. When the hypothetical waters retreated you wouldn't have just one canyon you would have had scores of them in the same area. In fact a global flood draining away would be much more akin to a retreating tide where you get lots of flat shallow channels. In fact there are other very deep canyons, the Copper Canyon in Mexico is in fact deeper in parts than the Grand Canyon but looks nothing like it. A few years ago in Libya seismic imaging discovered an enormous ancient canyon that was itself buried under several thousand metres of sediment. Another point is that one upper layers of the Grand Canyon is actually fossilised wind-blown sand dunes which could not have been laid down by a flood - unless there was also a second one? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a few strata that were that way, such that in places there are alternating layers of wind-blown and water-borne sediment. The usual YEC explanation for that is that the waters receded and reflooded several times like gigantic tidal action... of course we're talking repeated continent-scale flooding over a period of a few days or even hours, leaving no time whatsoever for differential sedimentation and consolidation, but let's just ignore that formation of such ordered and defined strata is physically impossible under catastrophic flooding. I'm always amazed how the same people who think that backyard experiments (noticed the above after typing that) can prove a young age for the Canyon don't use their own approach for sedimentation: mix different types of sand with some water, shake, and let settle. Guess what? It's all mixed up. As an nifty aside, in places you can also see ancient filled river channels cut into the rock, well above and sometimes perpendicular to the current river. Kallium^talk 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's done any geology cannot help but realise that immense time scales are involved so it always beggars belief when you see a graduate geologist who espouses a young-Earth creationist viewpoint. Coal measures often have dozens of repeated cycles which show that they were not deposited in a single event, conglomerates contain pebbles and boulders of earlier strata, salt layers - which are formed by evaporation not sedimentation - are thousands of feet thick and beneath other rocks so could not have been left behind by evaporating floodwaters, etc., etc. The evidence is overwhelming. So why they can't they say "we don't believe in an old Earth, God just made it the way it is" rather than dishonestly massaging science to prove that it's all the result of a global flood? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't one of the CP sysops (DeanS) have a hobby of rock, or fossil, collecting and yet would still defend YEC to the death? Talk about cognitive dissonance. --PsyGremlinPrata! 19:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Dean he just collected pretty mineral crystals, I don't think he knew anything about geology. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone who's done any geology..." That's just it. If you don't go out and actually look at what happens, and consider cold hard empirical data, you'll have no problem invoking unusually rapid evaporation in the formation of massive salt beds, or believing that there's no reason continental drift couldn't have happened in a few days (despite that it would have liquefied the entire crust and boiled off the oceans). It's the same as the c problem, really. Funny how exceptionalism can explain anything. Funnier still how everything is independently exceptional in ways that are congruent with each other and give the appearance of an old Earth in every single case. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a fetal cow. This coming from the same highly qualified folks who say mainstream geology/evolution isn't scientific. Or that YEC is mainstream geology. Kallium^talk 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair once upon a time science was stuck with a young Earth too, and although geologists grumbled you really did not see the comprehensive opposition they put up against YEC today. A geologist would come back from a field study of what were clearly billion year old rock strata, and go to a debate in which Kelvin supporters explained that sure, the rocks look old, but the planet would be frozen if it were more than a few hundred million years old. The biologists could sort of squint and have evolution work with that period (although not if someone was enthusiastic and demanded just a few million years instead of hundreds of millions), but the geologists were really stuffed. Nuclear fission saved the day by allowing for the planet to be both old and warm. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are conflating "young Earth" with "not as old as we now think". Surely the early geologists were only fighting against 6000 years, the concept of many millions of years let alone billions only developed as the data piled up. But changing of theories to match the data/facts is what science does, unlike YEC who tend to try and change the data (rate of radioactive decay, speed of light) to match the theory.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Quantifying pro-life

I think this is the engineering side of Andy rearing its head - he isn't happy with just saying that someone is or isn't pro-life, he needs it quantified so that he has a number to (ab)use when he talks about them. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but like most AndyQuantifications™ I'm sure it'll end up being an overly simplistic, rationalized mess. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the smell of Andy on the Weekend... it smells like... Victory! ħuman 01:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And tequila. – Nick Heer 04:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is actually the most quantifiable thing that andy has ever tried to quantify. --Opcn (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not when you have to make special provisions for say, the death penalty.

"Pro-life" is positive, while "anti-abortion" is negative, so it sounds better. Except it is only used in reference to anti-abortion because they are also pro-war and pro-capital punishment (and often anti-public-health-regulation under the excuse of preserving individual freedom or private interests). There are reasonable arguments for and against all of those positions, but the pretentiousness of using the term "pro-life" in such a blatantly narrow manner simply to make oneself feel (and possibly appear) more goodly and godly, especially while holding conflicting viewpoints in related areas, annoys me to no end. As Andy would say, it's DECEIT!!! Kallium^talk 04:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy would never say that, not about a conservative anyways. --Opcn (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not like 'pro-choice' is any less spin. I wish people would use pro- and anti- abortion, but... 68.147.139.21 (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if Andy makes 'adopting unwanted children' a criterion, because that's one thing pro-lifers are very good at not doing (generally speaking). Given that Andy's idea of helping the poor is praying for them, one can't wait to see what he does. Oh yes, and I'm sure Nicolae Ceausescu must score close to 100% in Andy's scale - after all, he did outlaw abortion in Romania. --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pro-life and pro-choice aren't at all equivalent. As Kallium says, pro-life is downright deceitful, while pro-choice is the term used by liberals who typically are pro-choice in other areas as well. Pro-life means something like "keep those unwanted babies alive so we can turn them into soldiers to go kill people for Jesus". Actually, the truth is almost the opposite of what BoN claims: many pro-choice people are anti-abortion ("abortion should be safe, legal, and rare") but they just insist that the woman has the right to choose. In other words, they are, plain and simple, pro-choice. (And, if they oppose unnecessary wars, capital punishment, etc., they are also pro-life.) Fawlty (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Have to say that sort of sums me up as well. If a girlfriend was to come to me and tell me she was pregnant I would not want her to have an abortion. But if she, or any female friend, were to decide to have one I wold support them in any possible way I could. It's their body and it's their choice, even if it is one I tend to have some minor moral problems with myself. i also oppose unecessary killing for any reason and I also oppose capital punishment. TBH a part of me struggles to reconcile my views but that's what they are. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, "pro-abortion" would be a total misnomer. I've never heard of pro-choice activists picketing prenatal care centers, trying to bully the would-be mothers into performing abortions. Röstigraben (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important that "every baby is a wanted baby". Any surgical intervention has a risk (including childbirth). Nobody in their right mind would use abortion as a routine method of birth-control, it is usually required as the result of a failure or the non-use of other methods of contraception. The sadness of many abortions is actually the ignorance of the young women who have them, they have never been told about contraception or have been fed myths. Perversely it is often the same people that protest against abortions who are also against proper sex education and access to contraceptives and prophylatics.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course that's the plan. I always viewed it as a, "God says you're not allowed to fuck, therefor, fucking must result in a child. Take that." Isn't that the point? Let the church control your sexuality, and somehow that will make you go to heaven? And besides, if we just have sex for fun, well.. Not everyone gets to do that. So stop it. *shrug* Besides, the "pro-life" thing always seems to bring about special pleading.. "Well, little Becky needs an abortion, but we're different, as Becky isn't a whore like all those other women!" Yeah, I'm sure.. Damn moral high ground. Will get you every time. Well, as long as you're not even playing on the same hill. Quaru^{vomit - You can't explain that!} 13:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There actually are people who could be classified as "pro-abortion" and would be a reasonable choice of opposite number for an anti-abortion "pro-life" protester. They believe there are too many people and that creating more is inherently a bad plan. But unlike most people who think that, they see abortion as a solution, get 1-in-10 otherwise full term pregnancies aborted and you fix the population issue. Of course this puts them in the same moral place as the anti-abortion group, authorising the government to intervene in a woman's medical decisions. "You must have an abortion" is exactly as anti-choice as "You must not have an abortion".

Anyway, along with "adopting unwanted children" the other thing to look for from someone who actually thinks "all (human) life is sacred" is heavy investment into research preventing spontaneous abortion (a superset of what's colloquially called a "miscarriage"). If a spontaneous abortion is morally equivalent to a toddler killed in an accident then preventing spontaneous abortions would be a high priority, despite the knock-on effect if you succeeded (population explosion). Anyone who puts more money or effort into trying to shut down abortion clinics than trying to ensure every zygote results in a live human baby is absolutely anti-abortion not "pro-life". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are that militant and authoritarian about population control then abortion is not the best way to go about it. Enforced sterilisation is ultimately more efective.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One thing, though - according to that page, Jesus would have a score of 100%. However, I was under the impression that the whole point of Jesus, according to the Christian fable, was that he was a physical incarnation of God sent to Earth to, in essence, cause his own death in order to wash away our sins. Does this mean that suicide, or, at least, assisted suicide, is 'pro-life'? 92.21.239.115 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lily made a crucial point above. A lot of abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies that could have been avoided if there had been proper sex education. Yet many of the so-called "pro-life" advocates are strongly opposed to sex education. I've heard some of them say, in effect, that sex education increases promiscuity, while the only acceptable disincentive to sex is to tell young people that it's a sin. And if the result is an unwanted pregnancy, or AIDS, well that's just them getting the punishment they deserve for sin. I know that plenty of people who want to ban abortion don't hold that extreme view; many people honestly believe that abortion is murder. But surely they *must* then support measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies: they *must* support sex education, AIDs education, explaining the benefits of condoms, and all the rest. I have nothing but contempt for those who say "abortion is murder, sex education supports sin, pregnancy and AIDS are punishments for sin". These people are evil. And I think Aschlafly is one of them. Fawlty (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If Andy's daughter accidentally gets pregnant while still in college and unmarried I wager Andy will momentarily "look the other way" if she elects to get an abortion. After all for the pro-life crowd The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" discussed above is one that I think is lost among the tendency for issues to become polarized and dichotomized. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they don't have personal moral reservations about abortion; it just means they respect that it's an individual's decision that doesn't affect them. It's not like second hand smoke or dumping of toxic waste, which affect many others in proximity. Until Andy starts claiming that simply being near someone who had an abortion increases your risk of cancer, that is. I bet you could find many nice anecdotes in which the male companion was diagnosed with cancer shortly after an abortion was performed, then apply some Schlafly statistics to "prove the obvious". Kallium^talk 16:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken - twice the fun in just one post!

This post^img by everybody's favorite SEO Master is really quite interesting.

The first angle is covered in the WIGO, but the (to me) much more interesting bit for discussion is his anti-war stance:

[...] and against frivolous wars that drain the US treasury and create unnecessary and harmful foreign entanglements. I say this because the fiscal policies of Bush/Obama have put this country in a financially precarious position. I do realize that some Conservapedians may not share my views on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars [...]

I think he brought up his views about the wars in TZB, but this is a rare (and maybe the first?) time he brought it up directly in Andy's face.

Remember, the last time people openly disagreed with a single aspect of The Truth (like gun control or the Obama article) without promptly rolling over when Andy declared them to be wrong, they were bullied by almost the entire Senior Sysop group until they resigned... --Sid (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Andy has a strong libertarian bent, and libertarians aren't sometimes anti-war. So Ken can stay. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yah think Andy's even reading all those turds Ken has dropped on his talk page? By the way, another really good one is six section above that one: "Why not have the right side of the main page be news events and then the left side of the main page concern itself with trends and things that are long lasting/eternal. You could throw in some art as well." Hmmm. ħuman 20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken's on thin ice here, not only is he criticising the wars, he's also questioning Dubya Bush's policies. This stopped clock syndrome could have nasty consequences for him! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Devils Tower

I see the Grand Canyon has now been replaced by a picture of Devils Tower which is apparently confusing atheists no end. (It appears to be a volcanic plug that has withstood the erosion of surrounding softer rocks but that's baseless according to CP's resident expert geologist, er, Andy Schlafly.) Wasn't the Devil's Tower one of Andy's debating points when he stalked Talk Origins? Their explanation is that it is a product of "intelligent design" - surely this is rather widening the remit? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design explains the rock well: it is a work of art worth seeing. Clearly the Lord is doing good work for the US Tourist Board.--AMassiveGay (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Devil's Tower was one of his obsessions in the usenet days. Just goes to show, creationists never get any new arguments no matter how wrong they are. Andrew Schlafly, celebrating his second decade of Being Wrong On The Internet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to NPS it's not a volcanic plug it's an intrusive remnant. My bad but I was only working from the picture. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus must be really pissed off that people call one of his artworks "Devil's Tower". Röstigraben (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy heavily quote mines a reference:

Both theories are baseless and absurd because there is no extrusive igneous activity in the area, and there is no evidence of volcanic activity in the area either. (original emphasis)

Completely ignoring the intrusive theory. Although the reference does say:

No evidence of extrusive igneous activity has been found in the surrounding area.

It continues with:

Missouri Buttes, about 4 miles to the northwest, and the Tower have the same composition so it is assumed that they were derived from a common magma; possibly the magma of a large intrusive body, such as a laccolith or sill.
In a well drilled about 1-1/2 miles southwest of Missouri Buttes, near the center of a structural dome, rock similar to the Tower and Missouri Buttes was encountered at about 1,400 feet below the base of Missouri Buttes. Inasumuch as the thickness of the sedimentary rocks in this area is normally much greater than this depth, the rock in the drill hole probably represents an intrusive body, rather than the Precambrian igneous rocks upon which the younger sedimentary rocks were deposited.

Once Andy sets his mind to a course he will not be deflected, no matter what the evidence. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sad things is, there is several pieces of evidence[3] that show it is a body of intrusive igneous rock. I doubt Il Duce even knows what that means. Still my favorite part of his stub article is that every geologist who theorizes about Devils Tower has to be an atheist. Are only atheists qualify to be geologists? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Devil's Tower is hardly a new thing for Andypants (with Roger backing him up). One would assume he'd been harping on this one since even before 2001. --Kels (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got to hand it to the man, it takes a certain special something, to keep bleating "I'm right! I'm right!" in the face of facts and reason all these years. But to go and create your own little fiefdom, so you can shout "I'm right!" from the sanctuary of its ramparts is going a little bit too far, no? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Then again, it does allow him to make ridiculous, unsupported statements like "Atheists cannot explain the flat top of Devils Tower, which would result from being submerged under a massive Great Flood."^img I also like the anti-science bias there - geologists don't see eye-to-eye with Andy's worldview, ergo they're atheists and geologists. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget they're GOD DAMN LIBERALS!!! Mr. Swift (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is just how Andy thinks the Devils Tower got there in the first place. It was just dumped from the sky by God? Even Ken's creationist links say it was caused by some sort of vulcanism, just that it happened much faster than "atheist" geologists say so. Once again Andy is being even more stupid than his YEC fellow travellers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy believes some Big Ass Flood carved that peak. what ISN'T explained though is WHY only that specific monument was left when eveything else was erodid by the aformentioned flood.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just the same old "Science (allegedly) can't explain "X" therefore God exists and the world is 10,000 years old.".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Except there are explanations,[[4]] he is just choosing to ignore them. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. If there is more than one theory, it means that liberals are wildly making stuff up because they can't accept that the Bible is right. If there is only one theory, it means that liberals are conspiring to force through their "consensus" because they can't accept that the Bible is right. --Sid (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this one^img to me? Clearly I'm not up on my flood biology. Wouldn't a Noachian chipmunk have to climb up the thing after the flood just like an atheist one? Or did they swim there before the floodwaters receded? Or the tower didn't flood? I don't get it. --MarkGall (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

...maybe Noah's Ark was actually some sort of Final Fantasy Airship or so? --Sid (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I love Andy's unitless little world.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He don't need no stinkin' units! This is the USofA, it's always going to be feet, so there's no need to differentiate from that darned pinko-liberal-European-socialistic-metric crap! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the animals on top of Devils Tower, I'd like to see Andy deal with the prey-dropping behavior of predatory avians. Also, how does a single population of chipmunks inbreed for thousands of years? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Clowns to the main page left, jokers to the right.

And I'm stuck in the middle with you oh baby stuck in the middle with you.... I'm too lazy to WIGO it but two things struck me. One Andy complains about the Devil's tower^img "which sits in a plain like a watch found on a beach^img". As I recall the problem wasn't that there was no suitable answer, but rather that there are too many suitable answers and no one is happy to leave it at "well it happened". Secondly Andy Blames the filthy immigrants for bedbugs^img, this of course ignores the facts of the story like a) the reason that Bedbugs nearly disappeared from the US is that we could afford chemicals to kill them and b) those chemicals stopped working and c) those chemicals would still work of bedbugs from foreigners and d) those chemicals do not work on our new bedbugs. Ergo our problem was not caused by foreigners Q.E.D. --Opcn (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy made a complete idiot out of himself at talk origins years ago over Devil's Tower. Search and ye shall find... at your own brainz' risk. ħuman 08:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I made this a subsection of the one above, since so much material is shared. ħuman 08:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of talk.Origins, check out CP's talk page^img on it. "Moving the Goalposts" is jargon (old version^img of the article). Now it's a British expression^img. Wait, did I just see someone moving the goalposts on "Moving the Goalposts"? MY BRAIN IS FULL OF FUCK. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"By magnetic sensors in their brains???"

It's posts like that^img that make following CP worthwhile. It's hilarious on every level and truly shows that Andy doesn't really think his ideas through once he picks his Magic Plotdevice of the day. The best part is that his answer implies that they'd need a homing sense to find Mount Doom Devils Tower (and I'm not even asking why God would guide them to such a remote location...). Because that thing is so hard to miss, I guess. Or because liberal Google Maps mislabeled their landmarks again to mislead the Conservative Chipmunk Rally... --Sid (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me you simply don't understand. By "magnetic sensors", he actually means magnets, and is implying the top of Devils Tower is a magnet. I just got the mental image of thousands of chipmunks flying from the ground to the top of Devils Tower guided by the top of their heads. – Nick Heer 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pshaw. It's clear that he meant to type "non-relativistic GPS", but his finger slipped. All this nonsense over a simple typo. --Kels (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has Andy been sounding more and more crazy lately, than usual? I mean with his "atheists IQ = 0/60" and checklists for atheism and now flying chip munks (but no fish friar?). I wonder if it's a symptom of the complete lack of debate on CP these days? Back in the days when you could still say, "erm... Andy..." there's a chance he could have thought at least once before posting something. Now with TK smiting any dissenting voices, Andy's being allowed to ratchet up his crazy, unhindered. How long before he buys some land in a remote Montana corner and builds a compound? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he's always been this weird. "Wikipedia is six times as liberal as the US public!" ħuman 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By jove, he's said something sensible

But probably doesn't mean it. It's the first time I've heard a cretinist say that "proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right." So the Arsefly agrees that every time a bible-thumper says "Ha, evolution/geology/the big bang/atheism(!)/science can't explain _______, therefore my particular creation myth is true!" it's a pile of shite? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"I have an open mind about possible explanations" = "I don't have any basis whatsoever for my barmy assertions, I'm just a fucking lunatic". DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 11:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He's BAAAACK!

I, for one, welcome Hitler back to CP's front page after a long absence. Glad to see Ken returning to his roots. Here's hoping he'll combine the MOAR HITLER of old with his new picture "essays", that would be awesome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting with baited breath for Atheism is Hitler and doesn't even know it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget Flying Kitty... I want to see Flying Kitty giving the Nazi salute in mid-air. --Composure1 (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In resurrecting Hitler, Ken swept aside Andy's Devils Tower picture. Only the truly chosen can mess with the master's handiwork.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He did it again! [5] ħuman 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's just what Andy wants on the cover of his family-friendly encyclopedia. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, right now CP's Main Page is graced by Death, Hitler, monkey Darwin, a fetus, a globalist bed bug, six fake Obama placards, Rev. Wright, the burning WTC, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman and some Arizona slogan. The only way it could turn into an even bigger trainwreck would be if Ken really starts uploading videos to it. And maybe had his clown music playing in the background for good measure. Röstigraben (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs moar clownz!!! ħuman 00:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Vulnerable to teh atheism

I assume if you're in one of those groups that is highly at risk of contractive atheism, you should get vaccinated against it. This vaccine would be available free to anyone who needs it, but that would be Communism, so you'll have to pay for it yourself. However, since vaccines cause autism, and we know from some recent CP blog posts that atheists are all clearly autistic, the vaccine cannot do you any good! Therefore, you're fucked either way, and going to catch atheism. The only solution will be to wash your hands thoroughly after touching others, going to the toilet and reading Skeptical Inquirer. ^postate 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you may be "vulnerable" to atheism but you are not yet an atheist. So are you still a Christian?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See Bellisario's Maxim. ^postate 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't believe in hand washing. --Opcn (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Obamageddon Meter

Our meter seems to need calibration. It's supposed to count the number of adapted Shepard Fairey images that appear on mainpageright, isn't it? I count 6 (code orange), but the meter is up to code red. Am I missing something? DickTurpis (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Obamageddon is here! I think it's because CP is running shit, (I have had some problems connecting), so if the Obamageddon meter can't connect it gives a 'worst case scenario' - it's better to be over-prepared than under-prepared! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The count is also wrong though. I think maybe the API query I'm using isn't quite right. I'll look in to it later. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the sauce? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps manual updates would be best? I'm not sure how you get a program to recognize a faux Fairey over another type of file, especially since there seems to be so many variations. Surely it must be pretty easy to have an "=x" in there in which one can enter the current count for x and have the proper meter level spit back out? DickTurpis (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Barring doing something cooler and more complicated, we'd have to manually maintain a list of filenames for such photos. It's all downhill from there. They've got to be getting close to critical mass. I don't know how many other words they can put under it... "Muslim"... "Kenyan"..."Nigger"? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go manual. After all, we have plenty of people obsessively watching the page, adding an easy "update" button of some sort shouldn't be too hard, should it? ħuman 19:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If they were a little more diligent with their categorization, we could pull it off automatically. I think Human is right. If we have to go semi-manual, we might as well just do it manually. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You troglodytes. Seriously. One little bug in some crappy code and suddenly the best thing to do is chuck it away and do it by hand. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There. Fixed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Troglodytes? Fix your docs and maybe the community could have patched your pisswork. Troglodytes...some people!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Documentation is for the weak. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true for some values of documentation, but I still haven't a clue what this Obamageddon template does besides not work (still). Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's based on the number of adaptations of Shepard Fairey's iconic Obama image on MPR. Each one adds another colored box to the total. ħuman 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should WIGO this but....

....I can't think of any funny though. Ace^X-102 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the fact there is a checklist like an AA test. "If a loved one exhibits these symptoms, seek help immediately." Ace^X-102 04:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a doubly-quantified weekend! My favorite part: the redlinked category, "essay". ħuman 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Mr. Schlafly seems to be vulnerable to atheism, as I reckon a "yes" answer to the first three questions in his case. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to improve the WIGO a bit, though I couldn't come up with a brilliant way of phrasing it either. Also, on the essay, I really don't understand the first point. How would atheists make arguments just because it's best for them instead of others? Like, they just make the arguments so they don't have to go to hell? Also, it implies that it would be good if you were making an argument "because it would be good for others", but what kind of shitty argument would that even BE? Making arguments just because you like the implications is just a stupid thing to do. Also, it's the biggest argument for religion itself, so there's that. --GTac (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're honest, most votes don't go to funny, they go to snark. Anything which allows the reader to lord it over those idiots at the other site invariably gets large numbers of ++. Just stick a couple of ad hominems in there and you're away. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, speak for yourself. We get a lot of ad homs and they don't move me at all. I only vote for the really inane stuff and I'm sure that I'm not alone. Of course I can't speak for the kids.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's just ad homs, but there isn't really much actual comedy in most up-voted WIGOs. There's a lot of the lowest form of wit. Finding funny isn't a show-stopping requirement. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 10:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about.. The most up-voted WIGOs are pretty funny, I think that's why they got so many votes. And personally I hate snark, that's why I removed that line about the brains from the WIGO. Someone seems to have re-added it though, and doesn't seem worth it to start an edit war on something like this. --GTac (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I did that. Feel free to re-remove it if you think it's lame. ħuman 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a bit of fun, as a definite atheist, I decided to take this test. Here's my answers:

• 1. Do you frame arguments in terms of what is best for you, as opposed to others?

• • 1A: It really depends what's being argued about, but generally I frame arguments in terms of what's actually true, whether it's good, bad or indifferent for me or others.

• 2. Do you spend more time thinking about yourself than volunteering for others?

• • 2A: It depends exactly what you mean. If you're including ordinary, mundane things like thinking about what groceries I need this week, how much money I need to put aside to pay the bills, etc, etc as 'thinking about myself' then yes, I do think about myself much more than volunteering for others - and so does almost everybody else (except for those young enough, rich enough or living off their parents enough to be able to not bother with such things as full-time jobs or running their households). If you're not including such mundane things, then no, I don't.

• 3. Do you deny equal time to the Bible in your own readings and discussions?

• • 3A: I started to read it once, found it full of contradictory bullshit, so didn't bother finishing it, or ever picking it up again. However, that's my treatment of any badly written book, so I would say that no, I don't deny equal time to the Bible.

• 4. Do you oppose allowing classroom prayer even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray together?

• • 4A: Depends on context. If the entire class decided to have a brief prayer at the beginning of a lesson, I would see no problem with that, provided no-one was coerced or pressured into joining in. If, however, they decided to randomly stop to have a prayer session in the middle of the lesson, I would object to that for the simple reason that it's disrupting the class and their schoolwork.

• 5. Do you think atheists have achieved more intellectually than non-atheists?

• • 5A: Given that most people in the past have been non-atheists, I would have to say 'no'. Of course, the question of whether their religious beliefs have contributed, in any way, to those people's intellectual achievements is another question entirely - especially as religious institutions, in the past, have felt the need to punish people who have held beliefs that contradict their own, or presented evidence that seemed to contradict them.

Hmm, looking at those, I guess I'm not 'vulnerable to atheism', according to CP.

92.20.117.87 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, question 3 is obviously meant to be "Do you refuse to give equal time to Bible and your other learning activities" blah blah. Based on your answer, you'd answer yes: you're not using the Bible as much as the other sources of information. <sarcasm aimedat="Andy">As you can see, it's a very well-crafted and clearly phrased question, just what you can expect from an accomplished teacher who plans to make a revolutionary new online writing course to end all online writing courses.</sarcasm> --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory."

Who does Andy think he is, Thomas Kuhn? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading his opinions, it does sound like what ASchlafy is likely to assert. That makes me doubt Kuhn's opinions, as they sound sufficiently similar to a total crackpot. I know that doesn't mean they're wrong, but anything sufficiently similar to crackpottery deserves extreme scrutiny. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just because someone sounds like Andy (or is Andy), that doesn't mean they're wrong. As the saying goes: "the world's dumbest man may say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out." However, I personally am highly suspicious of Kuhn's description of the way science works.

Historical note: Kuhn basically split philosophy of science in half with his work; one camp (which we now know as the anti-science relativist-ish types) focuses on the history and sociology of science, and the other (the heirs of the logical positivists) focuses on the logic and philosophy behind the way science "ought to be" conducted. Kuhn himself did not endorse relativism, but his view of science was pretty much hijacked by relativists because of its lack of an objective standard for comparing scientific worldviews, which he called paradigms (hence the term paradigm shift). Damn, I need to get out more. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a difficult time dealing with Kuhn since he is always the first name thrown at me by wannabe social constructionist, and the word "paradigm" or "paradigm shift" is close to the top spot in my bullshit detector. tmtoulouse 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

According to what I've been reading/studying, Kuhn himself didn't subscribe to relativism or social constructionism, he just thought that the history of science showed that scientists don't always work in rational ways. As a result, his work became a postmodernist quote mine and the term "paradigm shift" became a postmodernist red flag. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which was roughly my point though badly stated. I actually have respect for some of Kuhn's ideas, and think that anyone interested in the philosophy of science needs to read them and understand them, as much as Popper and all the other deities of the field. But for me Kuhn's ideas are somewhat poisoned by their misuse in my daily life, it is hard to separate the two in my own mind. My failing, not Kuhn's. tmtoulouse 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. The one problem I have with Kuhn is the so-called incommensurability of paradigms, an idea that I think is pretty well refuted by the argument that paradigms cannot be incompatible (which they obviously have to be) and incommensurable. If I recall correctly, Kuhn later amended his view and said that scientists in different paradigms can "partially" communicate. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From my understand as Tetronian and tmtoulouse have suggested, is that there is some merit in examining the paradigms that scientists follow, and the changes that happen at times... and the entirety of anything rational in this argument was put forward by Kuhn, whose ideas were then yoinked and savagely raped by people like ASchlafy to suit their own goals. So much so that the niche ideas contained in the original discussion is presented as a huge gaping hole by those who wish to tear down science... now it makes sense why it has such a guilty association. This actually reminds me a lot of admitting that you're wrong to PJR... he'll just harp on that and never admit his own failures... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been unable to approach Kuhn with an open mind ever since the epic trainwreck that was the Social Text affair. I've never actually read a work of Kuhn's in anything even vaguely resembling its entirety; all I know are excerpts quoted by Aronowitz and some of the other cranks who were invoking him as some kind of patron saint at the time. I know this is guilt by association but life is short and I've got to filter on something. mb 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Kuhn is definitely worth reading, and as Trent and I said, he's no relativist. His work is very ambiguous, though, so it can be a bit hard to understand at times. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Kuhn had nothing to do with Sokal affair (assuming that's what you're referring to). TallMan (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He didn't participate personally, partly because he was already near-permanently delirious from the painkillers when the Social Text guys published their Science Wars issue, partly because he was dead and buried for most of the shitstorm that followed. The crazies cited him as having provided, together with Feyerabend, much of the basis for their positions, however. He figures prominently in chapter 4 of Intellectual Impostures. mb 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that pretty well illustrate Andy's need to dichotomize everything? Is he not assuming that new and old theories must be totally mutually exclusive? Why must one theory be trashed before possible alternative explanations can even be considered? Is this what actually happens in practice? At what level is something defined as a theory? At what point and level does something constitute a new theory? Cannot a new theory be contextual, covering specific phenomena that are not fully explained by broader existing ideas? Does Andy not realize that this happens all the time? Which of these questions are rhetorical? How long can I continue to write in questions only? Kallium^talk 21:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that one could go on talking in the form of an exasperated somewhat-rhetorical inquiry as long as Andy Schlafly has the will to type up his opinions on the internet. -- JArneal 22:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion re-affirms my belief that Andy's division of knowledge and even facts into "conservative" and "liberal" camps, and the resulting tortured quality of his re-defining of important words in debates purely for the sake of trying to win the argument, would not have been possible without Postmodernism (which, last I checked, CP still calls un-Christian, by the way). Junggai (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why conservapedia will never be taken seriously

Helvidius has obviously never read CP...

I think the image says it all. Ace^X-102 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. I would guess most conservatives (as in those who have a right-of-centre political stance, not the Assfly definition) would immediately dismiss CP as parody. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Load it and read it like six times now, still missing the point - I see some stupid, but where is the the point? ħuman 10:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it has to do with the whole "evolution contradicts conservative values" rant. In fact, Metamarcisf reads exactly like Andy on a good day. --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Metamarcisf is a poe. MDB (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Huw, Metamarcisf, in the lower comment, says that "evolution contradicts conservative values". Helvidius then replies that only a "liberal troll" would say something so stupid. The Arsefly says just that. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Housing stimulus "faulters"

Minor spelling mistake (faulters instead of falters), but it is in huge letters on mainpage left (the label on the third graph). By Andy's logic, if you make a spelling mistake, isn't your entire argument invalid? --Composure1 (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the primary rule: all of Andy's arguments are valid, regardless of the crap he gives other people to denigrate their argument. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There are misspellings and grammar errors all through what I would ascribe to RobS if I had to guess on the New Main Page Left (geddit?). ħuman 02:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't...explanation please? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New...Left... And I was correct, this is a RobS joynt. ħuman 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh...now I see. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken's new tactic

So, it would appear that since TK, apparently with Andy's blessing - altho we only have TK's word for that - has given Ken a dressing down behind the scenes, he's decided to shoehorn homosexuality into every article he can lay his hands on.^img Whee, I can't wait to read the homosexuality entry for cp:USS Nimitz. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How pathetic that all he can do is post quotes from other web sites, but then that is all he ever has done.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Whee, I can't wait to read the homosexuality entry for cp:USS Nimitz." I've seen movies that are... kind of about that. Linking to them would be inappropriate, though. MDB (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(GOD FUCKING DAMMIT, SINCE WHEN DO EDIT CONFLICTS EAT POSTS WHEN GOING BACK? THIRD ATTEMPT.) Assuming that TK really did slap him around, I find Ken's first target choice there quite amusing - quoting the LA Times: "Terry Koeckritz doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on topics such as Fox News." Hmmmmmm... ;) --Sid (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"spends hours writing articles" - did he ever?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Lil. Of course, in TK's world 'writing = copy/paste'. Of course, if Ken really wanted to go after TK, he'd be writing about "homosexuality and Marines". --PsyGremlin講話 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When's your blog post on that topic going to make its reappearance? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that TK gave Kenny a dressing down? DickTurpis (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a dressing down, it was a dressing gown. ħuman 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see that, psy? And what does that have to do with Ken's latest stroke of brilliance?--Centimeter_INCHES 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just surmising at what goes on behind the scenes. Andy isn't enough of a manager to actually keep Ken in line, and TK would leap at any opportunity to throw some imaginary weight around. In reality, it's more likely that Ken has written long, rambling e-mails to TZB, which everybody else has ignored. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 08:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I like to read this sentence with "stroke" primed towards a brain aneurysm: "And what does that have to do with Ken's latest stroke of brilliance?" It almost hints at a possible truthful reason of what is wrong with Ken. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In related news, {{kenruns}} tells me he's been at it for 13 hours now. I see he's creating "Conservative humour" sources now, which - my oh my - contains links to all his attempts at humour. Seriously, Karajou - bring back the weekly toon, at least you can draw. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That dead Castro

Well, we now have further evidence that Castro is not dead. Of course, even Castro waltzing in to Andy's homeschool class and introducing himself to a few dozen bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young'uns wouldn't convince Andy he's not really dead once he's decided he is. Still, gotta wonder how he'll react to further proof he's wrong. I mean, I might sympathize with Andy's delusion if there were any incentive at all for the Cuban government to pretend Castro were alive when he isn't, but it simply isn't the case. No one pretends he's still in charge, so there's no point in creating an illusion that he's alive when he isn't; in fact it could only undermine Raul's rule. Andy just doesn't make any sense. Oh well, we are talking about one of the greatest mental midgets of our age here. DickTurpis (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Still, gotta wonder how he'll react to further proof he's wrong." I expect he'll act the same way he always does, when more proof is presented. He deny it, and blather on more like a crazy retard. I want someone to tell him "Castro is obviously still alive, DENY IT AND LOSE ALL CREDITABILITY!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made a lot of oblique references to the Castro article being pure gold. 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My life's goal has been made: to invite Castro to come to America before he dies, march right up to Andy's doorstep, knock on his door, give Andy a great, big, Communist bear hug, and walk off. Just to see Andy's facial expression. Though at this point, I think Andy would invoke his right to bear arms. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You need bear arms to bear hug.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you folks would just open your mind, you would see the many reasons the Cuban government has to pretend Castro is still alive. Godspeed. Mr. Swift (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Every time I hear Andy say "Open your mind" I always think of Kuato from Total Recall...Ace^X-102 04:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What's so fun about this one is that it is completely unfalsifiable, which I have it on good authority that Andy is actually aware of. For some reason, he doesn't mind making a fool of himself. Castro has been sighted? Body double. DNA Confirms Castro alive? Faked. Dental records confirm? Forged. The only way this can be put to rest is when the Cuban government declares Castro dead, at which point Andy will tell us all how he's been right. That will also mark the beginning of my "Castro is still alive" conspiracy phase. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OU, you're forgetting one important thing: Andy is never, ever wrong. About anything. Especially bull shit statements he spews forth. Thus, Castro is dead and any attempts to say otherwise will be called liberal censorship, having a closed mind, discarding conservative reasoning as 'gossip' and eventually, "If believing Castro is still alive would cause less people to read the Bibbel, would you still believe that Castro is still alive?". --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me...

... or does today's xkcd sound like a conversation with the Assfly? MDB (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just you. mb 12:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe a little bit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like a great deal of people on the right and left, except for that last text bubble which sounds like something smart ass my friends would say. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it finally over?

I haven't been paying a ton of attention, but I think CP has been in nite moad almost entirely for the past three days. I can imagine Andy (somehow) convincing himself that closing off editing to the public is the best thing for CP. It would have to be great for them to hide in an echo chamber where no one can say anyone else is wrong. It'd also be a great final chapter in the CP saga: Refusing to cave into the pressures of reality, CP decided to go rouge and into isolation, where they would go on to chatter amongst themselves for years to come.. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's related to the massive vandalism bot influx that they've had to deal with. But it would be nice if it were over... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it isn't like they get any great benefit from allowing people to sign up. Nobody comes to CP to contribute to an encyclopedia any more. Hell, search the front page for the word "encyclopedia". That's how over it is. It's just a site where variously insane people can scrawl their ravings. A geocities for the crazy, stupid and evil. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia was an encyclopedia? --Onion ^Hi! :) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, it was clear a long time ago that Andy's life would be a lot easier if he made it invite-only or some other restricted membership. But he can't claim to be beating WP at their own game if he does that, so his ego demands open registration. --Kels (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It ain't over till the fat lady mommy sings cancels Andy's allowance. mb 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it's TK, but come on

Liberals hate babies! Comedic gold. There's nothing else going on, so be thankful for what you get. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sorta makes sense in their warped black-and-white worldview: "Do conservatives want to kill all babies and drive mankind to extinction?" -> "No." -> "So liberals must want to do that, gotcha." --Sid (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One blogger's opinion of CP's use of photos

"... the way Conservapedia (an American conservative's "encyclopedia" for morons) took the liberty of using a PZ Myers photo of mine on their PZ Myers page. PZ Myers is a person I greatly admire, yet my photo is being used for the purpose of defaming him!" [6]. 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) ~~

Poor old PeeZee, maybe he can trademark his scruffy face. --193.200.150.82 (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Said blogger doesn't seem to understand Creative Commons in that section discussing the PZ photo. 1) If you don't want your work widely used, do not list it as CC. 2) The license is a "copyright" thing - all original works you create are automatically covered as copyright in most civilised countries - although I can give benefit of the doubt there as they did put it in similar quotes and 3) a CC license cannot be revoked; once under CC, always under CC. Conservative would still be right to upload and host the image on Conservapedia whether they set their blog or photos to private or otherwise. However, there are issues of "model rights" that CC doesn't touch, so in principle someone can refuse their likeness to appear in a defamatory attack article, although I'm not sure anyone could win that case easily. ^postate 08:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Revamped) Palin WIGO

I know (or at least vaguely remember) that we were trying to get away from uber-long WIGOs, but I felt it was needed in this case because the entire sequence is just so full of lulz and fail. I do remember TK inserting this Skype highlighting nonsense before, but I forgot where it was, pity. --Sid (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was on Wikipedia. It proves yet again that learning something new is something that is very hard for TK, among others. A while back, an editor fixed the exact same mistake of TK's, in which the Skype-thing appeared in Nuttish's message, but TK reverted it, saying "Please do not edit archives for any reason.." I brought it up on his talk page, but he was rather oblivious to it, and when I tried to explain it again, I got a nice "Go someplace else to argue." As if there's even anything to argue; it's blatantly obvious that the comment of someone else's should not be edited. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh God! Yes, that was it. Thanks for jogging my memory, this would've driven me bonkers tonight! --Sid (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And why Palin's ISBN? And, what a lying fuck face. Ace^X-102 00:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a stupid skype toolbar he has installed, Nutty has the same problem as well. I like the fact that he thinks Australian phone numbers are 6 digits long, including area codes. - π 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the toolbar thing on also but very rarely skype. Ace^X-102 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope your bags are packed....^img Ace^X-102 00:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what causes this. Didn't even know Skype had a toolbar available, so I had some weird mental image where TK edits CP articles in a Skype chat window for SOME reason. XD --Sid (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the same problem because I don't have that toolbar. I think TK was inserting that gibberish for my contact tho, since removed with prejudice. 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, TK loads up on all the toys, but doesn't know how to use them. Hence his new nickname, TwinKle. ħuman 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

~SuperHamster Talk 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And the lying becomes obvious

TK declares:^img "I don't have the Skype toolbar installed! It's all lies! And when you hover over the magically highlighted portion in your browser, it offers to call that number using Skype! Oh, and that highlighting had been there for months!"

I- Just what- Bwah- WHAT? HE DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO OVERSIGHT THE EVIDENCE OF HIS LYING. --Sid (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

*huff* *wheeze* Or maybe... maybe... he's not lying and just PLAIN FUCKING INCOMPETENT AND SO CONVINCED OF HIS OWN INFALLIBILITY THAT AJKFLDJSA FAFJDSKFLAJS-*dragged away from keyboard by helpful people offering a fancy white jacket* --Sid (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If ever anyone wondered whether TK is a truthteller, let's just refer him to this. 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh Oh!^img Someone smells a rat. Quick TK! Burn and ban! Ace^X-102 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bye bye^img. Ace^X-102 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This guy is really asking for it.^img Ace^X-102 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

SILENCE PEON!^img Ace^X-102 02:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Karajou gets in on the action.^img Ace^X-102 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Another lie from TK.^img Its not a .gov site. Ace^X-102 02:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Give him a break...it appeared to be a government site... So that's why he put the plagiarism back up. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks^img for the rewrite!^img Occasionaluse (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Karajou just gonna sit there and take it? Just ignore it, just like that?!?!?--Centimeter_INCHES 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Karajou is a military man. He knows the drill and he knows that TK is his superior. Shit flows downhill, so expect him to order some peons (probably JacobB) around in 3...2...1 Occasionaluse (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TK blocks Lyle for 3 days and JacobB suggest deleting his page.^img Ace^X-102 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I only wish Ed were around to dismiss this. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ed can't hear you, he conveniently fell back into one of his niches. And I bet nothing is happening behind the scenes, either. TK is likely keeping everybody in check through private 1-on-1 mails, convincing them that... oh, I dunno, RW is faking diffs or something. With magic. He got away with far more obvious bullshit, so yeah. Cue Karajou and Ed wondering why there are no waves of eager conservatives writing for CP. Must be those darn lib'ruls scaring away good people! Definitely got nothing to do with the attitude shown by CP sysops, no sir! --Sid (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, what in the world does Terry think he's doing? He's right about one thing: The Skype-thing has been in the article for months; it's been there since June. The thing it, against what his claim is, it was him who added it. Oh, and since you insist that we're the liars, TK, here's the link to your edit on Wikipedia in which your edit changed Nutty's message w/ the Skype-insertion. If you're gonna lie, at least do it sneakily so it isn't so blatantly clear. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That instance of TK inserting skype highlighting had already been cleaned up...Occasionaluse (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...wow. That just makes it worse. For TK. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's right here.^img 02:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's where he put it in. My link was where it was removed. WTF is going on over there!? So much funny shit is happening right now. TK bald facing a mistake. TK plagarism, JacobB laying down the thinnest parody I've ever seen about RESPEKT TEH ADMIN, and now Karajou has reverted JacobB and removed TK plagarism!? Occasionaluse (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's face it - things are pretty slow over at CP these days, and Terry has to find some way of obtaining sexual gratification. Desperate times call for desperate measures. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest News Headline Seems a Little... Threatening

I don't know how to link to the diff to see who wrote it, but this one "Obama Bans Sale of Antique American Korean War Guns; Fears Patriotic Americans Will Buy Them. [9]". The article doesn't say anything about selling them to patriotic Americans, just about the weapons falling into the wrong hands. So what does the author mean by "patriotic" Americans? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Patriotic Americans = Americans who buy guns. QED Bluefish (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What is QED? And what is so patriotic about buying a gun? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, something does seem a little weird about it not letting Americans buy those guns. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantum ElectroDynamics. Or quad erat demonstrandum. 'Twas our first fork page, but it got killed. ħuman 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstratum... but don't mind me... Blue (is useful) 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yet another classic example of misreading/misleading by teh señor sysops on mainpageleft. Blue (is useful) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be part of that weird teabagger wet dream that one day "Patriotic Americans" are going to rise up and commit treason reassert their freedom. - π 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"One man's terrorist is another man's teabagging gun-nut patriotic American". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always said that if they want guns for the purposes the Second Amendment was meant for, then they should be in a position do damn well follow through at some point (otherwise I will forever be convinced that the whole gun thing in the US is just a penis substitute). It's just a shame the ones who are batshit insane enough to do that are... by definition, batshit insane and certainly not the type of person you'd want to see take over the US in an armed coup. ^postate 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder...

... if Andy is going to use his huge Merkin Govt class as slave labour volunteers to work on his blog again?" After all, besides one or two (Addision and somebody), all the other students have studiously avoided CP, besides to write their homework answers. Then again, it could also be that the number of students exists only in Andy's head. After all, we haven't seen them in public for at least a year. Maybe they're all dead too! --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't all exist in his head. At least 30 of them are probably parodists. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What a knobber. Do the parents of the real kids realise that they're paying money to this idiot for him to get kids to add content to his completely stalled 'encyclopaedia' project? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, these are the same parents who sent their kids back to Schlafly, even after seeing test marks such as "Lincoln was open to new ideas like growing a beard." "Excellent answer! 10/10 Might use as model answer." Hopefully, being "taught" by Schlafly is the worst abuse they suffer. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm three of the students. First day of school!!! YAY!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does he really have 59 in-person students? In the past the homeworks didn't come close to adding up to his alleged enrollment (though perhaps they didn't all do the work online). That's nearly $15,000 for a couple hours a week, isn't it? Are there really that many stupid parents in New Jersey? DickTurpis (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's New Jersey. Question answered.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As a New Jerseyan, I can't help but concur. *sigh* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

59? Main page says 78... of course, only the in-person students pay for the "privilege". ħuman 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The end is nigh!

Well, I know that we keep saying that. However, now that RW is getting close to 3x more active editors than CP (174 vs. 68 @ 02/09), I think it's just about time to draw the curtain on that little project. Between Andy's inanity and TK's trolling CP is essentially dead in the water. If there was a way to stop him home-schooling, then CP really would have no reason to exist, except as a home for Karajou's ego. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...68 active editors? Seriously? I know I don't check CP that often nowadays, but I think I would've noticed so many people. Who counts as an active editor? --Sid (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's anyone who's made an edit in the last week. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a useless figure then, as most of them are going to be vandals. Our active users charts are more useful, but even with them what constitutes an active user doesn't necessarily give an accurate picture. DickTurpis (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Dick. Their edit count is pretty much irrelevant, as once you take out talkpage, borked news, Ken's 'essays', vandalism and subsequent reversal, the number of edits that actually contribute to the blog are vanishingly small. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of ends being nigh, is the Obamageddon meter registering its highest value since its inception? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably safe to say that 'actual' editors to CP number around 10 (Andy, Kara, Jpratt, TK, Ken, TerryH, Tzoran and a few others). And as has been said, actual mainspace edits are negligible.

And how are we supposed to read the Obamameter? As far as I can see, every block is lit up. Am I missing something? --PsyGremlin講話 13:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's got 8 of 10 boxes lit (code orange), but by my count it's supposed to have 7. Perhaps it's counting the Obama/Wright picture (it's not a Fairey parody, so I don't think it's supposed to)? DickTurpis (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where the implementation is, but it must be shitty. I've never seen the thing work. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All the boxes are lit in mine, including red. Am I missing some fancy scripts somewhere? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They all light up for me as the pages loads, then go down to whatever the (incorrect) count is after a couple seconds. Not sure what your issue is. I had an idea for a very low-tech, manual version, but it probably wouldn't pass muster with all these computer geeks. DickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it's Jeeves' baby and for some reason, he's not being forthcoming with the sauces. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Found it in MediaWiki:Common.js. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The metric is any picture that has "obama" in the name, so it's right as far as it goes. If it isn't, then you probably need to hit shift-refresh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Must be a server block problem. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If the metric is any picture with "Obama" in the title, then it should be changed, if we want to keep with the original measurement, which I believe was only adapted Shepard Fairey posters. Actual pictures of Obama are expected and commonplace, whereas extremely tired and redundant adaptations of the same image are much more indicative of Conservapedia mentality. DickTurpis (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm disentangling myself from this shit

Over the past few months I've been growing increasingly unhappy about the fact that I'm still following this freak show. Watching Schlaf and the Schlafettes, such as there remain, has become a sadder waste of life than most versions of Big Brother. People on my side of thirty should know better. Ken is sick. Andy can no longer be considered truly healthy either. Neither is tuned in to political and scientific consensus reality with any useful degree of resonance any more. Not many others are left. Two years ago laughing at the Schlaflyites falling over their own feet and bumping into things was like laughing at bunch of inebriated trailer dwellers. Now it's like laughing at a busload of spastics.

Three weeks from now, on September 19, I will mothball all my archive, graph generation, and KenBot scripts, and then permaban myself by adding dummy entries for conservapedia.com and rationalwiki.org to my /etc/hosts files. If anybody wants to keep updating the archive or run KenBot in my stead I'll be happy to hand over the sauce and the data it has accumulated so far. mb 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lenski affair was observed by scientists, the Conservapedia Bible Project at least by Colbert, while the Counterexamples to Relativity stirred up a couple of bloggers at best: perhaps their next publicity stunt will be only reported by FSTDT.

When conservapedia started, there was the general sentiment that it could become important. They have proven otherwise.

So, I can agree with your sentiment: even today, the list of Conservapedia:Active users seems to be reduced to lunatics (including Andy and Ken), parodists (including TK) and a pompous idiot. In a couple of months, there may be no reason to update it...

The thing is: I don't think that you should permaban yourself from RationalWiki. At the moment, my favourite article on our site is Citizendium. Okay, it's a death-watch, too...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I dislike Rationalwiki itself, it's that I dislike the way I've been using WIGO:CP as a humiliation porn TGP. Claiming to follow WIGO:CP for the discourse is like claiming to watch Jerry Springer for the set design and Facial Abuse for the sound editing. mb 10:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So turn away, stop watching, enjoy other aspects of the RW? ħuman 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The only bits of RW worth reading are the WIGO pages. The rest of it consists of badly-written rants that used to conform only to Human's point of view, and now only conform to David Gerard's. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Something of a generalisation, don't you think? Webbtje (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not much of one. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind Neveruse (I'm sorry, "TerrenceKoeckring"), Webbtje. He's just cranky that he failed to make everyone hate David Gerard. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, uh...I'm everywhere? And legion? And most people do dislike Gerard, but that's not what it's about in the first place. Tool. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[citation needed] I want to see the poll. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

what's the cool voting option template (besides {{vote}}? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually one of the ten users on this site who isn't a sock of Neveruse. But I can't stand Gerard either. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what all my socks say. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to post better CP WIGOs - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please to improve in this case. I find it difficult to argue with you, but you can make it better. We have the potential, everyone is just too obsessed with WIGO. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The only purpose for RW is the WIGO pages. If you want information, go to Wikipedia or other sites. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is value in being able to give a snarky sendup of pseudo-scientific topics, but to your point, it only serves to preach to the choir. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to point that out. I like the freedom to express my mind accurately without fear that I'm going to be reverted because I'm being far too sarcastic, and angry. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many things we offer that no other place does user:tmtoulouse/niche, if the only place you hang out is wigo that is fine, but it also means that your opinion of the rest of the site is worthless. tmtoulouse 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's obviously untrue. WIGO being the only place people hang out very well may indicate that it's the rest of the site that's worthless. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we have sentiments expressed that parellal what I've stated; RW & WIGO were created and exist for little other than to slander and harass living persons. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lest anyone reading this section without care believes that Rob accurately characterizes the sentiments expressed here. ... Rob, I question your reading ability. 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes because that bastion of truth that is conservapedia would never dare slander anyone. Ace^X-102 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rob, "slander" means "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report". "Harass" means "to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute". Everything on WIGO CP uses your own words to condemn you, so find better words or fuck off. And learn to spell "parallel".

Trent, I only hang out on the WIGO pages because I've read a lot of the other pages and come to my conclusions. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to interrupt Rob's trolling chime in, I would've stopped paying attention to RW by now if it were just the WIGOs and/or CP namespace. A few of the articles are just badly written essays, but most are good fun. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I know you're awfully thick at times, but try to follow. A: A defamatory statement is referred to as slanderous when it is not recorded in any form of permanent or semi-permanent media; if it is recorded, it is libel. This is not difficult to understand. You're (allegedly) an adult, so learn to pick your words carefully and stop happily raping legal terminology which you could not possibly hope to meaningfully comprehend. B: Accusing RW of 'slander' could well be construed as a libellous accusation in itself. Go back to your kennel. Webbtje (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good faith accusations of legal violations are automatically exempted from defamation law (in the US at the very least). So, if someone accuses you of slander, but you actually committed libel, there are three options. A) they don't sue you, and no court in the world would allow you to hold this technicality up as a defamation suit. B) No lawyer actually bringing a suit against you would make the slander/libel mistake, and C) even if they did a small claims defamation suit, the best you could do is get a dismissal without prejudice, so that your opponent can refile under the correct terms. However, in a small claims court, they're actually more likely to overlook technicalities in the interest of justice, and the judge would simply amend the claim at the trial.

Some statements here on RW are clearly potentially defamatory. The reason that they're protected is usually because of truth, public stature of the individual, or simply it's a statement of opinion. (Note that obscene remarks about another person are typically automatically considered a statement of opinion. Apparently though, calling another girl a "slut" could be defamatory if her lack of sexual promiscuity is a moral character for her. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Shut up, you ignorant slut! ;) ħuman 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: August is over and the charting software would like to say goodbye godspeed to everyone as per the above announcement. As we can see in the pretty picture on the right Conservapedia has reached the point where but one android silly kid, with a single weapon completely trivial vandalbot, can casually double the number of edits and triple the number of article edits they get.

Of course doubling their edits and tripling their article edits just barely gets them back to the level of activity they had eight months ago. All together now, one more time, for old time's sake: the site is growing rapidly. mb 10:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Moar update: The archiver cronjob is history. Effective immediately, anything Terry oversights before somebody screencaps it is actually gone. The archive and the sorry mess of sloppy scripts behind it are available for the asking and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. mb 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"News" Sources

I see The Blaze and Newsbusters are replacing WND as reliable sources to bash Obama. Guess Andy still hasn't forgiven Farah. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, The Blaze is WND done by someone that has learnt webpage design in the last five years. Glen Beck is behind this site, right?- π 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

He is. - π 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Newsbusters has always been one of their favorites, as it seems just about any old idiot can write for them and say whatever they want. This is a site that attacked Katie Couric for using, of all things, hyperbole. And of course CP jumped on the bandwagon too (Couric said, referencing record high gas prices, that she needed a loan from the bank to fill her car. Newsbusters busted that news by pointing out that she doesn't really need to do that; it's still referenced at CP). DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

lol. good one. I love the McDonalds one below. "Lawyer sues Mc Donalds for reneging on promise to remove trans fat from foods. Lawyer eats a Big Mac...HYPOCRITE!!!" Couldn't make this shit up. Probably from Karajou, who has no idea what words mean. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Karajou is the one who recently attacked the Obamas because they were conducting an anti-obesity campaign and yet let their daughters eat *gasp* ice cream! Because, you know, the girls are just completely fucking obese. DickTurpis (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I read yesterday that Malia is 5ft 9in and still only 12 years old, while Michelle had commented that she had been "chubby" as a youngster, now she's like a beanpole. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Blaze is fucking loony. It's like Prison Planet meets WND. Also, if it were made by someone who has learned web design in the last 5 years, Arial should be after Helvetica in the font declaration. UGH. – Nick Heer 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! I'm lot's of people don't have support for the arial family. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For some reason people get really emotional about this, but unless the font is obviously garish, I have no real preference. Arial, Helvetica or Times are usually safe enough. - π 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all types of crazy stupid. First it makes the same mistake PJR likes to latch on to by claiming the universe comes from nothing wherein nothing is actually a complex set of physical and quantum actions and secondly Hawking didn't state there was a creator in his first book, anyone who knew anything about would tell you he used the word "god" in a pantheist sense. I fucking hate people the rip through cosmology/astronomy/physics with such ignorance. Ace^X-102 20:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The comments section of that article is one of the most horrifyingly ignorant things I have ever read. Ugh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why CP will latch onto this as well, because they don't know jack about any of those fields. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"...they don't know jack about any of those fields" Fixed that for you. --Kels (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That super-bold font the Blaze uses was eye-catching at first but it gets annoying after seeing it used even for the names of the commenters. Junggai (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken

Ken hasn't made a single edit on over 16 hours; his longest break in documented history. I hope he's alright. mb 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, that is actually frightening. Him editing that frequently in the first place, I mean. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it finaly dawned on him that life is to short? --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, he's back. mb 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OMG

That guy is not healthy. At all. My guess is that he has been hospitalized or something. Actually, he seems to be editing a little. He's probably generating web traffic statistics for CP or spamming google or whatever else that sick man does. --Onion ^Hi! :) 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ever use the internet slang "OMG." Please. It makes me ill. SJ ^Debaser 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Onion, please stop making people cry. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your pun made me cry. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@SuperJosh, I'd like to point you to my sig.... OMG! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

nsTeam1RW

What does it mean?^img Am I being a little vain in assuming that RW refers to us? I realise that "there are people out there who want to destroy us", so is this another super-secret CP cabal plotting our demise? (And is this the Assfly demoting DeanS for some reason?) Is that enough questions for one edit? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, it has to do with the old "copy/paste as much shit as you can to make new articles" competitions Andy used to run. Back in the days when CP still attracted genuine editors. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DS, you are being a little vain - I bet you think this song is about you - the RW stands for ReadWrite as opposed to RO which is ReadOnly. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, that's such a boring answer Jack! Oh well. I thought Arsefly would have called it WR to avoid even the initials of the vandal site. (Good Carly Simon reference though!) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For further reading, check out Conservapedia:Team Contest --Sid (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the changes were made server-side so it wasn't Andy's doing. They should probably clean up all that crap at some point, but that would require the tech guy to have some kind of dedication. - π 11:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

*What* tech guy? CPAdmin or whatever his name is, hasn't been active on there for ages. I just can't wait for Andy to update the software again, so CP can lose another week. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

CPWebmaster (CPAdmin1 was... Tim, I think?), but yeah, he also doesn't seem to be very active. CP's technical side has been a mess since the start, though. Namespaces are a mess (no "essay", "lecture" or "homework" spaces, but they had the time for sysop and contest namespaces... which were then left to die), and most major suggestions rarely moved beyond "We should totally do this!" (not even in the secret discussion groups where the sysops had been able to discuss things without nasty mortals interfering). --Sid (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the funniest, which cropped up in TZB and main page talk, was having the admins declare themselves "curators" over certain parts of CP. Needless to say, it was stillborn - despite Terry Hurbut claiming himself to be professor of Biblical history and astronomy - because the others realised it would involve more more than just banning editors. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Remind me again...

... but isn't it liberals who are always yelling and drawing attention to how awesome they are? Or is it conservatives like Andy? I can never remember these days. Oh yes, I feel like some more crazy, who wants to burn a sock and tell Andy small classes are better? Oh and I can't wait to see the irony of Andy teaching that discrimination is bad (assuming the course will cover that), and then setting different tests for boys and girls. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Even worse is the fact that he claims that his class is the "largest class for teenagers." See, Andy, there's this thing called college... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy famously rejects the idea that small classes are better then large ones (while simultaneously propounding homeschooling, with a typical class size of one). He even has a piss-poor article about it (and we have an in-depth rebuttal). No sense in wasting a sock and stuff he's been through before. Though I wouldn't mind seeing someone bring up the "most of the world's greatest accomplishments were done by teenagers" bullshit, as he hardly even tried to defend that , beyond restating it again and again. DickTurpis (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Except Andypants doesn't think discrimination is bad, and doubtless won't teach that. After all, he learned at mommy dearest's knee that a constitutional amendment giving women equal rights was a Bad Thing. Hell, that was her entire life's work. She's still dining out on it now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation

Protip: if you're making a new sock at CP, don't use a real person's name, even if they're vaguely famous. Mine got blocked for impersonation, even though I had no idea the guy was a (very minor) celebrity. – Nick Heer 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was that the recent Travis Sullivan? Man, that really goes to show how much they really want to block every new user, and actively seek out reasons to do so. Travis Sullivan is hardly a celebrity, and it's entirely possible that name has no connection (I know of a couple somewhat famous people who share my name (my real name, not Dick Turpis)). Really, guys, you might as well just disable new account creation for ever. That reminds me of their early days when they blocked a Jack Daniels, I believe it was. I pointed out to them that while that was certainly a likely parody name, there are people who share names with famous people (I have known a Michael Jackson, a Neil Young, an Alexander Hamilton, and a few others), and it doesn't hurt to assume good faith. Needless to say that didn't go very far. DickTurpis (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was Greg Palmer. I have no idea who he is. Wikipedia tells me he was a journalist who died last year, but it's just run by dirty lib-uh-rals. – Nick Heer 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

CP clearly does take the very opposite approach to assume good faith, in that ever new account is an assumed parodist/liberal troll until proven (somehow) otherwise. On a similar note I have worked with a Dave Stewart and a Gary Moore, neither of whom were musicians (and both were cocks as it happens) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The assumption is probably not entirely unreasonable. Parodists have a history of outnumbering genuine fellow cranks by two or three orders of magnitude. mb 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I think the amount of paranoia fostered by the CP admins has damaged the project far greater than any insertions of parody ever could. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But, the paranoia was fertilized by the seed of parody (it's white, thick, milky seed). So, then, parody is the reason? Or was it just a catalyst, and the CP admins just executed it (by adding paranoia)? And what the fuck am I typing when I should be sleeping? Gah. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is much like Global Warming. Water vapor is actually the most significant green house gas in the atmosphere, but our CO₂ emissions stimulate the increased evaporation, which results in an amplified warming. So, with this case, the parodists inspired paranoia in the sysop, and we play the game of "everyone is a parodist" so much that they actively start developing a paranoia complex that eventually becomes self-perpetuating. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm logged in, I'd like to state for the record I feel deeply humiliated by Ken's incisive, nay, devastating refutation of atheism. Never before have I felt so embarrassed. I am profoundly ashamed for what, looking back, I can only describe as my rank scientific illiteracy and consummate epistemological blindness. mb 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do they even TRY to recruit anyone anyway? It's not paranoia anymore if they know they didn't get any sincere new editors in years... Everyone is going for the long socks (hat tip, JacobB!) Call me paranoid, but andy and TK keep what, maybe a hundred somewhat bright rationalwikians buzy and maybe 5-10-15 conservative kooks out of the serious internet.. They win? Alain (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To RobS

What the heck does this^img mean? Please don't tell me you're praising Obama for leaving Iraq and blaming him for not finding bin Laden in the same paragraph. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that it was somehow Bush's idea. Ace^X-102 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bush actually did establish a timeline with the Iraqi government for a 2011 pull out of all our troops. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, but its just such a convoluted post. Ace^X-102 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly, however the statement "Obama is keeping Bush's promise to remove all troops from Iraq" is an accurate and truthful statement. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Que RoBS's pointing and laughing at the so called called Rational Ace....Ace^X-102 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cue" and, rationality doesn't mean never making errors... it means admitting them when you're wrong. :) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But yeah, where is Rob? This is an explanation I cannot wait to hear. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Premise A: No person can make a promise for another person, with out having permission to speak on that persons behalf.

Premise B: Bush did not have Obama's permission to make promises on his behalf.

Conclusion 1: Bush cannot have made a promise for Obama.

Conclusion 2: Obama cannot uphold a promise by Bush.

Premise C: Saying that "Obama has upheld Bush's promise" necessarily relies on a promise being in place to uphold

Conclusion 3: The statement "Obama has upheld Bush's promise" is necessarily false.

Q.E.D.

In addition to that Bush announced a plan to be out nearly 3 years into the first term of his successor, which means a lot of stuff would happen in between him leaving office and the fruition of the plan. Obama revised the war plan and did away with many of the Bush era plans. Obama made his own promise, independent of Bush, and he came through on it. Bush set the bar really low, while bailing responsibility onto whomever came next. I am not a profound detractor of Bush, I have often risen to his defense, but he deserves exactly none of the credit for this development. Obama made set the goals, made the choices, and took the risks. After that it would be criminal to give Bush the credit. --Opcn (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bush as Chief Executive Officer negotiated a deadline for withdraw of the entire US forces. Such a negotiation was entirely within his powers as an officer of the United States. Now, to put it more closely aligned with your statements: Bush made a promise on behalf of the United States. Bush was authorized and granted permission to give such promises on behalf of the United States. Thus, "Obama has upheld Bush's promise" relies upon Obama reaffirming (again on behalf of the United State) the promise that Bush made on behalf of the United States. Bush didn't make the promise for Obama, because Obama wasn't selected yet. We also have made numerous treaties and pacts as a nation, which later presidents are bound to conform to, even though they were made by their predecessors.

Obama deserves credit for bringing the troops home, and he deserves credit for upholding the promises that his predecessor made on behalf of the US public, in full accordance with law and tradition. Your argument that Bush was unable to make a promise that his successor would be bound to is unavailing. Obama has markedly declared that he will uphold the deadline established by Bush. The empirical facts are exactly as was stated, and no syllogism or logic is required. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Bush as POTUS can make exactly one kind of commitment on his own, an executive order, which expires when he leaves office. We are talking about Promises, and he is still bound by the logic outlines in my above argument when it comes to promises. Now he could have made something rather more permanent with the aid of the legislative branch but he did not, but still that would not have been a promise for Obama to upkeep. Lets also remember that Bush didn't even promise to get the troops out of Iraq by 2011 he outlined a plan by which he thought that they could be removed by 2011. The only promise made was Obama's campaign promise. First address my fairly well diagrammed argument, then if you can punch a hole in it try and make a case for your own position. Obama deserves full credit, not slighted credit. I think this cae is too complex to say that no logical argument is required, If bush came out and said "I promise that my successor will have troops out by aug 2010" and then Obama came out and said "I'm going to make good on Bush's promise" then that would be one thing, but just accepting the office doesn't mean he accepts the promises of those who had it before him, I'll bet bush made some promises that Obama is working straight against. The constitution mentions nothing about POTUS promises. --Opcn (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with opcn here. The POTUS cannot make a "promise" or a "deal" with a foreign power that has any meaning beyond their personal word. All treaties must be ratified by the Senate. ħuman 04:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"First address my fairly well diagrammed argument" Very well, your Premise B is not applicable. Bush made a promise on behalf of the US with the Iraqi government to make a deadline to withdraw our troops by 2011. This is not disputed. This is equivalent to him saying "I promise that the US will have all troops out by 2011." Obama withdrew all COMBAT troops in August 2010... we still have troops there in advisory positions. Obama in his address reiterated his intent to remove ALL troops by the deadline established by Bush. This is equivalent to him saying "I am going to make good on Bush's promise". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To quote President Barrack Obama: our withdraw of all US troops is "as promised and on schedule" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I really hate their quote. "Obama keeps George W. Bush’s promise to end Iraq war." Dude, like, "I promise we will end this war." No, we're going to promise to continue this war until the end of time... wtf? Everyone involved seems to be reporting shit poorly. Obama has a lot of credit for meeting the Iraqi's deadline, and keeping things on schedule. Everyone in the government "promised to end the war". Seriously. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A: Bush never made any promise B: Premise B still applies, had bush made a promise it would be a bush promise, not an obama promise, there is no POTUS promise. When bush made a promise it would be expanded to "I GWB promise to do XYZ while I GWB am POTUS".

Try thinking of it this way, could Obama break a Bush POTUS promise? Lets say that POTUSBush promised not to reinstate estate taxes, is POTUS Obama now a promise breaker/liar for letting them lapse back in at the start of next year? What if POTUSBush had promised not to allow a health care reform bill to get signed into law? Or not to nominate any prochoice supreme court justices? No POTUS would be able to perform their job if bound by the promises of all former POTUS. Obama was referring to his own schedule (which just so happened to be faster than GWB's, accidentally fulfilling the troops out of Iraq portion earlier than GWB had scheduled) and to his own campaign promise, something that GWB cannot be responsible for because it was issued by another person (BHO). --Opcn (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OBAMA HAS ONLY WITHDRAWN COMBAT TROOPS. The Iraqi Government deadline that was setup with the Bush government is to have ALL US troops withdrawn by 2011. Oh look, doing a Google search for "Bush iraq 2011" turns up: this gem stating that a "Draft Accord" (yeah, that's an official sort of promise/treaty thing) was setup on or around August 21st, 2008 by the Bush government (look, it's Condie in the photo!) with Iraq to establish a 2011 withdraw of all US troops. So, no Bush can't make arbitrary promises that his successors must follow, but he can agree to pull out by 2011 in an official capacity. No less, Obama can revalidate the agreement made by Bush with the Iraqi government to recognize and be held to the pact. Why are people arguing this... I feel like the [Only Sane Man] around here right now.

Let's try this again. Bush uses official channels to establish a withdraw date with the Iraqi government. Obama states his intent to follow those timetables. Obama removes all combat troops just recently, someone notes that Bush setup the timetables, and we go nuts claiming that Bush doesn't deserve any credit, because Bush "can't make promises for his successor", of course, as noted above, unless he had followed official channels, which he did, and such agreement were either ratified by the US legislature, or Obama reaffirms the timetables, which he did. The US legislature's ratification hardly even being necessary, since the jurisdiction of the accord is on Iraqi sovereign soil, so unless we're going to barge in there again by force, we're bound to respect their sovereign rights.

All of this leaves me with the question: why is everyone here so ready to jump on truthiness answers like they do over at CP, rather than stop, and look at the evidence as it actually exists? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why people even call it a "promise". The relevant document here is the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, and that's a legally binding treaty between states, not individuals or particular administrations. Iraq has been a sovereign nation for several years now, and the US forces over there stay at the pleasure of their hosts. If Obama had wanted to extend the timetable, he would've had to renegotiate with the Iraqi government (not to mention get congress to approve additional funding). Röstigraben (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Thank The Goat_{The Goat be Praised.}, I'm not alone in my sanity. Thanks for actually providing the real evidence of my invisible pink unicorn, so people can actually witness my correctness, rather than slobber all over themselves............. ok, I've totally overstepped the line on arrogance here, and I apologize profusely. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, you're welcome! But in any case, we shouldn't overstate Bush's importance in this, because it wasn't his decision alone. He was under immense pressure from both Congress and the Iraqi government to commit to a timetable, and he needed the consent of both - if they hadn't reached an agreement, the Iraqis could've just kicked the troops out whenever they wanted, and Congress could've cut funding for the mission. Röstigraben (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of what has been killing me... I couldn't do my standard Bush hate speech, because people had the facts wrong. Once we recognize that the Bush government set up a time table, we can actually talk about what kind of a shitty distorted reality that they're trying to pawn off on us at CP... "Conservapedia: We take a mustard seed of truth, and extrapolate the tree out of it!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you like GWB so much then why don't you go and live there? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The one and only relevant "Promise" is the BHO campaign promise, that was what was made, that was what was met. GWB never promised anything of the sort, his team made a treaty which is a state promise but that was the not "promise" BHO was referring to.--Opcn (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we're going to play semantics games now? Are you PJR, now? Or just channeling him? It is fact that Bush's government established a timetable and a deadline, and Obama is respecting it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the bit about Afghanistan Osama bin Laden remains unquestionably Obama's fault... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Obama piggybacked on a done dead. It was a promise made to the anti-war fringe of the Democratic coalition on the campaign trail. The Bush/Rice Status of Forces Agreement was left on autopilot after Obama took office.

The only problem now is, now tha Obama has declared Mission Accomplished, what will happen after the first combat death among the remaining 50,000? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama explicitly stated that this is not "Mission Accomplished" and that some US troops were still going to be put into danger's way... but they are now only advisors, not "combat troops". So, the real answer to your question? The right will get all hyped up about how Obama declared the war over, and be all "zomg, I thought we pulled out our troops!" and those people like me who are grounded in reality, will be facepalming the entire time because you based all your beliefs around the same retarded shit that the pundits are saying right now. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's accept your premises at face value. Now, what happens in the eventual likelihood that one of 50,000 remaining support troops (i.e., not 'combat troops') becomes a 'combat death'? What then? 'Obama lied, people died?' nobs^{don't bother me} 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sodding pathetic. Where were your condemnations when hundreds of US and UK troops died after 'mission accomplished'? When and where did you call bush out on his lies and deceptions?Oldusgitus (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)