Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive198

This is an archive page, last updated 23 September 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <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)

moar relativity

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&diff=818355&oldid=815305

Somebody got the reference? Or can get it? 04:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3907v1.pdf Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 04:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also see here. 04:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that make the laws of physics...relative? Occasionaluse (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

same group says that the universe has a preferred direction because of the change in the constant, which means the bif bang must have had directionality. (I think) Hamster (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's actually kind of difficult to determine the significance of this result. It's a fairly small effect (otherwise its variance would have very drastic effects and would have been seen earlier), but assuming it is real (which it does seem to be right now), that leads to the question: What makes the fine structure constant vary? We actually don't know why it has the value it has in the first place; some physicists think that that question would be answered by quantum gravity, whereas most I know think that fundamental constants really are to some extent arbitrary and just happened to take a particular value early in the history of the universe.

This result doesn't definitively show that the laws of physics change from place to place, but it does suggest that there may be more of them than we thought, and that these can control the values of some constants.

Of course, the CP explanation of this is daft (Asimov's "wronger than wrong"). Lorentz invariance is to Galilean invariance as a round earth is to a flat one. --Quantheory (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course most, if not all, scientists will look at this discovery and say 'WOW, thats amazing. Lets go investigate and if necessary refine relativistic theory and modify the theory so it now more accuartely reflects the observed experimental data'. They will not simply say 'Ha, told you. goddidit.'Oldusgitus (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I only looked at the amateur summary of one of my blogs, but it sounded a lot like this could shake up more than just relativity. Counterexamples To Physics, anyone? ;) --Sid (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy even believe quasars exist? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It finally happened

It's not about what you see, but about what you don't see.

Presenting CP's last 50 contribs... minus those of CP's SEO expert. Gentlemen, Ken has reached critical mass. (I'm sure this has happened before, but it's the first time I've seen actually ZERO contribs by others.) --Sid (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I turned off my KenFilter a few days ago out of sheer boredom. I'm half tempted to call off the account creation vandalbots and let normal operations resume. Is that something we should talk about in the SPN? Occasionaluse (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only other person who's edited the site today is Ed, with 2 edits just after midnight. Interestingly, one of the edits was deleting the Anti-Islam Project. Took him long enough. DickTurpis (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm more surprised by Karajerk's activity. Looking at the last 100 entries, all he does is block 4 editors. Does he just sit there, pressing F5, and waiting to wield the banhammer? They aren't even trying anymore. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So far this month, Karajou has made 1 (one) non-reversion mainspace edit. In the same period, he issued 40 blocks. What Karajou really needs, after a powerless, undecorated naval career, is authority. In a way, I'm glad he's finally got it. Too bad it's slipping away. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all the "senior sysops" are just reactionary, sex-starved, grumpy, old men. All they do is sit in their armchairs all day and rail at the modern world. Not one of them now bothers (some never have) to actually contribute in a constructive fashion to what was once a growing encylopedia but is now a loony blog. The only exception of Ken who's away with the fairies and doing more to undermine "the project" than any parodist ever could have dreamed of doing. To my mind everything is going splendidly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed's deletion of the Anti-Islam Project was very likely solely because he X-Ray'd Rafael's contribs (see the Charities Suck section further up). Rafael posted on that page's talk page (just asking^img "Why?"), and now Ed deletes the project and minutes later replies^img to Rafael. It's really as people point out just above: It's all about ruling and punishing, not about actually being constructive. And then, every few months, they wonder why they're not attracting hundreds of editors. Such a shame that people like PJR, Tim or DanH are gone from there. *shakes head* --Sid (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken's New Essay: Carl Sagan, Merle Haggard and pot

The Barna Group found concerning atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

Pretty much all those things are okay with me, nay encouraged. But what I find funny is that Ken quotes Merle Haggard's Okie from Muskogee. Haggard has specifically said right-wingers don't get the song and they've gone too far with the anti-marijuana crusades. Ha! That's the point of Ken's essay. Haggard also said all the musical greats did drugs and that criminalization is 'taking our freedoms' away. Good example of your point, Ken

. --Leotardo (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, for a moment there it sounded like you were expecting Ken to understand irony. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to play scrabble? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked out Ken's "Atheists Say the Darnedest Things" essay, expecting it to be, like FSTDT, a collection of ridiculous quotes by atheists, but, of course, it's simply a collection of quotes about atheists by Christians. Could he really not come up with a single actual quote from an atheist to ridicule? Hell, it's Ken. Why do I even bother noticing stuff like this. I sort of wonder if he's bitter because he's never had sex. DickTurpis (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think of Ken as at the stage of sexual development where it just takes the friction of rubbing against someone's leg to make him cum, and then he breaks down in tears. --Leotardo (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part of that particular essay is the shockofgod quote right next to a caption with the same quote. Seriously, though, most of Ken's "essays" are snippets from his other articles with some goofy pictures thrown in. It's sad, really. I keep waiting for Andy to say "All right, that's enough", but it never happens. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Been like that for a while now. At first Ken's articles unintended hilarity made them worth taking a gander at, but they soon grew boring once it was realized he is simply posting the same material with the same Shock/Vox Day quotes ad infinitum. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Ken, I just realized that his talk page is locked. Most of the talk pages on his "essays" are locked too, so there's no way to criticize him on CP. At this point, Andy's the only one who can reign him in, and it seems like he wants to, yet he never does. The interpersonal dynamics over there are so weird. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 18:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good observation on the personal dynamics, because they are perplexing. They only make sense through the prism of "Somebody has to contribute" and if they get rid of Ken, who will that be? Actually, they probably would attract more contributors if they gave him the boot. There'd probably also be far less articles that are nothing more than quote farms and that don't repeat the same awkward phrases over n' over. --Leotardo (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to favor the philosophy that bad edits are better than no edits. And to an extent there's some truth to that. If a newcomer sees a lot of crap they may be inclined to try to clean it and contribute positively, but if they see a dead project they're unlikely to get involved at all. Of course, once someone does try to clean crap and contribute positively they'll soon be in for a nasty surprise as they are quickly assraped by the tag team of TK, Ed, Karajou, and their cronies. Andy hasn't thought that far ahead, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Article count

I recently noticed that Wikipedia is set to delete about 10,000 articles for copyright violations. This got we wondering what would happen to CP if they deleted that many. According to their statistics page they have 34,173 articles, but I'm not sure if that's automatically or manually updated. I also suspect it includes the fake namespaces Andy made up but never actually separated from the main (essay, debate, lecture, homework, etc.). Anyone have some bot that can give an accurate article count? I suspect a deletion of 10,000 would wipe out more than a third of their articles. Not that CP ever enforces copyright violations or anything. DickTurpis (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with Copy vio at WP is that many, very many, sites copy WP without attribution, a cursory look might then assume that the copying was the other way. Shud Be Fun. 15:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While that does happen very often (I was just patrolling a Wikipedia article moments ago and searched it for being a copyright violation, and many other websites came up with the same text - I was about to blank, but realized that they had copied from Wikipedia); however, that's not what's happening right now. The deletion (It's actually blanking) of the 10,000 articles and an ass-load of other additions are in regards to edits that were made by one single user, a user who has basically addressed the fact that their contributions have, indeed, involved copying content from other sources into Wikipedia, and a whole lot of it at that. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

On September 3, the day I last ran the archiver, Conservapedia had 34,257 pages in the article namespace. This number includes lectures, homework, debates, essays, mysteries, a number of archived discussions, translated Bible chapters, and directory-type metadata such as the famous Terms lists. There were 31,784 pages purporting to be actual articles. This second number still includes several "articles" by Ken though. mb 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And Ed's nanopages. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aw, you're being too harsh. Of the 1620 Ed articles on record only 463 are completely useless substubs. Hundreds of Ed articles effortlessly reach into the decaword range - many of them contain in excess of two dozen syllables, even disregarding category names! mb 18:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of them have been "improved".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

American Government class

Continuing a line of discussion elsewhere, what is the deal with Andy government class? Has he given up already, or is there a chance he's actually just teaching it the way a sane person would: in a class with students and without all lessons and homework posted on a wiki filled with bullies and parodists? We know from what we've seen in the past on CP, as well from Kettleticket and "Conservapedia on the Hour", that he does actually lecture in a classroom (or, in this case, church basement), so is he focusing solely on that? Unless he completely made up those numbers he must have a fair amount of people who paid money for lessons, so I don't see how he could have given up this easily already. I suspect he may have realized that the online element of the class did nothing but attract parodists, so he's slowly abandoning it without discussion (or having to admit there's a problem). Is this an indication that he's realizing that CP doesn't work the way he thought it would? Anyone else have any thoughts? DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's odd. After the American & World History (& Economics?) courses, which were done on CP, he's now dropped the writing course (originally blamed on snow) and Am Govt. Chances are he's realised that there are no online students left on CP, so has reverted to his classroom. It's possible he even came in for some flack after his funding application, so now keeps his lectures away from prying eyes. You might find, as has been said before, that the students listened to the first lecture, and decided they'd rather ride bikes. Either way, I suspect his "world's largest class" exists only in his imagination. How many kids have actually submitted homework on CP? 6 out of 78.^img Altho I guess some might hand in written assignments. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking, that the class has gone from a mostly classroom endeavor with an additional online aspect to basically entirely classroom-focused. I obviously can't speak to the veracity of Andy's 78 students claim, but since less than 20 were signed up through CP he must have had several dozen signed up elsewhere. Perhaps the claim was exaggerated, but I don't think even Andy is dishonest enough to claim that many if he didn't have a fair number of people signed up with a $250 check. I also doubt his entire class saw his first lecture and then took off; most of them are probably signed up by their parents, who are now financially invested and wouldn't permit it, nor would most of them realize what an idiot their teacher is. It seems he's always given in class what is probably the same lecture that appeared each week on CP, making the CP post redundant. I also think there were students who handed in their homework in class rather than online, so he's probably doing the sane thing and having most students turn it in in-person and not post their mediocrity for the world to see. By now the only ones doing the online-only class are parodists, and if any aren't then Andy's not getting any money from them anyway so who cares? I think if we really investigated we'd find the class continuing (probably with a significant number of students), just not online. This might be the first sane thing Andy's done in a long time. DickTurpis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think Andy reads RW more than we thought, since it's after several RW editors let slip that they're also enrolled in the Gov't class that the online component was apparently shelved. My friend, who is an earnest homeschooler so earnestly put-upon by liberal, atheistic indoctrination and liberal pseudolearning in public school, didn't receive even a single notification of anything to do with the course from Andy or anyone else. Just nothing, and now no classes for the online only people. The American Gov't class was going to save his life. Now he'll forever be glamoured by professor values and liberal clap-trap. And he'll never be able to say he was educated by the Great Andy Schlafly. Boo! Anyway, back to the point. I'm thinking Andy's going to benefit on multiple levels from this decision. If he's too lazy to write his "lectures" out beforehand, which is easy to imagine considering the poor state of other examples suggesting they couldn't have taken more than a few hours to shit out, he's now got a little more time to devote to face-to-face indoctrination in the homeschool classroom. He also no longer has to devote a single microsecond of his time to internet freeloaders and parodists who didn't fork over a $250 check (where did that number come from), although his claim that CP offers "courses" and is an "education resource" rings just a little bit more hollow now. So whatever this says about his homeschooling business, which I frankly think he's been overstating for a few years now since he's just such an odious character I can't imagine people of conscience delivering their kids to his tutelage, it says a lot more about his "encyclopedia." This is why I don't screw around with parody. Andy and his gang of goons do a greater disservice to their fringe message than I could even pretend to plan out. 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I forget where the $250 figure came from, but it was probably our inside source Fuzzy Kettleticket. In any case, there definitely is a fee for those who attend class, and I doubt it's much more than that, nor would I imagine him charging much less. I always was fond of how he'd attack Wikipedia for its connection to the for-profit Wikia, while simultaneously stating that CP has no connection to any money-making enterprise, but we do offer a homeschool class for a small fee. Anyway, it might be too early to write the obituary to the online portion of the American Government class (he's only 5 days late on the lecture so far) but I have little doubt the class nevertheless continues in a church basment somewhere in New Jersey, and after the midterm we'll hear all about how great his students did. Maybe we'll be lucky and he'll still post the test online so we can all take a gander. DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this course simply died. It was poorly planned from the start, when Andy just assembled a huge list of "special concepts" that would amount to more than a year's worth of college-level classes in political science and law, but apparently never bothered about setting up a timetable for his lectures. Maybe he realized later that actually covering these concepts with just a semblance of seriousness would require lots of time for preparation on his part. For week one, he delivered only the most basic introduction to the US political system, went off on a tangent about team sports, and posted some ridiculously easy homework answers. By week two, he was already out of ideas, as this edit suggests. Maybe he's just making stuff up as he goes along now and doesn't want to leave a trail at Conservapedia, maybe the parents of his in-person class demanded their money back once they saw that he wasn't making good on his promises, maybe he just made up the numbers of students in the first place. In the past, he's always tried to lure his homeschoolers to CP so they'd do the actual work over there, and I don't see why he should suddenly change that policy. Maybe the parents did indeed complain that they had to pay for lectures which he gave away for free elsewhere, but then, this whole course was always planned and advertised like that from the start, so they'd have known about it for weeks. All in all, I think Andy just embarassed himself enough on CP to sink his homeschooling business as well. Röstigraben (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Andy's actually been doing this homeschool scheme for quite a while now, and has even taught this class before, I believe. Amazingly, he seems not to have trouble getting gullible parents to pay him to take their kids off his hands for a couple hours a week (I imagine, being home all day with them, they're happen to get rid of them). In fact, on paper Andy seems like he would probably be a good teacher. I really don't think he would have made the 78 students claim if there weren't some basis for it (obviously counting any online sign ups, and likely even anyone who expressed interest in the classroom lessons whether or not they got around to cutting him a check). The idea that suddenly the right-wing wackos who have been shuffling their kids off to him in the past would suddenly revolt en masse and demand their money back seems far-fetched. Even a handful dong so after a single class is unlikely. No, in classic broken clock mode Andy may have had a bit of sense and realized that posting everything online did nothing but provoke parody and ridicule. I mean, I'm sure Andy has enough "liberals are evil and here's why" in his head that he can go off on vaguely American Government-related tirades for a couple hours a week and save him having to write out a lecture on CP with some semblance of structure. It's not like he has certain standards he has to meet. Other than traffic for his site (which students don't add to apart from homework anyway) connecting the classes to CP never had any real advantage. I think he's giving up with that, but asking him about it could be the next FBI.

Oh, and for anyone who might not have seen it before, this shows that his classes actually do draw a sizeable crowd (or at least have in the past). DickTurpis (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily show any such thing and might even be the homeschool equivalent of astroturfing. At my old law firm we had a professional photographer come in to take pics of people in the firm "at work" to show off our diversity, dedication, fancy digs, et. We all wore suits, from the partners down to the office staff (effectively multiplying available suits by a factor of at least 5), and sat around using pens to point sagely at sentences in legal documents with our pals looking on in keen interest. Were there really that many lawyers serving that many clients in the office that day? Was anyone in those pictures actually doing what they purported to be doing? No and no. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit if Andy was asked if he was interested in appearing in On the Hour and rallied all available kids at his church to sit quietly with the homeskulerz for a few minutes while the nice liberals with cameras took pictures. 16:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But surely that would be liberal deceipt and we all know professor assfly and the other cp'dians wouldn't be party to that.Oldusgitus (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even fundie wingers believe good marketing is deceit. 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

After quickly skimming this section, I went to NR's site, eager to see ethnically diverse people pretending to lawyer. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was that convincing :) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting theory. I hadn't given that any thought. You could be right, but it does seem a little overly cynical. And there might be a bit of that, filling out the ranks a bit, but I think mostly of the students are legit. I think it would be harder to cajole a bunch of kids into pretending to be students, especially when most would presumably be in real school at the same time. We also know from past classes that he can get at least 20+ students in them (mostly apparently non-parodists). I'd wager he has that many or more. But give it a few days and if there's no developments someone might as well sock up and ask him about it. Who's got JacobB these days? DickTurpis (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is with Team B until the 15th, but I think everyone's on a general hiatus until we get rights back. Were he not still demoted I think this cycle would be maths articles and the next cycle general douchebaggery and bible stuff. 01:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Go on someone, explain to me. How can a class held by assfly in a class room be homeschooling? Surely it's a school, admitedly run by a batshit person but it is still a school and not, be definition, a homeschool.Oldusgitus (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is they're homeschooled students because they're not enrolled in public school and are presumably generally taught by their parents at home. Had they been given a competent teacher, classes of this sort would not only be beneficial for them, but almost essential, as few parents are qualified to teach multiple subjects at a high school level. I hope they're getting some sort of real education somewhere. DickTurpis (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘They're not enrolled in public schools so they are homeschooled? So by that definition all private school students in the UK are homeschooled? Kids what go to Eton are now homeschooled? What a weird world assfly lives in. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Scratch the "public". My bad. They aren't enrolled in any school, public or private. They take a ridiculous class taught by an incompetent manchild once a week, and hopefully some other classes perhaps taught by people with a modicum of intelligence. But they presumably receive most of their education at home. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the kid in the Che Guevara t-shirt may not be legit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those anti-Guevara shirts. See here. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. The screen cut it off so I only saw the top half of Che's face, but in a wider shot you can see it's anti-Guevara. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think someone hit it early on. We've seen how he does the on-line lectures before - they start as a crude outline, sentence fragments, etc., that is obviously a wikified version of his lecture notes. Then he sentencifies it and adds a few things. Lecture one proceeded per the pattern. I bet that last week he got his rejection letter from the NJ school people and they specifically criticized some on-line aspect of what he is doing (couldn't be the lectures unless for content, but the homework and tests on line look really bad) and he immediately stopped doing it. ħuman 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He's now saying they're taking a "one-week break". That would still require him to have his second lecture up by tomorrow, though...I'm not holding my breath. Röstigraben (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Charities suck!

It had to happen:

• JeffR (who just suggested that CP could add links to charities to the main page) gives up^img and notes that Andy stonewalled the entire suggestion by continuously picking on the random example charity and by not naming any alternative.
• Jpatt justifies not linking to charities^img by hiding behind unsourced statistics. Donating Enough Already!
• Ed Poor banhammers the guy forever with the lovely summary "Constantly arguing and debating ... no contribs" - yep, that's totally not misrepresenting the entire thing.

Just showcases that you can't even win on CP if you make intelligent suggestions that fall in line with conservatism/Christianity. --Sid (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it has been long established that at CP prayer is preferable to charitable contribution. I'm sure there are some historic diffs to that effect on Andy's talk page.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed has been a real scumbag lately. Even more so than usual. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to disagree until I read Ed's weird comment^img right after the banhammering. Apparently, suggesting to place a donation link on the main page and then asking Andy to name any charity and link to that is now an attempt at sbverting CP with anti-conservative values. What. The. Fuck. --Sid (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Sid, EVERYONE is out to get you. If someone tries to get you to associate with an organization, the only possible reason they would be doing so is so that they can attack you. Once Andy names a charity, liberals across the liberosphere will try to dig up dirt on that charity and demonize it. That's why it is unfortunate that Andy, with his great charitable nature, cannot risk to name a charity which he endorses. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed emulating TK? The decay rate accelerates.--Brendiggg (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia: going south up to and including the second derivative. mb 19:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

They did mainpage that local church's charity outreach thing when the Haitian earthquake was in the news... ħuman 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, that wasn't without great discussion and criticism. I remember Ed's idea of flying over Haiti and dropping $20 bills as aid. The most clueless thing I've ever heard. Maybe even worth finding the diff. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Did he really say that? Oh, please do find the diff! DickTurpis (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody suggested this a year or two ago: suggested CP link to a charity, and andy just badgered him to attack liberals' lack of charitableness, instead of, y'know, giving to charity. Ah, here it is Totnesmartin (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here^img is Ed's ingenious plan of dropping $20 bills on Haiti and letting them sort it out. You've got to wonder how someone can be so dumb, even if he has good intentions. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the thing Totnes links to predates it: CaptureBot, do your thing!^img --Sid (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take much to cause Ed to flail and handwave wildly:

• Rafael: "Please tell us more about the evils of Oxfam and the other charities!"^img
• Ed: "You took two years off and just came back now?!"^img - Huh? - "There are... many such organizations! I won't name them, but it's about the principle anyway!"

I guess the take-away message is not to trust charities because your money will likely fund terrorism...? Well, that would at least explain why Andy refused to name a charity...

Or maybe the real message here is not to trust the wild assertions and accusations of CP sysops, especially not when they refuse to give a single shred of evidence. ...yeah, nothing new here.

As a bonus, this sentence really shows a lot about the mindset of conservatives: "There are innumerable 'charities' fronting for terrorists and leftists." --Sid (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As another bonus, I recall George W Bush making great play out of using charities to provide welfare instead of the government. Was GWB a liberal all along? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: the LIBERAL Terry Jones

What are they on? Either the liberals are terrorist-sympathizing wishy-washy anti-Christians, or they're... racist Islamophobic crazies. Have we always been at war with Eastasia? InsaneBookBadger^{Unleash the badger!} 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, anything bad is liberal, and everything liberal is bad on Conservapedia. But take note to the fact that it was added by Terry Koeckritz - if he's not at Conservapedia as a parodist bringing out lulz, trolling, or wanting attention, he's there to conjure up anti-liberalness and, in some cases, blatant lies, as is basically everyone else there who doesn't fall into the aforementioned groups. Oh, and it's safe to assume that he's watching...HAI TK! ~SuperHamster Talk 01:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OMG!! Terry Koeckritz made a bullshit entry on CP! Oh the horror! Oh the humanity! What is the TrollKIng doing?! Where is Andy?! (Hope my feigned outrage helped you reach a satisfying climax Terry.) --PsyGremlinPrata! 07:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

{{shock and outrage}} --Sid (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

However, I do appreciate the irony of the man who added the "liberal multi-culturism" block reason, being the one to imply that it's liberals who would be intolerant of another's religion. We all know why he added it, the fact that it'll remain there speaks volumes about how twisted CP's idealology has become. Good, upstanding religious person = conservative; good, upstanding religious person who does something cringeworthy = liberal. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Given what they think of the Phelps crowd, it could easily be that TK deems Terry Jones to be a characteristic liberal. More likely, though, is that he's just yanking chains. He knew we'd see his edit. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberals are missing the message?

This^img is classic Andy. He's so caught up in the alternate reality that is the tea bagging craze, he can't even be bothered to read his own source: "Marketing consultant Christine O'Donnell upset Rep. Mike Castle in the Delaware Republican Senate primary tonight, handing the tea party movement a major victory and giving Democrats an unexpected chance to hold the First State seat."

In other words, the Tea Baggers fuck the GOP twice: once by defeating an establishment candidate, second by almost certainly stopping them getting a majority in the senate. here. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another website explains what a moron Andy is: "If Christine O'Donnell wins, the Republicans will not gain control of the United States Senate" TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

~SuperHamster Talk 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And CNN projects Tea Party-backed Carl Paladino will win New York GOP governor's primary over party favorite Rick Lazio. Although, as Political Wire says: "There's a better chance that pigs fly than either Lazio or Paladino winning the general election against Andrew Cuomo (D)." TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Although selecting extremist candidates sabotages the national party, it could be seen as valuable symbolically. Consider the 1964 Democratic Convention. The MFDP supported national Democratic agendas but wanted the (whites only) Mississipi Democratic Party unseated in favour of their own. Everybody knew that if this was done all the Southern Democrats would walk away, not just Mississipi. What actually happened was pragmatic - but it was certainly not just or fair. And it sent a message: the system cannot help you, if you want equal rights you cannot trust the system. Increasingly activists didn't bother with the ballot box they took to the streets.

Send that same message to the Tea Party? You can't fight the system, so go out (you know they have guns) and shoot somebody to make your point? Better, even for the Republican Party, that they get their symbol and their five minutes in the spotlight.

NB I'm not comparing the ridiculous Tea Party agenda with the civil rights movement, except in the sense that both need an opportunity to express themselves through the democratic process and preventing that won't lead to good things. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Y'know, if I were the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party, I'd view the Teabaggers as a golden opportunity. Basically, I would covertly encourage the loons of the Republicans to take over the party. It might mean sacrificing the 2010 elections, but it would give the Democrats a host of nutcases to campaign against in 2012. There's lots of rumors that the Obama team is salivating over the prospect of Sarah Palin getting the Republican nomination in 2012.

More seriously, the Tea Party movement has the potential to become to Republicans what Jesse Jackson was to Democrats in the Eighties -- very useful and popular among the base, but a real turn-off to moderates. And moderates are where general elections are won. MDB (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What's with the new idea of putting this on Main Page instead of Main Page Right? Looks very odd. Worm^{(t | c)} 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, be careful what you wish for: Palin will give the loony base real energy. On the other... yeah that'll be funny. Especially the debates. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the "be careful what you wish for" thing. I've heard that around 1978 or so, Democrats were desperately hoping this ex-actor that was Governor of California a few years back would get the Republican nomination, because there was no way he could win in the general election...

An Obama/Palin debate would come down to intellect versus charm. Obama wins intellectually, hands down, but Palin can out-charm Obama -- it'll be like a college professor debating the host of Romper Room.

Of course, I've also heard the theory that Palin's goal isn't to be the next President; her goal is to be the next Oprah. She wants to create a media empire. And she has the charisma for that, easily. I may not like hew views, but I'll admit that she has a gift for expressing them in a way that appeals to her target audience. MDB (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I see Andy's so orgasmic over O'Donnell's win, he's quite prepared to turn CP's front page into an even bigger abortion.^img I wonder when the Teabaggers are going to arrive in droves to edit his blog? Oh, that's right... never. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More funny: first, 53-47 means she won by nearly a landslide (when the Tories "winning" the UK GE 36%-29% WAS a landslide). Then he cites TPM??? Is that dirty, liebural source acceptable now?TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He has such a hard-on for Tea Party candidates, it's really ridiculous. But it's ok, it just means more seats that the Democrats will keep. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And how are liberals missing the message? When are Republican primaries ever events that liberals should take a message from? --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Castle doesn't agree with everything Andy says, therefore he is a liberal and missed the message. QED. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's two cases to be made for Republican primaries sending a message to liberals, although not quite as loud snf clear a message as Andy thinks it is.

• In open primary states, a strong showing for a Tea Party candidate could show that conservatives are gaining in that state. You couldn't make the same argument in a closed primary state, unless the Republicans also showed a surge in registrations.
• The message Andy would never acknowledge is that the Democrats need to go to the center to gain moderate support or, at the least, portray the Tea Party candidates as nutjobs. MDB (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the more your opponent moves to the extreme, the more centre ground you can occupy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Complacency's the thing to watch out for now. Remember Kinnock! 15:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article on what happens after the elections here. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Kinnock? this whole Tea party thing reminds me of Michael Foot's labour in 1983. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Powers That Be

In Karajerk world: the powers that be boot their six year-old daughter from the squad. In the real world: other parents boot the girl from the squad. After a vote. Doesn't CP believe in democracy now? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A classic Morton's Fork here. If it had gone the other way they'd be complaining about public school values and 6-year-old girls chanting about wearing tight skirts and shaking their booty. Well, Ed wouldn't complain, but the rest would. DickTurpis (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Even worse, they voted to remove her from the team while the matter was being resolved, heavily implying (to me) that it's not permanent. Seriously, either I'm missing something here, or this is just parents calling Fox Freaking News before even talking to their daughter over something that's basically just a case of damage control (parents don't want their daughter to do this WTF cheer, and they got their wish) that could've gone better (drama-whoring parents on the one side, and a rather odd - or so it at least seems with no further info - decision to not immediately vote on the cheer itself on the other side). --Sid (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly: WTF to the story, they're 6 for fucks sake. If the kids are coming up with that sort of chant on their own, something is wrong. If there were adults who made it up for them, something is horribly wrong. Secondly, I'm impressed that you say "in the real world" and manage to link to Fox with a straight face. ^bomination 17:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you can actually flip that second point upside down: What does it say about CP when even Fox News counts as a more reality-based news source? --Sid (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep... ^bomination 17:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ WTF is a fight over the membership of a cheerleading squad of six year olds even national news? Dear sweet FSM, what will Fox be covering next, a fight over the swing set at a kindergarten playground? MDB (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, why are there even 6-year-old cheerleaders to begin with? DickTurpis (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Symptomatic of the laager mentality of the right in the US in which everything family is under threat from those nasty liberals. I tend to think geting 6 years olds of any sex to sing about shaking their booties is a little silly and overly sexualising but to regard it as an attack on good ol family values from the left is strange. Especially when you consider the tendancy for cheerleading and the uniforms worn to be almost always overtly sexual. I mean, who wants their 6 year old daughter to prance around like a little JonBenet?Oldusgitus (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw a cheerleader/drum majorette performance by young girls a while ago and it was... creepy. There were these little, frilly automatons going through the motions that had been drilled into them, with so signs of enjoyment. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 18:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't help thinking of the singing squad in Donnie Darko and all that goes with that in the film. one of the best things about UK sport is that by and large we've avoided the cheerleader thing, and where we haven't at the least they're old enough that I don't feel too guilty. Have you seen the Wednesdayites? At least they're all over 18. Personally if I go to an event and there are cheerleaders on I try to go to the bar tbhOldusgitus (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As to the kids making it up, no need. Cheers are widely copied. Cheers similar to this one (same structure: back ache, short skirt, booty shake) have been used for years, I see web evidence for at least five years with a trivial Google search, despite pollution from this story. Six year olds see a cheer invented by adults - it's easy to memorise, it gets a reaction, if nobody says "No" then that's the new cheer.

They don't understand, of course. "Back ache" is a reference to having large breasts - associated with back pain. A six year old might wear a short skirt, but they certainly don't have breasts. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A high school drill team I was on chanted "My back is achin', my bra's too tight [note how much more sense this makes], my booty's shakin' from left to right" in 1975. 66.245.255.22 (talk)

Which would be worse?

• Case 1: The GOP win the mid-terms, in which case Andy will be insufferable, or
• Case 2: The GOP lose the mid-terms, in which case Andy's mouth-frothing insanity will be ratcheted up several notches? --PsyGremlinParla! 17:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And Case 2 is bad...how, exactly? Andy's funnier than cable TV and there are no commercial breaks. I Eat Glue (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The ramifications of the elections do, I believe, stretch beyond Andrew Schlafly. I'm going with GOP loss. DickTurpis (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We had the same predictions about a post-Obama CP. Yes, he's gone a little mental after Obama's win, but we've yet to see him go insufferable after a Republican win. So at the moment, I don't know what would be worse, we have no precedent at the moment for GOP victory for him to fap froth about. ^bomination 17:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the current SUPER EPIC TEA PARTY VICTORIES THAT LEAVE LIBERALS BAFFLED ZOMG vibes, it would be very bad. --Sid (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The way Andy's responding to the Tea Baggers at the moment I can't wait for the Main Page to become even more like National Enquirer.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He was pretty fricking smug after that Republican won Kennedy's old seat in MA - until he realized the guy was a RINO, at least in Andyworld. ħuman 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He also jizzed his pants over the "conservative landslide victory" in the UK general election, and those weren't real conservatives. Vulpius (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going with GOP loss, because Conservapedia is already a laughing stock, if Andy goes even more insane it'll just be even funnier! --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 20:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely GOP loss. Remember, some of us have to live here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no! Drunken British dropouts are being banned from America!

It's amusing to watch them flap their hands over this "harmless message," given that the kid was so drunk HE can't remember what he put in his e-mail...which, according to most sources, was both abusive AND threatening.

I especially like:

[quote] We wonder when the ego-manical Obama administration will begin detaining American Citizens for the same "crime". [/quote]

Err...they already do. Would've done the same thing under Bush or any other President. Sending the President a threatening letter will (at least) get you detained and questioned; they can't afford to ignore stuff like that.

Conservapedia: defending the rights of drunken British teenagers. (Wait...I thought Britain was an evil atheist socialist country? So wouldn't that make drunken British teenagers bad? Oh, the confusion!) --Phentari (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Internally presumably Schafly has some system of priorities. Someone should reverse engineer it. We know Obama is high priority, so a news item about Obama hating soccer will criticise Obama and praise soccer rather than vice versa. But some combinations are harder to guess. What if a news item says Evolution proves Gay Marriage is wrong? Or Group Theory is used to prove the Bush Tax Cuts must be renewed? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody add links anymore to what they are talking about? ħuman 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy have a problem with group theory? 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has a problem with the CP:Axiom of Choice. Likely because it's liberal. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have notice they will attack Obama no matter what he does, even when he takes positions they would otherwise be supportive of. I understand opposing the president on issues that there is legitimate disagreement, but it isn't about that. Let's face it, Obama could risk his life diving into a raging river to save several children and a basket full of puppies and they still would twist the story into an anti-Obama diatribe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This shit happens to every president. What's so impressive is that the conservative media can will any story into the limelight. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Turns out the story was fake all along^img. I'm sure that CP will immediately withdraw the post without making any excuses at all. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 17:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Look how liberals jumped to defend Obama even when the story is fake!!!...? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And once again... I have GOT to start IRL trolling. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. The irony meter didn't break on this one; they haven't built the irony meter yet that could MEASURE this one. [3] --Phentari (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect

There is a member still in good standing on conservapedia who hasn't edited in a while because he violated his parole, and he is now spending an additional 2 years in prison for threatening GWB in a letter. This is not a fake story, he is really in prison.--Opcn (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

/thinks about who hasn't edited in a while... Jallen? Joaquin? RJJensen? JacobB? oh come on, you can't dangle carrots in front of us like that. I'll tell you a secret, if you tell me one! --PsyGremlinSprich! 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Too bad, he's not a big name but I'm not going to leak. Go relax with a cup of herbal tea you filthy liberal. --Opcn (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break

So, worn out after a hectic first week, Andy's course is taking a one-week break.^img Good job he's not one of those lazy, liberal public school teachers. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Give him a little more time to revise history. It's not easy and he's only one manchild.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, if he's taking a one week break then the lecture should be up tomorrow, right? Let's sit back and see what happens. Oh, and thanks to whoever's socks those were. Well done. DickTurpis (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird. ħuman 20:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to think of this. So Andy is taking a break in a course that just started. Did spring break come early? Quazywabbit (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian search engine - no Conservapedia

Slashdot had an article about religious search engines. So, I was curious and asked it about Conservapedia. Four links - two from one site, two from another, neither of which were Conservapedia. Searching for 'Atheism' doesn't have a hint of CP on it. So, Ken... if Conservapedia's mission of having an alternative to Wikipedia is viable, you should be looking at the search engines that cater to the same audience rather than one that has two 'o's in its name. However, its doubtful CP will ever show up on that search engine - "It must present well-written Christian information in an organized format" --Shagie (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, people who pay attention to what kind of site they are putting forward instead of letting an algorithm do it for them don't put conservapedia forward. --Opcn (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL - even a search for Conservapedia doesn't call up their site. Maybe it's that they gossip (Castro is dead; Gary Coleman died a drunk), name-calling and spend most of their time on bizarre essays, "List of Conservative Words" and ConservaMath Not-An-Actual Medal competitions because they don't like the mainstream competition winner's country of birth. Perhaps they realize that Conservapedia doesn't really reflect Christian values enough for their search engine. --Leotardo (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Ken is already submitting CP to their index. And by "CP" I mean his three pet articles plus maybe one or two others. He most definitely is going to avoid the Obama and relativity articles, though, in the hopes that they will be fooled into accepting it. Then again, he might (rightfully?) figure that tiny "search engines" that rely on a manual submission and review process are fossils of the pre-Y2K era and that it just won't be worth the hassle. --Sid (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

August at CP and RW

Conservapedia	RationalWiki

• August is traditionally not a busy month at CP, but talking about Relativity helped.
• Dumb vandalism takes its toll - this can be seen at Conservapedia:Active users, too.
• Is it me, or is CP just becoming more and more boring? I had now problem to ignore it during my holidays....

BTW: why did Conservative delete cp:Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive2 (mirrored here), but not cp:Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1 or cp:Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive3?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No idea. But I've been having fun reading up on Bugler and PJR going at each other again. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

CP is so god damn boring. Maybe the coordinated vandal attacks are taking their toll or maybe they are trying to starve us of lols. Account creation is seldom on, and when it is, they are flooded with vandals. Night mode is on and off at strange times. I don't understand why they're letting this happen. Aside from the main page, all the admins have left is kicking peoples' asses off the site. Why would they stop now? TK, what are you doing? Is this your new game? Occasionaluse (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree - CP has become a bore. I was entertained by how much they bullied and harassed their fellow travelers, but now that nobody wants to be a part of it I only check it every once in awhile. I find conflict entertaining, but not stupidity. They also seem to try to tailor their content to whatever will get RW talking, which is also boring. After I posted about Obama being mentioned 36 times on Mainpage, within two days it had gone up to 63. Yawn. --Leotardo (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me as if CP had turned into an election-coverage-only site recently, which is sadly pretty boring. Gems like Quantum Wine are rare, and other than that, we basically only have Ken's madness, TK's trolling and Ed's bursts of activity. --Sid (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I only visit CP now via the WIGO links or to check its heartbeat. Editing levels are ridiculously low, with only very few established sysops editing. The glory days of '08 are long gone. EddyP (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even from a cursory glance at the chart thumbnails, RW looks vibrant while CP looks barren. Kendollpedia is growing rapidly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, there'll be much back-slapping in TZB, congratulating TK on what a good job he's doing, because we're complaining that nothing is happening on CP. (cf: TZB20/03b07c389ac7b0a5.html: Quoth Jpratt: "TerryK, you are often misunderstood and can seem a bit abrasive in one on one conversation. With that said, you are a great asset and a hell of a Conservative fighter.) Sadly, nothing is happening, besides Ken's insanity (now hidden from view) and Andy's growing hysteria over the elections. For all intents and purposes, editing is limited to Andy and the Goons - which is how it should have been in the first place. Ah yes, '08 was a good year. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the premise. The last 10 WIGOs have been pretty good and there were more juicy ones further down. It's true that there aren't lots of edits, but that's only because that lying scumbag Terry Koeckritz has blocked everyone. Now we get to see the idiocy of the CP sysops in its natural state, unalloyed with the need to be cruel to newcomers. Now Terry Koeckritz can't blame "vandal sites" for everything, all he has to do is lie. Now Andy doesn't have to tell people they're idiots, all he has to do is demonstrate his political myopia. Now Kowardjou doesn't have decks to swab, all he does is block people. Now Ed isn't being creepy... oh, okay, he's still doing that. I find it much more interesting like this. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As disappointed as I am that CP isn't fun anymore, I'm also satisfied because on some level some the goons may have accepted that CP doesn't gel with the real world. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

{ud}What's more worrying is that none of the Powers That Be are aware that something has gone seriously awry with CP's editor base over the past... shall we say 19 months... you know, from the time TK became a sysop again. Or maybe they are, but can't say anything, lest Brother Leader disagrees with them and they are forever cast in to the Pit of Certain Doom.
Still, if all else fails, Uncle Ed can always turn it into an on-line user's manual.^img--PsyGremlinSprich! 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that the alarm bells would have rung now that they've lost all the normal editors who didn't get involved in the political side of things (i.e. weren't parodists), such as Wesley, JY23, AlanE, CPalmer and many, many more. EddyP (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Add KrysG, BRichten, BMcP, HSmom, JDWPianist to that list, plus sysops Learn Together, Jallen, Bethany and her sister, Addison. All that's left now are the Fab Five, Ken and a bunch of parodists. But there's no icebergs here, full steam ahead boys! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The current crowd is stuck with each other. The main editors don't really build articles anymore but get lost in essays. Schlafly can't kick out Ken and Terry because nobody would be left. But if he doesn't kick them out, nobody will join or if they sign up, they'll be blocked and berated. As a side note, does anyone else find it hysterical how Terry is such an asshole on CP, but when he goes over to WP he behaves politely, but you know that asshole is just below the service, wanting to come out so damn bad. --Leotardo (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You must not have been reading closely enough Leotardo. He does the same rotten shit there you know and love him for. 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Form diversity to boredom:

August at Conservapedia
2007	2008	2009	2010

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I won't be helping the September RW stats much because real life is kicking my arse ... Hey LArron, would you please be able to do a Citizendium stats run? - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As an interesting interpretive side note, are people in the "blocked" portion of the historical charts people who are blocked now, or people who were blocked as of the month the charts refer to? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

That's actually pretty coherent for Ken. Although I noticed he's missed the "worth more than €3 million to the Irish economy" bit. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The grammar is coherent, yes, but the sentence itself makes no sense whatsoever. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The conference may be "worth more than €3 million to the Irish economy" , but that's three million evilutionist dollarsEuros! That money is so tainted, it's a net drain on the Irish economy. Better Ireland get it's money in traditional Christian conservative ways. Beer, for instance. MDB (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This line was particularly funny: Want to know one of the reasons why Ireland's economy is on skid row? They hold too many unproductive liberal conferences where they talk a lot of blarney. It's as if the country of Ireland voted to have this conference; it's also funny because Ireland is one of the most conservative and Catholic countries in the EU. They also were at the forefront of economic growth in the EU until the recession and banking crises. Whatevs. --Leotardo (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody remember when Ken was lauding Ireland for something or other? It may have been one of his regional Google rankings, but all his mad rantings have melded into one amorphous blur and I'm far too busy at the moment to go searching although knowing Ken it was consigned to his little black hole.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See TZB file "210/320d43..." for evidence of Ken gaming Google Ireland through - surprise, surprise - trolling forums under pseudonyms. --Sid (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it Finland? Oh yes, here it is - one of Ken's earlier lapses into insanity: Essay: We love you Finland!^img - all because they were 2nd in the Alexia rankins. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the people of Finland wished to learn about their native waterfowl. Most likely the liberal Finnish media censored stories about how the ducks were taking over. EddyP (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible Ken is a bit peeved by this http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0914/1224278831472.html?via=mr Much of the book is available online. It's basically "I don't understand so goddidit".82.23.208.15 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens!

With all this talk about Obama and teleprompters, I decided to look into teleprompters a bit, and according to Wikipedia, one of its inventors was someone named Hubert Schlafly. On top of the rivalry at the Harvard Law review, could Andy hate Obama so much because he has used one of his relative's inventions to seize control of the country? DickTurpis (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In a private dinner conversation, Hub Schlafly told me that he rues the day on which he invented the teleprompter. If he had known of the direction in which it would take America, surely he would have dashed it to pieces. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 19:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Still nothing?

Have there been any developments with either the Menendez Recall or the letter to Moo? I was hoping for some lulz from at least one of those, but nothing. I sort of suspected Moo would toss Andy's letter right in the trash, but the New Jersey Supreme Court has no such luxury. CP is pretty boring these days. DickTurpis (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as it would have been fun to see Moo smack Andy down until the cows come home, it's probably a bigger win to see him treat Andy's idiotic gloating with the contempt it deserves. However, Andy has no sense of hubris, so expect a 'Liberal professor still hasn't told us why his Bible isn't finished yet' rant in a month or so. --PsyGremlinParlez! 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The Menendez recall case is back on, sort of. And there's a familiar name writing that article... Totnesmartin (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, apparently it's going to be so close!! lol. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And this other article he wrote is lovely. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear God! The stupid! It hurts! Four Indian tribes have myths about how the Grand Canyon formed. They're all different myths. Therefore they must have witnessed it or they must have just missed it by a few years. None of the legends mention gradual erosion. Therefore the Grand Canyon was formed recently. Therefore Noah's Flood is true and the Earth is 6000 years old. I think we need a new Biggest Idiot contest, because Terry is campaigning. DickTurpis (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But, but, but, but..... In the bibl it says that all life was wiped out except for those on the arc and if they were on the arc how could they have seen anything form on continental USA all the way from the arc on Mt Ararat? Oh dear, I suspect I'm just not cut out to be an xian. FSM for me I guess.Oldusgitus (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to read it again to see if I can follow the "logic", but I'm afraid doing so right now will make me stupider. I guess he concedes that the Canyon wasn't formed by Noah's flood, but then that doesn't really back up the Biblical model. It should be obvious these groups didn't witness its formation or they'd all have the same story, not four different ones (one of which involves Pack-i-tha-a-wi cutting it with a knife; a blatant contradiction of the Bible). Besides, I really can't see how it would make a difference to them whether they arrived shortly after the canyon was formed or 500 million years after it was formed (how would they know the difference?). This idea that the existence of legends about the formation of the canyon being relevant is absurd. Before the field of scientific inquiry was fully embraced whenever a culture encountered something they couldn't explain (a big fucking gap in the ground being one such thing) they'd make up a story about it. Far from being "remarkable" that the tribes had legends about the canyon, it'd be astounding if they didn't. What a fucking retard. DickTurpis (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He also says the various tribes wouldn't have those legends if the canyon had existed when they arrived there, and casually mentions that they settled the area between 500 and 1400 CE. So he's arguing that the great flood was preceded by the arrival of Jesus? Wow, that's not even coherent just within the framework of biblical "history". Röstigraben (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone should add that to WIGO:Clogs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. DickTurpis (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty terrible analysis of the oral arguments. Rivera-Soto was the only justice who showed any serious sympathy for the decision by the appellate court, certainly no sympathy to Schlalfy or his arguments. At best its an argument between people who feel the petition should be thrown out now, or whether you have to wait till signatures are gathered to throw it all. Albin is still a star. tmtoulouse 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Tally

It's not worth its own WIGO, but I thought some people might be interested in an accurate Tea Party success rate, as opposed to Schlafly's ridiculous 4/4 claim. Dave Weigel has been keeping track.--^talk 00:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when does Assfly let facts get in the way of propaganda? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 00:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Even so, those number he quotes still shows an alarming jump to the rabid right. It'll be interesting to see how moderate GOPs swing. --PsyGremlinTal! 01:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SETI and aliens WIGO

ASchlafly himself has claimed that aliens are just a liberal sci-fi trick to distract people from the Bible. Coarb (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See [1]^img and [2]^img. Coarb (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pothead as a conservative term?

Pothead as a conservative term? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&curid=84551&diff=818556&oldid=818069 No matter how I look at it and look at assfly's definition of a conservative term I just can't see this one fitting. Maybe assfly is smoking it up and thought it was a good idea. Quazywabbit (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've know potheads with a much better grip on reality than Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What about 420? Is that conservative too? C®ackeЯ

That's a conservative number. God forbid Andy ever starts listing those... 212.62.5.158 (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. It could be fun. Consider that Andy doesn't like certain Rational things..., he'd obviously have to declare that irrational numbers are conservative. First, that gives us the lulz of Any declaring "irrational = conservative", and second, wait till he tries to list all of them. MDB (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, calculus is obviously conservative because it was invented by Newton, who, as we all know, believed in God. Relativity is liberal because of that dirty atheist Einstein...and so on. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservative words are words that fit the exponential growth curve of two times as many conservative words per century. --Opcn (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Praise the Lord, it's a new Toon!

And... it's kinda lame, though a lot better than quite a few of his other toons. --Sid (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So, only Tea Party -endorsed candidates are Real Republicans now? Vulpius (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, if you're not a teabagger then you might as well be a democrat! If there's another Larry Craig in the GOP that I don't know about then this should be good news. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

KEN!!!! HE'S STEALING YOUR MAINPAGELEFT!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the better ones, really. I mean, it's short and gets the point across without a long caption explaining the joke. Broccoli (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the original tea-party about rejecting tea? ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.101 / talk / contribs}

What original tea-party?^img --Sid (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, fully support this trend. I hope the Tea Partiers take full control of the Republican party, forcing all the ideologically impure out. I think that would be best for everyone. --Kels (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw all that stuff on the economy on MPL... could whoever posted it please copyedit it for grammar and spelling? Was it TwinKle? It's got a few of one of his standard grammar errors in several places... ħuman 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. It was one of Rob's screeds. Couldn't you tell? The poor spelling is a dead give away. TK couldn't contribute so much drivel without copy/pasting it. Rob has even fixed some typos, including the embarassing section heading Housing stimulus faulters, so it was much worse at one time.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I found the cartoon quite acceptable, apart from the RINO label. If the Rhinoceros didn't have the label it would even be rather funny. — Pietrow ☏ 08:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh. For once it's not unfunny. I'll give it that. DickTurpis (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Banach-Tarski Paradox and the Loaves and Fish

Andy^img:

The only miracle described in all four Gospels is the multiplication of loaves and fish by Jesus, thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called Banach-Tarski Paradox proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object.

First of all, that was the only miracle? How about curing leprosy, walking on water and coming back from the fuckin' dead? Second, well here's from Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman:

"You've got an orange, OK? Now you cut the orange into a finite number of pieces, put it back together, and it's as big as the sun. True or false?"

"No holes?"

"No holes."

"Impossible! There ain't no such a thing."

"Ha! We got him! Everybody gather around! It's So-and-so's theorem of immeasurable measure!"

Just when they think they've got me, I remind them, "But you said an orange! You can't cut the orange peel any thinner than the atoms."

"But we have the condition of continuity: We can keep on cutting!"

"No, you said an orange, so I assumed that you meant a real orange."

Well, loves and fishes aren't any more continuous than an orange, so the Banach-Tarski "Paradox" doesn't work. I'd love to see how Andy rationalizes that away. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the way CP's own page on the Banach-Tarski Paradox explains that it relies on the Axiom of Choice, which as we all know is a filthy liberal lie. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Many miracles agree in the wp:Synoptic Gospels, but not in John. Wp has a good table of this at wp:Miracles of Jesus#Harmony of miracles in the four Gospels. Feeding the 5000 is the only one in all four. --Shagie (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Shagie beat me to it. Andy was right as far as the loaves and fishes being the only miracle in all four Gospels. MDB (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Arghhh, I misread that. I thought he was saying that the loaves and fishes was the only miracle in all of the Gospels. This is the guy writing a Conservative Bible after all, so I didn't put it past him.

I was about to give the resurrection as an example of another miracle described in all of the Gospels, but I see the issue is complicated in the case of Mark. I'd say it still counted, but then again this far from my field of expertise. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But Andy contradicts himself: Jesus did no miracles.^img It was his excuse for the whole "Even if Jesus disproved relativity by healing the guy at a distance, it's a miracle, which goes beyond normal physics anyway!" point - which is remarkably similar to what I'd argue here: Why is a freaking DIVINE MIRACLE listed as SCIENTIFIC FOREKNOWLEDGE? Seriously, Andy, get your terminology straight: It's a SIGN. After all, Jesus, the Son of God was bound by the laws of physics. YOU SAID SO YOURSELF. --Sid (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the latest thing to make the transition from parodist-inserted junk to official CP insight -- Andy called the suggestion "comedy" not so long ago. I guess Jesus can invoke the axiom of choice and cut fish into non-measurable pieces no problem, but liberals (who, recall, want to be like god) can't even use it non-physically without deceit. --MarkGall (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The sysops don't even read the front page

Fascinating article, Karajou^img. If you are looking for more articles like that try three down below^img. - π 14:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For being such a douchebag to editors and anyone else to question his mission, TK's definitely a very diligent troll. I'm not sure how laudable scooping a semi-literate redneck is, but props on that. I guess. 14:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, ahz youse awll knows, ifit bein' abou' dem darn libruls, dem ah'm a-guessing youse jus' cahn't sez it offen enough. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh give him some credits,

For all of his edits,

He's Popeye the sailor man!

peep peep. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A new high for Ed?

Good ol' Ed leaps into the fray and creates a redirect called "Agitprop,"^img which redirects to something called "Agitation and propaganda". Which didn't exist on CP at the time of Ed creating the redirect. And 5 hours later, it still doesn't exist.
Has Ed gone from creating stubs he expects people to flesh out, to creating redirects to articles he wants people to create for him? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think that's good, get a load of Ed adding more NWO conspiracy to a page already overloaded with RobS conspiracy nonsense. It's like they're having a competition as to who can find the most insane source. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it was possible to out-crazy Rob. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. And yes, this is a new high for Ed. Pretty soon he'll just be making a list of articles for other people to write.

Also: does he seriously believe that anyone is ever going to revive CP? He must have more sense than that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean like CP's (now quite likely deleted) News Project? --Sid (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Terry Koeckritz has waded in and deleted it! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 4 bastards!) Oh Terry. I do hope you consulted with Ed via a private e-mail before you went and publicly contradicted him by deleting his redirect? I mean, after you threw such a hissy fit tantrum, with foot stomping too, the other day, I can only assume you follow the guidelines you insist on. --PsyGremlinHable! 20:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean Ed has reached some kind of asymptotic limit? His stubs have shrunk to the point where they are now of zero size in wiki-space? The implications of this are staggering. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when Ed becomes so concise that he just makes entries containing a single capital letter, copy-pasted out of some book he's skimming. --Kels (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

More realistically: perhaps a redirect to a non-existent category? Can't get more concise than that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Ed does not sully his beautiful mind with categories! --Kels (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantum wine

According to Andy the water into wine thing proves QM: "The second chapter of the Gospel of John describes the conversion of water into wine by Jesus at a wedding reception. Intuitively one would expect the conversion to occur before anyone tasted the drink. But under quantum mechanics, it is not until observation that matter acquires a definite state. John 2:9 describes this precisely as required by quantum mechanics, and the KJV misses this subtle issue of timing in the conversion." here^img. He's laugh-a-minute isn't he? 10:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Next :The Fall of man shows foreknowledge of Gravity. 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WIGO worthy IMO. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Curses! You beat me to it. Schroedinger's wine FTW! --PsyGremlinTal! 11:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely WIGO-worthy, nice catch. I also like how the example right below that one claims biblical support for Relativity. Röstigraben (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Probably, most of the internetsphere already doesn't think Andy's for real. That one surely bumps the numbers significantly. Parodists can only dream of reaching his lofty realm. Shame on you all. Make the pie higher!--Brendiggg (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Andy is using his own Bible translation to justify his claims that the Bible described quantum mechanics? That goes beyond circular logic; that's practically spiral logic! MDB (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's not the first time he's done that - didn't the "action at a distance" thing come from his translation crap as well? 212.62.5.158 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd call that narcissism, but Andy's not on Facebook. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But but but... would the conversion of water into wine not have required the conversion of a considerable amount of oxygen into lighter elements such as nitrogen and carbon? Would this not have increased the amount of mass energy represented by the liquid? For lack of alternatives, would the reaction not primarily have used ambient heat as its energy source? The chill should have been noticeable quite some time before anybody actually tasted the wine. mb 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

When I rule the world, Quantum Mechanics is going to be taught to all schoolchildren. I think I can get away with it at age 12. And it's going to be done PROPERLY. Not any of the "observer" bullshit. ^bomination 12:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Goddidit. That's all you need to know.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a good point. Doesn't God pretty much observe everything? Our observations actualize physical phenomena when a useless God is stuck with mere possibilities. Spare a thought for the poor guy.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the funniest "insight" I have read on CP in several months. The only way Andy can possibly even attempt to justify this is through his own "translation" of the story because in his mind, those authors of the KJV just weren't as insightful as he. This is a great example of coming out with a conclusion first and then attempting to twist the evidence to support the preconceived notion. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand how the writers of the KJV didn't think to include basic quantum theory principles in their translation. Shocking omission. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Truly I am disappointed in their lack of conservative insight into String theory myself. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, did you just basically say that quantum superposition disproves an omniscient God? ^bomination 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Deny it and lose all credibility. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lil' Phy steps in and cleans up Daddy's mess again.^img How long before she's sent to her room again? --PsyGremlinFale! 19:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, she merely put it in different words. We still got Quantum Wine, only this time the WTF is even more obvious because she explicitly uses the sentence "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine" to prove the point that it had not been wine until it had been tasted. Which... yeah. WTF. --Sid (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, are we saying only organoleptic tests are available to distinguish between water and wine? The last time I checked water and wine don't even have the same colour, and probably viscosity if the technology of a measuring stick is available. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 09:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those things that might make some sense if you think a bit about it and then utterly breaks when you think too much about it. I mean, "How would you know whether this bottle contains water or wine without observing it?" makes some sense, right? All of your tests are observations, and the moment you do so, it becomes one of the two. Y'know, all quantum-like and stuff. However, then they go on to basically say that this only applies to wine that has been miracle'd up by Jesus. And then you arrive at the basic message again: Jesus changed the water into wine. That's pretty much all the Bible says, and Andy (and now even his daughter) simply overlay some quantum woo onto it and then turn around and claim that this is Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. Just... what. Gah. I swear, every time I think about this, I lose IQ points. --Sid (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The IQ loss is an unfortunate side effect of the Brain Bleach that we use so much on this webpage. Unfortunately, I've been unable to figure out how to remove this undesired side effect, and so I reiterate my common statement: "Use of Brain Bleach should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. It is fundamentally better to avoid contact with substances resulting in a need to use Brain Bleach, rather than to use Brain Bleach to get the stupid and/or crazy out." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He's ba-a-ck!

Yeah, "Bad Touch" Poor sidles back into town, to teach us about Physical intimacy.^img It has 12 stages... and... er... not much else, according to Desmond Morris. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and in case you're wondering who Desmond Morris^img is, he's the guy who said physical intimacy has 12 stages.

I think Ed might have outdone himself here. Oh, and I can't wait for articles in CP's proposed "sex education" category. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, now I have to guess. 1. holding hands, 2. foot rub, 3. back rub, 4. kissing, 5. French kissing, 6. 2nd base, 7. dry humping, 8. hand job, 9. blow job, 10. straight-up fucking 11. dirty Sanchez, 12. DVDA. How'd I do, Eddie? DickTurpis (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Ed's may end in "10. Arrest, 11. Conviction, 12. Life Imprisonment." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Ed's link, the twelve stages are eye to body, eye to eye, voice to voice, hand to hand, hand to shoulder, hand to waist, face to face, hand to head, hand to body, mouth to breast, touching below the waist and intercourse. Amusingly enough, the link is not to Morris's book Intimate Behavior, but rather to a passage from one of James Dobson's books. Furthermore, Dobson is not talking about Morris either, but rather someone else's analysis of Morris. It almost goes without saying that Dobson doesn't describe anything below stage eight, so don't expect any talk about hot tit-sucking action.

As for the stages themselves...I suppose they sound right, though they don't sync with my past relationships. Of course, we're dealing with a third-hand source here, so make of it what you will. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

THIRD hand? I think that's in the advanced stages... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait... I see 'mouth to breast' there, but no mouth-to-mouth. Have I been doing it wrong? --PsyGremlinFale! 17:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Face to face" includes kissing. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 17:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who moves straight from "touching below waist" to "intercourse" ain't getting any of 'my' honey. And the whole "hand to hand, hand to shoulder, hand to waist" -- is this sex or the hokey pokey? JonquilS (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that Physical Intimacy / Desmond Morris pair is gold. And while we're talking of Uncle Ed (a.k.a. the sysop who recently blocked a guy for pointing out his quotemine and another guy for suggesting to place charity links on the main page), here he's reverting back to the Good Cop side, as if nothing ever happened: "Housekeeping is important... which is why I'm happy that you're here to do it. Hope you don't hope for extra rights or anything since housekeeping edits are not substantial."^img Oh, and some bonus delusion: "We can do better than Wikipedia!"^img It's baffling, really. The closest comparison would be this quote from Kung Pow. --Sid (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Hope you don't hope for extra rights or anything since housekeeping edits are not substantial" - I bet that's what he says to Mrs. Poor, misogynist bastard.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More fun with Ed.^img "Oh dear, our McCarthyism article is a mess. Who's going to fix it for me? I'd like to know what "McCarthyism" is."

Bonus what-the-fuckery: "Let's give him as much respect as Martin Luther King, who ushered in an era of equal rights for the races, despite his personal failings (adultery?) and the turn to the left he took in his last couple of years. (Sun Myung Moon admired him, which should count for something.)" Hey Ed, here's a hint - if you'd like to know what McCarthyism means, look it up and edit the article yourself! The days when there were editor's hanging around to help are long gone. Or maybe you can issue a writing plan. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely can't remember the last time Ed actually expanded an article in a meaningful way. And yeah, he's calling for help after he and his fellow goons kicked out or scared away all potential editors. Sorry, Ed, but you guys have to choose: Either you try to build a community or you just want to assert your authority (which you gained solely on basis of seniority, not skill) at every opportunity. Both is impossible since people can choose to leave when they feel unwanted (if they even last long enough). --Sid (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He's just as much of a useless cock at Wikipedia. From one of his latest talk page entries: "I'd like all the answers to these questions to be in the article, in a place where I can easily find it. Thank you. " In other words, "Please research my questions to my satisfaction". I'm surprised he didn't ask for a writing plan. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by this edit comment, Uncle Ed is gearing up for another stub-creating extravaganza. On the plus side, this should make for a bit of variety in CP Recent Changes. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 17:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The article states that "Rarely do individuals in our culture...", which means Eddee did not read the article, since in his "article", he says "regardless of culture". Mayhaps the stages are different in different cultures? Sounds like his aluminum pyramid hat is malfucktioning. Jimaginator (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for Poor

Ed's comment when deleting "Waiting for Godot" speaks volumes about what a schmuck he is. He'd rather have a redlink, than actually do any work himself. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Before we jump all over Ed about this, did anyone see the article he deleted? I didn't. But over at Wikipedia I've been behind tons of deletions under the auspices of nothing is better than the crap that was there. Then again, that was Wikipedia, which has standards, and I'm not Ed Poor, who repeatedly writes articles I'd delete for just that reason. DickTurpis (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a weaker Ed Poor case. However, he instantly deleted it instead of, oh, I dunno, rewrite it into a stub. And we're talking about quality standards that embrace something like "Desmond Morris, zoologist, described 12 stages of physical intimacy" as a solid start, so how hard can it be to whip up a stub for Godot? Seriously, something like "Blah is a famous novel/play by blah" would actually have been par for an EdStub. Maybe even add another sentence about the rough plot/setting/whatever and you're golden.

Ed just felt like trampling something into the ground again. Just like with the math articles, he isn't there to create, but to destroy. He will freely delete pages and paragraphs without even a second look, but the things he creates are one-liners and copypaste quotes. --Sid (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor is incapable of writing a summary for a play where nothing happens. News at 11. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 11:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not feature teenage girls in overly revealing clothing. Therefore it is of no interest. ħuman 01:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan

Oh Ed, in case you're wondering where the rest of the Japanese articles went, I believe Mr Adams can help you in that department. --PsyGremlinSprich! 19:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ano article wa kowaiku warui desu. He like mislabels things left and right, only to say, "oh, but it's actually this." "Semi-alphabetic" no. It's a syllabary. It represents SYLLABLES, not individual sounds, like an alphabet. "Prepositions" wha? Oh wait, you say "But they're really called postpositions." Why not say, "In Japanese particles are used as postpositions, which are related to prepositions, but they follow the modifying element, instead of precede it." Really a totally pathetic attempt at a language article. Oh, and I love all the raw, unglossed, and untranslated Japanese. "Kusou no baka" See? Now everyone knows that "no" is the noun to adjective particle! Right? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia

It was too hard for me to resist, so I figured I'd challenge Ed on Wikipedia, for the sake of (hopefully) getting a response. I hope he doesn't mind someone with an Arabic name coming after him... ghazi alizm, ^comments? 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Chances are he'll simply ignore it or just tell you to send a mail instead (bad idea for a bunch of reasons) because it's not Wikipedia business. --Sid (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Karajou hacks off another limb

After deciding that JasoT - an editor who added a lot of info on Australia - was a vandal, Karajou deleted over a dozen of his articles^img and cut big chunks out of even more^img. At this point, I almost feel sorry for CP. Almost. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. What on earth did JasoT do? It all looks fine to me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yups. He created loads of genuine Australia related content without remotely rocking the boat. Maybe Jerk inadvertently did JasoT a favour by driving him away from a nutty end of the spectrum.--Brendiggg (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Without having looked at more than a few reverts, I have to agree that this is at best absolute overkill. If I had to guess, I'd say that one of JasoT's edits didn't quite match with one of Karajou's bazillion books, and he just decided that it was deliberately hidden in a bunch of seemingly innocent edits. Because Assume Good Faith is a Wikipedia policy, and CP is most definitely not Wikipedia. --Sid (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! With one revert, Karajerk reinstated Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader! Can't check all reverts but I suspect he totally rewound Australia.--Brendiggg (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea what JasoT's offensive edit was that set Karajou off on this rampage? DickTurpis (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! It's probably because somebody used the same IP at some point. Or why on earth would somebody from Australia want to edit CP? So who's next - AngusT or BryanT? Ooh! Both their names end in T, must be parodists! Get them, Popeye! Sic 'em, boy! --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BryanT is either an idiot or an idiot parodist. Who fixes spelling mistakes? That gets you nowhere on CP. In fact, all you're doing is drawing unnecessary attention to yourself and highlighting the lack of substantial edits. That's going to be a good one, when CP is so dead that they have to tell copy editors to stop copy editing and start being substantial. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing—KyleT (got disgusted trying to talk sense about relativity), AngusT, JasoT, BryanT. Interesting. C'mon, CP! Change the rules to "your real first name and last initial, and that initial better not be T". Gauss (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I forget if I was KyleT or not... Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's something to do with this deletion letter to andy has gone^imgOldusgitus (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion log. Yes, I'm guessing "Conservapedia is nothing more than a group of cowards and liars. Andy Schlafly you should be ashamed of your self. I have sat and watched you make a fool of you..." would be enough to tip Popeye over the edge. The truth does hurt, after all. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You fucking morons - There is no "Joint Defence Space Research Facility and tourist attraction at Ulur-Kata Tjuta National Park." I have been watching this guy with interest for a while. Ace^X-102 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You been drinking? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

JasoT inserted masses of parody on NZ. There isn't 425,000 people in the Dunedin region. Ace^X-102 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

True, if I recall my appendix to The Return of the King correctly, there were very few Dunedain left by the end of the Third Age. DickTurpis (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

They had been gifted with long-life.... Biblical truth! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a tourist attraction at Ulur-Kata Tjuta National Park... however this park is in the middle of Australia. I must say, brilliant wandalism! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If only hadn't blown it with his parthian shot to Andy, the stuff would still be there. Still, any bets on what happens to the next person who tries to wrist an Aussie or NZ article? --PsyGremlinFale! 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What flood is he on about?

I know one shouldn't mock the afflicted but....in his recent updating of "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=818997&oldid=818996^img, Professor Aschlafly offers 'proof' of a biblical flood via evidence of giant ripple marks. Fair enough I thought, I'll just check the link he offers as evidence. To my suprise, the link is indeed evidence of a catastophic flood http://www.iafi.org/floods.html^img! However, if one reads just a tad further and one finds that the flood in question was one caused by the break up of glacial lakes, 12,0000 to 18,000 years ago.http://www.iafi.org/index.htm^img.

This surely can't be right since the whole point of the biblical flood is that it occurred less than 6,000 years ago?

Always nice to see him offering evidence directly contrary to his thesis. What sort of incompetent doesn't even read his own references?

Answers on a post card please. Mick McT (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Worthy of a WIGO methinks. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aschlafly thinks that the Ice Age is just a patch invented by geologists to explain the young Earth's characteristics away (cp:Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#The_massive_Great_Lakes_are_receding_in_volume_too_rapidly_to_have_existed_millions_of_years_ago): Deviously, these geologists claim that it happened 12 ky ago, not a sensible 6 ky. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Andy believes since evil secular geology has shown the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that evil secular geologists must accept all geological features on it must also be millions if not billions of years old. Not like we have an active lithosphere or anything. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that I see you post here BMcP, I'm reminded about just how nutty CP is. They have a whole article on the starlight problem, which explains - in fundie talk - just how there can be stars millions of lights away, if the earth is only 6,000 years old. Then at the same time, you get hounded out of Dodge for daring to say that stars are millions of light years away. I wish those loonies would make their minds up. --PsyGremlinSprich! 20:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CP may be nutty (they are actually nutty), but it's not just them. Not reading sources is a hallmark of Creationists and hard-right ideologues who rely on their readers not reading them either. Thus, quote mining. --Kels (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While "Andy" may be wrong about the age of the earth he may be ritht about the date of the flood.--Tolerance (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's make that a flood and not the flood (as in global) shall we. Unless you're arguing for of global crustal dsiplacement theory.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

Yep, Andy's at it again. With the last few examples, I could at least somewhat understand how he made the connection between a particular passage and a modern scientific discovery, but this one is really beyond any comprehension. Is he trying to say that Jesus was some sort of anti-prism? Not to mention that not even his own stupid "translation" describes the event in terms other than "Jesus' clothes became really white". Anyone got an idea what he's on about? Röstigraben (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WTF? I don't see the connection either. His robes were white... you don't have to invoke any sort of color math, and there's no idea that there are other colors added together to make the white... he's just really freaking white. Oh, wait, I get it now... "In the fullness of light ... white". Thus, put all the colors together and you get white, the Bible says so! This doesn't even work for me... its not like reading this people looked at it and went, "holy shit! Red and Green and Blue make WHITE!" No, they stayed the same ignorant individuals after, as they were prior, about color theory. It's like saying that Jules Vern had foresight to see fax machines, because he described something like it in one of his books... no wait, even worse, and more stupid, it's like saying that Kafka had foreknowledge of evolution, because he wrote a book about a guy turning into a giant cockroach... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

kafka? that was the 1920s! try Ovid's Metamorphoses... although The Golden Ass is much more fun. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO NOT MAKE SENSE!!! It's an analogy of a Schlafly argument, after all. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i forgot it's a CP talk page - logic has left the building. Via the fourth floor. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So... Bleach is the attempt to be god just like the original sin? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The "fullness of light" doesn't even appear in those passages, and if Jesus had put on some psychedelic lights show, you'd think the disciples would mention that...and they read like the light was emanating from Jesus, not reflected off him anyway...gah, why am I even trying to make sense of this? Yet another contender for Andy's dumbest insight. Röstigraben (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I started reading through the list, but was overwhelmed by the stupid. Yes, Robert Wadlow was tall, but he's also a shining example of why humans can't grow so tall - he required leg braces to walk, and had little feeling in his legs and feet and many other tall people suffer from curvature of the spine. If Goliath was 9 feet tall, he'd hardly be in shape to fight in a war. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No wonder...

...they keep account creation switched off these days. Looking at the log going back to 02 Sept, there would appear to be only one genuine new editor - Anupam. And he'll probably get done for multi-culturism soon. The site is growing rapidly! Ah, and I see 44 active users. That must be a new low for CP. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Every time I look at CP I am reminded of TV Tropes article on Vestigial Empires. You know; once great economic and military powers whose glory days are long past and have been reduced down to a single stronghold and few scattered territories. These days I always have this image of CP in my head:

"After passing down a weed pocked road, past wizened farmland and murky skies we would come upon the rusted, wrought iron gates of a great walled city, capital of this decaying nation. Care must be taken though, for those gates are guarded dutifully by Navy Man Karajou. He may have a real rank, but he never tells anyone. In fact, he does not speak much at all, preferring to use illustrations of strawman and swift sweeps of his mighty Banhammer to do his talking for him. Assisting him is Master of Counter Intelligence RobS, who can ferret out Agents of the Enemy by the way they sign the city registry ledger alone, and turns back every one of Them he can find before they can say a word.

Next we stride down the worn streets, passing crumbling buildings, the few beleaguered and sallow souls who made it through the gates. If we're lucky we might catch a glimpse of the roaming High Prophet Conservative, bringing his word to any of the beleaguered masses he happens upon. His voice high and eyes are bright, always turned in high praise to their great leader, Lord Andy, reminding all who will listen that the wicked and sinful atheist world outside the walls is doomed to fall at any moment and great victory is just around corner. So it is written, so it will be done. Ole, Ole, Ole.

Our next stop will of course be Scriptorium, headed by Master Edward "Call Me Uncle" Poor. A founder of another kingdom that feel to decadence, Ed fled to the safety of Lord Andy's realm and now spends his days furiously creating codex covers for his phantom legion of authors to fill. Don't worry though, he's quite a benevolent and jovial man, especially if you are a teenage girl.

At the center of the city is the grand concrete (not ivory, for only evil intellectuals and liberals use those) where Lord Andy, resides. Through the halls of fading tapestries and desiccated furniture we would find the main door to his chambers are guarded by Grand Vizer TK. Resplendent in his black Cossack and featureless white mask, he is always present and doting to his master, whispering encouraging lies and gentle placations, assuring that the latest purges of their dwindling populous will only strengthen the power and greatness of his kingdom. A few have dared to catch a glimpse of what lies behind his mask, only to suffer madness and death at Eldritch visage it hides.

And finally we come to the master of this domain, Professor Headmaster Chief Engineer High Priest Andrew Layton Schafly Esquire himself. Last scion and would-be inheritor of the great Schafly Conservative Dynasty. Resplendent in his tattered robes and tarnished, dented crown, he looks out from the balcony at the rubble and chaos that is of his own making, seeing nothing but bright spires and shining faces, making proclamations and insights that no one really listens to, and fewer still understand."

Sorry, waxed a bit poetic there for a bit. Point is Conservapedia is dying. It is not dead and until the day Andy himself finally shuts it down or turns over the reigns it will probably never die. Like so many things on the internet it will continue to dwindle, to fade, attracting only morbidly curious and the twistedly malicious as it shambles along the information superhighway. It would be funny really, if it wasn't so sad.--Tygrehart

Greate work, Tyg! Give it a copyedit and get it into essay space! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur! This deserves to stand alongside Andyland and the Republik of Konservapedia. --PsyGremlinParlez! 20:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice fucking work Tygrehart. I like it. Ace^X-102 20:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at the most recent 50 changes on CP's RC - every edit is by a sysop. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sadly the Wikifu is not strong with me. Wouldn't know how. :( Anyone else wants to give it a crack be my guest. --Tygrehart

If you build it, they will come. I'll paste everything into Conservapedia:The Vestigial Empire and then those with wikifu can climb into it. --PsyGremlinParla! 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Go! 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Danke. ^.^ --Tygrehart

No, thank you. That was a great bit of writing. ħuman 02:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you all Spend so much Time at a Site you Claim to despise? They have one Version of Reality and You have Another and I Yet another. It is Clear that you will not Change them Nor then You. Yet you Spend your Time there. If they are Wrong then they are Wrong. You will Never believe anything Else. Yet many, if not All of you are Atheists. So I Suppose you Believe you have only one Shot at Life. If that is the Case, why Spend that one Shot reading and Debating Things you thank are Wrong? --Tolerance (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know either, but I think some people here treat it as a comedy show. I guess it could be theoretically useful to someone who is considering using CP for study. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I See, I Suppose. But it seems such a Massive waste of Time to Spend so Much Intellectual Effort on it if Somebody is not going to write a Doctorate.--Tolerance (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Another reason is to make sure that they are not taken seriously (as if!) for any future readers or youngsters. 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is with your capitalisation? As for CP, I read it because it's fucking hillarious! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WIGOCP really takes up too much intellectual effort... massive waste of time, perhaps. --MarkGall (talk)

Those who Know Me of Old will Understand my Capitals. What I'm Really Interested in is the Time you Spend on the this Issue.--Tolerance (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

wow, tOlerAnce, you'Re onlY a Few caPital leTTers away From goIng TIMECUBE on us. Seriously though, there's a good reason we "despise" them - because Andy and his crew are lying to children. And that is inexcusable. And I don't mean harmless "lies to children" parents tell, he is actively engaging in deceit, in order to twist young minds to see the word as he does. And nobody deserves that. Also, it provides far better comedy that what I have on TV. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I Suppose I understand your'e Hatred, What I don't understant is your Obsession. Cant you just aAccept them?--Tolerance (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's talk acceptance. You're a sysop here. So at various times have been Rob, TK and Ed. They're always welcome to come and debate with us here. How many of us are sysops there? How welcome are we there to debate issues with them? By hiding behind the banhammer and oversight, all they do is reinforce the impression that they are lying and can't justify their positions any other way. Say you were asking these questions of Schlafly - how long do you think you'd last on CP? It's not about hate - it's about idealogical differences. You want to talk about hate - have a look through any of their "liberal" articles. Have a read of the main page, where Harry Reid is described as "despicable". Read the Obama article and tell me there isn't a grudge hidden in that drivel. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 21:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Heck, if Andy himself (sorry, Himself) really wanted to, he could come over and be sysopped as well. He has not, far as I know, been pre-emptively banned, as many people posting here have been banned on CP despite never having accounts there (TK had/has a habit of banning any IP that appears in our Recent Changes). --Kels (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ECEC) There's a good few of us, of whom about ten are frequent contributors of this page: I don't think it is very much time really. But if some get enjoyment out of taking the piss out of CP, what harm does it do? Admittedly it's rather like laughing at a slow motion car crash - so it goes. (Tolerance & Time Cube have so much in common.)20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the Impresssion that Susan is Retired! Congratulations Susan! Youy must have time to Burn. But why the Reast of the Wikli?--Tolerance (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

the Reast Of the wilki IS Doing just Fine ThaNk yOU. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It's like watching the monkeys at the zoo. You point, you laugh, you hide your kids eyes as much as you can. And you also hope that at some point they'll get past the point of flinging shit all over the place and wanking each other in public, although you know it's never going to happen in your lifetime.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have read: it'S likE watchinG thE monkeyS aT thE zoO. yoU poinT, yoU laugH, yoU hidE youR kidS eyeS aS mucH aS yoU caN. anD yoU alsO hopE thaT aT somE poinT they'lL geT pasT thE poinT oF flinginG shiT alL oveR thE placE anD wankinG eacH otheR iN publiC, althougH yoU knoW it'S neveR goinG tO happeN iN youR lifetimE.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well If you Think it's a Useful Sue of Your tiem than I am convionced.--Tolerance (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and 'your'e' isn't even close to correct. That's a 1 point deduction giving you a score of 39. But don't worry, you get an extra 4 points for your use of capitals so that's a final score of 44. Well done, model answer.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for ths Suefull Edit.--Tolerance (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was my last hurrah. Thanks to all who took part and I hope you do not think I'm a real jerk.--Tolerance (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Think You're A Jerk. My First Reaction To Seeing This Thread Was "Yay! Tolerance Is Back!" At Least You Make More Sense Than Lumenos. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tahnk You for your Appreciation.--Tolerance (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

gA IS THAT YOU? uHHH yOU'RE wELCOME i GUESS, -- adiosToreador 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BECAUSE THEY ARE IDIOTS AND JERKS WHO ARE BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET. --carcinoGeneticist 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

because they're abusing science f0r sh0rt-sighted ide0l0gical reasons and i'm n0t 0kay with that -- apocalypseArisen 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

B3C4US3 FORC1NG TH3M 1NTO TH31R PR3D1CT4BL3 F34R-FR3NZY WH3N 4NYON3 D1S4GR33S W1TH TH3M 1S FUN! --gallowsCalibrator 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

bEcAuSe It'S tHeRe, AnD sOmEtImEs ThAt MeAnS yOu'Ve MoThErFuCkIn GoT tO tAkE a SwInG aT iT sOmEtImEs, YoU kNoW? -- terminallyCapricious 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But mostly because there's only one reality, and no amount of political bullshit will change it. Rush Limbaugh can mock Al Gore all he wants, but CO2 will continue to be a greenhouse gas. Their idiocy has a BODY COUNT, and the more insane they become, the worse it will get. --Gulik (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(And To Mock You For Apparently Borrowing grimAuxiliatrix's Typing Patterns.) --Gulik (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful

From "Deliberate ignorance:" "Cafeteria Christians refuse to consider Bible verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say."^img Explain to me again just why the CBP came about? --PsyGremlinTal! 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He He He...--Centimeter_INCHES 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can't say he's a cafeteria christian, after all they pick a la carte from the existing scriptures. The Assfly writes his own, which makes him something else entirely. I believe they call those "heretics." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves is right on. And just to randomly comment, I appreciate learning the difference between a heretic and an apostate on RationalWiki. Why does Andy continue to self-identify as a Catholic yet deny some of the foundational beliefs of that faith? 18:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He's clearly a cafeteria catholic: "I'll have a doubling helping of sex is bad and condoms are evil, with a side of secularism is attcking us, but absolutely no acceptance of evolution and the age of the universe, it doesn't agree with my stomach you see. Oh sure, yeah I'll have the misogyny and homophobia pudding, thanks!" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nutty, you're forgetting that he's in Andyland, where Andy's version of Christianity, Catholicism or anything else is the right one, and anyone who differs from that isn't a true one. Not entirely sure if Andy has given any reaction to the Vatican's acceptance of evolution, or to the fact that Pope Benedict is following and underlining Pope John Paul's stance on evolution (which is, basically, that evolution happened, as described by science, but, in some vague way, was caused and/or guided by God), but it would not surprise me one bit if he were to come out and say that even the Pope is No True Catholic for holding such views. 92.9.158.22 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy and PJR had a big falling out over the Pope and catholic acceptence of evolution. Check it out here. Ace^X-102 20:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet: just two days ago the Vatican's own Astronomer to the Pope went on record again stating that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience and the Vatican wants nothing to do with it. I'd burn a sock pointing that one out to them if I had one. mb 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and a wonderful bit of deceit from TightKnickers. All of a sudden the talk page Ace mentioned gets deleted, because it's er... empty.^img And is suddenly resurrected^img, with the miraculous insertion of a whole bunch of old comments. But strangely no mention of Phil and Andy's little tiff. Love it! They aren't even trying anymore over there. Although, I see the dumb fuck has left in Economist's comments - made after the tiff. And pasted them in twice. Jesus, the man can't even clean up shit properly. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In all it's glory. Thanks Google. Ace^X-102 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Terrykins.^img --PsyGremlinFale! 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to TK, he didn't paste Economist's comments in twice - going by Ace's Google cache capture, they were actually there twice before he deleted the page. So he actually fixed a fuck-up. It's just that it took him around 16 months to do it, after it being pointed out on here, whilst he was fiddling about with that page to try to whitewash something embarrassing that was brought up by a discussion on here - and he can't even do that very well, as the comments he left refer to 'avoiding further conflict' when, according to the whitewashed history, there was no conflict. 92.9.158.22 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA!!! Deny it and lose all credibility! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And how delicious are Andy's final words on that page? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The man wouldn't recognise 'objective' if it walked up to him and kneed him in the nuts. Does the man seriously have no sense of irony? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're pretty much screwed if everyone AND Andy Schlafly, who couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag, has your number:

“”Philip, you just keep asking me question after question. You said you have the burden of proving your claim. Are you going to do that (or withdraw your claim), or are you going to keep demanding that I answer more and more questions?

13:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey wassup Rationals!!??

Hi, I'm DavidE and via a proxy DerekE, and I've been inserting sorta funny stuff over at the Conservapedia. I think this website is all about conservapedia and whatnot, but I'm not really sure. Do any of the Conservapedia system operators know about this website??? I see you have great articles on pseudoscience and maybe I shall contribute--Derek/David 02:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We are a whole lot more than just about CP, but we do cover them in depth. TK, at the least, intensely monitors us in return, so you just killed your user names there, if they aren't already blocked. And welcome to RW! ħuman 02:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're not winding us up about being Dave/DelE, then welcome and congrats on your CP efforts. However they will now be over - see the section above for how intensely Terry Koeckritz watches this page. If you are winding us up then, erm, welcome anyway. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have been doing it since October 2009. and I know from experience that Tk is simply too thickheaded to take out a fellow parodist. He would only take out someone minor, not someone with block rights.--Derek/David 02:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me see, how do you do that Terry Koeckritz thing. Ah. there.--Derek/David 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Or you can simply use this template: {{TK}} ~SuperHamster Talk 02:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice try but DerekE has been vetted already after originally being blocked by TK. Unlike others, he shared his information from Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter. --193.200.150.137 (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it is true you're all asking for extra info. What next? Driver's license? Home address and phone number? Or is it only Ed that asks for the latter? So much for 'assume good faith.' --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 07:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Once more, someone mistakes CP for WP. CP has no AGF guideline, they have the "assume any new editor is a liberal vandal associated with a well known Vandal Site according to Stephanie Simon at the LA Times" guideline. ħuman 07:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, silly me. --PsyGremlinParla! 07:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pope Protests

Given how Andy was all over the Irish Brits (I'm being ironic, ok?) protesting against Bush's Bitch, CP has been remarkable quiet about the Protest the Pope events in the UK. Especially as Señor Dawkins was there. Maybe even Andy can't find a way to support child abuse. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 02:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The person signing next to Dawkins reminds me that the American Deaf actually have an easier time talking to the Deaf of France, than to the Deaf of Britain. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sign linguistic groups are rather fascinating.

Greatest Conservative Movies.

I sure hope this is a parody. Its been there for two months, and Andy has edited the page since then. Mr. Swift (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Starship Troopers the book actually purposes very conservative like ideas. The men and women are separated, and are put into limited career choices, due to physical differences. (Men are space marines, and women are pilots. There is no alternative.) The movie dumped a lot of the ideas and notions originally in the book to make a more pop-culture movie. The 1950s cultural stereotypes, etc being fairly inaccessible to our modern culture. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Best.Scene.Ever - Doogie Howser as Leather 'I wanna be in the SS' Boy. Of course the film is conservative - remember the scene at the end, where they're torturing the captive Big Brain? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 07:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough, that lying piece of shit Terry Koeckritz removes^img the film but got all upset because KevinO was already blocked, so he reblocked him to make the point. Good to see you're so attached to us, TeamKiller. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki - proofreading Conservapedia since 2007. --PsyGremlinTala! 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how there are films on the list that haven't even been made/released yet. I wonder how many of those films they have actually seen.--AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Christ that guy is such a slovenly "senior administrator" that when he goes in to correct stuff we observe he can't be arsed to spend a single second considering whether there's other glaring problems. Hint: there are. 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are there two Felllowship of The Ring - with different years? And U571 that's definitely conservative, it distorts history to make the USA look better.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because there are two of them. There's the recent one done by Peter Jackson, then there was a really kind of BADLY done one in 1978, which used that funky animation of real-life thing that was popular in the 70s. Of course, actually looking at the list, it has one for 2001, and one for 2003. The second one should be titled: "The Return of the King", as that's the movie for 2003, and where good triumphed over evil. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Return of the King is already on the list. Do you think it should be on there twice rather than Fellowship? I sort of think it's so much more conservative than the first one that it only needs to be listed once, and Terrykins agrees. So there. 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

*Opens up the page, hit's CTRL-F, then types in "Return of the King"... notes 0 matches.* Hm... are you sure about that? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FFS are you pedantic. I guess the part about me being objectively wrong and Terrykins agreeing with someone he's threatened to turn in to the ethics board for associating with RationialWiki wasn't a big enough clue that I was making fun. I'll quit trying. 21:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's #63 on the current list - somebody just made a copypaste mistake (the link is correct, but the label is still Fellowship). --Sid (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I already stated that it "shouild be titled: 'The Return of the King' ..." A typo is still a mistake, right? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly am fucking crazy pedantic. I've already openly announced that I am a pedantic bitch. I didn't get the whole ethics board for associating with RW thing though... that reference is lost on me. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to believe that this was parody if Andy didn't add entries like this. That man is the personification of Poe's Law. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, this entry from Uncle Ed. I had that one tagged as a parody ("Middle Eastern Arabic speakers" - I guess Middle Eastern Urdu speakers are off the hook) until I saw the author. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow member of the Pedantic Party - Ed writes "Teaches conservative values ... and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers". I think he meant politically incorrect facts which means something rather different to what he actually wrote.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)