Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <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>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

Homework contest[edit]

Is it just me, or has Andy gotten obsessed with the wiki so much that he's just using this as a scheme to force the kids to make more entries? --Kels 17:46, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I couldn't help noticing that his plan for grading the students in his "government 101" (or whatever it's called) is a lot like the scoring for the team contest. Should we report him to the Department of Labor's Section on child labor? Of course, we could also fill up every possible CP page that could be relevant, so there won't be anything left for the kids to write. SJIHAS 22:28, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

The Switcheroo[edit]

I've switched the 'Latest News at Conservapedia' link on the Main page to hit this page, with the intent that the Classic Boinkers are moved to Best Of. (Best Of was becoming the Latest News, and this page was going dead). Like giant godlike machines moving buildings around a vast interwebular landscape [1], it's time to get cracking with moving the classics from this page over there. Doggedpersistance 19:35, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Extended lockdown[edit]

Damn, and here I was wondering why there were only TK's and Karajou's edits before that insane wave of mass pwn. --Sid 11:56, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

CP preemptively blocking RW "wandals"?![edit]

Is this a known fact? Have they really reached such a level of paranoia over at CP that they preemptively block any IP that engages in "wandalism" over here at RW? Case in point: my IP. (Guazzabù anyone?) Blocked as "Troll." at 7:25 CP server time, which if I'm not mistaken corresponds to 10:25 RW server time. My first edit here was 10:02 RW server time. I did not sign up or edit on CP. If this is really true, those guys must have an inordinate amount of time on their hands... -- 12:01, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Any IP address that shows up on RW gets blocked on CP. tmtoulouse beset 12:04, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
How can we view the pages then?--TheThinkingMan 12:12, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Blocked from editing and signing up, not blocked from viewing. tmtoulouse beset 12:16, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
I can't access the site right now :/--TheThinkingMan 12:25, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Wait wait wait, so it's OK for a CP sysop to be a sysop on RW, too, but anonymous editing at RW is a bannable offense at CP? That's so totally... huh... totally CP. -- 12:20, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

But wait - essentially this means they're as sad as we are - they too have both CP and RW open all the time, and edits on one correspond to a reaction on the other? If that's really the case, we're all crazy not to be all on one big blog, editwarring like madmen. Doggedpersistance 12:27, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh they are just as nuts about us, if not more so, than we are about them. For example KooKoo keeps a running lists of deletions and "database manipulations" he spots on the site and keeps it stored on his computer next to the copy of RW1.0 he has. He saves them to show to any "reporters" that take an interest in our site :). tmtoulouse beset 12:33, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Karajou honestly scares me. He still plans to beat me up, I believe.-αmεσ (!) 12:39, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

He is coming up to visit me in Canada so he can watch me get arrested by the mounted police. Once I found out who he was and his back story though any fear I had lessoned, the guy has become pretty pathetic. tmtoulouse beset 12:46, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
I still haven't heard from the CIA. :( --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:50, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Drug Testing[edit]

Glad to know that people never do anything they have been told is morally wrong. I wonder what Andy would think about the abortions of teen pregnancies at the Catholic high school I went to. After all, the school said that both the sex and the abortion would send you to hell.--MountainTiger 13:54, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Ann Coulter[edit]

This is getting out of hand, we've now got three entries talking about RobS' gushing description of her. Can we possibly get rid of a couple of the duplicates? --Kels 20:47, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Done. Doggedpersistance 15:05, 20 August 2007 (CDT)


I took Scunthorphe out of the River Trent article because somebody else was complaining that they couldn't edit the article, and I don't have the capability to bypass the word filter. That statement there really misconstrues my intentions. DanH 21:15, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, OK. I see that you weren't just being a prude. Sorry. It misconstrues your intentions, but it doesn't misconstrue the intentions of CP having that prude-filter in the first place. The Scunthorpe Problem is a known problem, and it should have been solved by fixing the filter. Does it filter out "saturday"? SJIHAS 22:21, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
O noes! More quote mining and liberal deceit! :-) PFoster 21:17, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Hey Dan, we'll pull it. How's the 'ol hellhole treating you?-αmεσ (!) 21:22, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

SSDD. DanH 21:25, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Whoa, is that a secret code, or am I an idiot? Bohdan

SSDD = Same shit, different day DanH 21:27, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

I wish it was still cryptic Bohdan 21:38, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
Subjunctive...I wish it were still cryptic.--PalMD-Ars longa, vita brevis 22:02, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
No, I can change the rules of language to whatever I wish. Bohdan 22:10, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Ooooh, baby, do you know what it's worth? RobS thinks Islam is a place on earth.[edit]

This should be in the "Best Of" pile.-αmεσ (!) 21:23, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Hey, if Ames says, Ames gets. I'll move it.PFoster 21:27, 19 August 2007 (CDT)


TK rocks. I LOVE the "people wouldn't search for human" thing, but the en passant wrist slap to the student panel member Tim is just FANTASTIC. He's my hero. Doggedpersistance 15:07, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Just search Human with all the 'talk' pages included - he pops up everywhere. Keep Your hands to yourself 20:24, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Party time in Talk:Atheism[edit]

Just in case that some people missed it: Major long-term party going on in Talk:Atheism, starting (roughly) at "What just happened?" --Sid 06:44, 21 August 2007 (CDT)


There are uncited entries:
Ken DeMeyer advocates cruelty to animals: "Often the cat that yelps the loudest is the one who gets hit by the shoe!"
"Scunthorpe" is a funny word.
? Keep Your hands to yourself 06:50, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

The one about Ken happened here, so I'm puzzled about why it's on the CP list. The other one is an alteration from when someone thought Scunthorpe was removed due to running afoul of the prude filter, but it turns out that wasn't the case. --Kels 07:02, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Dump 'em? Keep Your hands to yourself 07:17, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd do it meself, this being a high profile page, but section is 43k (above my edit limit).Keep Your hands to yourself 07:46, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I was the one who thought about Scunthorpe being the bad word while others thought the bad word was "Trent". Where's the resolution that it wasn't the bad word after all? --Sid 07:50, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Edit: I commented out the entries in question. --Sid 07:53, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Dunno - but if there's somewhere it's in cp then cite it ? Keep the noise down- please! 07:54, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Mh? Not sure I quite follow you here. My guess was verified (or so I thought) because of this edit by DanH, which allowed others to edit the page again. Is that what you meant with cite? --Sid 07:57, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Yup! SusanG 09:20, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Conservative Deceit[edit]

Representing Senator Inhofe as the current chairman of Senate's Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Armed Services Commitee [2] even though this article was written supposedly today by Tash [3]. The Armed Services Commitee chair is Carl Levin (D-MI) while the Senate's Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee chairwoman is Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Seems that Tash has lost touch of reality like many on CP.--TimS 09:11, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if Tash is in one of Andy's classes?--TimS 09:13, 21 August 2007 (CDT)


Hey Dog, even with your fixed link, I'm still not getting it. All I see at CP is a pretty vanilla article about age of consent, with no reference to submission or anything. What am I missing here? --Kels 13:26, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

"competent to submit to sexual intercourse". In some weird CP world, one probably submits onself to the glory of one's teacher, perhaps? Doggedpersistance 13:30, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Meh, that one's sort of weak. Who's this person posting it anyway, doesn't look like one of the regulars. --Kels 13:33, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Weak indeed. However, the rest of that article is mostly copied from WP. -- 13:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

It's a VERY strange way to describe sex, I would have said? Whatever, if you wanna whip it out, do so. Doggedpersistance 13:41, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I suppose, although it's entirely possible this is a subtle vandal setting things up for later. I did look up the term, and it seems to be pretty common legal wording, but usually dealing with forcing sex on someone. If this is a cut&paste job, they might just not have noticed that part. --Kels 13:46, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

"it's entirely possible this is a subtle vandal setting things up for later". :-) I love that aspect of CP. People lay their groundwork earlier and earlier these days. Doggedpersistance 13:49, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm...looks like it's not a vanal, they've been around and contributing in some way since early April, but it's all fluff. Harry Potter, soft drinks and so forth, save for a strange interest in age of consent articles lately. Wonder if it's one of the famous homeschoolers? --Kels 13:51, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
While this is certainly nothing new (just like them C&Ping - CP - Copypasteapedia - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA just made that one up, great, isn't it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... ahem) ... what was I saying: I also like how they go on and on about these topics, without ever telling what the heck sexual intercourse is in the first place. Wonder what those homeschooled kids are imagining... -- 13:54, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
I noticed that new interest, too. He must have found someone he likes; hopefully stumbling upon Chris Hansen has stopped him cold. Sandman 14:00, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Ray Martinez[edit]

I've got both the user and talk pages here, in case that anybody's interested. Didn't read them completely, though. The user page is kinda on the TL;DR side for my currently reduced attention span. --Sid 16:19, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd be curious, Ray is a special sort of nutjob in his own right, so it would be fun to see what sort of ramblings he's got on the go. --Kels 16:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
I'll re-convert his essay thing from HTML and post it somewhere. May take a few minutes. --Sid 16:39, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Uploaded at [[/Martinez user]] and [[/Martinez talk]]. --Sid 17:03, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Woo! I saw the talk page go up and thought it really wasn't as nuts as I expected, albeit a bit weird concerning Darwin. But then I saw the user page, and got hit with a whole wall of looney! --Kels 17:07, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, isn't it nice to see Conservative, Andy, and TK duke it out over accusations of not being sufficiently fanatical? SJIHAS 17:25, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
I think it's weird how Ray had to do all that research to figure out that TK's not a YEC follower. Heck, the LA Times wrote that already:

[Schlafly] promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain articles from changes.

Even among this elite group, there's not ideological conformity. TK doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on topics such as Fox News.

Since the original link is dead by now, here is a mirror of the source. --Sid 17:42, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't say I'm sorry that TK blocked him, or that I have a problem with that. --Linus(plot evil tech) 21:32, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Aye, when people complain that CP isn't "conservative enough" I immediately suspect troll or an actually dangerous kind of kook, sort of RobS w/o meds for three days. St. CЯacke® 21:37, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
No where did I say that CP was not conservative enough. I said they/Andy got snookered and outsmarted by devious liberals. How else do you explain Andy splashing the liberal Times "endorsement" of CP all over his Front page for weeks now? Andy is not a true boss or a real boss. Real bosses can fire people without losing any sleep. Andy is a lap dog being controlled by phony conservatives like TK. I have identified TK as a classic double agent; the Times article corroborates. Read TKs talk page and see his graphic endorsing Andy as the real and rightful site owner of CP "as if" there is a controversy. It is pure disingenuous brown nosing.
Ray Martinez 17:36, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Ray is a very odd sort. I'm very familiar with him, and have had numerous discussions with him over the last two years in the Talk Origins usenet newsgroup. He's a rabid devotee of Gene Scott who believes that evolution is inherently racist, and that those who believe in evolution only do so because they've been blinded by God as a penalty for failing to give God credit as creator. He also subscribes to a number of crackpot theories including the idea that the Great Pyramid is the physical embodiment of the Bible which predates the Great Flood (all supported by very dubious numerology) which was built by ancient inhabitants of Atlantis. He has famously said that the fact that eels travel to the middle to the Atlantic ocean to spawn is proof that Atlantis once existed. He also believes that modern day Britain and Ireland are populated by the lost 13th tribe of Israel. His arguments border on the surreal to say the least, and whenever he is cornered, he retreats and claims that "his paper" will address all these points. His "hopeless magnum" is a paper which supposedly exposes evolution as a complete fraud, and proves that theistic evolutionists are agents of atheism. He's been claiming that this paper would be imminent for about two and a half years now. A very odd sort. Stile4aly 23:08, 21 August 2007 (CDT) --Sid 06:51, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

When we remember that Stile4aly is a Muslim and a Darwinist and that I am a Christian and a Creationist, his misrepresentations and slander is explained instantly.
Ray Martinez 17:41, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps it is you who is the slanderous misinterpreter. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 17:48, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Ray, that might very well have been one of the most bigoted, inane posts I've ever read, and I've read quite a few bigoted and inane statements (see Blogs 4 Brownback, I'm sure you'd feel at home there). Because he's a muslim and you're a christian, we should assume that anything he says about you is false? That's the kind of idea that makes me ashamed of a fellow human being. ThunderkatzHo! 19:30, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Ray, for the benefit of those that aren't familiar with your reputation at, please identify any misrepresentation I've made, or how I have slandered you. Stile4aly 00:40, 28 August 2007 (CDT)


Should we split it by month? Even the What Was Going On? is huge. Doggedpersistance 17:57, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

The "What was" thing is just a placeholder headline and should not be regarded as some sort of official archive border. It just keeps the upper part under x kb so everybody can edit it. Not sure what the archiving plan for this page is, I didn't follow the reorganization of this page and "Best of CP". --Sid 18:17, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I split it by month. If people went through and moved stuff over to Best Of... it might help. Doggedpersistance 20:24, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

You might as well archive this one by months, just like "Best of". Oh, after making sure the best stuff gets copied over. humanbe in 21:51, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Mark Foley[edit]

Wha, exactly, is "liberal" or "lunatic" about describing what Foley did in plain language. I'll revert to Sid's original post. PFoster 15:07, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I just did.Locke Eye.jpg Always Watching...... 15:08, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
I reverted back. Pinto is a known vandal. Watch out for him. Bohdan
Coming from a known vandal, I instantly mistrust that statement *wink, wink*. ThunderkatzHo! 15:11, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Supreme Court half-life mumbo jumbo[edit]

Okay, can anybody explain to me how the conclusion in the last line of the essay is in any way related to the entire stuff before? I mean, when you start measuring time in years, you might as well cover it in a print magazine. Or books. Or am I missing something extremely significant here? And while you're at it, is there any basis for Andy's extrapolation to 2015? Oh, and what is it with half-life first being treated as a velocity ("half-life was likely slower") and then switching to mean that higher turnover means higher half-life (and thus longer times before 50% are made or re-made)? I'm by no means a specialist when it comes to the Supreme Court, so I don't really get a fair share of the terminology or mechanics Andy tosses around there (like the entire bit about "constitutional law treatises") anyway, but this "essay" strikes me as less coherent than Luna Lovegood's Quidditch commentary. --Sid 18:22, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

It's actually incoherent enough to make me wonder about the mental health of the writer. IMHO. User:DocSock
It's a real classic, to be sure, combining Andy's tenuous grasp of the law with his even less credible statistical skillz - and layering it into his newfound love of open-editing platforms (he should, um, start one). humanbe in 20:05, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

What essay are we talking about? And Sid, that was an extremely deft HP reference! But Luna, at least, is a good person... -αmεσ (!) 17:46, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

I couldn't help it, I'm a major Luna fan. *happy fan sigh*
But the essay is here --Sid 17:56, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Wow. Just wow. This is why he's a bad lawyer. You need constitutional history to understand constitutional present. Half-life suggests that constitutional precedent is obliterated and irrelevant, as destroyed: no such luck. It's still informative and necessary to understand where we've been. And that's only reason #0 of why he's wrong. What a failure.-αmεσ (!) 18:20, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

The epic Talk:Liberal discussion[edit]

That is in fact not only an epic, but also a spectacularly stupid discussion. It never ceases to amaze me just how... wierd RobS's way of thinking is. I also love this little gem:

Rob Smith: As for me, I am a qualified historian.

Heheh. "Qualified". Heheheh. :D --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:17, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I love Jazzman's most recent reply there, actually. Anybody wanna take bets on whether he'll just be warned, blocked or perma-banned for that? My guess is "user talk page warning + three days" for wasting a productive contributor's time and for personal attacks. That's just long enough to please the sysops' egos and just short enough to hopefully keep Jazzman from abandoning CP. Although it might be less because he's been a good guy before (and because Rob might opt to retaliate instead of using his God Powers). Who knows? It's not like there's an actual system behind the blocks and warnings. --Sid 08:12, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
I just can't understand why anyone even tries having a rational discussion with Rob; it's like repeatedly banging your head against a wall whilst explaining these actions to a retarded 7 year old. I tried a few times but gave up whe I realized it would take a few tons of TNT to penetrate that skull. Besides, does Jazzy really think CP is a meritocracy? Surely he's not that naive. And does he really think he's going to be able to make any noticeable improvement to a site that a godawful as Conservapedia? You can argue to you're blue in the face, and can prove your point beyond any doubt, but if Andy, TK, Rob, or Ed don't like what you say, it's not going to be in CP, no matter what. I can't tell if this fact hasn't quite dawned on Jazzman yet, or if he's fighting a losing batle for the sake of the fight. Either way, they're going to ban him for something. It's only a matter of time. DickTurpis 12:46, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Rob's last reply there is breathtaking in its stupidity. I don't know much about international politics, but Jazzman was pretty good at explaining what he was talking about. RobS' response? "I don't understand, so therefore you're wrong and a commie to boot". Stunning! --Kels 14:09, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I love how he labels "World War II for Dummies" as "commie propaganda". I would pay to see Rob in a real-life discussion, if just to see his opponent go "..........wha?" every now and then. --Sid 14:47, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
I used to think that Rob was actually a fairly smart guy. Seriously weird, but fairly smart. This discussion has forced a certain re-evaluation. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:13, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
(I know this post is a little out of order, but I wrote it a while ago and forgot to submit it). Surprisingly, Sid, Jazz wasn't blocked -- Rob decided to call him a Marxist, despite the fact that his userpage states he's a libertarian, and he has repetedly denied within the discussion that he ever endorsed liberalism. I expected him to get at least a warning, but I guess Rob is too full of himself to let a knowledgeable editor get the last word.
Dick, here's my interpretation of Jazz's actions: I think at first, since Jazz knows what he's talking about, he thought he would be able to explain to a novice what he was talking about. For the first couple replies he probably was a little nieve in thinking that he could get something done. After this edit, Jazz knew that Rob was actually just a moron. You notice at that point he started getting fiestier with his responses ("I would hate for (admittedly uninformed and biased)opinion to trump thousands of dollars worth of education.) Here he actually thought he could get out of the conversation, not realizing that Rob likes to hear himself talk -- er, type, I guess. However, it was this set of overnight edits, that really set Mr. Jazz (or is it Mr. Man?) off, as can be evidenced by this lengthy reply. (I saw the change log for that edit -- it topped out at a whopping 3700 characters added). I think all the talk of the meritocracy is a little joke Jazz is playing with Rob; it's all kinds of ironic, but Rob is too dumb to see it.
I can't wait to see what Jazz's next reply will be -- assuming, of course, that he decides to stay at Conservapedia. Who knows, maybe he's hoping he can keep going until he gets blocked for being educated; then he can write about it in a blog or something. 15:32, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
Jazzman's reply - this can't end well. --Sid 15:35, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
Banhammer in 5...4...3...2...1... DickTurpis 15:39, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
No ban yet! It's simply amazing how full of himself Rob is. And what does that reference have to do with anything? Jazzman never cited that reference, and it doesn't look like an IP book to me. BAM! Jazzman strikes again. (And with enough energy left to fight a vandal, to boot!) That man must be angry! 16:44, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh, my. How will Rob respond? "Turn into the Hulk!" (Sorry, couldn't resist...) --Sid 16:50, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
Dear God, I totally missed the bit about Kim Il-sung (1912-1994) watching pornographic videos! *laughs* --Sid 09:47, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
It seems that Rob makes a series of rational (but ignorant) posts, then out of no where comes up with a post that is completely tinfoil hat wearing nutso (and still ignorant). His last couple responses were of the former variety, so I'm hoping for a nice juicy post of the latter next. (Jazz obviously wants to bow out, but there's no way Rob will ever allow that!) 15:12, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, they've been at it for roughly five days by now. I can hardly blame him for trying to bow out. It's fairly obvious that this doesn't exactly have the greatest potential to go anywhere Rob doesn't want it to go. --Sid 15:52, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

My favourite part so far of this amazing discussion is this nugget from Rob about the US circumventing the UN when need arises: "Right right. So by this definition, we can put GW Bush in the same camp with the Bismark, the Kaiser, and Hitler," three men who also circumvented the UN to fit situational needs died before the UN ever had its first sit-down. PFoster 20:47, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

I personally liked the part where he insults himself.... Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 20:51, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
My favorite part is where he misspells "Bismark" (even though he's supposed to be a historian) and "goobledygook" (despite Andy's random insistence of perfect spelling). Additionally, a couple posts ago he put (sic) after arbitrarily... but there's nothing wrong with the spelling of that word. Priceless. 15:21, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
My new favorite line "This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing you skim." Rob's response? Yeah, he didn't notice.
How about Jazz's next post when he says "In fact, since I left a message to you within my post to check your thoroughness and you didn't make any reference to it, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that you aren't reading carefully" [4] Rob's response? Yeah, he didn't notice that either. 14:32, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Rob's comment at the end of that section is priceless, although I'm betting he doesn't understand why. "We know where all this is going, don't we?" We sure do, Rob. --Kels 16:06, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Jazz has started copying his own posts instead of writing new ones. Compare this to this (middle paragraph) and this to this. And then notice that all four diffs have the same last paragraph. 18:55, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Eheheheheheheh [5]. 14:11, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Word Counts[edit]

You know, I'd looked at that liberal list before, and it didn't strike me until now, how do you think CP itself would fare in terms of word counts? Do they complain about Democrats more than they mention Republicans? Is liberal a more common word than conservative? If that's what they tar WP with, they should make sure their own house is in order. --Kels 16:01, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

If we count talk pages, I'm sure the word "liberal" is used WAY more often. I mean, just look at how many people Andy accuses of being liberal, editing with liberal style, using liberal deceit, denying being liberals, liberal liberal liberal sausage, liberal bacon and liberals... --Sid 16:04, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
The question is, how on earth would you find out without being a total obssessive-compulsive freak? Is there some way to automate it? --Kels 16:07, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
You don't have to be OCD, just a little diligent ;-)
  • Liberal shows up 98 times on user pages (not including talk)
  • Conservative shows up 167 times on user pages (not including talk)
  • Libertarian (I don't support the two party cabal) shows up 24 times on user pages (not including talk)
Technically, this is not the number of times the word appears, but the number of pages on which it appears. So we know there are more admitted conservatives than liberals on CP (which makes sense; you don't "out" your liberalness if you want to be allowed to contribute). However, let's look at main space edits:
  • Liberal shows up on 959 pages, including talk.
  • Conservative shows up on 934 pages, including talk!!
  • Libertarian shows up on a paltry 112 pages, including talk.
*Blinks* I think I must be using the conservative search function, because there's no way that the numbers are that close!! 18:20, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, keep in mind there is a user:Conservaive, so any talk pages he signs will have that word. It could bring the average up quite a bit. DickTurpis 18:29, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I knew there had to be something I was missing. If I only use mainspace edits (which eliminates any of Conservative's signatures) we get 590 "conservative" pages and 642 "liberal" pages. Dissapointing, really :( Now, if there were a way to actually count the *number* of times those words were used (which I don't know how to do) I bet there would be a HUGE difference. All you need is one line on each page that says "X is clearly inferior to the conservative position on the issue" to mess up my count. 18:56, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
I think if you simply count the word liberal on Assfly's talk page and archives you'd break 1000. And, I think that with 90% certainty! (what a trite trope...) humanbe in 20:24, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
How about this challenge: Search Aschlafly's contribs for "liberal" and "conservative." I bet there's a significant difference (p<0.001)--BayesHave a cold one! 20:49, 27 August 2007 (CDT) <--God help everyone if Mr. S figures out what Student t-tests do

TK and John[edit]

TK actually says that he just takes orders from Andy (and limits the scope to persons, so I guess God is still free to order him around, too). Not sure if the entry's "only orders he takes are from the Lord" is intentional parody or a slip-up, but I thought I'd mention it. --Sid 12:57, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Please feel free to clean it up however. My writing is sloppy, and I just skimmed the entry after the first paragraph or so.--Offeep 13:01, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
It actually sounds like an intentional act of deceit, but I know thats not what happened. Bohdan 12:59, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Intentional acts of deceit rarely come with diff-links that expose said deceit :P --Sid 14:26, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Someone want to use a sock to invite JohnJoe before he gets banned? -- 14:09, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

No need for socks, banned users can still send and receive mail. --Sid 14:26, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Have you even read his comments? He would not fit in well amongst you people. Bohdan 14:26, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Why do you say that? He's very welcome here - while his Faith is clearly important to him, unlike CP, we're not Bigoted Narrow Minded Haters, and I don't think we'd have any trouble dealing with his a) polite, intelligent debate; b) rejection of a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament; or c) preparedness to take on raving lunatics like TK. I'd say he might fit in very well. DogP 14:31, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

>>edit conflict<< Oh, I don't know. Someone openminded enough to not hold the extremist positions that liberal = atheist and liberal = deceitful is OK in my book. Sterileblah, blah, blah 14:35, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
He repeatedly states that we should love and not hate. Your site is full of hate. He also expresses disgust at constant ridicule of others, and I believe that is one of the purposes of your site. Liberals are "friends with different political opinions" and here that is not the same with conservatives. He has wants scholars, including creation scientists, to be treated with respect and impartiality, and they don't get that here. he would have a hard time here if he came. Bohdan 14:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
The difference is that we ridicule specific people for specific things they say, we don't take a large portion of the country and call them all liars several hundred times a day. The whole "deciet" thing on CP really does sound like liberals parodying extreme conservatives; the fact that they are serious is actually really funny. Trying to engage in rational debate at CP gets you ridiculed and banned; that doesn't happen here. DickTurpis 14:49, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I like the guy, and he has some damn good ideas, as far as Christianity is concerned. I've maintained that if I were to be a Christian, I would only take the Gospels into account, as everything else is written by guys who came much later and never even saw Jesus (okay tyhe Gospels fall into that category to, but at least they claim to be the word of Jesus, and are about the only record of his actual teachings), whereas Paul is just some dickhead who fell off his horse and suddenly thought he was King Shit of Fuck Mountain. No idea why anyone ever took anything he said into account at all. And of course Revelation is the most ridiculous thing ever written. Who would take the ramblings of an insane wingnut as holy? And The Old Testament is a bunch of old stories that are on par with Gaia and Uranus and any other myths you can think of. At least Jesus existed (we can reasonably assume). Of course, I don't think he was divine, but even if you did, I fail to grasp why anyone would follow the teachings of the self-appointed pooh-bahs that followed him. DickTurpis 14:44, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

One thing that might be fun to do in this case, and others where we watch from the sidelines as people edge closer to the banhammer, is to publicly have "betting pools" over how long it would take. We should have a page—not a talk page but out in the main CP space—in which the current victims are listed, and we cheer them on and place "bets". Since we know that the CP powers that be watch this site, it might make for some interesting interactions. Having the "victim" be aware of the cheering section would also be amusing. Hey, it's better than dogfighting! SJIHAS 14:42, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I fully support the CP Death Pool idea! (Hm... Conservapedia:Banwatch?) :) -- 14:55, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Funny thing here, Bohdan.... you seem to be the only person insisting that us inviting JohnJoe would be a bad idea. Why do you think that is? -- 14:55, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Bohdan - it's laughable to say "this site is full of hate", laughable. Compared to Conservapedia, we are like fifty fluffy pandas, rollicking around in rolling green fields on a sunny day. CP is like Mordor. I honestly don't think I've seen more sheer hatred in one place than exists on CP. You extremist Christians have made Hate 'Your Thing'. Welcome to your nightmare. DogP 15:11, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Suddenly I am an "extremist Christian"? Bohdan

Well, I wasn't actually referring to you, but rather CP in general. But yes, you are indeed an extremist Christian, as your beliefs belong to a tiny percentage of people on the very fringe of general society, so that makes you extremist. I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt about that. It's not a perjorative term, just a descriptive one. DogP 15:20, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Would that make you an extremist atheist? Bohdan

Well, if you wish to play this game - no. I'm not an atheist, so there's that. (Can't be bothered to take a stance on either side of the irrelevant argument). And if you add up all the people who do not believe in the 'Evangelical Christian God' world view my position is absolutely in the huge majority. So, neither would be correct. DogP 15:44, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

PS. You point out JohnJoe repeatedly promotes love over hate. I know that I for one would also promote such vaues, and I think most of the rest here would too. Your brand of fiery Christian hatred doesn't seem to do love much. DogP 15:23, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Right, I constatnly claim to hate people, don't I? Bohdan 15:25, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Again, it's classic bullshit straw man arguments from you. I never said you were constantly apewing hate - I said that about CP. (Edit - I see why you said that, my poor writing failed to make clear that " Your brand of fiery Christian hatred doesn't seem to do love much" was intended to be about CP in general. I apologise for the lack of clarity). DogP 15:44, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I base my conclusions on what I see here and the statements he has made. Of course, if he doesn't believe what he is saying and is simply one of your socks, then that is a different matter and he would be quite at home here. Bohdan 15:09, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
"CP is like Mordor"; one does not simply walk into Andy's lair. Also, I think Bohdan does have a small point - we've got to keep reminding ourselves that we can't go down to the CP level (although I think that so far, we mostly haven't). Also, Bohdan, in your wandalism deep anger, and hatred, I sense in this one.-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Which of Bohdan's points? I was simply taking him up on the invitation to JohnJoe, which I still think would be great, and he might well fit in around here. We'd certainly welcome him and enjoy reasonable debate. DogP 15:50, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Is that what we were arguing about? Go ahead and get him to come, but I don't think he would approve of much that goes on here. I guess you might enjoy debating with him. Bohdan 15:57, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it is what we were arguing about. You had suggested he wouldn't come here because "this site is full of hate". Which given that the dreadful treament he's getting over there seems to be about to make him leave, I'd leave to your better judgement. He might not be happy socialising with a pile of agnostics and atheists, but that would be his call - we would welcome him and ask to to become involved. Any extra forces in the battle against extremism of any kind are welcome, no matter the colour of their cloth. DogP 16:06, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't forget us Pagans! But honestly, I can't see what Bohdan's on about. I think inviting him would be a great idea. We could offer him something he doesn't get there, spirited debate with a good-faith, intelligent opponent. Although I don't have that last qualification... --Kels 16:09, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps your right, he might enjoy debating. Bohdan 16:11, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
He's also not a literalist, so presumably stuff like Global flood and such wouldn't be taken by him as an attack on Christianity. --Kels 16:24, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I feel like you deserve an apology. I am, of course, Johnjoe. I was not a methodist preacher, that lie was necessary to further my debate. Neither am I believer - I am actually somewhat accurately summed as being a heretic. I am a Jesusist/Deist/Agnostic. I'm confused really, and if you don't honestly think you are confused you aren;t much of a believer.

I wanted to genuinly change peoples minds through calm and rational debate. I now realise that that was futile. Never before have I seen a bunch of wingnuts full of hatred in my life. Every day a heading bunches together every Liberal in the US as deceitful, and the overwhelming majority of them view liberals with cynicism, that efforts to tackle social inequality are merely a ruse to gain power. Its insane. The Anti-Conservapedia 05:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Welcome, Johnjoe/Anti-CP! It's worse, actually. CP's view of who to call liberal is horribly inconsistent with the rest of the world and even itself.
People Andy doesn't like are liberal by default, regardless of what they say, what they think, or where they come from. Andy made sure that everything he doesn't like is "liberal style" (deceit, discussing, long posts, etc). On the flipside, people Andy or his trusted sysops do like are conservative by default, and they then proceed to bend reality to make things fit: Any act of wrongdoing (like deceit, which only liberals use) is played down until there is practically nothing wrong about it anymore.
So a "deceitful liberal" can be anybody who does anything wrong and/or who doesn't deserve to be called "conservative" by Andy.
But that's a bit over the top for a welcome post. *chuckle* I hope you enjoy your stay here, and if you need help with anything, feel free to poke one of the regulars. We don't bite... often... :P --Sid 09:48, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
I'd argue CP has a very consistent definition of "Liberal": "Anything We Don't Like". On Planet Conservapedia, Gloria Steinem and Osama Bin Laden both believe exactly the same things. It's STUPID and WRONG, but it's consistent.
And welcome, Anti. Sadly, I can pretty much guarantee Andy & Co. will be pointing to you as an example of EVUL LIBRUL DECEIT THAT IS WORSE THAN HITLER!!!!~!1!!@!one!, but nice to have you here anyway.--Gulik 11:11, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Ed about quality[edit]

The way Ed sorta pissed on Conservative's article (A post about poor writing in reply to Conservative's praise of ToE? Come on!) might be retaliation for Conservative poking Ed about the copy-pasted article...

Either that, or Ed just felt like being a dick. XD

I do agree with the point, though. CP's articles (in general, not pointing at any article in particular) SERIOUSLY need a higher level of writing. There are exceptions, but they're at least one of the three: (1) copied from a copyrighted source, (2) written by a banned user, (3) quite rare. --Sid 18:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Update: Conservative retaliates (even though he's made the argument here, too, so it's not quite as thrilling for us as it is for Ed :P)! --Sid 18:40, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Than there's Tash[edit]

I don't care about his NFL edits but when he edits politicians' pages where he constantly confuses "then" with"than" arrrrgh! nails-on-chalkboard.CЯacke® 20:29, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't get me started about Tash and his one-man-argument against home-schooling. When I was on CP, I would spend hours fixing his atrocious writing, especially when he was obsessively creating entries about NBC anchormen. PFoster 20:43, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I had assumed that Tash was Natasha. Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 21:45, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

So had I, but the userboxes on his page say "This user has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and whatever..." PFoster 22:15, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I had also assumed Tash to be a short form of Natasha, but now I checked the user page, followed the "My blog" link and clicked on Tash's profile aaaaaaaaaand Tash is male. --Sid 09:51, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Conservative's gossip column style writing?[edit]

Conservative's gossip column style writing? I notice you didn't provide any examples. Why don't you provide some examples vis a vis the Conservapedia article on homosexuality. I am refering to article H as Ed Poor refers to it in his critique which exhibited exquisite writing clarity. :) Newton 18:44, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

You misspelled "excruciating". --Kels 20:03, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

"Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences violent behavior." Missing an "of."

"The Journal of the Family Research Institute using data from the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Center for Disease Control concluded that "married men who are not separated are at least 25 times less apt to be domestically attacked than a homosexual male in an 'on-going relationship.'" - Missing a comma.

"The Los Angela Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population." Where exactly is Los Angela?

"It is commonly argued that an inclination to homosexuality is inborn and immutable. It is also widely believed that the public will become more accepting of homosexuality if they are convinced that it is inborn and immutable." Two sentences in a row featuring passive voice.

"For example, research has suggested that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes." Passive voice. "The biological brothers?" Superfluous comma.

Also, weasel wording. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Face it, Newt - gossip columnists do better than that.PFoster 20:20, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Did you show that I wrote all or most of the above sentences? No you did not. Please do your homework next time instead of engaging in gossip.Newton 21:12, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
My apologies, Newton. I forgot that you're not a sysop at Conservapedia, and have no power to change articles. fnord
(And what about that marvelous bit in the old Hillary Clinton article about "Narcissistic personality disorder"? Yeah, nothin' gossippy there.... --Gulik 11:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Here's the first edit at the top of the history, from something like eight minutes ago - and it has a mistake in it. Research doesn't "suggest," in this case, it "suggests." Way to go, Conservapedia, we give you the right answers and you still write at a sixth-grade level. PFoster 21:24, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I hadn't thought the "gossip columnist" thing was referring to Ken's grammar so much as his "he said, she said" style, relying on suggestive quotes but nothing actually substantial. You know, "Ooh, guess what Richard Dawkins said when he didn't think Darwin was listening" sort of stuff. In that case, every single thing Ken's written over there would count as a reference. --Kels 17:40, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

11th Commandment[edit]

TK isn't as bad at math as one might think. The "11th Commandment" is not a reference to the Conservapedia Commandments (where it would be only the 8th), but to Reagan's 11th Commandment, which I believe is something like "Thou shall not criticize other Republicans," only in this case applying to sysops. So TK was making an historical reference, not a CP one, just to clarify. I have no problem with it remaining on the page as is, though. DickTurpis 23:41, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Are we really to think that TK put that much thought into the comment, or did dumb luck just let it work out that way? Jrssr5 08:05, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
I think it was intentional. If there's one person TK can quote well, it's probably Reagan. If it were a reference to someone like Palmerston or Metterich I'd chalk it up to dumb luck. DickTurpis 08:59, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Huh, didn't know that one! US politician quotes are totally out of my league, so this is an interesting bit of new trivia for me. :) --Sid 09:18, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Jallen a Morrisey fan?[edit]

What's with Jallen's block time for RW sock Dkips? Is she misremebering the lyrics to "Never Had No One Ever"? DickTurpis 00:45, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

nice catch. I saw Morrisey at a small venue this summer. He was great. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what?

TK is "Merely a conduit", eh?[edit]

As you know, my public posts as to policy and high-profile articles, are never my own invention, but I am merely a conduit.-- TK, in this slinging match. I find that quite amusing. Does that make him part of the Internet, then? It's also just a series of tubes... -- 17:24, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I was looking at something today (can't remember what page) where TK got after someone for doing something Andy had approved, saying Andy was "mistaken" when he okayed it. That to me suggests he's a wee bit more than a conduit. --Kels 17:38, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
I think there are two instances where TK contradicted Andy's statement, but I honestly can't remember the first one anymore. It might still be in the "Best of" archives.
And TK's position is an oddity. He constantly claims that he's just doing Andy's will and that everything he does is checked with him (and occasionally with some sort of silent majority), but sometimes, his reaction times are just too fast for me to believe that. And I'm not talking about generic stuff like fighting vandals. In more complex cases, TK sometimes gets out the hammer even before the other side realizes wtf is going on.
It's possible that TK has silently risen to a position in which he has equal say as Andy (and/or Andy simply lost interest in the day-to-day things and only focuses on front page attacks and his lectures), so "checking with Andy" is just a white lie to cover him making all those calls himself.</speculation> --Sid 18:25, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
[6][7] *creeps back into dark corner* 18:30, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, the second one is the one I was thinking of. Not sure I get the first one, but the following diff is interesting, as it shows the editors over there are quite used to the fact that TK is de facto in charge these days. I'm just waiting for his first real show of power against one of the sysops. --Kels 18:34, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
General consesus is that that was a sock, but no one has stepped forward yet. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 19:08, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, I should have explained. The first diff is what TK was referring to when he said, in the second diff, "Andy was incorrect in posting what he did." 18:49, 29 August 2007 (CDT)