Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive20

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 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>, <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)

Here we go again![edit]

Whee - Back on Dawkins again! Susanpurrrrr ... 11:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

What a way to start the new year... *groan* ;) --Sid 11:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
I broke my new years resolution in less than 16 hours. A record. OurMike 11:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)
See, this is why I keep my new years resolutions small and manageable. My resolution is to finish reverse engineering my shiny new Eye-Fi card that I had shipped from the USA at vast cost rather than wait a couple of months for it to be released in Europe. This resolution has turned out to be really bad for the environment, since I've burned through 6 AA batteries so far playing with it, but at I'm in no danger of not doing it. :D --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 12:53, 1 January 2008 (EST)
geek! Susanpurrrrr ... 13:04, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Danger! Geeks at work!
You say that like it's a bad thing! Thanks to my Eye-Fi hacking, I can trivially demonstrate I have all the interests of the well rounded geek. *runs* --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Actually there's a contradiction of the professor thing at Dawkins News. It seems that though he may not be a Professor he is some type of "professor". Weird.--Bobbing up 14:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)


I don't know who did it (and I'm not going to look so I'll never know) but wasn't the last archiving a bit overzealous? There were entire conversations that took place between the time I went to bed last night (1am) and the time I got up today (2pm) and they have now been archived. Lurker 13:49, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Yep, gotta be more careful next time.
By the way, you sleep too much. NightFlare 13:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Well, if you want the conversation back, just fish it out of the archive and put it back, I don't think there's a problem there. It's just everything seemed to be either wrapped up or otherwise inactive, so it seemed fine. Sorry for the error. --Kels 13:58, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Andy and the word "secular"[edit]

I was going to put this in with a joke about the first part of what he said, but after the first comma I can't understand half a thing of what Andy is trying to get at. Help? NightFlare 13:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I think that entry is a great illustration of the fact that Andy is just plain stupid as well as evil. How can the Pledge of Allegiance ("One nation under God") or swearing in a president (with his hand on a Bible, saying "so help me God") be construed as "secular" acts? A little education *is* a dangerous thing.PFoster 14:04, 1 January 2008 (EST)
That's just Andy trying to rewrite the dictionary to make the words mean what he wants them to mean. Nothing out of the ordinary. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:15, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Here's an example. Auld Nick 16:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)
So if that all is "secular"... then WTF is he up to with the line about "secular institutions" being so horribly bad? I... really don't understand the man anymore. He throws terms like "atheist" and "secular" around while at the same time changing the meaning whenever needed. At this rate, CP will make as little sense as TimeCube within the year. --Sid 14:20, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Andy is definitely degenerating. He must have made some New Year's resolutions or something, because he's so much more annoying than he was even 24 hours ago. He's really ramped up the crazy. Enough so that I'm considering making a sock just to point out his flaws... Lurker 14:25, 1 January 2008 (EST)
On Planet Conservapedia, "secular" means the same thing "liberal" does: "Like EVIL, only worse". --Gulik 15:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, it'll be worse than Timecube. Timecube may be nonsense, but at least it's internally consistent nonsense - the meaning of "evil stupid educator" remains the same throughout. Schlafly et al., on the other hand, don't seem to have a problem continually redefining words to make them fit with the agenda of the day. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Every time I try and comprehend how the garbage that comes out of Andy's mind can find an audience, I just remind myself that Time Cube has been on the internet for well over a decade and no sane person takes it seriously. -- 04:16, 2 January 2008 (EST)

I guess I was reading too much through it trying to find exactly what he meant with "public beliefs." NightFlare 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)

"Stuff I believe", would be my first guess. --Gulik 15:59, 1 January 2008 (EST)


When creating a user account this message was returned. I used alphanumeric characters. Was it this computer/ISP or CP that caused it? Auld Nick 14:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

What, pray tell, was this alleged "alphanumeric" username you tried to create? Perhaps it contained a blocked string of characters? humanUser talk:Human 15:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)
I created another and it worked. I was going for IvanJellick if that helps. Auld Nick 16:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Looks like "lick" is a bad word when it comes to usernames (judging from a quick look only; I'm not up to date with the syntax of this list). --Sid 16:54, 1 January 2008 (EST)
My first guess is that "lick" might be disallowed, likewise. And, of course, your name here is an anagram for "Anul Dick" (or "Luna Dick"). humanUser talk:Human 16:57, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Rkive? Best of?[edit]

Could someone who knows how archive this? What about -> best? Susanpurrrrr ... 18:52, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I was getting the idea that it was a bit long when Firefox stopped responding temporarily while loading it. assume  19:28, 1 January 2008 (EST)
The problem is preserving the votes… --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Shouldn't we just delete the oldest and put the ones that got, say, 10+ votes into the Best Of CP page? Doesn't seem like that would cause any problems. assume  22:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
How did we handle it last month? And, no, we don't delete them, we archive them. See the list at the top of the article. And, yes, theoretically we can use the votes to determine what gets added to BoCP. Although a little human (har har, not me) intervention might be wise. humanUser talk:Human 22:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Can we hold off a week? I have to do database manipulation to get it to work right. 22:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)
TMT, did you get my e-mail? --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (EST)
yea, i will fix it all when I get back. 23:12, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Has the best of thing actually worked to date to put things in the right place? --Kels 23:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Someone archived this (good) without "updating" the numbers for the voting, and left the voting things in the archive (maybe bad). Shall we keep the voting available in the archive (which does work, thankfully), and let the numbers climb forever? humanUser talk:Human 19:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I don't know if it's possible to not let the numbers accumulate forever, is it? Aren't the numbers a unique key which ties the item to the number of votes in the database? If we reuse a number, won't it inherit an old items number of votes? Update: yes, reusing a number involves it inheriting an old vote count. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 19:44, 3 January 2008 (EST)
maybe I will get time this weekend to look at this. 20:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Rottweillers v Guns[edit]

PJR finally gives up on AS. Susanpurrrrr ... 04:33, 2 January 2008 (EST)

You know, rottweilers sound like a kind of gun. Something like a tommy gun. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:44, 2 January 2008 (EST)
What I love is the position assfly has talked himself into - he is literally advocating leaving loaded firearms where unsupervised teenagers have access to them!!! He's so freakin' batshit insane sometimes... humanUser talk:Human 04:48, 2 January 2008 (EST)
More to the point, he thinks the 16 year old should have a gun handy even when playing with two younger siblings in the yard, just in case. So not only should the teen have access, the teen should have it with them. --Kels 06:41, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Kels, that's just plain daft why should it be the reponsibility of the teens to protect the baby? They should learn to stand on their own two feet and we should arm babies at birth so that they can protect themselves not only from dangerous dogs, but child abusers and nurses trying to vaccinate them against their will. Even better, every pregnant woman should have a derringer rammed up their womb so that the foetuses can protect themselves from evil liberal atheistic abortionists. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 14:26, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Then, of course, we'll have to give guns to the dogs so they can protect themselves . . . Master Bra'tacKree! 14:28, 2 January 2008 (EST)
What makes CP so crazy is that they don't just portray the conservative POV; they oppose everything liberals agree with or support. It's like Reductio ad Hitlerum with liberals. If liberals agree that mathematics works, it must be t3h evil plot! Breathing required for survival? That's just what the gay feminist liberal communist Nazis from Wikipedia want you to think! assume  14:37, 2 January 2008 (EST)
First time I see the term, actually, but it fits perfectly. Anything the liberals touch automatically becomes bad (or at least tainted) in the eyes of Andy and some of his "Yessir!" sysops. --Sid 14:45, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Provocateur of the week[edit]

One of the news in the article page is about JakeC driving a wedge caught in a row between Andy and PJR. There, Andy 'candidates' him to provocateur of the week. Should we take his idea and have a weekly contest for CP troll editor of the week? (and no, my nick here has nothing to do with it) Ed @CP and RW 10:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Andy would constantly win, wouldn't he? He trolled heavily on the Dawkins talk page, main page on gun control (AT LEAST, bet he's done it dozens of times there with other "kittens are full of vitamin C so that's why I'm right" reasoning), and he's right now trolling on Archaeopteryx and Fred Hoyle articles. He is the master, we all must lern frum hiz mudkipping. NorsemanWassail! 10:36, 2 January 2008 (EST)
I'm curious, what does the kitten and vitamin C comment refer to? NightFlare 12:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)
I don't think it has anything to do with anything, and I suspect that's the point. Master Bra'tacKree! 12:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)
And here was I wondering if it had something to do with vaccines or abortion. NightFlare 12:32, 2 January 2008 (EST)
It can refer to anything insane. Like, for instance, eating kittens calms hysterical women from having abortions. It makes no sense, but it proves your point! NorsemanWassail! 14:34, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Vitamin C? Pah. Brawndo is what kittens crave! It's got electrolytes! (And yes, I have to think of that scene and the movie in general a lot whenever I read discussions like the Dawkins one.) --Sid 14:37, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Andy's output of one week would last for at least a month. Aside from Hoyle, Dawkins, Archaeopteryx, you also have to remember his secular explanation of secular secularism and his revert orgy in the "Evangelical atheist" (or however it's named) article. The latter of course also has some nice talk page fallout, if I recall correctly. --Sid 14:19, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, but it looks like that's calmed down now. "Calmed down" meaning Andy gave a perfect demonstration of last wordism by saying the debate was over and anyone who comments after him is engaging in last wordism themselves and is probably a liberal. assume  14:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)
After reading the last week's edits, I figured Andy was a crazy person, and had lost not only his bearings, but likely had a rod punch through the crank shaftwild ass guess! (did I get that right? my ex-bf knows more about cars than me, and I'm kind of putting together bits and pieces of bad stuff). I also considered making a wiki, where I could control all the content similar to Andy, but only on a more crazy scale, basically to the max. Then I realized, that it would be a lot of work, and Conservapedia is already 99% to the max of what I was thinking about anyways. It would just be fun I think to totally parody him with entirely serious satire. --Eira yay! 14:49, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Your mechanical terminology is a little off, but your eval;uation of Andy is dead on. PFoster 14:53, 2 January 2008 (EST)
I most certainly did not mess up my mechanical terminology. Dr. McKalson-Sotherly says that the rod is encased in a crnkshaft, and that's good enough for most people. I mean, it is a shaft, right? What els would go in it? You must have gotten such a crazy liberale idea of how engines work, because of the athiestic schoolling you had at the hands of our detestable liberal education system! I don't think there is anything more to say on this topic. Loking at the work you have done far, you show a complete lack of the intelagence necessary to provide any meaningful comment to mainspace articles, and only come here to cause disruption by endlessly debating iirrelevant points that are already proven. This conversation is done! Although, I imagine you will atempt some sort of last-word-ism! --Eira yay! 15:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)
LMAO. You made my day. This is what happens when poor innocent historians get a testosterone rush and begin to believe that they know something about the workings of the internal-combustion engine. PFoster 15:17, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Funny post aside, it's the crankcase the rod breaks through after the bearing is shot. BTDT, twice ;) humanUser talk:Human 15:16, 2 January 2008 (EST)

This is an obvious attack on my person... continuing to do so will get you banned, if you don't start providing quality content to pages, rather than simpy attaking me in the talk pages. You're using the terminollogy that the Mechanic Activists are trying to push into the Amercan public. It's a shaft, and it always a shaft. A "case" is a portable container of items, and since it is not a moving part of the engine, it can't possibly be a case. --Eira yay! 15:29, 2 January 2008 (EST)

I think Andy is just reloading for his Final Post of Doom or something. The sudden appearance of an actual list of edits must have startled him. My guess: He's now scanning ALL of Jake's edits for signs of "not approved" behavior, and then, when Jake replies to Andy's post listing them, Karajou will conveniently swoop in to deliver the killing blow. --Sid 14:51, 2 January 2008 (EST)
TK must have been Andy's sanity filter. TK would never have let most of the recent discussions get as far as they have, but without him Andy now just goes off the deep-end and says the first crazy thing that enters his head. I think that Tmtoulouse is actually using Andy as a subject for his PhD or something. A fascinating case study. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:02, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Indeed, it's one of the most advanced cases of conservative hysteria on record. assume  15:05, 2 January 2008 (EST)
It's almost like another episode of Left Behind. Editors keep "disappearing", and I have a feeling the big showdown with the anti Christ may be coming. BTW, I want to play the antiChrist, so don't get any ideas. User:PalMD
If you're the anti-Christ, can I be your lawyer? assume  15:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
"I think that Tmtoulouse is actually using Andy as a subject for his PhD" - actually, I think he is more likely to work on a study of the structure and "rules" of RW for a thesis.wild ass guess! But that's just a wild-ass guess. humanUser talk:Human 17:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Here's another provocateur. By the way, what's this? T3hFishReturns is not using my MO. What kind of a crap wannabe policeman is Karajou? Auld Nick 19:02, 2 January 2008 (EST)
The same kinda policeman who thinks that every German IP is used exclusively by me? --Sid 19:07, 2 January 2008 (EST)
The more Karajou contributes to CP, the more he reinforces my image of him as the dumb grunt. What a clown! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 19:26, 2 January 2008 (EST)

I liked this from teh assfly: "Are you suggesting we delete the esteemed Sir Fred Hoyle's conclusion..." So now foreign titular honors mean something on CP? Hoyle isn't that esteemed, really, he's a bit of a crank... Oh, wait! That's why ashfly lurves him! humanUser talk:Human 20:43, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Aaaaaaaaaaand Jake gets a block, followed by Jose instantly ejaculating onto his grave. Seriously, is Andy even trying to appear as if he has some shred of evidence for his version? --Sid 21:55, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Uh oh, looks like the block came too late... Andy's record-level lunacy on that page are beginning to draw attention from other editors. UchihaKATON! 22:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Andy ups the ante: "I don't have time to hunt down every link that someone puts up on a talk page. [...] If you can't explain the "flaws" in Hoyle's work in your own words here, then forget about it." - this issue is getting more and more ridiculous. --Sid 22:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)
And I have to add... "Hoyle, by the way, was the preeminent British scientist of the 20th century.--Aschlafly" Wow, end of story!!! (empahasis added). humanUser talk:Human 23:02, 2 January 2008 (EST)
As a British person, let me say I think our country can probably do better. Francis Crick springs to mind for his Nobel Prize winning work. Stephen Hawking is another candidate, having not only contributed significant theory and proof to his own field but also a big contribution to the public understanding and appreciation of science. Hoyle on the other hand, and lets be fair to him, is a gimp. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 23:12, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Hawking is British? I never checked his nationality before... good to know! But even accepting Andy's claim as truth... what does it say? Not much. Is the world's greatest astronomer ever also great in completely unrelated fields of study? Sorry, but "preeminent British scientist" doesn't mean anything because there isn't just "science" as one field of research. Even if Hoyle was honored with such a title for his astronomy stuff, it wouldn't give him any authority in other fields of research. --Sid 23:22, 2 January 2008 (EST)
It must have been his American accent that is throwing people off. Of note, Hawking's joking about his accent is very amusing (look up what he's said about a french accent). If you read [1] you'll note that he's also a Dr. Who fan. Which is worse, his American accent or talking like a Dalek? --Shagie 17:24, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Ahem. [2]. Need I say more? --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 17:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Pffftt... You're British, so your opinion only counts when it agrees with America. Or at least that's how it works in Andyland. --Eira yay! 01:40, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I surprising number of mathematicians and physicists who have big important things named after them are British. I'm thinking Turing [Test|Completeness], Hawking Radiation, Penrose Networks, etc. etc. I've sometimes wondered if this is an artefact of particular vanity amongst British intellectuals :D --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 23:48, 2 January 2008 (EST)

It seems T3hFishReturns didn't like being confused with Auld Nick and decided to clarify. assume  23:55, 2 January 2008 (EST)


Apparently, Jinxmchue at Wikipedia moved over to Conservapedia (see his user account there) because he found liberal bias (read: he didn't like the business about "Of Pandas and People"). He keeps complaining that he got blocked on Wikipedia because of his views, but he really got blocked for being massively disruptive. And, for someone who retired from Wikipedia, he managed to come back and cause trouble.

I asked him if he had any plans to edit constructively, but he said I was disruptively trolling and should have been blocked. I should have kept Jinxmchue's entire IP address range blocked at Wikipedia. Luckily for him, he found a place on Conservapedia to bitch about it. Apparently, "attempting to keep order" is the same thing as "bias". --Elkman 16:58, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, I noticed your post on CP, I think, when I read through Jinxmchue's "Oh noes, teh unfair!" gig. Welcome to The Other Place (which shall not be named on CP, with the acronym "RW" used in extreme cases :P)!
CP has become a place for disgruntled Wikipedians to get a comforting hug, it seems. There was also some dude semi-recently who whined about his Christian Ubuntu article or something being deleted, citing anti-Christian bias.
You're just one of the Evil Wikipedians, so don't expect most of the senior members of CP to treat you fairly. Since you found this article, you most likely got a good impression of just how crazy they are. Maybe it's better this way: Give them another wiki to rant - if anything, they'll be distracted for a while... at least until they realize that they joined a club led by loons. --Sid 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)
BTW, Ed_Poor will welcome you with open arms. Watch out. 17:44, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Andy got real quiet after LardoBolger pointed out his sob story of sysop abuse on CP. He can't reply in favor of Jinx without agreeing that his own site is much worse. An apology my ass. Lawl! NorsemanWassail! 18:53, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Andy and guns[edit]

Given how much of a dick asshole imbecile Andy is, I wonder if he's ever actually fired a gun. Or if he owns one. Or if he's even touched one. If he hadn't one this, the irony would be sickening. --Ζωροάστρης 20:36, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The irony isn't already sickening? assume  21:17, 2 January 2008 (EST)
I'm almost ashamed to say that I have fired a gun — and enjoyed it :(. --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (EST)
I don't see why you should be ashamed of that. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with guns or other weapons of war. I've fired an air rifle myself, at paper targets. I've also had occasion to practice a little light archery which I didn't enjoy terribly much. The problem is in assuming that actually carrying a gun makes you safer in any way, or that firing a gun at a person is a trivial thing to be doing rather than an act with grave (no pun intended) moral consequences.
I don't have a problem with people shooting guns at targets for recreation, and I don't necessarily have a problem with people firing guns at wild animals for recreation at least until such time as we sort out the horrible travesty of animal welfare that is industrial meat production. What I do object to, and what I think other people of sound mind ought to object to, is the routine ownership and carrying of handguns that serve no other purpose than to injure and kill human beings. I don't want to live in a society like that, and having had a gun pointed at me in the USA for no more fault than being a scruffy looking backpacker asking to use a phone briefly for a local call (something which British life primed me to believe would be OK with everyone in the world, and that I might even be offered a mug of coffee if I happened to choose an especially nice house, considering it was pissing it down with rain at the time) only hardens my opinion that the sort of paranoia that goes hand in hand with gun ownership is the worst thing a society can possibly inflict on itself. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 22:33, 2 January 2008 (EST)
That happened to you? My sympathies. At least you got off luckier than that Japanese student who got gunned down under siumialr circumstances... --Gulik 23:04, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, I haven't heard about that particular incident, but I can well believe it. On the other hand, I had some particularly nice experiences on the same trip too. In one instance, in New York state, a guy invited me back to his house to wash my clothes and fed me left over grapes and cheese, then later went out of his way to drive me back to town. In this case the balance of trust was reversed, he could have been seeking to kill me or otherwise do bad things to me, and I had no idea where his house was if I needed to beat a hasty retreat, but these things are such ridiculously remote possibilities it only crossed my mind for a fraction of a second. Perspective I guess.
People are generally nice to other people. A few people shared beer with me that trip (I was too young to legally buy alcohol in the US at the time) and one group shared their pot, for which I was most grateful, and traded some chocolate brownies in return :D As long as you remember that the stuff you see on the news is the exception, not the rule, things generally turn out nicely. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 23:28, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The real 90/10 rule[edit]

Here's what the 90/10 rule actually means:

Nonconformist activity, such as 90% logic and only 10% sysop worship, will give the sysops an excuse to block you.

Perhaps I should suggest they change it? All for the sake of accuracy, of course. Nods.gif assume  22:22, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The real rule is 90% assfly doesn't like, 10% go to hell. It has never been "scientific" or "mathematical", it has always been "as the sysops wish". humanUser talk:Human 22:48, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Personally, I wonder how you apply 90/10 to [3]. Must everyone start with a 9 main namespace edits before they can talk? "Hello, I'm John" ... "BZZT! Goodbye!" Kirkburn 23:59, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I think the 90/10 thing there was just an excuse to get rid of him—not that they need one. Losnam was pretty blatantly trolling, after all. assume  00:15, 3 January 2008 (EST)
And note the language used here: [[4]]. Violating the "spirit" of the 90/10 rule.— Unsigned, by: Slink / talk / contribs
Ah yes, I forgot Spirit trumps Reality :) Kirkburn 19:22, 3 January 2008 (EST)

When even Creationist Sites Disagree: Archaeopteryx[edit]

Check out the lively rearguard action (and losing battle) by Assfly to defend the hoaxiness of Archaeopteryx, maintain that Sir Fred Hoyle (Sir Fred?) is "the greatest British scientist of the 20th century" and confirm our suspicion that something about the label "creationist" rubs the Andy the wrong way. Phillip Rayment is going a bit out on a limb here isn't he?PoorEd 15:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I don't know if Hoyle was really the greatest British scientist of the 20th century, but he sure did a great job of defining the rules of card games. (Or was that a different Hoyle? Does it make a difference?) --Elkman 17:10, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I'd argue Watson and Crick, or Hawking, but as we know astronomy and genetics are just some of the many tools of the devil. Stile4aly 19:58, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Without Alan Turing, on the off-chance that there would even BE an Internet, we'd probably be posting to it in German. --Gulik 04:08, 4 January 2008 (EST)

A mispelling in the search box led me to an interesting article: Transitional fossil. How has this piece of evolutionist propaganda not been pwned yet?? UchihaKATON! 12:50, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Good question. How long will it take them to read this and delete or bowlderize the article? CP tries not to leave any contrary evidence in their own fossil record. PoorEd 15:35, 4 January 2008 (EST)

New Gwenson[edit]

Did you know what cp just did? Insult over 5,000 people, thats what! --I AM FROM NEW GWENSON 18:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Curses! I was about to do just that. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
...and what did Liberapedia think of your antics? Other than the big black "Delete" template, I mean. UchihaKATON! 19:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

How to get around a ban[edit]

I was unfairly banned at Conservapedia and I need to find a way around it. -- Jose83

What, you think you're the first one? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 22:02, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Aw, be nice. Welcome to the club (except for the "needing to go back) part! humanUser talk:Human 22:04, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I'm fairly certain that the open intent to sock is going to look great on your resume (and you aren't the only CP member who keeps an eye on RW). CP actually has a "If you get blocked" guideline for "unfair" blocks, although I wouldn't expect miracles (not saying that it's hopeless, but the "unblock after unfair block" ratio is quite low). Also keep in mind: "Blocked users creating 'sock puppets' will be blocked again. Infinitely." --Sid 22:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
So be smarter than the average bear, and use a proxy, or at least a different IP address! --Gulik 04:09, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Now do you realize how ridiculous the reasons people get banned for on CP are? Well, welcome to the "dark side". Pull up your open proxies, get some socks, and try your hand at the subtle art of parody! assume  15:43, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Don't despair, Andy Himself came to your salvation. But that Fox... Ed @but not the Poor one! 08:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Yeesh, I'm surprised. From what I could see, Jose's activities practically screamed parody (whether he is/was or not is another question), and Andy actually suggested to lift the block? CP's priorities are way screwed up. Apparently, it's really true that you can get away with anything, as long as you don't disagree with Andy. --Sid 08:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)

So, what about the homeschoolers?[edit]

Supposedly, Conservapedia is supposed to be a more accurate resource for kids who are being homeschooled. It's free of all of those damaging inaccuracies that Wikipedia has, such as liberalism. And, there's no chance that someone will vandalize an article with a picture of a wriggling, erect penis.

So, I checked out Conservapedia's entry on Minneapolis, to compare it with wikipedia:Minneapolis. The current version of the article tells us these facts:

  • It's the largest city in Minnesota, and along with St. Paul, they form the Twin Cities. (They got this part right.)
  • The Mary Tyler Moore Show took place in Minneapolis. (True, but probably not the most important things to say about the city.)
  • It's one of the top 5 cleanest cities in the world. (I guess the light rail system and all the bike trails paid off.) The "Reerences" section says it was published in Forbes Magazine.
  • The Timberwolves, Twins, and Vikings play in Minneapolis. (The Vikings article mentions their "love boat" scandal, but fails to mention how the Vikings always choke in the playoffs.)

That's all they have to say about Minneapolis. There's no mention about how the town started. The article doesn't mention anything about the Mississippi River, St. Anthony Falls, or Father Louis Hennepin's discovery of the falls. And if someone wanted to know why Minneapolis grew and prospered, Conservapedia wouldn't tell them about how Fort Snelling spurred the growth of the city and how the falls provided waterpower for the flour mills. Conservapedia doesn't say anything about General Mills and Pillsbury. Even Wikipedia's very first revision of the article, from November 1, 2001, provides more context than the Conservapedia version.

I don't know if Conservapedia really thinks they're going to replace Wikipedia as a resource for kids who are getting a better education at home too sheltered to go to public schools, but I hope those parents have a better resource than Conservapedia for their kids' education. Goodness knows that Conservapedia can't tell their kids much about cp:puberty. --Elkman 00:23, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Feel better? Lurker 00:31, 4 January 2008 (EST)
I do. humanUser talk:Human 00:56, 4 January 2008 (EST)
It's not incomplete, it's concise.Shangrala 03:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Elkman, ever feel like you're preaching to the converted? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 03:04, 4 January 2008 (EST)
"It's not stupid--it's advanced!" -- The Almighty Tallest. --Gulik 04:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)
CP isn't really a learning resource, and I don't know of anybody who actually uses it as such (excluding maybe CP fanatics, and I assume/hope that most of them only say so because they want to stay in Andy's grace). There are articles that could provide a start for research (even though pretty much all of those are inferior to WP), but the core articles are simply attack pieces. All the neutral topics are just a clever cover, which may be why they openly advocate copying from everything they can justify with "public domain", "fair use", or "owner hasn't sent DMCA yet": It dilutes the overall content and hides the attack pieces in a crowd.
Just compare the "concise" articles with the core pieces (Atheism, Theory of evolution, Homosexuality, Dawkins, etc.) For example... "Americas" (207 words, including 78 words copy-pasted from Britannica) and "Homosexuality" (17,000+ words by a quick count, not counting image captions, text in footnotes, or See Also and External Links sections). The problem with the latter isn't even the length, but rather what it says. CP claims to be "neutral to the facts", and conveniently enough, the ultra-conservative-Christian point of view just happens to be the completely factual one, according to them...
And the sysops defend their attack pieces against factual additions to the death. Look at the talk pages of evolution, atheism, or even evangelical atheism or that silly archeosomething bird. So nah, CP is not an educational site, but rather an attack site with some shiny gift-wrapping. --Sid 07:57, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Shiny gift-wrapping? Last I checked, gift wrap was supposed to be pretty, and Conservapedia looks ugly. *Sigh* Only Conservapedia could take patriotic colors and find a way to make them look ugly. They should really match their color scheme to their demographic: white. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Amen, bro. Praise the Lord and pass the amunition. PoorEd 09:00, 4 January 2008 (EST)


I don't really know much about the process down there, but I was amused by one thing I read this morning that, despite coming in third, Hillary managed to get twice as many votes as Huckabee. So #3 for Dems is worth two Repub #1's. --Kels 06:51, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Look closely. Huckabee recieved two more delegate votes than Hillary (and the Dems started with 17 more votes anyway). She might have gotten twice as many actual votes, but I doubt it, unless there were two or three times as many Democrats voting. Lastly, the Dem vote was spread between 3 candidates (Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich got 0 delegate votes) whereas the Republicans were split between two main candidates (Huckabee and Romney) and three "minor" candidates (Thompson, McCain, and Paul). Researcher might be able to enlighten us on what this all means, but as far as I can tell, Hillary didn't get twice of anything, and even if she did it wouldn't mean anything. Lurker 13:40, 4 January 2008 (EST)
From what the papers say, there actually were twice as many Dems voting as Repubs. Apparently Hillary pulled 67,000 to the Huckster's almost 36,000. --Kels 17:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)
You really can't compare delegates across parties, because the parties run their conventions radically differently (and apportion their delegates radically differently.) So, for example, I could run for the A party nominations in State Z, and you could run for the B party nomination in state Z, and I could end up with 20 times your delegate vote, despite 1/10 your actual votes, because our parties run things differently. Delegates between parties are apples and oranges. (As for comparing vote totals, all it really shows is why Democrats are in good shape for this year and Republicans aren't.) Researcher 05:46, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Democrats, in, I think all fifty States, outnumber Republicans in registered voters. In Caucuses and Primaries, you usually must vote your own registered party. In general elections, in recent decades, about 35% of Democrats will vote for the Republican candidate, so it makes absolutely no difference how many "more" votes any particular candidate pulls in these caucuses/primaries. The only matter of note in Iowa was that Hillary did indeed lose. Watch the next two or three primaries, and if the trend continues it will connote dissatisfaction of a greater degree than has been previously discerned in polling, etc. --TK/MyTalk 17:37, 4 January 2008 (EST)
I remember reading an analysis about a year back when it became clear Obama would likely look for the nomination (maybe not so long ago, but it sure seems like a year) that suggested if Hillary lost the first primary, she'd keep going long enough to make it look good, then resign and throw her weight behind Obama. And that's an awful lot of money and connections, regardless of what you think of her personally. A lot of people never expected her to win the nomination anyway, and chalk it up to strategy that she's running in the first place. Along the lines of people pay attention to what she does, then she gets to be kingmaker. --Kels 21:15, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Gives me faith in the electoral system. Lurker 21:22, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I'm Canadian, and we don't go through all the strangeness of the primary season. Parties choose their leaders whenever they see the need (often after an election they lost, so they can get a fresh face), then that's who runs. You don't have a different face every time. --Kels 22:18, 4 January 2008 (EST)


There's a lovely little war going on re socialism @ the moment. Susanclaw! ... 14:49, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Nice. Did you see that it took them almost a full day to remove that intro that was basically an argument in support of socialism? That's slow even for them. assume  15:22, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Still missing RobSmith who was the subversion checker over there. CЯacke®

Conservapedia does not contain gossip[edit]

Someone just forgot to tell Ed. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)

He's too busy worrying about personal attacks over here. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:48, 4 January 2008 (EST)
It's a rather bizarre BreakingSNooze item, even for CP...--WJThomas 19:36, 4 January 2008 (EST)
He even used the word "gossip" in his edit summary. Think anyone will dare to file an abuse report of this? assume  20:25, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Well, Andy kinda sorta is okay with it. --Sid 20:49, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sort of amused that he takes Brittney as an example of how one lesbian kiss can lead to your downfall, but seems oblivious to the fact that the other half of that kiss is doing pretty well for herself, thankyouverymuch. --21:25, 4 January 2008 (EST)

That's a much better correlation than he usually gets. Why, when one in a million public school students shoots somebody, blAndy feels comfortable condemning the whole system as Eeee-vil. In this case, 50% of lesbian kisses leads to public nudity, drunkeness, and baldness. Score!--WJThomas 21:35, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Non-Brittney girls with shaved heads are pretty hot anyway. --Kels 21:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Ok everyone: it's spelled Britney. Andy, I'm talking to you, too! Lurker 01:07, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Evolution of the horse[edit]

cp:User:Coventry now has to prove how the horse evolved using only the scientific method. So says Karajou. [5] Film at eleven. Oh, and they're arguing having a civil debate about Pastafarianism. Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Master Bra'tacKree! 19:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

I'm assuming that Karajou can prove that horses were intelligently designed. Otherwise his logic here would make no sense. And I took the liberty of finding the information myself, since it took a 2 second google search: --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:17, 4 January 2008 (EST)
Looks like Coventry's been axed. Big surprise, huh? --Gulik 23:32, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Uncategorized pages[edit]

Remember that nice drive CP had to categorize all their pages? (Even though they never actually did, since {{fact}} and {{uncited}} adds categories and takes them off the list anyway). And then remember when someone made a lot of stupid and annoying edits to the RC text and the sidebar, like completely hiding the useful links or moving them far down on the screen? Guess what?.... Lurker 22:13, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Freedom777's article[edit]

His article on Intelligent design is impressive - much longer than the average CP article and much better than Conservative's Homosexuality ramblings. Credit when credit is due etc. Will it be published? Or will Archaeopteryx-is-a-hoax-Andy find something wrong with it? Ed @CP and RW 06:47, 5 January 2008 (EST)

OK from a quick glance it is slightly better structured than Ken's homphobic drivel but I would have thought that after all this time he would have standardised on a style for quotes etc., sorted out all the bad links and only used images once. I wonder how Ken would feel if it became the most viewed article instead of Homophobia? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 07:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Maybe we'll see more articles like "Homosexuality and zodiacal signs", he'll merge all the "Homosexuality and..." into one giant abomination, he'll get Freedom777 blocked and/or important e-mails will be sent. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 07:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)
...*plays the Power Rangers theme* Homosexuality Megazord, activate! --Sid 08:58, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Wealth and faith[edit]

Andy wrote: "Scarcity seems to lead more people to faith, while wealth can pull people away from faith". Note the use of can. It is clear that in Andy's case it won't. He isn't about to give all his money away. Others who want to find their way back to faith can get rid of their wealth by giving it to Andy so he won't have to get a proper job. That's how this religion scam thing works. Con others into giving you their wealth by telling them it isn't good for them. Auld Nick 13:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Or even work at trying to improve his personal blog for no reward. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 13:22, 5 January 2008 (EST)
GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P --TK/MyTalk 15:21, 5 January 2008 (EST)

It always amuses me that the "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" verse never seems to apply to those with money. Stile4aly 15:32, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Viva socialismo. --Linus(plot evil tech) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (EST)
It applies to all those libruls with money but not the righteous conservatives. Susanclaw! ... 16:08, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Among the wealthy, it applies equally, conservative and liberal, since they are not bound by God's laws. People who use their "religion" or politics to hate, like Andy, will never know this, and will always be on the outside. I wonder how Pat Robertson or Falwell Jr., view Andy's statement! --TK/MyTalk 16:23, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Celebrities, Businessmen, Astronauts Oh My![edit]

To be fair there is a section right above that speaks to this. On the other hand, what does he mean by prominent? It seems as if he means "politicians" or people in govt, and movie critics. Maybe it's just me but it seems as if the hoi poli would almost have to have their children educated in public schools as most are not wealthy enough to be sending little Johnny to private hucksters schools. If one does succeed financially, then one might opt for "better" schools for one's progeny. Just think, if enough people opt out of children going to public schools then they could have them educated in private schools where they could have prayers! That seems to be the only "reason" Ashfly has for people to have their children educated privately. (Thank God we had school-prayer back in the good-old-days of World wars and such! Just think how bad it would have been if there hadn't been all those chil'ren praying for victory, why, God might have forgotten about us altogether! (if ONLY). CЯacke® 18:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, but surely good sir you know how war works? You see as long as both sides are praying to god, he can't quite decide which bunch to favour. So, in war, the objective is to kill as many of the faithful of the other side as possible, or to recruit more of the faithful on to your own side. There are no atheists in fox holes, therefore the most logical people to kill are enemy soldiers, but killing their civilians is almost as good. World War 2 was decided when the pious Americans entered the war, and all the additional prayer tipped the balance for the allies. The godless communist Russians obviously contributed nothing. Isn't this all self evident? --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 18:51, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I think the point in the article is that the first list (added by Andy, I think) is there to show that "most prominent Americans" had classroom prayer (which obviously is the sole factor of what made them so great). Then, somebody else added another section to show prominent Americans who went to school after that crucial year, but Andy can't accept that somebody tries to undermine his point, so these people are by definition not "prominent" anymore. --Sid 18:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Exactly, Sid. Don't go looking for whoever added that other list (I haven't gone and checked, too much trouble with my IP blocked) to get night editing rights anytime soon! :P --TK/MyTalk 19:16, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Even with a blocked IP I have no trouble digging around CP - although I suppose there are some faster techniques that don't work? Heck, you can even see the page source if you need to. And, of course, each time I do I get a personal message from the sysop who blocked me! Good times, good times... humanUser talk:Human 19:59, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, that one's not gonna get any sort of promotion anytime soon. I'm actually surprised that he didn't get banned yet! But it seems that he's getting a warm welcome in so many ways, even without Public School edits. Gotta wonder how long he'll last before he gets hammered or simply decides to leave. --Sid 19:31, 5 January 2008 (EST)
That whole thing is just hilarious. Many people who later succeed go to private school, yes - they have the smarts, drive and often family assets to go to higher-caliber prep schools. They don't go there for prayer, they go for higher standards of academics and to meet and greet the future "old boys club". Like the Bushies & Phillips Andover. And from my observations of Phillips Exeter, those standards are really high. humanUser talk:Human 20:02, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Successes of RW[edit]

Discussion moved to RationalWiki:Site politics

Ed and Britney sitting in a tree[edit]

Ed's flamage of Poor Britney sounds as if he's taken a page from User:C's doth protesting too much shtick. Use protection Ed! 13:05, 6 January 2008 (EST) CЯacke®

I'm always a bit disturbed when I see a middle-aged (or later) man like Ed taking an undue interest in young girls' panties. --Kels 13:16, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Why don't you have a seat over there, Mr Poor ... --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
Of course bringing the subject up only makes an inquiring mind search for the images. I know it did it for me. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Phwoar! 23:46, 23 July 2024 (EST)

Why do I imagine Ed would be the sort to take his daughters to a Chastity Ball, one of those creepy ones where the daddy is the little girl's date? --Kels 15:43, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I found it really funny because.... schools don't require girls to wear underwear... How would they enforce something like that anyway? SirChuckBCall the FBI 12:22, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Interesting form of bias[edit]

I just started to notice a pattern on CP. It's an old one, but it never struck me like this before: Whenever describing a conservative organization, CP sticks very close to whatever that organization says about itself, but when describing an Evil Liberal organization, they say what critics see them as.

It even reached the point where I could pinpoint a conservative organization simply because the CP entry of it is so remarkably neutral:

The American Civil Rights Union describes itself as a non-partisan legal policy organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, not just those that might be politically correct or fit a particular ideology."

No need to read any further, but lets just compare it to the first sentence of the ACLU entry:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, a leftist, secular-progressive organization.

Gotta love CP's "neutrality to the facts... --Sid 10:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)

HPV math[edit]

I love Conservapedia's math on the topic of HPV:

The cost for buying and administering the three-dose vaccine is about $500 per child. Accordingly, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be about $50,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine. The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. There is not yet a clear plan in place for funding this vaccine.

"We don't like preventing diseases and death. It costs too much BUT GOD HELP US IF YOU GET AN ABORTION FOR ECONOMIC REASONS BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE DESTROYING A LIFE FOR NO REASON."Shangrala 11:36, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Well haven't you heard that trying to cure or prevent diseases is just man's lousy attempt to prove that he is smarter than the big guy? What I'm wondering is how Andy knows that the HPV vaccine is the "most painful of childhood shots." --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 12:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Other than the obvious, perhaps he's confused as to how it is administered? Kirkburn 17:08, 6 January 2008 (EST)
You mean they don't make a big gash in the girl with broken glass and administer the vaccine through the wound? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:32, 6 January 2008 (EST)


I chuckled when I first saw it, but can anybody explain me what does mobility mean in this context? After searching the term for a bit, the only thing I can imagine makes sense in Andy's mind is wp: economic mobility, based on nothing but the fact its a good thing. — Unsigned, by: NightFlare / talk / contribs

I dunno, but I guess he just means the fact that they, you know, move around much in order to tell as many people as possible how they should embrace Jesus Christ unless they want to rot in Hell and stuff like that.
But here is a counter-question: What's the connection between Evangelical Christians and supporting free enterprise? --Sid 15:27, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I dunno about the mobility thing, but the democracy one is obviously code for supporting the war in Iraq. Unfortunatley, he's gotten out of his depth on the talk page trying to explain it as democracy in other terms and, of course, failing miserably. --Kels 15:29, 6 January 2008 (EST)

This comment is pure win, though. --Sid 15:33, 6 January 2008 (EST)
The Greeks didn't have Christianity, yet they established the most important principles of democracy. As a side note, I'd argue the first point on the "evangelical Christians" page - it seems to me that evangelicals have a very poor understanding of the Bible. --Ζωροάστρης 15:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
I would also add that they established a lot of ethics and moral principles without having read the Bible. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 23:46, 23 July 2024 (EST)
The commenter missed a good opportunity there. Asking why Evangelicals would know more about the Bible than athiests is just an opportunity for Andy to rail about athiests and ignore all else. A better question would have been, why would Evangelicals know more about the Bible than other sorts of Christians, like Catholics or Anglicans, or even Unitarians? --Kels 15:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Probably because they spend all of their waking lives obsessing over the minutiae. All the others seem to just take the basic principles and get on with things. They go and pray once a week, rather than praying every time they learn a new factss at school. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:48, 6 January 2008 (EST)
That was exactly what I was about to say, although in a rather snarkier voice. I have to say it's hard not to feel real pity for assfly. He's been so brainwashed in to believing Christianity is responsible for all that is right and goodTM in the world that he can't possibly see any other belief system as valid. I watched a documentary on TV a few weeks back about a cult in the USA (of course) whose sexually perverted old bastard of a leader had set a date for the rapture in late 2007. I was thinking the culmination of the documentary was going to be some kind of lynching when it finally dawned on the cultists that their leader wasn't the son of God, and that all he had done was for his own selfish ends. Instead, the rapture was simply calmly rescheduled and life went on as normal. Definitely gave me a real insight in to the kind of hold religion has over the minds of the weak and impressionable. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 15:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Of course we have non-evangelicals like Akjeldsen and Wikinterpreter who have forgotten more bible than the evangelicals will ever know---and I doubt that they're the only two in the world.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 15:53, 6 January 2008 (EST)

You know what's hilarious about this? When the U.S. Constitution (presumably what Andy would call the Ultimate Christian Democracy Document) was written, its ratification was opposed by people who are analogous to today's evangelical Christians because it was too secular (read: atheistic). It didn't even mention the name of Jesus! Andy is basically arguing that American democracy as outlined in the Constitution is inherently Christian, when people like him 200 years ago were protesting that it wasn't.--Bayesupdate 16:02, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Wasn't there a question a couple of days ago asking if Andy was a Catholic? I guess this article and its talk page settle the matter (he is not). Not that Catholics won't "spread the joy and faith of Christianity to others". At least, a good Catholic has to behave well, instead of "emphasis on salvation by faith alone". Ed @CP and RW 16:02, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Catholicism doesn't generate assflies, since it doesn't encourage believers to think for themselves about scripture. Protestantism seems a uniquely dangerous intermediate ground between Catholicism and Judaism. Judaism lets the average believer think about doctrine and carefully records received wisdom to avoid future conflicts and misinterpretations, whereas your Catholics are simply told what to think by whoever happens to be one of the eighteen popes this week. Protestants have to muddle through by themselves, and some of that muddling produces real extreme nutbars like assfly and family. That's my theory anyway, and I'm sticking to it. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 16:16, 6 January 2008 (EST)
That would be a good theory except for the long and proud tradition among Catholic lay people to generally not give a goat's ass about what the clergy says. ;-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 21:08, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Regarding "mobility": My first guess is that He is referring to social/economic mobility; ie, Evangs are more "successful" in life, more money, more friends, hanging around a better class of people, etc. My second guess would be that He is speaking of "vertical" mobility, as explained here.--WJThomas 16:23, 6 January 2008 (EST)

OMGZ he used a Schlafly Statistic! humanUser talk:Human 21:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Soooo.... on Planet Schlafly, Democracy will flourish if the people are Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto or whatever, but not filthy Atheists? (I suspect if he's thinking about this at all, he's got cause and effect backwards--after all, most people WANT to Believe in something, so the only Officially Atheist countries are going to be totalitarian regimes.) And what's his excuse for all the decidedly non-democratic Christian states back in the Bad Old Days? --Gulik 02:58, 7 January 2008 (EST)
He has no fucking clue (excuse my old British!). Rome was a democracy/republic, and only became "Christian" long after the republic got killed by the empire. Teh assfly phails, hardcore, once more. In public, which makes it phun! (PS, I phail in public too, but I say "oh shit, I was wrong!!!!!" afterwards) humanUser talk:Human 06:25, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Technical thing[edit]

I notice that the recent WIGO edits started a new "wigo" template call each. Was that some sort of decision or just an accident that got adopted as the new way of doing this? Just curious... --Sid 16:00, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I'm guessing it's an accident, so I fix-ed it. It's too verbose, and not the way the template was supposed to be used. On a related note. I've got a widescreen monitor and the "archives" link at the top is too wide even for that. I'm a software engineer, but I can't make head nor tail of how the code works that generates it. It's worse than fucking haskell. If anyone knows how to restructure it to, say, 10 links a line and/or wants to put some comments in it that'd be welcome. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 16:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)
I'll take a look. Not sure if it's trivial or OMG-inducing, but we'll see. The last time I tinkered with that template, it made me bash my head against the desk a few times :P --Sid 16:18, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Try it now. --Sid 17:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Nice one, it soft wraps now which is probably better than the hard wrap I had in mind. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 17:57, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Sweet work Sid, thanks! humanUser talk:Human 21:48, 6 January 2008 (EST)
No problem... *looks up* Ah, I see we settled for a more radical option? --Sid 08:02, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Genius bias[edit]

Now I'm confused. I was under the impression that a Ph.D. was a bad thing and two even worse? Weren't all universities liberal (both professors and students)? Wasn't reading newspapers - or even editing Wikipedia - a typically liberal behaviour? Weren't all scientists (= PhD), apart from the Archaeopteryx hoax english astronomer, evil atheist liberals? Ed @CP and RW 16:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I, at least, noted a strong biased against people with a scientific education.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 16:17, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Probably depends on whether the argument from authority supports your side or theirs. Sterileminichatroomthingy 16:23, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Hehehe. I like how in the mind of assfly, "eminent scientist" and "evolutionary biologist" aren't just a lukewarm description, but high praise amounting to implications of genius. Are you not allowed to be called an evolutionary biologist if there exists someone with more PhDs than you? --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 16:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I guess that assfly fails to realize that a scientist is graded upon their publication record not how many PhDs they hold. Wells for example has fewer publications to science than Dawkins, not to mention Well's books are full of scientific errors.--TimS 20:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Exactly; remember, however, that that logic cuts both ways. Dawkins may be trustworthy in science, but where theology's concerned, he has no experience, and so we can't exactly cite him as a good source. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Oh, I had forgotten about another bias, thank you Andy for reminding us! Ed @but not the Poor one! 13:03, 7 January 2008 (EST)

*smacks forehead* The irony is priceless.
But CP has quite a few fascinating bias articles: cp:Conservative Bias (CP of course does NOT have this bias), cp:Confirmation bias, cp:Photo bias, etc. --Sid 13:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I seem to have a knack of drawing those out of him. *shudder* Ajkgordon 03:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Personal rant[edit]

There are some funny vandals acting there at CP. On one hand, I'd like to comment on their doings, on the other I don't want to out some of our trolls. Not that I'm sure they are from RW, just a good guess. So, what to do? Ed @CP and RW 17:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Instead, I have no problem betting that GDewey is going to say farewell to CP pretty soon. Ed @CP and RW 17:13, 6 January 2008 (EST)
I'd recommend you avoid commenting on them if there's anything you see that's gone unnoticed so far. If they're currently blocked or if there's nothing they've done that hasn't been caught, though, I don't see why there would be a problem with it. assume  16:19, 7 January 2008 (EST)

The end of CP?[edit]

Which Sysop will leave? Which one will be stripped of his/her powers and permabanned? Which new category of articles will be as meaningful as last time's US battleships? And most importantly, will RWikians comment and bet on it? The fourth contest is coming! Ed @but not the Poor one! 02:47, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Update: bitching already started.

You rulez, Ed.
Let the lulzing commence!!! humanUser talk:Human 06:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
And we need to put "real money" on this round, to be donated to the RW fund. Someone has to pay for this shindig!!! humanUser talk:Human 06:53, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Even without the contest, PJR seems to be on the best way of being shoved out of the way sooner or later. He disagreed with Andy multiple times these past few weeks, and we all know that Andy regards free thinking as something bad. --Sid 07:59, 7 January 2008 (EST)
It would be quite ironic, wouldn't it, if the end of CP came by means of a Religion War. PJR is on the good track here. It's a pity that Joaquin Martinez doesn't seem to be interested in defending Catholics. Ed @but not the Poor one! 08:19, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I worked in Australia six or seven years ago and there was quite an attractive sheila there (nicknamed Spanner although she never worked out why) who was one of those radical (Evangelical?) Protestants. Anyway she had some comic-type books which I found lying around and they were some of the most virulent hate-filled anti-Catholic tracts that I have ever come across. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Not easily shocked 08:30, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Those would certainly be the work of the good Mr. Jack Chick. I used to see some of them around when I was a kid in rural Nova Scotia. It wasn't until later that I got my hands on a cache of them and realized just how horrible they were. --Kels 17:59, 7 January 2008 (EST)

What's up, doc?[edit]

Looks like someone is a classic Warner Bros. fan. --Kels 06:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)

What the hell are you people doing up at this hour? humanUser talk:Human 06:52, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Getting ready for work. You? --Kels 07:23, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Getting ready to sleep ;) humanUser talk:Human 15:29, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Actually I think the reference goes back to the Jack Benny radio show. During traveling skits the train announcer, Mel Blanc, would call, for final boarding for some train, "Reno Express" or some sort, list cities it's going to, "Las Angeles, Burbank, Azuzia and cuc----amonga." Drawing it out for more lulz. The same Mel Blanc was the voice of Bugs, Daffy et al. CЯacke®
I didn't know about the Jack Benny connection, but I can't say I'm surprised. He knew good talent. --Kels 17:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Andy and the Pope[edit]

The Catholic Pope seems intent to start a strong debate against abortion. Will it make CP Main page Breaking news, given that the Pope linked it to the UN resolution for a death penalty moratorium? Did the moratorium even make CP news? Ed @but not the Poor one! 08:24, 7 January 2008 (EST)

PJR's proof[edit]

Wow that proof is so hand-wavy that the four armed Vishnu (which by his logic must also exist) would have trouble pulling it off. His last line about refuting "absurd" ideas is classic. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 11:25, 7 January 2008 (EST)

To be fair, I think his comment is supposed to be "classic". PJR is normally much more erudite than that edit. I deduce that he wrote it at an ungodly hour. Ajkgordon 11:30, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I find it amazing how he can not see the relationship of his claims and the claims of the weather cat. Perhaps someone should throw in an invisible elephant as another example since he is not getting it with the cat.--TimS 15:05, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Try throwing in a teapot in there too. assume  16:23, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Then you find it amazing that any religious person cannot see the relationship of his claims and the claims of the weather cat. But the weather cat, (or Russell's teapot), is not a good example to refute PJR's argument about cause. Ajkgordon 16:31, 7 January 2008 (EST)
The teapot (and also the cat) are examples to show that even though something might be logical, it doesn't mean that it is reasonable. And this is an argument that PJR made as well. "Cause" is indeed another matter. Do you know any good example to illustrate the fallacy of this argument. Tohuvavohu 21:07, 7 January 2008 (EST)
No, not really. The most obvious fallacy descriptor is the God of the Gaps - the universe had a beginning, everything that happens must have a cause, before the beginning there was nothing natural that could have caused the beginning, ergo God did it. That makes two assumptions. First that logically there must have a primum movens (why must there?) and second that the primum movens must be God (why should it?) Of course physics and cosmology are reducing that particular gap right down and that logic is becoming even more untenable. I don't know of a demonstrative example as eloquent as Russell's but I'm not sure you could have a meaningful one when dealing with the physics of time, the Big Bang, conservation of energy, zero-point energy and the uncertainty principle. Ajkgordon 03:05, 8 January 2008 (EST)

It's not so much that he is erudite but that he is smart and knows how to argue his irrational points well. — Unsigned, by: PalMD / talk / contribs

That is perhaps true. Ajkgordon 17:16, 7 January 2008 (EST)

freezing to death[edit]

"literally". That one went out on the talking points memo to the right wing talkers. humanUser talk:Human 01:46, 8 January 2008 (EST)

And the thing 'could have "people literally freezing to death" but they don't because they eventually get inside (or at least warmer), you know, before freezing. CЯacke® 01:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, this is Hyperbole. What a pleasure to meet you!-αmεσ (blackguard) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (EST)

It's amazing how he will sieze the lamest excuse to attck liberals in general or personally. Indeed the whole "Breaking News" thing is not only way too long - just how long do you keeping "breaking news" there in the first place? - but also laughable in it's puerile jibes, very few of which are actually news in the usally definition of the word. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 02:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Look on the bright side - at least we have a new way to make fun of Teh Schlaflinator. Master Bra'tacKree! 02:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Right now I'm literally starving to death, and I'll continue literally starving to death until dinner time, after I'm done eating I'll start literally starving to death again. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 11:39, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, mee too! I've been starving to death since 3am! And, oh yeah, "if you're not busy being born, you're busy dying". --Arlo Guthrie, I believe. CЯacke® 11:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised CP actually seriously linked to some obscure blog ("An English language grammar blog tracking abuse of the word 'literally'") for their "Breaking News". Now I'm fully convinced that Notability standards simply don't exist on CP. But it gets better: Check the comments/trackback section of the blog, and you get to "During the election campaign, Conservapedia speaks even more tosh than usual" - nice! Thank you, CP, for linking so prominently to blogs making fun of you! :D --Sid 14:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Suggested revision: “‘We had 300 people outside, literally freezing to death,’ Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton marveled on Tuesday before a crowd in Iowa City. (Fortunately, all 300 people were able to warm up before the freezing resulted in death, and in most, before minor injurys occured.)” ... God, I think I'm way to pedantic. Just to let everyone know, I'm literally dying. --Eira yay! 17:00, 8 January 2008 (EST)
  • Is Schlafly's point here that liberals use hyperbole to be deceitful? Because I seem to remember Huckabee, at the Iowa straw poll, saying that turnout was low because "it was literally 150 degrees outside." or something like that. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 17:15, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Countdown to reversion/banhammer![edit]

count down 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... SusanHelp I'm being haunted by TK 07:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Eh le voila.At least I think that's how it's said. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 10:30, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Er, "et voila!" is what I think you meant. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Reversion took a surprising 41 minutes. SusanHelp I'm being haunted by TK 12:43, 8 January 2008 (EST)


Are we gonna get Conservapædia weeping & wailing re the absence of the Golden Globes due to the evil communist writer's strike? SusanHelp I'm being haunted by TK 12:32, 8 January 2008 (EST)


Anyone around that can explain what happened to this page while I have been away? Where did the older "wigos" wind up? Did somone all ready sort them into Best of? 15:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Older WIGO stuff can be found in the archives (links are in the section above the current entries - here is the most recent archive). And I don't think we made the transfer to Best Of yet. --Sid 16:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Battle Hymn of the Republic[edit]

Regarding this wigo link. Shouldn't CP be careful quoting this particular song? It's a bit commie, from what I recall. Side note, I saw The Grapes of Wrath the other, er, morning. Depressing movie, but great commie propaganda! I think AMC was having a Henry Fonda-thon. humanUser talk:Human 18:47, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Flu shots[edit]

Moved to the Thiomersal Talk page. --Edgerunner76 14:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks:)--TimS 15:02, 9 January 2008 (EST)

You're welcome. --Edgerunner76 15:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)