Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive205

This is an archive page, last updated 11 November 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <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)

World Series

I know it was mentioned above, but... I guess those damn liberals just can't stop from losing to the Texans! ... I'm not really a baseball fan, but still, too bad it wasn't a clean sweep! No mention on Conservapedia as of yet, but I'm sure they'll have some reasoning for the almost crushing loss tomorrow. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 02:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And for the record... having spent time in both Baghdad AND San F., it's just not the same. It's just.... my head spins I can't even describe it. Sheesh. two very different cities you got there. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 02:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they'll mention it at all. And that Lincecum guy's pitching tonight was scarily good. All those high fastballs, and yet 10 Ks. He looks like the kid from Dazed and Confused with that hair, though, I keep waiting for him to get his ass paddled after the game! ħuman 02:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

S'funny. I see no mention of Baghdad-on-Sea winning the World Series^img (isn't it amazing how Yank teams keep winning the world series? You'd think the law of averages would allow for at least one upset.), only some place called San Francisco. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well they had to give the Giants their props after we talked about how they likely wouldn't; half that site is written for our benefit. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AndrewWi

So parodist AndrewWi (I have a higher standard of parody than many of you, but anyone who channels Ken with a straight face^img is a gold-plated parodist) is out with some new scientific gems. I always enjoy Conservapedian science and math.

He has created a new "counterexamples" page: Counterexamples to the Big Bang^img. It has 3 counterexamples, which are, respectively, bullshit, bollocks, and claptrap. Or maybe it's the other way around.

He also has a nice take on Uranium-Lead dating^img. Uh, Andrew, the Uranium and Lead that we mainstream cosmologists are interested in was created in a supernova only 4.5 billion years ago. Whether time passed faster or slower in the first few 86400-second-intervals after an event 13.8 billion years ago doesn't matter.

Gauss (talk)

I guess even Ken has figured out that all this is BS (note how he deleted the pages). Or did he... Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Ken

sure raped that U/Pb article to the bone! ħuman 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What can they say? The idea that somehow in the past the decay rate of various radioactive elements were different is so patently ridiculous, let alone the order of magnitude difference required for the YEC model to work. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please talk about possible non-sysop parodists ONLY after they have been dealt with (promoted/blocked), we can sure see more lulz this way. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a second. He talks about Hawkins' "lack of marriageability", but surely the fact that he's been married twice, makes him very marriageable? He's just not good at staying married. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Hawking or Dawkins? ħuman 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as my own special contribution to the Hitwin meme. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was... ħuman 14:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked for "Overzealousness"... not going to comment. Senator Harrison (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By none other than Ken. My poor little gadget designed to measure something beginning with i. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Ken's learning. It'll be harder to be a parodist now.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Obamagedon Banner

RIP any dignity Conservapedia had left. Anyone want to update the mainpage screenshot on Wikipedia with that? - π 08:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the TrollKing. Also, let's leave Wikipedia out of this. -- Nx / talk 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hah, that just screams trustworthy encyclopaedia. TK has basically won now, Andy has given up even giving a passing thought to the notion that there should be some quality and class to his magnificent octopus. It's just another third rate, racist, sexist ultra right wing group blog now. Maybe we should have a party to celebrate the death of CP? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That made me laugh. X Stickman (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely Obamageddon is when Barry's socialism triumphs and consigns America to the Greatest Depression, not when he gets bitchslapped at the polls? But hey, any excuse just to use the phrase rather than make any sense. It's so stupid it should have been done by Johnny XRay rather than TK. Shame on you Terence Koeckritz, have you no intelligence either? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

But But but... wikipedia is in the business of making an encyclopedia, and they happen to have an article on CP, with a screenshot intended to illustrate what CP looks like. Keeping that image up-to-date would be the responsible thing to do! </wry smile> ^{ONE / TALK} 12:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Whistles innocently. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

I see that the head of the trolletariat has created another instant article which tellingly starts "Nearly fifty years ago" while talking about an event which occurred September 10 - 13, 1960; now more than fifty years ago. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick Google tells me lifted almost word for word from here or here. Fox uses the "nearly 50 years" which Terry copy/pasted. As if we expected anything less. Of yes, and encyclopaedia articles always make use of exclamation points and things like "that is what America needs now!" Still, now that you've made the move to blog, it doesn't matter. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy hearts Nate Silver

In other news, Andy jisms himself^img over Nate Silver's description of the worst-case scenario for democrats on Tuesday. Nevermind that Nate made it clear this is a devil's advocate article intended to show the wide range of uncertainty in the polling, or that he plans on writing one from the opposite point of view in the next couple of days. As long as it's telling him what he wants to hear, Andy loves it, no matter where it's coming from. Something tells me Andy won't be that interested in the best case scenario version. Junggai (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I note Nate suggests Democrats will want whiskey in their coffee come Wednesday. I, for one, do not.

I'm planning on arsenic. MDB (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, why dilute a perfectly good whiskey with coffee? Junggai (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The coffee is to wake you up to enjoy the effects of the whisky. ħuman 04:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put "perfectly good" whisky into coffee, but not all whiskey is perfectly good. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Some whiskey is only good for sterilizing coffee mugs. ħuman 12:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if Andy will mention the follow-up as well. Röstigraben (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not forgotten

The Lenski dialog lives on (scroll to #5) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Glad to see someone still remembers it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Once seen, never forgotten. Silly twit (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Ed...

On Wikipedia:

• Hans: "Ed, it's fine if you want to use public domain material, but either rephrase it or mark it as a quote."
• Ed: "I said it's copypasted in the edit summary, that is enough."
• Hans: "No because you didn't make it clear in the article."
• Ed: "Ohhhhh! Okay, next time I'll do better!"

A day later, on CP:^img

• Ed: "Here, I'll copypaste this from something I assume to be a public domain source without marking it as a quote. I rock!"

The major irony of course is that it's such a stupid and generic sentence that it would have been mighty fine without any edit summary. Nobody would have suspected copypasting. But nope, Ed feels the need to point out explicitly that he already forgot the entire lesson. *sigh*

Meh, I don't want to blame this on Ed's inability to learn, so... maybe TK told him that the evil Wikipedian lied and that Professor Jensen, final authority on all issues connected to plagiarism, stated that it's fine and that Ed can stay the course? --Sid (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The continual failure to grasp both the basics of wiki editing and copyright by someone who brags about his WP heritage and professes to be a some-time teacher never fails to leave me gobsmacked. I can only reconcile it with the knowledge that he has been given RW's lifetime achievement award for idiocy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Baby-steps, baby-steps: On wikipedia, he was criticized for linking the material in the edit-summary only and not marking it properly as a quote. Now the reference is given in the text at least. Perhaps after a couple of further discussions, he'll throw in some quotation marks! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

[WTF! How did LArron's comment appear after mine with a prior date when it didn't show up in my edit box nor gave an edit conflict?]

Ed is not alone in misunderstanding the purpose of edit summaries. Attribution has to be included with the article not hidden away in an ever increasing list of edits. Nobody is going to check the edit summaries to see whether something was copypasted from an external source so at least that is a minor improvement. However, only the dumb old farts at CP would also insist that editors check through the edit history before making an edit in case they revert something that a sysop has put in.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed continues with his sexual obsessions in the WP article on Alfred Kinsey adding one of his CP-style stubs and failing to use <ref></ref> markup for his reference. FFS Ed, tell us once again how long have you been an editor at WP.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He obviously has no idea how to use edit summaries. Take this one then see WP:ES, which states "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Is it any wonder this guy got binned as an admin? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And one quick wiki-stalk later, I love this comment: "I regard this in the same class of seriousness as getting cancer from overhead power lines." It seems Ed and I agree on this because I hold both issues in the same class of seriousness too: bugger all. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, is Ed just incredibly thick, or being deliberately dishonest? Most likely both. Hans Adler says "From the POV of our licence incorporating text that is really public domain (that text probably wasn't) would be fine. But doing it in a way that doesn't make it obvious that it's copied literally and maybe superficially rephrased still makes it plagiarism, which is much less critical than a copyvio but still not allowed." (My emphasis)

Ed then goes on to crow that " my use of a quote from the Wegman report - which I summarized as from public domain Wegman report - was not plagiarism, because I did make it clear that I copied it literally.

No Ed, he never said that. He stated "that text probably wasn't" and incorporating in in the edit summary doesn't make it right. Seriously, how the man put his shoes on properly in the morning? --PsyGremlinTal! 11:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I like Hans' follow-ups: No, that isn't what I said, and learn what "plagiarism" means , asshole. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt that he's incredibly thick. It's interesting to see that Ed's contributions at WP match his work at CP, but at WP there are people who can propose his useless stubs for deletion and consign his POV-pushing failures of comprehension to the bit-bucket. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He got powerz at WP by virtue of being an early arrival. History has shown that WP were right to rescind those rights because of his inability to use them, now he has to comply with those more sensible than himself. On CP there are no systems which permit challenges so he is able to abuse his powers to his heart's content. I hate to encroach on Godwin territory but CP is a thugocracy more akin to totalitarian regimes than it is to the accountable democracy with a constitution that Andy and his lickspittle cronies keep bleating on about. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to wonder if CP isn't some big psychological experiment. A Conservapedia Sysop Experiment to compliment the Stanford Prison Experiment. DickTurpis (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Logically, that would be the best explanation as to just how so much stupidity and dull aggressiveness could be confined in such a small space. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, even if unintentional, it can make an interesting case study. Well, I'm sure Karajou and TK were insufferable, authoritative assholes all their lives, but there have been plenty of cases of sysops getting high on their power. Separating the real cases from the parodists becomes the trouble. Ed is a good example. His behavior on CP, were he has absolute power, and on WP, where his power was always limited, is quite telling (his stupidity, however, remains constant). DickTurpis (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also include the Milgram experiment with Geo.Plrd being a classic example of someone cowed by authority figures. Silly twit (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Sids diff reference on Alcoholic drink, I notice that the picture of a margarita is just tagged "Public domain", without any hint of where it came from. Good work, Addison. Silly twit (talk)

Looking at this he's simply grabbed it from wikimedia. Without attribution natch Oldusgitus (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not even an attractive margarita. Oh the humanity! 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else notice this?

So I went over to CP to check things out.... As of 2:30am eastern time, The CP broken news ticker has the proud announcements of 6 Republican victories, 3 announcements of Democratic losses without mentioning who won and 2 or 3 where they do both.... Noticeably absent in that list is the shellacking Christine O'Donnell received in Delaware, the Linda McMahon loss in Connecticut, The GOP losses California and the Reid victory in Nevada..... I'm not really surprised, but it's still damn funny that they just choose to ignore the reality they don't like. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 06:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really up on the news, but please tell me that Carly Fiorina wasn't elected in California. She shouldn't be elected village idiot after what she did to HP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

HP? --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hewlett Packard. She was CEO or something like that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The BBC reported that Boxer held California. -- Iscariot (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fiorina is refusing to concede apparently. Some of the more wingnutty like Angle, Whitman and Odonell all lost.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean the "DESPICABLE" Harry Ried is still in. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Elections 2010 mini project

I was thinking it'd be cool to go through the CP MPR archives and dig out all their election predictions so as to laugh at how wrong they all were. I'll be busy most of today, but if someone else thinks it's a good idea and wants to get started, I could wade in tomorrow. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but I imagine their House predictions were not far off. DickTurpis (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better to just limit it to the teabaggers Andy was masturbating over. As far as I can tell only 4 made it. Still, I have no doubt that Andypants will be indulging in some liberal gloating later on. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, the Republicans won around 60 seats in the U.S. House with 13 more still contested. The Democrats still have a slim majority in the Senate (three seats contested). Really CP's predictions were not that far off, mainly because it ranged from 50 seats won in the House to 100 seats won in the House. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's looking quite possible, even likely, that the Republicans will pick up 6 Senate seats, which doesn't even make up for their losses two years ago. So on that side of Congress things really aren't so bad. If the Dems hold Washington and Colorado, then they will have won all the close calls except Illinois. 6 seats is a larger than usual swing, but hardly OBAMAGEDDON. That moniker, could, however, apply to the House. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sad that my confederates here in NH elected some unknown to replace the previous GOPper in the senate. I am much sadder that my congresslady of four years, Carol Shea-Porter, has been replaced. I am barely consoled that we kept our Dem. governor. And that we still have the President, and thanks to the teabagging idiots, we still have the Senate! ħuman 23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I love the bold text on MPL: We gained more than in another election 16 years ago!!! What about the last one, hmmm? Yes, they did well, but going back that far to give an example of doing better than before is cherry-picking at its finest. Kallium^talk 03:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Human: take what you can get. We just elected a guy with a huge ego and short temper who skipped a debate with no [non-BS] excuse, yells at reporters and stated publicly that the President should "go to hell". I have a hard time putting into words just how despicable I find that last one from someone who wanted to be, and now will be, a state governor. That kind of flagrant disrespect from a governor-elect for the people who have fought and died to even allow us to have a publicly-elected President, who carries a unique and enormously stressful job, is just sickening, especially coming from one of the same party that continually claims to be the Real Americans^® while the Left Hates America^®. I find his lack of civility disturbing. /end rant Kallium^talk 03:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So, liberals...

How many of you have decided "give it up" now that the elections are over, following The Assfly's repeated admonitions to do so? MDB (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still reeling from the lazy pothead epithets. Ow! My pride! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The gloating begins. Iowans turn on "gay marriage" judges.^img Shame, I always thought Iowa was a kinda nice place, I mean Bill Bryson's from there. Then again, the AWB comes from our farming country... Oh, Jpatt "homosexuality advocates" isn't the same as "advocates of homosexuality." It's a small difference, but do try and keep up. We can't proofread everything you publish to MPL. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

'Round these parts, we say "IOWA" stands for Idiots Out Walkin' Around. Reckon this means we're still in the right... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more focused on CP's belief that obama needs to work with republicans like clinton did. After all, how often did Bush work with Dems in 2007-2009? --Thunderstruck (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

CP's definition of 'work with Republicans' is 'support the Glorious Conservative Agenda(cp)(tm)(omg) 110%!' CP's definition of 'work with Democrats' is 'not shoot them on sight.' MDB (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Silly me. --Thunderstruck (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thunderstruck! Silly twit (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Obama needs to work with the GOP. But that's a one-way street. Ahhh, instant and unrelenting partisanship. Change We Can Believe In. Kallium^talk 02:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And another one for the copypaste files...

I know, I know, waa, waa, don't bring up the TrollKing. But I just love pointing out his endless "IT'S NOT PLAGIARISM!!!" copypasting.^img

The sentences I checked all came from the second ref (even sentences from the first section, which only lists the first ref as a citation). Just the usual blind copypasting with one or two words changed ("running for the state House" became "running for the state Assembly" for example) to throw off lazy googling.

I wonder what the other Senior Administrators like Ed will say to that. Oh, wait, I know: Nothing. *yawn* --Sid (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cause they don't care, or are doing it themselves. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I knew--I KNEW!--that this was copypasted when I saw it, and didn't even both to Google search the phrases. Thanks for doing that, because I wondered...but I know Terry "Vicar of Christ who Lets Kid Fucking Happen" Koekritz can't think for himself, as evidenced by his Pope-worship. Not being able to create and express original thoughts and ideas fits with his blind devotion to the Vatican. You know, the one that allowed child rape to occur all around the world and then tried to cover it up? Yes, that one. --Leotardo (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals Blown in Iowa

and it was stunning^img-Opcn (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Srsly?! Would CP look any different if they were all just a bunch of homos talking in code, instead of just a few of them? I didn't know Jpatt was a mo. Wow. 23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's more stupid about this. That anywhere in the civilised world has a system whereby you actually vote for judges (imagine if they'd had that in the roaring 20s, the whole US would be a mob colony by now) or that people who don't like the law would react by voting out the people who interpret the law, not the people who write it. Fucking hayseeds. I thought the CP crowd was totally against "activist judges" anyway? Oh yeah. I forgot that "activist judges" just means a judge who reads the law in a way you don't like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

New accounts

Interesting -- Andy posts^img that users should email conservapedia@zoho.com to register. --MarkGall (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Is this a pre-empt to shutting down open registration altogether? This is a milestone development for CP's slow and agonising death. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Yeeks! Finally they've succumbed to closed registration. Well done everyone! That's the signal that CP has officially joined the ranks of the undead.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Death Rattle* Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 15:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly participation isn't going to go down from current levels because of this -- there's nowhere to go. If they can pick up just ten or twenty serious contributors (which seems possible, if they hand stuff out at tea party events or something) the place could get interesting again. --MarkGall (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, I'm happy that CP is dying and will be lost in the internets garbage site devoted to non-truth's and hate-speech, but on the other hand, I'm sad that CP probably won't be around long enough for Andy to declare that Hitler was nothing more than a bleached, time-traveling Obama. Carlaugust (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec x4) Wow. Finally they close up shop. Now, it's only Andy and his minions who can edit. I wonder who has responsibility for vetting new members? If it's TK, well, that's the end of new editors ever. I think, if nothing else, it's the final bit of proof that CP is not the conservative bastion they like it to be, but the laughing stock of the internet. I'm also guessing registration won't be granted without a) a "real" e-mail address (i.e. no google or yahoo accs) b) proof of who you are - drivers' license, etc c) telephone number d) home address and e) grade in junior high and bra size.

Also, can we have some confirmation of the record "unique page views"? --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A tear just rolled down my cheek. What has happened to the free-for-alls of two years ago? EddyP (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So much for the Best of the Public. I guess now it's "the best of the public who manage to make it through TK's e-mail screening." Either way, I declare this a champagne moment in the decline of CP. By this time next week, active editors will be less than 20. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote: do we retire our socks quietly or sepaku out in the open? 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sepaku? Do you mean seppuku? That has my vote. EddyP (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That was fast. --Sid (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly twit (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I know there are those who'll say not to link RW to it, but I'm all in favour of going down in a final blaze of "banzai!" and all that. Will be interesting to see just how many socks come out of the drawer.

Just think, if Terry can get Andy to install flagged revisions, then CP really is dead. --PsyGremlinParlez! 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So, who of you is StephenKP^img? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what this smells like to me: Andy has made some "real world" contacts with people he invited to join CP. Trouble is, as of late, registering a user account name is a blockable offense, on the rare occasions when it is even available. So, he said "email me and I'll create your account with a temporary password" to them. This might get interesting. ħuman 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazing moment. Anyway, doing our usual Cp-tech-services, can anyone spot what's wrong with Andy's link? It, uhm, has a problem. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird. The first guy who got his account this way had already signed up on Oct 22nd, didn't make any edits and was blocked by TK an hour later. Then Andy created a new account for him and unblocked his original one and the IP afterwards. I wonder if this is supposed to be a new measure where prospective users who immediately received blocks after signing up can appeal, rather than a fundamentally new way of dealing with newbies in general. Röstigraben (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Must say it looked slightly that way to me. Someone has spoken to asfly, either in person or by mail, to complain they signed up and that twatknickers immediately blocked them. So assfly grows a tiny little piece of backbone as I doubt even twatknickers will immediately block an account that asfly has himself specifically created. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob just told me that he had no idea this was going on until he read it here, but doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it.Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

More importantly is that, if Terry Koeckritz blocks these new accounts, he'll also be checkusering and, potentially, blocking Andy's IP address in the mix. I wonder how that one will screw up things there. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 02:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking a sysop's IP address has no effect on them as they are exempt from IP blocks, i.e, they can edit from a blocked IP address. - π 05:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Article

We need a CP mainspace article about this momentous day to sit alongside Night of the Long Knives and the Week that Never Was. Thoughts for a name? SJ ^Debaser 17:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Inglorious First of November? Or is that reference too obscure? MDB (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Go back to France, comrade. Carlaugust (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember, remember, the first of November. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it somewhat intriguing that they wanted to use an email provider for this, yet they couldn't even "buy American," so to speak? According to WP, Zoho's an Indian company. I'm surprised that they couldn't set up an email account at their hosting provider, either. Wouldn't that have been simpler? When I've used hosting providers, virtually all of them have the option for at least one or two email addresses. I'd kill for ghazi.alizm@conservapedia.com email address... ghazi alizm, ^comments? 20:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, that would be fucking sweet. I'd like a wnd.com account while we're at it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all the other American email services already have "Conservapedia" as a registered user, such as Yahoo! and Hotmail (but who wants Hotmail? It's owned by a company that was created by an abortion-funding atheist). Besides that, Zoho is probably better than Yahoo! and Hotmail...I can't speak for it though, as I've never used it. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been using outsourced Exchange server for my office for years - all it took was having access to my domain registry control panel to point email going to my domain at my outsourcing server. I believe Gmail offers the ability to use your own domain for free. 21:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

They do. It's been great. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a BIG fan of Zoho.com. Yes, they're Indian. What that means is that every email to customer service gets a direct response from some Indian geek who will stay on the issue until it's resolved, personally, and if they can't, they'll escalate it up to the owner of the site and chief tech guy, who will seriously listen to suggestions. But best of all, they have the most comprehensive and IMHO the very best suite of online apps out there- better than Google, better than M$oft. I've used their Creator app for a few years on some of my professional projects, and it's an AWESOME online multiuser database system. Andy's done well picking them (though, I've never used their email....) DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is Andy being really stupid. He's put Terry Koeckritz in such a position of power that he can get away with blocking any new account and blanket banning the world and lacks the machismo to remove him for the good of the site, but now he's taking away the need to have a proxy and will do all the work for you, just send him an email. A few thousand email addresses created for free should waste most of Andy's day, and there's no way to checkuser them. If anyone were so inclined they could be making Andy-kins jump through hoops for the rest of his life. Not that we ever would.... -- Iscariot (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I still don't see why Andy doesn't have a 'signup@conservapedia.com' email account. He has the domain name so he can redirect the email to (m)any account(s). I have several domain names, all with associated email accounts. I even have a family name account which redirects to extended family members' individual email providers. Gmail allows me to use those domains as default 'from' and 'reply to' accounts as does my default ISP email service (I just had to prove that I owned the domain name). Even if you prefer to use local email storage you can use Gmail as a POP and SMTP server. Of course what can you expect from someone who uses AOL as an email address? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently no one puts any credence in my theory that this is a way for Andy to let in some people he knows IRL? ħuman 13:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, don't feel too bad, but I don't think Andy needs to go to those lengths to do that. A simple mail to ZB or Super Six 9fab Five?) would suffice. They've done it that way before. Rob and Ed have asked for friends not to be blocked. Of course, our creepy friend Terry Hurlbut (with a surname like that, how could you be anything but deranged) couldn't see why not. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy can give accounts to anyone he likes. If he knows them in real-life then they don't need to write to a special email address. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He may know them in real life, but it doesn't mean they want to join CP. So he can say "come to my site, email the 'get account' link, I'll set you up" to them, and if they come on by, he does it. ħuman 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Largest Class in the World

I can only assume that this is also the final nail in the coffin of Andy's on-line "lectures." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The world mourns. :( Silly twit (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

It's been a couple days now; has anyone noticed whether account creation has been turned on at all since then? If not it could be that this is going to be the only way to register, if so maybe he just wanted to let in some friends like Human suggests. --MarkGall (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I never saw it being turned on since then, but that doesn't mean much since I don't check that often. I guess this is going to be the way it is until they decide something else. Official word would be nice, but they never - to my knowledge - made an official announcement about switching off account creation most of the time before, either, so don't hold your breath. --Sid (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the last time that account creation was allowed the usual way was on 31 Oct 2010, 4 a.m. - 6 a.m. Have they ever discussed such a measure in the Conservapedia:The Zeuglodon Blues-files? --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise: account creation was allowed today again, 4:45 a.m. - 7:00 a.m. the early worm gets caught by the bird larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I deny everything. Worm^{(t | c)} 11:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Open again. Ace^{word up} 22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Two new regular signups today, and of course both swiftly got the block they deserved for barging in like that. Plus, Andy removed the E-mail link from MP. Maybe it really was a short-time offer for an exclusive clientele, maybe Andy just found it annoying to sort through all of the mails. Anyway, things seem to be back to normal. Röstigraben (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Decline of Human Intelligence

Andy has once again asserted that human intelligence is slowly and inexorably declining.^img, in the form of a "liberals deny..."

I'm not WIGO'ing it, because it's nothing new. However, it's led me to thinking... how do we compare modern intelligence to intelligence in the past?

For instance, it's widely held that Thomas Jefferson was one of the smartest US Presidents, if not the smartest. (Supposedly, JFK once hosted a White House dinner for Nobel laureates, and stated something like, "this is probably the greatest gathering of brain power ever in this house... except when Jefferson dined alone.")

However, am I "smarter" than Jefferson? I certainly know more about, say, how electricity functions, than ol' Tom did. But that's because we've learned so much about electricity since Jefferson lived. Ohm's Law, probably the most basic law of electricity, wasn't even formulated till a year after Jefferson died. Maxwell's equations, which pretty much comprehensively describe electricity works, weren't published till the American Civil War.

Jefferson, though, was knowledgeable about "everything" in his day and age, a true generalist, a Renaissance man. I doubt I even could if I lived in Jefferson's day. Ditto for some of the great minds of the past, like Leonard of QuirmLeonardo do Vinci. I certainly could not compare to that.

The problem is that there's simply too much to know today for someone to know "everything". Rather than brilliant generalists, we're getting brilliant specialists now.

This is also why I doubt we'll ever see another legendary inventor, like Edison. Pretty much any technical endeavor now requires a team effort, because it's just too much for one mind. Just try it answer "who invented the Internet?" If you have to name one person, it would be Vinton Cerf, but there's dozens of others who'd get the credit, too, like Tim Berners-Lee, who wrote the first web browser.

So, I'd submit that it's really impossible to compare the intelligence of modern people to our ancestors. Though Andy's assertion about human intelligence slowly declining certainly accounts for himself. Heck, by that standard, he may be the mostly highly evolved being on the planet. MDB (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me play "Andy's Advocate" here - "Give it up, liberal, I CAN compare widely seperated civilizations with a subjective, non-defined measure!"

In reality, good analysis though. Carlaugust (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How does the inexorable decline of human intelligence over time jibe with the geometric growth in conservative insights and the inevitable triumph of worldwide conservatism? Much less the Flynn Effect!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, True Conservatives are growing smarter, but liberalism's effects are so corrosive, there's a net dumbing down. QED. MDB (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edison wasn't exactly a tinkerer working alone in his garage, he had a huge teams of engineers etc. doing the work he got credit for... ħuman 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence is one hell of a difficult idea to define in psychology, to the point that the idea of "intelligence" being one thing has pretty much been rejected. To define "intelligence" requires people to agree on it, for one thing, which is very hard. And then you have to be able to test it, which is even harder, especially across cultural boundaries. Also slightly related I guess. X Stickman (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

TimBL is under no illusion about the Internet. The World Wide Web is just an application. A very important one, but still only an application. Like VOIP, email, streaming video, or the various MMOs and other networked video games. Confusing Tim's WWW with either the idea of internetworking, or with the Internet itself is like confusing Henry Ford's mass produced Model T with the general concept of personal travel or with the invention of the automobile in its present form by Benz. And yes, intelligence somewhat escapes our attempts to define or measure it. Consider Pirahã. There's a tribe of apparently normal intelligent people, out in a remote corner of Brazil, who don't do arithmetic. A test question using basic arithmetic symbolically (say, three columns with beads in, the third column has the total of the beads from the first two) can be correctly answered by primary school children from around the world but not by any Pirahã, even after attempts to instruct them. The "universal language" of mathematics turns out not to be so universal after all. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that creating the web browser was the single most important thing in bringing the internet to the masses, as opposed to just being the playground of geeks. MDB (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One could argue that on an evolutionary basis one would expect intelligence to decline long term. If we increasingly use machines to do our thinking for then the energetically expensive human brain becomes an unnecessary liability.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would hypothesise that the distribution of intelligence will change. Some people will be very smart while many will only be smart enough.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how it's always been, surely. --Brendiggg (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely we'll see humanity evolve to being physically weak (and fat), as the need for manual labor of any kind declines. MDB (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In order for evolution to act on a trait, it has to effect our breeding success/failure... ħuman 23:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's probably 99% true but misses the case of atrophy or the effect (whose name I forget - something like pull-along selection?) that explains why men are hairier than women but both are less hairy than apes. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also: Evolution takes place over very long periods. Compared to our ability as individuals or groups to affect our environment it is now inconsequential. If 2100's men will be fatter, or less hairy, it will be because they eat too much, or they use hair-removal products, and not because of some genetic shift. This is why Eugenics is unimportant. There's no need to even examine the monstrous ethical problems, because it is just too slow to be practical. If you really want blue-eyed, blonde-haired people, invest in hair dye and contact lenses, not death camps. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment also looks at the "narrow" definition of evo. The "broad" def, change in the gene pool over time, can easily occur due to the removal of selection pressure - ie, a gene/trait that is fatal in the wild might be preserved in "civilization", thus its frequency changes (goes up). Likewise, something useful in one environment might not be selected for in another and see its frequency drop. On the fat and hairless comment, 82... is quite right. ħuman 12:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

82 isn't entirely right... we could invest in genetic engineering, which although not a well-developed science at the moment, would certainly bring eugenics up to a respectable speed once reliable. It would also quash a few (though certainly not all) ethical objections. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mainpage edits as a percentage of total

Since CP has devolved into only a blog via their Mainpage, has anyone looked at, say, the last 6 months to see what percentage of total CP mainspace edits are to Mainpage? And also what percentage of total edits are to their essays? --Leotardo (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Check out Another record breaking month above.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --Leotardo (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

abs. numbers of edits

rel. numbers of edits

In 2009, you have an average of 12.2 edits to cp:Template:Mainpageright per day, in 2010, it is up to 20.4 And the decline of over-all editing increases the percentage drastically. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

rel. numbers of edits

I know people keep dumping chores on you LArron but it would be interesting to compare the ratio of mainspace edits to mainpage edits over time. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC) there it is ->

Wow, last month overall edits are at their lowest since February 2007, the site is growing rapidly! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Give it up, liberals. Andy predicted this would happen as his masterpiece of an encyclopedia neared completion. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful, LArron. I think that demonstrates Conservapedia's metamorphosis from wannabe-encyclopedia to hate-blog. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

TK so not WIGOable "all 3 mama grizzlies"

all three of Palin's pics won apparently^img Weren't there at least 7 though? Among them Christine O'Donnel, Sharon Angle, Carly Fiorini, and that guy in west virginia. I guess that they are Eastasia. --Opcn (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well he does stipulate gubernatorial candidates; Christine O'Donnel, Sharon Angle, and Carly Fiorina all were senatorial candidates. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I wasn't looking closely enough. Glad I didn't WIGO it. --Opcn (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Palin campaign against Jerry Brown in the Governors race though? I would call that a major loss. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Republicans won in South Carolina and Oklahoma in the worst year for Democrats in decades. That Palin must have some magical powers. DickTurpis (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, I think Palin deserves quite a bit of credit for the Democratic wins in Delaware and Nevada. We should all drink to her tonight. DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Palin openly campaigned for or endorsed Meg Whitman against Jerry Brown. Whitman seemed to shun Palin[2] [3], so it would suggest she wasn't one of the candidates Palin stumped for.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

California Republicans (at the statewide level) would be conservative Democrats in many other states. A Palin endorsement would not be welcome, and would probably be fodder for the opponent. MDB (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BON's Che T shirt wigo

Just comment it out. The T shirt has a red circle and slash. And that was so 1873. ħuman 01:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was about 3 year ago. On a related topic, the 4th anniversary of the opening of Conservapedia is coming up (21st of November). Does anyone else want to run the Conservapedia Day Awards this year? - π 01:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I could run it, if you guys like. Dalek (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I reckon set it up in the forums. Here is last years, that seemed to work better than the year before. - π 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do the work tommorow as I'm going to bed. Is it just me, or does Shlafly look more and more like Mr. Smith from the Matrix with every year he ages???

Go for it. Please add link here when you build it! ħuman 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it'll take more than that, Andy

Just look @ the edit comment^img 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken's good old fashioned Sexism

This latest Ken

posting on the mainpage rightimg about how a Ms. Magazine article talks about the issue that the majority of active atheists are still older white and male (Although PZ Myers points out this is changing for the better[4]).  Ken ponders if his "essay" will be talked about next but he doesn't know, "Given the mysteriousness and unpredictability of the fairer sex, it's anyone's guess!"  I wonder if he ever thinks why he is perpetually single? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny that, I mention it in CP's in the news bit, and Ken's updating MPL. So nice to see we still control editorial content over there. You're welcome Ken. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would presume that in regards to Ken the "fairer sex" are entirely predictable. Silly twit (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What he doesn't realise is that by citing Conservapedia with a straight face, Shores made herself a journalist to be laughed at and no one is taking her opinion seriously. ^gnostic 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of sexist doublethink, aren't women stupid from their perspective? Wouldn't a higher percentage of men subscribing to something be a good thing? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That would require them to acknowledge their hypocrisy in so many areas; they are not going to look in to that mirror. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Best Thread Ever. At least on Ken

. ħuman 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this magazine one for real women? Or ones like Phyllis and Ann Coulter? If they're normal people might it be an idea to enlighten them about Andy's views on rape and girls' testing standards? -- Iscariot (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very much a magazine for feminists. It would be like kryptonite to Phyllis and Ann. MDB (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Founded by Gloria Steinem, IIRC. ħuman 13:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An answer to the original reference.15:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Where's our "great post" smiley? ħuman 00:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be an idea for someone to send the relevant information their way, I can't imagine that their readership will be thrilled of them quoting from CP when they discover what they actually think about women. -- Iscariot (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a grab of the webpage? It looks like MsMag have deleted all the content from their webserver... CS Miller (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Clicking on the link in Susan's posted link gets me there. ħuman 00:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's back for me. Perhaps there was a server glitch, or slashdotting or sommat else.... CS Miller (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Google autocomplete for 'andy schlafly'

Accidentally discovered this. I'm not sure if the results are different outside of Canada. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ask and you shalt receive (hint: use language tools, bottom of page should be a list of Outside canada google's you can get to). Idiot isn't ranked as high though, and I am not going to comment whether that's caused by the difference in relative idiocy levels. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This made me think how I'd love to see the reaction if in America they actually had "USA" under the Google logo. There would be some wonderful outcries of "damm liberal multicultural accomodationists"!! Kallium^talk 06:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed Google's idiosyncrasies out many times in the past. Most of Google's revenue stream is generated by targeted advertising so page rankings vary depending whether you use Google.com (USA) or a local variant, they also vary with your IP address and default language; so Ken's SEO "triumphs" are largely local. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also: Sen (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I like that the CP "Andy Schlafly" comes 5th on Google after WP (x2), ED & us. 00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ken, I don't need to piddle about with your petty challenges as we have already done it. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

New banner heads

Looks pretty good on my 1280 by 1024 monitor, but I have a suspicion that it looks bad to those of you rocking the widescreens. - π 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Images "from the Internet and is believed to be public domain. If you hold a copyright on this image, please notify us, and we will be happy to attribute it, or remove it from our educational, non-profit encyclopedia project." Very droll. Also, no hint as to which corner of the internet they were found. It would be nice if they could actually turn their grubby hands to something creative rather than being a bunch of amoral thieving magpies. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, anybody who does manage to find the 1-hour registration window, then waited for editing to be unlocked, before mentioning "excuse me, that picture is mine," would be met by an immediate "Liberal troll lies!" Block/Burn/Oversight. Still, at least TurquoiseKnickers isn't claiming he made it. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I consider the lack of attribution to where it was found to be grossly insulting. It's like saying it's just something we found on the sidewalk and now it's ours rather than we acknowledge that somebody took the trouble to make this and we thank them for letting us make free use of it. It's an incredibly selfish attitude. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, one isn't supposed to use the US flag to "decorate" one's product. Their logo is bad enough... ħuman 12:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source of the news banner: New Films International. As expected it's clearly not public domain. --MarkGall (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Emailed 'em. 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Andy's just deleted it. --MarkGall (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My word! We are proof reading for them, aren't we? (good find, BTW, Mark) 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And now TK will be blocked for plagiarism. Oh wait, silly me - he's a senior admin - the rules don't apply to him. Then again, ToppedKinky never changes the filenames, so his copyright violations are easy to track down. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sent NFI a link to our piccy of the front page. 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how he didn't mention it when he deleted it from MPR or deleted the file. 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work guys! CP's utter dishonesty when stealing IP and contempt for copyright law is staggering. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect TheKlepto to change his ways anytime soon but neither do I expect Andy to do anything about it. Plus ça change...  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

At least they're not vandelizing a wiki, thats serious jail time.--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually they haven't destroyed all the evidence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

KAPCHER^img 17:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy yet again

How can somebody living off inherited wealth (via Mummy's daddy), who graduated from two Ivy League schools write about "elitist, fancy-college-graduate liberals"^img with a straight face? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By lacking the slightest hint of self-awareness? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that has to teach homeschooled kids in a basement and pick up the odd penny submitting amicus curiae briefs for wing-nut lost causes can hardly be considered elitist. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually...yeah...that's a really good point. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy has conservatively declined to jump on the liberal "use-your-incredibly-expensive-education-and-very-privileged-upbringing-to-forge-a-successful-career" bandwagon. Good for him! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And while he might have grudgingly accepted to enroll at Princeton and Harvard, he showed those liberal elitists by refusing to actually learn anything there. Röstigraben (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eggsellllennnttt, Rösti. 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice one!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The American Right has a rather different understanding of the term "elite." At some point in the past decade, I became an "elite" and I'm not really sure how. Most of you are elites as well, I reckon. Here's a quick guide: The extremely wealthy (economic elites) are never elites, with a few notable exceptions (George Soros and Warren Buffett). Politicians, lobbyists and other with inside connections (political elites) are only elites when Republicans are out of power. That leaves us with holders of advanced or specialized educations (intellectual elites), and this is where it gets a little complicated. In general, if you hold an advanced degree and: a) are liberal; b) you have authored or co-authored a study which has been cited by liberals; or c) you have conducted an experiment, the conclusions of which might be pleasing to liberals, then you're an elite. Finally, a non-elite can become an elite (or vice versa) based on what they eat, drink or wear, where they live, or where they have gone on vacation in the past. The results of that analysis, however, are pending. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 18:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CP and Suicide

Wasn't one of CP's objections to Wikipedia that it "promotes suicide"?

Apparently, that would be okay if it was liberals who were offing themselves.^img MDB (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was just fuckhead in search of sexual release. Thanks to you, his keyboard is now all sticky. Again. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

At least that'll make him stop typing for a while while he cleans it Larynx Pharynx (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's one hell of a huge assumption. I always figured he didn't bother cleaning the keyboard.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Make it two huge assumptions. I don't know why would anyone be ergonomically challenged to the point of having the weapon above the table. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Going to WIGO

I was gonna WIGO this, but I think it's better here. Andy is crowing^img on MPR that the tide against abortion is turning. His proof: more pro-life candidates won than pro-choice.... If that is the case, how does he explain the monumental thumping on the Colorado personhood amendment? It got defeated by 40 points with over a million no votes cast... Maybe Andy should check his tide chart. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What's "pro-choice"? You mean pro-abort? That was always my favorite of Andy's sleazy rhetoric. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's being more of a moron than usual if he thinks all these "pro-life" politicians are ever going to actually outlaw abortion. Not only would that create a massive social problem, it would also mean that they have nothing to get the Schlaflys of the world to the polling place with. Expect decades to come of religiously charged rhetoric coupled with zero action. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, there once was a time when the sysops were supposed to fight vandalism, not create it... --Sid (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? When was that then? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That was back when... I mean... I'm sure that at some point... maybe... *trails off* --Sid (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Deathwatch

37 active users and every new signup has been blocked. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering just now, we know the pageviews are inflated, but how many of their three quarters of a million claimed edits are vandalism, reversions and the like? Perhaps DiEb has already answered this?--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you there - I'm all about quantity, not about quality... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Our stats show 1,857,665 page edits. Just for comparison and the curious. ħuman 07:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy has convinced the Ordo Xenos to protect his blog. User:Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: they've managed to miss all of my socks. – Nick Heer 05:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an ex who works at a copy shop and I had her print me a stack of 100 business cards with conservapedia.com on them, I'm going to had them out at Joe Miller's "God and Country meet and greet" on monday, that may help increase the traffic slightly. Last night I went to millers rally (and got some crappy footage of sarah palin speaking) which hopefully I can get up on youtube by monday

though it occurs to me now that someone else may have already done it. Oh well. --Opcn (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

nah, do it yeah ħuman 07:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at Views per edit, CP: 228.21, RW: 15.81. All you guys run here is a circle jerk. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob, who do you think are the only ones visiting your site? Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 20:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother with nobs, he's in "lalalala I can't hear you"-land. -- Nx / talk 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

CP has more Views per edit than RW has registered users. And the stats show you guys aren't even reading each others crap. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, RW is now CP's gold standard Alain (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

View per edit? Thats a really dumb stat to crow about. Your piddly small edit count at CP, and the fact that people have been bot bumping random page views on silly pages for 3 years hyper inflates that to meaningless. tmtoulouse 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a confession? Oh, we already got that in the RW 1.0 files. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Quick Rob go over to Wikipedia and post something about it on AN tmtoulouse 21:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Maybe the FBI would be more interested. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely! Maybe home land security? Ohhh, I have a game. Can you get me on the "do not fly list" before I try and go home for break? Tick tock. tmtoulouse 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here it is:

• Did you stop/slow down? I'm trying to make sense of today's traffic numbers; between midnight & somewhere around 3am (pacific time), there were about an extra 13000 page views per hour. after that, it slowed down to just an extra 3000 per hour or so. It's possible the proxy I'm using is throttling me or is just slower during the day; I don't have any counter going on my side (should do that). --Jtl 20:11, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

• I dropped it down a few notches while I was editing, so have been bumping slower will increase it up again soon. Tmtoulouse 20:20, 24 April 2007 (CDT) [5]

Hmmm, 24 April 2007, 3 weeks before the Night of the blunt knives. User:Tmt confessing to vandalism. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Robbie, in what possible universe does that equate to vandalism? Bumping pageviews is vandalism now is it? Or has the collective persecution complex on CP finally won over. I know that "saying something we don't like" is vandalism, but bumping pageviews? Btw how are things going with CP's gay senior admin? Have the Director of Internal Security smoked him out yet? --PsyGremlinPrata! 08:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? Quickly to the FBI! tmtoulouse 21:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Btw, how's that other FBI investigation going? -- Nx / talk 21:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that reminds me of our Great Ides Conspiracy prank. We managed to really scare quite a few users. Nobs, you ought to investigate that instead. Did we ever write it up anywhere? ħuman 21:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't recall that one. Ok, so maybe running a bot to inconvenience someone using your own name isn't against federal law, it still brings into a Wikipedia users good faith intentions into question. And about coming home for break, guess what? the Democrats in New Mexico are going to let me vote in this years election! Yep! I got registered (by ACORN) as a Republican in May 2008 and didn't get my Voter Registration card until Sept. 1 2010. So NM Secretary of State Mary Herrara, and her ummm successor are actually going to let me vote this time. Praise Jesus! nobs^{don't bother me} 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you currently reside in NM? If not, I sure hope you're only voting a federal ballot. 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Diane Denish the Democrat is running an extraordinary racist campaign against Susana Martinez, the Republican. Disgusting. [6] nobs^{don't bother me} 22:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, its not racist unless you think Texans are a race. There is a very strong anti-texas vibe in NM, particularly in older generations. It is not the worst card you could play, except that it doesn't quiet work. Martinez is from El Paseo which most people in NM see as "not really Texas" and Diane is from Hobbs which is seen as "little Texas." So there is some local complexity and flavor that make is somewhat ironic. Diane's major mistake was not distancing herself from Richardson. Richardson has been our worst governor in my lifetime. And that's saying something (Hello Johnson!), and the anti-Richardson, anti-incumbency zeitgeist is strong. If Diane had stood up and said, "Hey I am the the Lt. Governor, I couldn't do anything, I was just you know arm candy" she might be in a better position. But that would be admitting that she didn't have any real power the last 8 years. She won't do that. tmtoulouse 22:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

True dat. Denish is the classic machine candidate; she was the Lt. Gov candidate when Marty Chavez ran, then Richardson elbowed her out of the the top spot when he ran, now it's finally her turn and she gets stuck with Richardson's record. Denish just can't break through the Democratic Party's glass ceiling.

But even WP reports (wp:Susana_Martinez#Tejana_accusation) on the Tejana pejorative used by the Denish campaign:

• Robert Aragon, a Democratic former state lawmaker who supports Martinez, objected that the ad turns a "whisper campaign" into "a public smear campaign" and "is very clearly aimed at dividing northern Hispanics from southern Hispanics. It demonstrates a stunning display of intolerance and lack of appreciation for the true diversity of our culture." nobs^{don't bother me} 19:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Hehe, Nobs, you are funny. What does wikipedia have to do with what people do elsewhere? Anyway, the Ides was a fake conspiracy that worked perfectly - a two week build up of cryptic messages that led some on RW to think something really SERIOUS was about to happen. You would have loved it. As far as the "click botting", 1. did it ever occur to you that the chatter was a prank, a decoy even? And 2., even if it was real (which I doubt), it wouldn't have been to "inconvenience" anyone, it would have been to inflate Andy's pageview ego. ħuman 22:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Andy is just assuming (perhaps correctly) that every new account is a parodist or troll. He's handing out 5 year "recreate your account with your real name" bans to users with no edits & with innocuous names like Parture, Pc, & Conservativexyz. Why not shut down account creation altogether? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Because then he'd have to admit that CP isn't open like Wikipedia. Doesn't stop TK from doing it anyway though. -- Nx / talk 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "you guys aren't even reading each others crap." prolly because we trust each other not to fuck up. I'd like to bet that you've not read all of Ken's edits - you'd be even dafter than you are if you had. 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment doesn't even make since, if a talk page discussion is going on and 30 people have commented on it over the last couple hours. I can come and read every single comment with a single page view. Page views/Edit count is not even a meaningful ratio for impact. tmtoulouse 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what TMT said, I often just hover over the difflink on Rc & read the popup. I only go to the link if I want to comment or get more of the context. 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Robbie(you don't mind if I call you Robbie do you?) learn to format, your text goes down here. Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Early projection on New Mexico elections

Early reports suggest a GOP sweep in New Mexico's midterm elections. As of 11:00 AM, only 19 voters had cast ballots in a key precinct where cp:ACORN formerly was housed and Elmer Fudd and Fred Flinstone cast 300 votes each to help elect Obama in 2008. Despite Diane Denish's commanding lead in the polls among 50,000 driver licenses issued to undocumented aliens, low turnout tends to favor Republicans. In New Mexico where felons can vote (including former State Legislators, Auditors, and Judges), Denish also enjoys thier support.

Congressman Martin Heinrich (Martin Borman and Heinrich Himmler's namesake), the favorite of big money & Wall Street bailout firms and greatly outspent GOP challenger Jon Barela, has slipped in recent polling. Barela, who is Hispanic, enjoys the support of 70% of Angelos, while Himmler, a gringo, is support by a 68% of Hispanics and commie libs. Himmler also has lost support among both the more and less educated unemployed. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cute, I am actually friend with Martin and have been a strong supporter of his since his first city council election. But name play is fun? tmtoulouse 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

C'mon now, you know damn well if a Republican's name was 'Martin Borman', even Chris Matthews couldn't restrain himself from the cheap shot.

Tell you the truth, I thought Barela was a goner til I read the Abq Journal headline Sunday; that may have sealed Heinrich's fate. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Or not. tmtoulouse 07:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that any votes were fraudulent in that election? Or is it just your prejudice?--Opcn (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. To give a short response (1) See my comment above how I was registered by ACORN as a Republican in May 2008 and recieved my registration card 2 1/2 years later; (2) ACORN's completed fraudulent voter registration forms were used as a common currency among crack heads & crack dealers, redeemable at ACORN for cash [7] (same in Ohio) ballotpedia for more. (3) Most interesting is, NM Sec. of State and former Bernallio County (Albuquerque) Clerk Mary Herrara, after numerous ethical violation charges, was just voted out. The GOP victor, an unknown, was the largest vote getter of all statewide candidates, surpassing the both Gov. & Attn Gen (two highest profile statewide elections) by 20,000 votes. Get it? 20,000 voters showed up at the polls strictly to vote the overseer of elections out. 20,000 voters who didn't bother to vote for anyone else on the ballot. Does this give you some clue how elections are run in NM? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait...what? Regardless of anything else lets zero in on your claim bout vote numbers. 199,372 people voted for governor 196,480 people voted for Secretary of State. Now what? ^{— Unsigned, by: Tmtoulouse / talk / contribs} 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From the NM Sec. of State site: [8]

• DIANNA J. DURAN 338730 (Secretary of State elect & top vote getter statewide of all candidates regardless of party).

• SUSANA MARTINEZ 318336 (Gov.)
• HECTOR BALDERAS 318158 (Auditor)
• JAMES B. LEWIS 319266 (State Treasurer; a virtual tie w/Balderas as top Democratic vote getter statewide; the Treasurer & Auditors jobs remain in Democratic hands in a state famous for pay-to-play scandals). [9]
• GARY K. KING 316335 (heir of a three time Democratic governor's dynasty with solid name recognition; finished third among Democratic vote getters).
• DIANE D. DENISH 275624 (pitiful; the GOP loser for Land Commissioner got more votes). nobs^{don't bother me} 20:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah my bad I went to the bernco site cause that's what I had bookmarked. Anyway doesn't change the point 587420 voted Secretary of State and 595931 voted for Governor. So more people voted in the Governors race. More people might have voted for Duran, because he had a higher percentage of the win vote. But your statement that more people voted for SOS than any other office is false. tmtoulouse 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. My methodology was flawed. All it means is Herrara got trounced worse than Denish. But you would have thought Martinez, Denish, or King would have been the top vote getters statewide solely based on name recognition rather than a nobody nonothing. Only in New Mexico.... nobs^{don't bother me} 21:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a vote against Herrera, I am surprised she got as many votes as she did. tmtoulouse 21:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Heather Wilson may be the Rahm Emanuel of this administration. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Heather Wilson made a great sacrificial lamb to southern New Mexico politics and ensured a a democratic stronghold in bernco for the house for the first time in years. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NM 1st District was the premier battleground of the DCCC & DNC for twenty plus years, going back to Steve Schiff. Dems felt they owned the district cause there's nearly twice the Dem registration than Repub. Yet them damn idiot voters kept electing Schiff & Wilson. More money was spent every two years in this district than in statewide races for Gov & Senate. But still Heinrich's showing (51.6%) isn't all that impressive considering the level of Democratic registration.

After serving as Martinez's chief of staff for two years, Wilson then could serve as President Palin's Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, or maybe even National Security Advisor. Interesting, there's some similiarities between Wilson & Angela Merkels careers; and Merkel is the considered the most powerful woman on earth. [10] nobs^{don't bother me} 18:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

President Palin? Can I quote you on that Rob? Local politics is local, understanding the 1st district house race requires things like understanding why the south valley is all democrat, but doesn't vote in high numbers, whereas the north east heights is all republican and why it might have really high turn out. Heinrich has the seat because Wilson got screwed hard by a combination of Dominici and southern NM. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

'understanding'. You lost rob at that point. Understanding requires some form of cricital reasoning and rob patently doesn't posess that. Oh and rob, USE THE FIN PREVIEW BUTTON. It's not hard and it will make you look an awful lot less simple than you currently do whilst constantly editing your drivel, Oldusgitus (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. But only because I had to mop up coffee after reading "President Palin." We're sure Rob isn't a parodist, right? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm for Palin, but we all know 60% of Americans say Palin's views are more like thier own and only 40% say Obama's are. That makes her a strong contender. As to the NM 1st, yes the Dems now have an opportunity to hold the district longterm, but the East Mountain is growing very fast, and that area tends to be conservative. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems the North-South Democrat/Republican divide in NM also tends to be Eastside-Westside in Albuquerque. Wilson is the heir of the Domenici legacy & donor list; she remains powerful in NM GOP politics. But her chances of being Gov or Sen are diminished. She'll go back to Washington at the first opportunity (she's only about 50 years old, I think). Richardson is probably toast. He's had a longlife & career and should be put out to stud. Do you think Denish will get an Obama administration appointment? perhaps her & her husband with the Transportation or Highway Dept? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Usual Pics

At the moment, there are cp:Special:Statistics 38 active users at CP, including (afaik) the fifteen who tried in vain to create an account over the last seven days.

average nightmode

Night-mode - and account creation - are switched on and off arbitrarily (most time, account creation is prohibited)

active editors

Now, the number of those who made an edit over the last four weeks is down to seventy! Way to go!

blocked IPs

Terry Koeckritz and friends became negligent on this front

range blocks over time

But that's not much of an problem: Each new account gets his IP blocked individually (or with a relatively small range)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that we needed any more evidence....

Ole indeed

...But here is some evidence of Ken lacking machismo in that he refuses to answers questions and has now deleted the page. Slimy scumbag that he is. Ace^{word up} 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken is obviously not a real person. Get a meaningful response from him that relates to the response posed to him and we'll talk. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's funny.

"The article titled Western Atheism and Race doesn't actually connect western atheism and race."

"Please cite specific parts of the article where western atheism and race aren't connected."

"Ummm...all of it?"

"I'm not talking to you." Gooners (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken's a dishonest, hypocritical fucking idiot who spends his life chain-editing a bunch of homophobic, racist articles on a shitty encyclopedia. When he gets called out on how shit all his "contributions" are, he runs away like a bitch instead of admitting he's a total fucking idiot. SJ ^Debaser 20:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we even using the same definition of machismo as Ken does? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

STOP! don't try to work out what Ken means by anything - that way madness lies. 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent troll is excellent. First they totally pwn Ken and win the argument, then they administer the coup de grace with the bunny picture! Ole! Ole! Ole! Nice work, whoever it was. And I do mean "was", since I doubt their freedom to edit the Trusworthy Blog still exists. ħuman 00:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Then again, when have we seen one of the gutless, spineless, lilly-livered, yellow morons that inhabit CP ever answer any question directly. In fact their answering styles can be listed as follows:

• Andy: But if believing in x results in less people reading the Bible, why believe in x. Open your mind! I'm right, you're wrong! /block
• TK: <insert random insulting comment> I know where you live. /block
• Rob: You say x, but it's a known fact that Obama does y, as did Hitler and I think only commies do z anyway. /block
• Karajou: Really? Well you go to the library and photocopy your source, then come back here and read it to me verbatim! /block
• JPatt: Your answer/question confused me. /block
• TerryH: I am an ADMINISTRATOR! You WILL respect me and you WILL NOT DARE question me. /block
• Ken: Your question about x does not address y. Until you address z, I will ignore you. /block
• Ed: Oh, if you have time for questions, you have time for a writing plan. /block

--PsyGremlinParlez! 12:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eggselllllent, Psy! 12:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Accurate. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something against them Psy? ;)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

C'est moi? Perish the thought. ;p Although, Ed wanted to hold something against me, but I told him I wasn't into older men. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That is both simultaneously creepy and awesome how accurately you portrayed each of them. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Update II

Now you see it......now you don't..

Once again Ken proves he has no machismo. Ken, people with machismo address their critics. They don't block^img and delete questions^img they don't like. Lying machismoless bastard. Ace^{word up} 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how expert parodist DP jumps right in and spouts the party line word for word; truly he will go far. Hooray for the Capturebot most of all; exposing the cowardly hypocrisy of Ken

when it comes to debate, he just cannot hack it and uses bully tactics instead to silence the opposition. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Ken has too much machismo. People with machismo don't address their critics, as demonstrated by mostly every scientists who study evolution as they refuse to debate creationists. Those are the ones Ken defined as lack of machismo. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot Double Penetrator is still around. He's more or less just boosted his response off one of our quote generators. He will go far... SJ ^Debaser 11:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly become bolder lately, having even adopted Bugler's habit of leaping, unbidden, into discussions with a suitable Schlafly-esque (or in this case Ken-esque) comments. If he's not a sysop already, he soon will be. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How long has it been since the last full sysopping? ħuman 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DouglasA April 10th Thing is, there's only FOIA, Dubious Pudenda and TZorro left to promote. I see the Vietnam monomaniac is also starting to move up the ranks now. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Reid's 8 points victory

Is andy really stooping to the level of practically accusing his opponents of rigging an election? Larynx Pharynx (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. He doesn't seem to understand that Reid won because Angle is completely fucked in the head. Ace^{word up} 22:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I am sensing CBP 2.0. tmtoulouse 22:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is, because an eminent statistician like Andy knows that polls can't possibly be wrong, and the only systematic bias in the world is the liberal one. Nate Silver has a pretty plausible explanation for this error over at 538, for those who are interested. Röstigraben (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Reid has machismo. tmtoulouse 22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

ACORN :: Ole! Ole! Ole! ħuman 00:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that ad explicitly telling Latinos not to vote didn't work. Hell, who knows, it may have just encouraged them. Also, Angle telling a bunch of Hispanic kids that they look Asian probably didn't help her with that community either (Asian or Hispanic, I guess Richard Dawkins doesn't appeal to them :). --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy certainly seems to be saving his best bile for Reid, starting with the 'despicable' epithet. Given Andy's vindictive, petty nature, I wonder if it's possible that, like Obama, Andy has a history with Reid? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless TK was parroting Andy (unlikely?) it is a Nevada political consultant who uses the despicable tag. Perhaps Harry didn't slip TheKlappedout has-been some lucrative consultancy work concerning prices of second-hand (all-American) Subarus.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone else find his affinity for hybrids odd? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see this is now officially a mystery. The talk page is good too: after JPratt added a link that effectively dispels the "mystery", Andy whines that "There's no evidence that the polls were wrong". How about the result of the actual election, you moron? "The exit poll showed that Reid won two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, eight in 10 blacks and three-quarters of Asians." so all it takes is under-sampling of those groups in an opinion poll or a larger than expected turnout in those groups and you get a huge discrepancy between poll and reality. Mystery solved. No need to thank me.

As LanceS already pointed out on the main page, there were far more inaccurate polls elsewhere. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how they seem to think Opinion polls are more accurate than the actual election. Perhaps they should campaign to voting altogether and just appoint their representatives by who ever is leading in the opinion poll--AMassiveGay (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just more evidence that Andy only accepts whatever agrees with him. If the polls say the Democrat loses while the election says he wins, then of course the polls are reliable and the election is wrong. If the polls say the Republican loses while the election says he wins, it's a stunning upset (thanks to the conservative cp:Joe Sixpack) that shows that the elitist polling companies were unsuccessfully trying to influence the election with their liberal bias. As with all mysteries, any and all attempts to actually SOLVE it in a sane way is stonewalled just so Andy can wave his FUD around some more in a way that lets him heavily imply "LIBERALS RIGGED THE ELECTIONS!" without actually explicitly saying so. If anything, Andy as a lawyer knows how to not say things in a way that can be held against him (which Ed constantly mistakes for being neutral and simply reporting all viewpoints). See also his awkward dance around the "it has been said that OBAMA IS maybe A MUSLIM AND HERE IS A LONG LIST OF EVIDENCE" issue. --Sid (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that Andy (and by default CP) is NEVER WRONG. Given that they'd been trumpeting Reid's demise for weeks on MP, it had to be a rigged election and not Andy making a mistake. However, it could also be TK posting rubbish to the main page. Did anybody actually check the sources he was using? --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His sources were fine for once, although whether any Rasmussen poll in this cycle was fine is another matter. You can see here that Reid was trailing big time for the latter half of October. I'd read one or two blog pieces that said "Don't write Reid off yet" but I certainly hadn't expected the kind of win he got. It was a surprise, but there's always something like that in any election. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Kendoll's Roman Adventure

Er, Ken

, I ain't no Marcus Cicero, but I think there's something wrong with your translation^img. You're welcome, you cunt. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not fast enough for Conservative Deceit, Gentleman Jeeves. 22:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus fucking wept. He must be refreshing this page five times a second or something. Mucho machismo with the hiding your mistakes there, Ken. Even TK couldn't do better. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Though fortunately, I have the liberal power of pressing "prnt scrn". Your oversight powers are no match for my mighty cache. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a screencap of the whole diff to replace the error-capture. And why do people assume that Ken actually oversighted this? His usual approach is "burn the entire history through deletion and recreate a new version from scratch". --Sid (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow their absolute Alexa rating is 54,279 while Wikipedia's is 7, you better watch out liberal Wikipeida, the site is growing rapidly! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the usual "delete and create" on some extremely long page nearly break the site sometime before? or is that from RW and not CP? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that after resident parodist JacobB deleted MPR? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Delete and recreate last version from scratch" (which Ken tends to do) poses no problem, I think. It's "Delete and then restore the entire history again" that tends to break a wiki when the page has a bazillion edits. IIRC, we had it with T:WIGO in the past (and our Awesome Tech People managed to fix it from behind the scenes), and they had it with MPR (and they don't have Awesome Tech People, so they just recreated the last version from scratch). --Sid (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Back tot he translation, wow, even I can tell that it is wrong, and I don't know Latin. But I know English. ħuman 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

CP & Copyright Infringement - it's all our fault.

Following on from the talk about about the stolen image, I toured TZB again, because a little bell was ringing. Sure enough I found the following exchange in 860/7427f99ead575026.html (Fair use - I don't want us to get sued)

DanH: RW has announced they're going to start emailing notices of use of copyright violations. This is a problem because, there isn't an easier way of putting this, most of our images are from Joaquin Martinez, and frankly, they're all copyright violations. He simply takes them from news sites or whatever and writes "fair use".

Fair enough request, right? One that should have the admins running to make sure CP is clean. However, we forget that having a massive persecution complex comes first. Especially where Karajerk is concerned:

Karajou: Like I said, those clowns will stop at nothing to shut us down.

Wow. So suddenly the fact that CP breaks copyright is somehow our fault. Still, it gets better:

DanH: I agree, Brian. It's pathetic, petty and childish. That being said, I myself do not completely understand some of the copyright laws.

At least he admits to be clueless. But upholding the law is "pathetic, petty and childish?" Ah, here's some more Koward goodness to finish off:

Karajou: The second thing (RW's reporting copyright theft) is Andy's problem. He is going to have to get legal protection for the site because the RW trolls are in this game to either completely control Conservapedia or remove it all together, and they will not stop until they do one or the other.

So there you have it. I'm not even sure how to summarise that. But it's all some liberal troll plot to have CP steal copyrighted images, in order for said trolls to report CP and inconvenience them. Or something. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a microcosm of American politics? The right breaks the law and then blames the left for reporting it? -- Iscariot (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh God, I actually managed to forget the whole "Liberals want to control CP!" meme. Gah, this particular bit of persecution idiocy always made me headdesk. --Sid (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

CP should just be happy it hasn't gone viral. sterile dot 13:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Better question: Why aren't we trying to make it viral? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Would enough people care? cp quickly revert their thefts when they are caught out and exposed on here and tbh I suspect most of t'web wouldn't care enough about a tatty litte right wing blog to do anything. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Making something internet viral is hard. Yes, there is viral marketing, but this isn't that. sterile dot 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of examples where they haven't reverted. What is needed is for a blogger to make a careful study of the plagiarism, compile a list of images and articles which can be used to illustrate the issue (check JM & TK's uploads) then write up a piece laughing at the hypocrisy of conservative Christians led by Phyllis Schlafly's lawyer son openly allowing copyright theft on his purportedly "educational" family-friendly website. The issue has to be hypocrisy of the fundie right with CP as an example rather than just poking fun at CP in general. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not disagreeing here but compliling a list and publishing it is very different from it going viral. And also lets be honest assfly and the rest of cp are so fundamentally dishonest that they really wouldn't care what the bloggosphere say about them. After all, it's all the liberal conspiracy that exposes their blatant hypocrisy and theft, not their own actions in stealing others people's ip, that is important. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't know any bloggers with any interest in this subject. Oh well. 15:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if we wrote something like conservapedia:blatant plagiarism? ħuman 15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Or conservapedia:copyright or conservapedia:copyright Images? Nobody could be that obsessive, surely. ħuman 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As much as we can write about it, it's not going to become viral. Given that even other self-described conservative websites/forums think that Conservapedia is completely insane, a little copy-pasta isn't considered unusual. In the event something almost goes viral, they just delete the page revision to make it look like it wasn't there (and/or claim it's a photoshopped screencap). On the flip side, "Is Conservapedia a joke" is already viral enough to appear as a suggestion in Google search. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

ħuman 05:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

More on Ken

Was having a wander through the SDG stuff (you know, the posts Terry Koeckritz leaked) and came across this from Rob (Level_1/88aee1833f08aac8.html)

Do you know the legendary sockmaster User:Ruy Lopez? He finally got an ArbCom ruling against him that would give a two month ban for each sock discovered. I even blackmailed him, I got him to argue my case before ArbCom to accept my Appeal after I let him know I knew what sock he was using as a constructive editor. He spent too many months building crediblity with it The man was a master at sockpuppetry, and it was very amusing watching his various socks have discussions with themselves.

Was this Ruy another Ken sock on WP? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Impossible: "He spent too many months building crediblity with it". Ken couldn't build credibility if it came pre-assembled in a tamper-proof carton. And he is the antithesis of "master of sockpuppetry", with his fractally fractured mutilation of the Queen's American. ħuman 14:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also his contributions are far too varied for Ken. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

More CP Proofreading

Terry Koeckritz, when you've got a minute please could you fix this category? It should, of course, be "Representatives-elect", not "Representative-elects". Thanks, ducky. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Representative-elects" - beautiful! StarFish (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thankfully there are some dedicated editors at CP like MartyP who can fix this kind of thing. Maybe we're wrong, everybody? Maybe Terry Koeckritz, Ken

et al don't spend their time reading RW and there really are editors on CP who spot this kind of thing? On a related note, I've got this email that says I can make $$$$ from home! Looks like a great day all round! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's attorneys general, not attorney generals. Grazie. Doppelheuer (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but to be fair you would expect that kind of mistake from a site that isn't owned and run by an attorney. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also also also, "freshamn" isn't a word. ħuman 01:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still bothered by "anyone else's shirt." In reality, it probably should "anyone's else shirt". Or maybe I'm bad at grammar. sterile dot 01:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That should read "anyone other is shit" ħuman 01:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gardasil WIGO

I love that Andy calls Gardasil a "liberal" vaccine. He just calls everything that he doesn't like "liberal" these days. I can imagine the outbursts over the course of a day in his life:

-To the neighbor: "Get your liberal dog to stop shitting on my lawn!"

-On his way to work: "Stupid liberal traffic!"

-When his finger pokes through the toilet paper: "Damned liberal toilet paper!"

Corry (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He'd only be able to yell at traffic on his way to work if he actually did his real job, instead of playing teacher. – Nick Heer 04:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Andy linked to is like a CP article. The "doctor" (read about him here) does a hatchet job even Andy would be proud of. Just the "Science vs. Politics" almost made me choke on my cup of tea. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he working for AAPS? Shouldn't they give him a cubicle/office somewhere? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you've failed to understand the concept of wingnut welfare. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can read about Joseph Mercola, HERE.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So you can. That article doesn't come up after ten pages of Google results though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the concerns often brought up when HPV vaccines were first introduced was that maybe the immunisation doesn't last long. Since the exact mechanism by which the body produces antibodies on a subsequent infection is still not well understood this was a possibility. In this case obviously you'd have a bunch of immune 14 year olds who (mostly) aren't having sex, and then a bunch of say 21 year old women who are having sex and believe they're immune, but aren't. The maths comes out at 15 year break-even - if the immunity lasts 15 years then it's worth having (assuming you have a pap smear programme, if you're too poor to run that, or your population won't attend the vaccine is always worth using)

So far we have efficacy data for ~6 years from the long trials. Gardasil (the US choice which also prevents nasty warts) does less well, while Cervarix (the UK choice which is cheaper and has spill-over prevention for more cancer-causing HPV) does better. Both are still effective, but it could end up that neither hits that magic 15 years. In that case the vaccine would likely be withdrawn as a public health initiative (you'd still be able to get it but schools wouldn't be mass vaccinating kids). So, don't count your chickens. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro! - π 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a valid discussion of the pros and cons of this vaccine. Andy's real problem, though, is that he feels that the vaccine will embolden girls to become promiscuous. It's bullshit. Corry (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Very Interesting

So Andy decided to make the profile aquiring system more complex. I am interested because I made an account about a month ago and he blocked it for five years, for no reason. I think it was because my username was "ilovepatrobertson", but it still is a little extreme. I mean, I had already formulated a personality and a rebuttal if anyone thought I was a parodist, and theen poor old Assfly ruined the game. Still, I am glad that my parodizing helped make Andy one bit more paranoid. בכסווו^שלמ 03:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

TK blocked me on sight when I created an account (using their naming conventions with my real info) because my IP was through Louisville. The reason was "IP in Louisville, KY, a godless liberal city". They're retarded. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If we really wante to close down Conservapedia, the stragedy is simple. We all, over a few weeks, set up a couple of junk email accounts, and email for accounts.. behaving on those accounts, not really doing anything. But we make it clear on this page that we're setting up all these socks. TK and friends (Hi boys!) will see it here, and begin blocking for even less reason, and probably close down registration all together? Dalek (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You silly people, don't you know by now, and I apologize for shouting, CREATING AN ACCOUNT ON cp IS A BLOCKABLE OFFENSE! ħuman 05:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Luckily I have a sock created previously. My sock regularly contributes wackiness to the wackypedia, some of it has even been endorsed by the chief nutter himself. If people now have to request personal permission from Andy to create an account, much the greater the insult to genuine contributors when they get blocked. Auld Nick (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda annoying. My IP is in Richmond, capital city of McDonnellstan, and that would put me in a great position to make parody, as I would be coming from a Bible Belt, homophobic, and all-around insane state. I guess Andy has just shunned Pat from his heart because he is afraid. AFRIAD OF THE MIGHT OF THE HOLY PAT!!!! ALL WILL OBEY PAT!!!!! Thank you. בכסווו^שלמ 18:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

Mark your calendars

this is easily the most coherent, sane, concise and newsworthy post to the CP News ever....... I could've sworn that Andy would accuse daylight savings of being a liberal plot to remove man from God's time, or Rob would announce it's a commie plot to alter our crops and cause a nationwide conversion to communism, or maybe Ken

would make a post declaring that daylight savings time proves that homosexuals have no machismo with Asian women and as such, Atheism is doomed to failure because anyone can see that the cat who gets hit by the shoe yelps loudest, except when CP has the number one Google result for "knobgobbler" OLE! Sadly, that sentence may be more coherent than anything Ken

has ever typed. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 04:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno what you said, but autumn leaves prove gOD falls back annually, according to the whims of Congress, unless a state abstains. ħuman 05:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe CP actually provided useful information! When I woke this morning (since I'm sans-TV) I had no idea today was DST change. I went right to CP, saw the info, and adjusted my clocks. Thanks CP for providing me something besides constant laughter! 71.161.217.173 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy. [11] YourEnemy? (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain this one to me please?

WTF has [1]^img light got to do with anything in what Rachell Maddow says about Oberlmann? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy → sharkjump 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Andy harking back to his "relativity is liberal" meme. Of course it only makes sense in the Crazy World of Schlafly, like Oldusgitus everone else is going WTF? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note - Hillary's causing earthquakes.^img --PsyGremlinHable! 16:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the Earth move for Hillary? I guess orgasms for women must be a liberal trait. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a constant speed of light an anti-Biblical concept? --Kels (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I sort of understand it. Unavoidably geeky technical background: There is a perceptible fraction of a second delay in modern digital network transmission of video or audio signals. This is because the receiving station has to wait for all packets to arrive before sending them to their final destination (your TV or cell phone.) Sometimes packets get errors, and a request for retransmission, followed by retransmission, has to take place. To be sure the final result isn't disrupted, it is delayed to allow for a reasonable nearly-worst-case scenario. This delay is, of course, far more than can be explained by the speed of light (unless we're using network repeaters on the moon.)

You can see this on television broadcasts of things on multiple channels. For example, State of the Union addresses, inaugurations, stuff like that. Flip channels on your TV, and you will see that the channels aren't precisely in sync. As another experiment, talk to someone on a cell phone while that person is a few feet away, so that you can hear them directly. You will notice the network delay.

So, attempting to get to the point, intelligent people know that, when they see a TV interview with an in-studio host and a guest at a remote location, there will be a delay. It will appear twice as long between the host asking a question and the remote guest replying. The host will appear to reply immediately to anything the guest says, because you are hearing exactly what she heard. (Think about it.) The guest will appear to sit there dumbfounded for a second or two before replying. Well-informed viewers know this, and don't take it as evidence of stupidity or liberal deceit. (There was some segment on a late-night show (I think it was Letterman) a while back, purporting to show how stupid Sarah Palin was, when it was really just this effect. You don't need network delays to show how stupid Sarah Palin is, of course.)

Finally getting to the point, I believe there was a similar situation in an interview with Rachel Maddow and some CP hero named Art Robinson. Andy "I know all about science and math, and all phenomena can be explained by liberal deceit, and that delay was far more than can be explained by the speed of light, and the speed of light is this bogus relativity concept that I debunked with 32 penetratingly intellectual counterexamples" Schlafly proclaimed that the exchange had been purposely edited to make Mr. Robinson look stupid.

Does Andy's comment make more sense in light of the above explanation? Of course not. We're dealing with Andy.

Gauss (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks Gauss. I recall that now and you're right, it does make some kind of bizarre sense, at least in andyland. Problem is that, as a 'trustworthy encyclopedia', unless you read it all the time you would not understand the reference. I read cp some time each day just to remind me how insane some humans can be and I didn't understand it. What hope would a casual visitor, hoping for some encyclopediac content have? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But, but, if the speed of light is as fast as the creationists claim, then wouldn't the receiver receive the question before the host asks them? Or is that some entirely different concept? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

More about Maddow

After seeing the above, I decided to check out the CP Maddow article to see what sort of crazy bullshit was there. Surprisingly, there's little there about her being gay (though it does have the homosexuality infobox). However, there was one curious allegation: "Maddow uses her show as a platform to deliver racist rants against outsourcing jobs to China and India." The sources for this were a link to a show transcript and the following quote:

at the World Economic Forum trade a British unionist, Philip Jennings, boldly declared that outsourcing white-collar jobs to low-wage developing countries, especially India and China, would provoke ... opposition of developed-world labour unions to trade liberalisation, especially in relation to outsourcing, imports of cheap consumer goods and labour migration, can easily fuel racism within the West in the 21st century.

Couple things: a) That paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense, and b) The grammar doesn't make a lot of sense. Both of these things led me to suspect that some ellipses-related chicanery going on, so I went to the source. Sure enough, the editor who inserted this trimmed it just a bit. Here's the whole thing (quoted sections in bold):

A few years ago, speaking at the World Economic Forum trade a British unionist, Philip Jennings, boldly declared that outsourcing white-collar jobs to low-wage developing countries, especially India and China, would provoke a middle-class backlash in the West. The transfer of millions of jobs to the Third World, he warned, would give politicians in the developed world a huge headache as the middle classes realise that outsourcing would lead to wage deflation.

Mr Jennings' message, which reflects the general thinking of the anti-globalisation movement, can be put more simply - cheap Third World workers are taking First World workers jobs and lowering wage levels in developed countries so western governments should stop the outflow of jobs and compel local companies to employ only indigenous workers . Thus the call is for "First World jobs for First World workers, Third World workers keep out!" In this age of ideological ambiguities, it is unclear whether this view be labelled left-wing or right-wing

Such sentiments are reminiscent of the utterances of white European workers who not so long ago complained that black immigrants were flooding their countries and taking white jobs; thereby undermining white living standards. The demand was for government to repatriate non-whites and stop more entering their privileged land. The clarion call was "white jobs for white workers, blacks keep out."

It may seem absurd to compare today's First World protectionists with people who sought to protect white jobs against darker skinned immigrant interlopers. After all, unionists like Mr Jennings seek to defend the livelihood and jobs of all local workers, regardless of race or country of origin. Besides, some of the workers in the vanguard of today's anti-immigrant protests have black and brown faces. However, what we are comparing is not the morality of old-fashion racism and contemporary protectionism but the thinking behind the two worldviews. A commonality is the nativism that underpins both perspectives.

Nativism is the policy favouring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants or people considered to be foreigners. White European workers who kicked against black immigration in the latter half of the twentieth were probably more driven by nativism than racial bigotry. Nativism intertwined with prejudice produced a white working class consciousness that perceived non-whites as undesirable and threats to their livelihood. Anti-immigration sentiment easily manifested in racism which obscured the legitimate fears and grievances of white labour over the introduction of black workers into the labour market.

The growing opposition of developed-world labour unions to trade liberalisation, especially in relation to outsourcing, imports of cheap consumer goods and labour migration, can easily fuel racism within the West in the 21st century.

That's 374 words and four entire paragraphs cut out. Impressive, no? And, needless to say, it doesn't say that opposition to outsourcing is racist (as the editor implies), but that outsourcing tends to promote racism among the displaced - the exact opposite. Anyway, as soon as I realized how dishonest this was, my first thought was "Oh, Rob Smith has to be behind this." And guess what? Geez, Rob, we all know you're a liar, but you can put a little more effort into your bullshit. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 19:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're gonna tell us Rachel Maddow is not a liberal fascist ^{[citation needed]} racist ^{[citation needed]} swine ^{[citation needed]}? And what is the evidence for that, sir? nobs^{don't bother me} 20:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. "Nobs". X Stickman (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You asshole, it says exactly the opposite of what you presented it as saying. Then you have the gall to call Rachel Maddow a swine? Rachel Maddow who actually has some concern for other people. I assume empathy is a commie liberal trait tothe right-wing. You're a festering piece of horse shit with no sense of right or wrong outside of a sociopathic dedication to ideological purity. I've always wondered where conservatives get off saying that theirs is a "lack" of ideology. Anyway, when someone calls you on your lie--not just calls you on it, smears incontrovertible proof that you are a liar in your fucking face--you pop up and start screaming about things that have nothing to do with anything. "RACHEL MADDOW IS A BIG FAT JERK AND HER HAIR IS TOO SHORT LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS!" No, motherfucker, you lied. Can we ignore this cocksucker, RW? Please? Can we just stop talking to him. He's beyond communication or thought. --70.71.180.29 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya got to hand it to nobs, though, that he comes here (as we invite) and discusses his paranoid fantasies with us "face to face", as it were. If only Ken

had such ma-cheese-mo!  Ole! Ole! Ole! ħuman 01:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy might just be mad that Maddow mocked Conservapedia and Andy's view on relativity in a segment about the 'War on Brains'(begins @3:30). --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering where their August peak in viewership came from! Thank you! ħuman 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Nobhead call her a racist above? Oops^img, better not tell Andy. 01:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MPL is looking more and more like MPR every day. At least in the old days we could look forward to Joaquin's "Plagiarism of the Week" masterpiece. ħuman 05:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Madcow is a liberal facist. Period. Rachel Madcow, if she were straight, would be one of Saddam Hussein's lovers. Probably Uday & Qusay, too. Rachel Madcow spewed racist horseshit during her rant about the Chamber of Commerce & outsourcing. Fact. It is all a matter of record. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pissed again are you nobs? It must be incredibly depressing in your sad little world where every thing is liberal and everyone hates you. Just do it rob, come out. Your life will be much happier if and when you do. And you know what, most of us here would applaud you for doing so. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

lol...u live in fear. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ace^{word up} 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The other Terry

Mr Hurlbut^{(love that name!)} has a piece in the Examiner that just deserves to be read. No quotes: just read it all! (see FSTDT) 16:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That guys picture still creeps the fuck out of me! Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 17:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured out why his picture is so weird - he took it using a laptop cam - so his eyes are focused wrong, and the screen is reflect in his glasses. His shoulders are also postured oddly, due to having to operate the triggers while posing. ħuman 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is the most accurate book ever written - it is the word of our Creator - athiests try to deny this because there scared of having to one day answer for there sins. Where does this stupid, Andy-type meme, that the bi-bull is the most "*****" book come from? ^{— Unsigned, by: lily / talk / contribs}

The one I find most amusing is "most logical". The argument seems to be that because the book starts with the first instant of creation and progresses from there that makes it logical. Well the Silmarillion does exactly the same, but while I think it's a brilliant book and I'm a huge Tolkien fan, I'm never going to claim it's logical. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Infallibility. God dictated it to Man (although God hadn't invented enough conservative words at the time) and it's perfect and holy and the Bible is right and God exists because... er... the Bible says so. And I see yet again, a moron who doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their" and "they're." Clearly a product of humsculling / phonics. Also, Terry is a qualified (not sure if practising doctor - that alone is a scary thought.) --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I stopped at "the Bible is, first and foremost, a Collection of annals". Sure, forget Jesus - the key passages in the Bible are the bits about Josiah son of Amon son of Menasseh son of Hezekiah. He criticises the Buddhists' text for being "a collection of essays on how to live"... isn't that what a religion should be based on?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ħuman 01:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

JM decides to speak up

"Today's Main Page, politically effective, is not any more encyclopedic."^img

Andy proceeds^img with caution, quite likely to stall him while frantically poking TK for backup. Might be popcorn time... --Sid (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this looks to be fun! Kinda like 6(?) months ago when Terry Koeckritz was trying to drive RJJensen off the Wiki. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Joaquin, nice knowing you. For lack of a better term.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I doubt he'll get permablocked. But I do think, off Wiki of course, that the retribution will be great enough for him to retreat somewhere else for a while. That way, Andy can keep Conservapedia looking all nice and white and pretty.... Conservative Punk (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

JM's been around forever and managed to do little more than upload a massive library of stolen (and usually poor quality) images of art he likes. If Andy didn't care enough to remove a few of JM's stolen pics after being contacted by their owners I gather he doesn't really give a shit what JM does or says as long as it's no more disruptive than getting DMCA requests and legal demand letters (to ignore) over their completely bogus "fair use" claims. I predict JM's milquetoast objection will carry no consequences as long as he decides not to respond to Andy's request for specifics, as if it's not hard to tell by looking that Conservapedia is pretending to be an encyclopedia. 19:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative goes "It's just after a historic U.S. election. It is really not all that surprising that politics has dominated the main page leading up to the election and afterwords." Um, dude, this "leading up to the election and afterwords" would be a good rule of thumb - if it wouldn't, in practice, cover 100% of time. I challenge Ken to demonstrate that, say, Wikipedia front page gives that much long-term, highly tl;dr visibility to any elections. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Afterwords" - Ken, look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I honestly couldn't pinpoint a non-political phase between, say, the 2008 election hype and today. MPR basically went from "2008 ELECTIONS!" (before the elections) to "NOBAMA! NOBAMA!" (after the elections) to "NOBAMA! 2010 ELECTIONS!" (before the new elections) to "NOBAMA! FUCK YES, GO TEA PARTY!" (now). And it will just slide straight into "NOBAMA! 2012 ELECTIONS!" from there.

The only time when the CP main page is relatively free of politics (as in "not practically every single post is about some politician") is when the Republicans are completely in charge. Because God knows that conservatives in power means four years of the Utopian States of America, no matter what happens in reality. --Sid (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just ... true. One almost forgets it but it bears repeating. 23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Declaration that their front page is more encyclopedic than the liberal Wikipedia's in 1,2,... - π 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A much better way to rephrase it would be "The political effectiveness of Main Page has surpassed the encyclopedic value of it." Or was that some misinterpretation of the ambiguous phrase "... is not any more ..."? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thou shall use greasy spoons...

What the hell does Andy mean? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

He's hanging out in truck stops? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Easy: "The name 'greasy spoon' is used to imply a less-than-rigorous approach to hygiene and dishwashing" + "Jesus [...] declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary" = "Jesus approves of restaurants with bad hygiene, thus making them conservative by principle since Jesus would never support a liberal concept" --Sid (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That has to be an all time parody classic ... if it's supposed to be serious Andy should start seeking help. Auld Nick (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That particular edit makes Andy look so monumentally stupid that I am starting to feel guilty for laughing at him. --Horace (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy has officially jumped the shark flown the kitty. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we make a special plea to have Transport cafe reinstated?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This really makes me wonder if CP is a gigantic parody. MDB (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One can only wonder what else will follow, given things like 'muscle car' and now 'greasy spoon.' How about Fedora? Raincoat? Galoshes? Roadhouse/ fast food? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a breakfast in a greasy spoon a few years ago after a night out in Brighton. The fact that it was in Brighton of all places makes me think that they're not very conservative at all. SJ ^Debaser 12:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, SJ. Given the number of times in years gone by, I've stumbled into an all night greasy spoon, absolutely blattered, I struggle to see how they could be conservative. In fact, I'm willing to bet you won't find a single conservative (well, sober conservative) in a gs after midnight. Except truck drivers. But they're a bit strange anyway. All those lonely hours with only their own voices for company. Which bring us straight back to Andy. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern truckers have satellite radio. Howard Stern, 24/7! ħuman 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain to the Yanks, please?

As for what comes next, I'm hoping for "House of Ill Repute". MDB (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From Urban Dictionary on greasy spoons: "The food is often delicious and always bad for you." Because, you know, healthy eating is such a liberal trait. --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what a greasy spoon is. I don't understand the significance of Brighton. MDB (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Brighton is commonly assumed to be the most homosexual town in the UK. It's probably not but that is the widely held viewpoint and is commonly used to insult the fans of Brighton and Hove Albion. It does have a quite a large homosexual community and recently returned the UK's first green mp. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it's kind of like San Francisco in the States.

Simpsons bit: Fidel Castro: "Why, the American love me! They even named a street in San Francisco after me!" (an aide whispers to Fidel) "It's full of what?" MDB (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The large homosexual population is not related to the gren mp. Brighton is quite a left wing town city and is rather socially liberal. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the States, gays generally tend to be more liberal, even on issues outside the social realm like defense and economic policies. (You won't find a lot of true social conservatives gays in the States. You will find fiscal conservative, defense hawks and the like, though.) Is that similarly true across the big pond? MDB (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and then again, no. Those who are fully out tend to be more on the liberal side of things, but that is usually because they tend to be of the younger generations (the split seems to be round about the eighties. Those who were teenagers during or after the eighties are far more likely to be fully out than those people who were teenagers before the eighties, although you do have to exclude the free love movement, who are going to be liberal by definition). On the other hand you do have a surprising number of socially conservative gay people in the UK. Obviously they won't be as rabidly right-wing as the fundies, but yes, they do exist. Generally speaking these will be people who are known or thought to be gay or bi-sexual, but don't confirm that they are gay or don't make it an issue, and generally don't use their sexuality as a guide-post when making political decisions. Michael Portillo is a good example of this. Oh, and just to blow the American readers' minds - in the UK a fiscal liberal is somebody who holds a belief in free trade and small government (the definition of the term liberal comes from the beliefs and ideals of the Liberal Party in the 19th and early 20th century). A good example of somebody who is both gay and a fiscal liberal (fiscal conservative in US terms) would be David Laws.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Just to bring this back to greasy spoons rather than homosexual demographics and politics therein (which is nevertheless interesting), here's a guide to some of Britain's finest; ladies and gentlemen, feast your eyes on eggs, bacon, chips and beans! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And for the "Jesus hates handwashing" angle, Lex Luthor's sort of take on this. And now imagine Andy saying that line. ;) --Sid (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Handwashing sucks when the water runs through the holes in your palms. ħuman 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And you can't eat M&M's either. --Kels (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)