Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive206

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <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)

Ken Dolls Awards

Is it me, or is "smooth as a" Ken Doll's latest shots at us getting sad, even for him. Lets give him another award for "ignoring or pretending does not exist" our facts on christianity. --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

He is totally stoked, and nobody other than the page creator has even suggested or voted yet. Nice work, Ken. I like your idea, let's create an award specially for ken, and then not give it to him. Better yet, how about "the most in (out of) touch with the speaker industry" award? ħuman 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am totally taking credit for his return to the phrase "cat that gets hit by the shoe that yelps the loudest" Thank you SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 07:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You gotta wonder, if he wins, will he come over and make a speach? And not just any speach, an egomaniacal "George Cloony at the Oscars" type of speech. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pssst, speak (verb) but speech (noun) and Speke (airport).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lily is the residential pedant. Ironically, she literally dabbles in pedanticism. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lily is not zoned for commercial use. --Kels (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

With that I heartily agree. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Or pedantry. ^{Trap sprung! ONE / TALK 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)} Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not alone.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another failed experiment

Oct 1 - Oct 7

Conservapedia is back to "normal", after trying three days (Mon, Tue, Wed) of using an alternate sign-in procedure: now, you have again to stumble upon one of the random intervals of being graciously allowed to create an account (the necessary - and sufficient - condition to get blocked)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I see the "e-mail us to join" is back on the front page. Along with Al Gore being Fred Phelps supporter. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right: it is there - again - since Oct 5, 2010. It is just not mentioned at cp:Special:UserLogin, you know, the logical place for such information...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For those not keeping track, the "e-mail for an account" idea hasn't been going so well. In the week CP has been doing it, the sysops have created six accounts (One by Karajou, two by Andy and three by TK). Of those, only two have actually been used to edit - StephenKP (inactive since his first day) and JonG2. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating the effectiveness of the policy is necessarily a subjective determination. Look at it from Andy's perspective. For years he's been encouraging overzealous blocking that would decimate the membership of any wiki that actually depended on good faith editors. And he's mostly correct that the vast vast majority of people who sign up and manage to edit aren't "conservative" enough for CP. So from his perspective it might very well be that two editors in a few weeks is just fine. But one gets the impression zero would be better. 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of miss the days when bright-eyed and bushy tailed editors would sign-up, only to end up being exiled. Maybe CP is switching to a multiple-generational project. In a few generations they'll have enough quality articles to give the Daily Mail a run for their money. They still have their guide to wanking up there, so maybe there is hope for CP. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In contrast, one of my favorite meta-pages here, RationalWiki:How_I_found_RationalWiki, continues to be added to by a healthy handful every month. Hell, the noobs even build the continuing structure of the page (since I doubt we oldsters do)! ħuman 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In bizzaro world...

Conservative double standard: Juan Williams is almost immediately hired by Fox News, but commentators (such as Keith Olbermann) disliked by conservatives must crawl back to second-rate networks like MSNBC. Andy really is insane. If I saw him walking down the street, I'd cross to the other side. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

at least I wouldn't accept a diner invitation to his home... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely you'd enjoy being quoted some years down the line on your illuminating conversation? 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that was damn funny. :) --98.144.126.13 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

hah! Occasionaluse (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That, and Jesus told him not to wash his hands before cooking. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Captain Obvious to the rescue ;-) --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Extremely late realization

Christ, I finally realized why Andy, the rich(?), suit-wearing lawyer suddenly supports "greasy spoon" restaurants, opposes handwashing and cheers on Joe Sixpack^img (the couch potato who doesn't spend his time on reading the Bible and instead drinks beer while watching TV).

Because up until now, I had completely forgotten that evil President Nicolae Carpathia Barack MUSLIM NAME HUSSEIN Obama wants people to stop being fat slobs.^img

So... greasy spoon --> Jesus hates handwashing --> Obama's Muslim agenda to make people healthy <-- Joe Sixpack, Hero of the Imperium Conservatism

I think it's time we get a flowchart or other sort of diagram to connect the various insight dots. --Sid (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You need Glenn Becks chalk board. It was specialy created to handle MEGA-TONS of bat shit crazy.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would respect any efforts you put in that direction, Sid. Use that program someone told me about when I did the "who sysoped who" chart? 'Twas easy to use once I had my data scribbled out. ħuman 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That article is so... fucked up. "elitist, fancy-college-graduate" = Andy. And Joe six pack means a dude who drinks a six pack every evening to escape his tawdry "working class" world. PS, Andy, your party has been trying to destroy the working class for 30 years now. ħuman 01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of bears everywhere...

... I apologize for Ken's latest essay.^img (The "B" in "MDB" stands for "Bear". Woof.) MDB (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"I hope you didn't think I would fail to mention the Soviet Union and atheistic communism!" No, Ken, I'm just shocked that you didn't mention homosexuality. And where's our Hitler? We paid a lot of money to get the ticket to the Conservative Show. Where's our Hitler? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is how many of those North Dakotan Christians are Biblical literalists. That is, are they Christian, or are they "Christian", from a CP point of view? --Kels (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly they seem to have burned some of the earlier discussion on mpr about the earlier article where lances called ken out and tk agreed with him, which article ken wrote then deleted. The talk was moved from mpr to talk:are atheists smarter than bears. Which now naturally redirects to the atheism article instead of a talk page. And sorry, I didn't cap it and do not have it in cache.Oldusgitus (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to cap it. TK - Ken's done that in a dozen instances I can find - many many of the talk pages for his essays and articles redirect to the Atheism or Evolution talk pages, or are locked along with the essay. The Atheism talk page has a weird "Atheism Egress Department" legend at the top that's not exactly what one would expect seeing on an encyclopedia. You really ought to do something to rein Ken in lately - he's rapidly burning what remaining credibility Conservapedia had, driving editors off, and basically acting like a douche. You're welcome. 19:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jo Stalin was a communist? Whodathunkit. But why is there no answer to the bear question? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"A bear must have some secrets, after all. They allow us to seem attractive and mysterious." MDB (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this worth the bother, he just copies and pastes the writing from his other "essays", changes a few words around and switches up the animal. Still I like how he thinks that "no religion" means atheist, admitting backhandedly there are far more atheists in the United States then CP ever will up front. As for North Dakota, it is true they have the highest per capita of churches per person, but if he read another paragraph or two in to that link, he would discover 20% of those churches are now shuttered. Is most religious state is becoming...less religious? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the state that came in number three on the no religion survey (at 24%) was number five when it came to lowest unemployment (5.8%), which is Vermont? Also Ken

Oregon doesn't have the 5th highest unemployment according to the survey you cite, but 7th, learn to count and you're welcome. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I failed in English again

Should I be worried that I did not find the word "bear" in anywhere other than the title and the caption of one picture? It's an essay somewhat related to bears, right? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. More like "BEARS! Now that I've got your attention, read this predictable drivel which has nothing to do with bears." ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Worst is, if anybody questions it - oh, right, there aren't any left - it'll be "please cite examples where I do not reference bears in the article," "until such time as you can show that bears are smarter than atheists, I'm going to ignore you." Hey Ken, when are you going to write an "essay" about Andy hiding in his non-intellectual bunny hole, when questioned about his unbelief in relativity. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody did question it: Question,^img a promise by TK to unlock the talk page,^img removal of entire section,^img talk page still locked days later.^img --Sid (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Liberals legalize gay marriage because they have no interest in fairness or equality, only promoting their own agenda. THIS IS WHY WE ARE LAUGHING AT YOU. --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to admit that TK has a talent for copypasting from just the right articles: They make CP look absolutely idiotic, and yet Andy undoubtedly congratulates him for improving the main page with his excellent headlines. If anybody ever questions why everybody here keeps chanting "TK is a parodist", just point them to MPR headlines such as this one. --Sid (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Because no one will radioactively date him, let alone suggestively the civetousness of a Prawline holy band(age). ħuman 01:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do hide revisions. Someone please get rid of that anonymous edit. 01:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Something's messed up here... Someone appears to have deleted the BoN edit, but I can still see it. Oddly, even though I'm a 'sop, I can't see who hid it!--cm² 01:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I will allow PJR to explain. - π 01:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And as to why you as a sysop cannot see or edit the suppressed revision - it is because the hidden edit was hidden by a bureaucrat - they have the powers that be to hide edits even from sysops. It's basically a higher level of the sysop's ability to hide revisions. You can see who hid the edit, though, at Special:Log/suppress. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone now please kill my non sequitur response to the BoN please? ħuman 02:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And then we'll have to remove Nutty's non sequitur comment...and then Centimeter's....then Pi's...then mine...then yours...then mine again... ~SuperHamster Talk 02:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And then we'll have to cancel the wiki, hurl the server off a cliff, swear all witnesses to lifelong secrecy, and...--cm² 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

...and then we'll have to start out again with RationalWiki 3.0. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn, let me save my userboxes to my hard drive first... I fixed my post to clarify the mud. ħuman 03:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed the fun. Why are we removing the BoN's comments again? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lumping Andy with "Holocaust deniers"

Not loved by the Jews either, Andy. "Now a new generation of Einstein deniers, including some Holocaust revisionists, are launching attacks, simultaneously rejecting Einstein’s science and accusing him of stealing his ideas from others." ^{(has this been brought up before? If so apologies}) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Say, would this be a reliable third-party source for the WP article? --Kels (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not but there's an awful lot in the article: what to use? 03:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say just put a flea in the ear of the smart folks over there about it, let them come up with their faves. --Kels (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. ħuman 03:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Duly posted at wp:as and wp:cp talk pages. ħuman 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And it has been duly replied to. By meh. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody want to make sure Conservapedia knows they have something in common with their favourite guy to compare people to, Hitler? Dalek (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, they read this page as much as we do. 04:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's denial of relativity is what I like to call Douche Physik. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A. Schlafly's position towards the Theory of Relativity resembles the Deutsche Physik of the 1930s:

It was invented by this Jew, so it can't work

while R. Schlafly has the views of a Deutscher Physiker of the 1940s:

It seems to work, so it wasn't invented by a Jew

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. There's some wonderful comments in there - "conservative bloggers" (see, it's not just us who think your "encyclopaedia" has failed); "did not respond to repeated attempts to interview him for this article" - wow, see how the conservatives run from questions. Hiding in your intellectual rabbit hole again, Andy? --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Schlafly uses a technique known in rhetoric as the 'Gish Gallop'" Beautiful! Are we quite sure one of us didn't write this? --Ψ GremlinTala! 11:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading that article again, is that really the basis of Andy's basis for hating the ToR? "Tribe’s article uses relativity as a metaphor for understanding constitutional law. In the footnotes, Tribe thanks the man who was then the editor of the review: a law student named Barack Obama." So because Obama is involved, it must be wrong. Surely, he can't be that short-sighted? What did Obama do to engender such hatred in Andy? Besides defeat Andy for the post of HLR Pres, of course. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that it was the whole 'relativity/relativism' debacle. EddyP (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The JTA article is very poor on actual physics. Although there were no elevators in Newton's day his theories provide a perfectly reasonable explanation of the force you experience in an accelerating elevator. Greg Egan came up with a world where ordinary people can notice relativistic effects - they live inside a rock about to fall into a black hole. Not Earth. I think people who write articles like this ought to be required to at least read a couple of primers for the layman like Six Easy Pieces and complete a quiz to show they understood them. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Obama bows

OMG! Obama bows to the Indian parliament!!^img Oh noes! Because respecting another's culture and saying "Namaste" is such a liberal thing to do. Then again, we are talking Jpratt here and the words "pig ignorant" spring to mind, although that really is an insult to pigs. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 15:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but he's a Muslim remember. And we all know how Muslims love India. No, wait... StarFish (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Islam is the second-most-practised religion in India at over 13% of the population (thank you, QI). Therefore (insert something about liberals and muslims). Cantabrigian (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Understanding [Conservapedia] by Andrew Sullivan

Sullivan recently wrote about why Fox News is not a conservative channel, but a partisan one. I thought the critique was equally apt for Conservapedia:

Just as important, it seems to me is if Fox could give, say, Ron Paul his own show, and actually allow an internal conservative debate about issues, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or foreign policy, or the social issues, such as abortion, or even have a supporter of gay equality who isn't an easily dismissed leftist stereotype on prime time - like a Jon Rauch or a Ted Olson? Why not give Frum a show to counter the party line with smart conservative policy proposals and discussions? What's needed on Fox - and what you'll never see - is solid conservative attacks on and critiques of other conservatives, on matters of principle or policy. That's the difference between an opinion channel and a propaganda channel.

This is why A Storehouse of Knowledge was started. This is why so many people--including their fellow travelers--are banned. Conservapedia is not a conservative site, but one of third-rate insecure intellects who are beholden to Andrew Schlafly's ego, hoping some of the second-hand glamor of Phyllis Schlafly will rub off on them. --Leotardo (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks quite applicable. CP officially allows "liberals" (a.k.a. people who don't agree with Andy's opinion) on their site... as long as they openly agree with Andy or just stay quiet and never edit articles controlled by the sysops. And they allow "liberal" (a.k.a. whatever doesn't agree with Andy's opinion) POVs in articles... as long as they are disclaimer'd by "liberals/atheists/evolutionists falsely claim X because they hate God/America and want to mislead the public". --Sid (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't read own source

Just saw this on the Main Page http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=827335^img from Andy. Apparently, Liberal "bailing out" is the same as "increasing funding to counter the GOP's effort".

I may have misunderstood this, but it would appear that, having read all the article, the Republicans have certain big groups that can finance them, so Obama has allowed the Democrats to receive funding to put them on a par with the GOP. Am I getting this right? AlexR4444 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kara and Andy compete for the Biggest Moron award on the same user talk page

Current version of the page in question^img (and the history^img in case people doubt it's really them)

As background, the user tried to insert^img a note asking people to categorize stuff from the "unsorted" pile into more appropriate sub-pages. As of right now, there are already several such sub-pages (Abortion, Conservapedia smears, Global warming, Homosexuality, Liberal Politicians, Obama - a.k.a. sections 1.3 to 1.8 of the main article).

What happens next is predictable:

Andy reverts and whines about the banner and completely fails to even acknowledge what was being suggested. It all boils down to his old hatred of funny boxes above his precious insights.

The user posts a reasonable reply and reverts Andy^img (WARNING! DANGER!) And then... Karajou stumbles in with his own brand of idiocy: "You have two businesses to run, but you claim you don't have the time to trim an article?"

...oh, and then he figures that this might not out-stupid Andy's post on that page, so he adds to it, suggesting that instead of placing stupid boxes, why didn't the user suggest a better layout - for example one that moves entries from the main article to sub-pages. ...WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IS ALREADY THERE AND WHICH THE USER WAS TRYING TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO DO.

...on the other hand, I should be happy: CP had become boring (for me) during the election hype. It's downright refreshing to see oldskool 2-on-1 bullying again! --Sid (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Capturebot? 00:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shame that Capturebot crapped out. I would have loved to see what Andy thought was such an eyesore.

These acts of absurd rudeness still manage to catch me by surprise. In a sense, this is worse than the instablocks. That's driven by reflexive paranoia; this is just being mean for the sake of being mean. Karajou trying to take credit for the guy's idea is a nice touch, too. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

CoS, I think that what you wanted to see is this^img. For some reason Andy hid the original banner edit but Ctown200 (NOT Ctown2000 you moron, Andy) resubmitted it and chief brown-nose TK just reverted rather than hiding it again - "DO NOT revert administrators decisions".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more back and forth^img until TK steps in to "clarify"^img that Karajou was somehow right in this exchange,^img Ctown was somehow wrong, Ctown insulted Karajou, this^img gets silently reverted,^img oh, and finally... BANHAMMER. --Sid (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Love the block comment. "Take some time to cool off." Five years to be precise. SJ ^Debaser 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It might just be a set-up for a good cop/bad cop routine so that the guy has to apologize to poor, poor Karajou, send Andy a personal apology for cluttering the precious WP Bias page with a hideous box, promise to never be such a bad person again, and then submit a writing plan to Ed for good measure. I mean, the talk and user pages weren't immediately deleted, so... --Sid (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Karajou doesn't like TK claiming the Biggest Moron award for himself, so he posts - after the talk page was locked and the user was banhammered - this little shot.^img Lovely. --Sid (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User 188 is a communist

Hysterical! 04:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha haa! Wikipedia's many cranks usually annoy me but that made me laugh. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the comment on Ed Poor's talk page.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I love Ed's WP talk-page. Every 2nd entry is notifying him that one of his stubs is being deleted. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed operates a "shit against the wall" policy. It works like this: 1) create a bajillion articles for anything and everything, no matter how obscure, while putting minimal effort into each one. 2) Hope some other editor stumbles across one of them an expands on it, creating something slightly less likely to be deleted. 3) Claim responsibility for the entire article in its present state. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that's being economical with the truth and deliberately unfair on Uncle Ed, One. He also regularly copies entire chunks of other people's work and claims them as his own. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me. User188 once told me of the java app he'd written on WP to translate Japanese kana into Roman letters. Anybody know if such a beast exists? I would have thought Java was beyond Ed's capabilities. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 16:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The man can't even do wiki markup. The only Java Ed's dealt with is probably in a coffee cup.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely Ed drinks instant? I can't imagine him dealing with the complex process of brewing it himself. Hmm, maybe that's why he got married. --Kels (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This thread is full of stars win! ħuman 05:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past Ed to visit Starbucks for the free WiFi.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Irony

I have to love the strange grouping of headlines on CP borked news:

1. "World thinks we are idiots", followed by
2. "Tea Party deserves House GOP leadership slot."

And you wonder why the world thinks you're idiots. --Ψ GremlinParla! 15:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

They dont care what the world thinks, because the world is full of commie libs, like Europe.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I love how CP slowly but surely gathers a higher and higher proportion of the world's population in the "liberal" camp. It's a wonder there's any true conservatives left at all. Someone ought to convince Andy to do a list of all currently serving senators/congressmen, and give each one a "conservativity" rating, ranging from liberals through RINOs to actual conservatives. Would any of them score a 10? ^{ONE / TALK} 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And then get him to revisit the list a month later & find how many have become RINOs in the meantime. 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

ooh! I can see it now - cp:Quantifying conservativity. Sadly, only St Ronnie, Mama S and Funbags Palin will score full points. --Ψ GremlinTal! 16:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bachman? Rand P? 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Bachman, but not Rand Paul. Andy is not enamored with the Libertarians. DickTurpis (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow.... Just did a quick spot check of their main page, and the words "liberal or liberals" appears over 150 times. Maybe CP needs a new word... How about "Manticores." you know, Manticore madness: Manticores in Congress demand equal rights. Hey, It might catch on. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 21:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of quantifying, since open mindedness, vulnerability to Atheism, mental strength, faith, liberal style, idolatry and order have already been quantified, should we have an article on Conservapedia trying to quantify mostly everything? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be called "Conservapedia:Quantifying Andrew Schlafly's obsession with quantification". I might just make it... ^{ONE / TALK} 10:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the proposed title above. ħuman 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So many favourable comments!

"Joaquin, we get so many favorable comments!^img Hmmmmmm, you know, I have yet to see one...Ace^{word up} 22:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The lurkers support him in p-mail. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And people are always commenting in the supermarket while Joe Sixpack's discuss it over a bud while watching the baseball. Ace^{word up} 22:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, they're occasionally on the Main Page Talk, but usually they smell a lot like attempts to curry favor by nascent socks. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC) PS No need to welcome me, I'm not new, just can't be bothered to log in.

STFU noob. Welcome to Rational Wiki!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm Aziraphale, not noob, just not very talkative. Thanks, though. :) 173.10.105.29 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, a "We should discuss this here with the input of the editors" issue has already become a "I will discuss this with Andy. In private. And then I will tell you what Andy's will is."^img TKification. --Sid (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it even distinguishable from just TK pulls idea(s) out of his ass and pretends that the idea(s) has been discussed with Andy? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the snippets and history I've seen, I find it likely that said discussions go more along these lines: "Hey Andy, I just had this great idea that doesn't require any work or sacrifice from your side and that would make your glorious project 500 times better and more secure! Should I, your loyal follower, sacrifice myself to work on it?" - "Uh, sure, sure, that sounds awesome. Thanks for all your hard work, TK!", which is basically the same as "TK came up with it and there was no discussion", but he still technically got a green light, which he will use to slap others around with it. --Sid (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if you trawl through TZB, there'll be examples of just that. The categorisation project comes to mind. Of course, anything that involves Andy having to do some work - such as installing flagged revisions - dies a quick death. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 11:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's always been a case of the lunatics running the asylum. Anyone who showed any wiki-fu has been barred from the club, maybe Terry Chuckarse knows a bit but he's only interested in his own stuff rather than CP as a whole. I would guess than even CPWebmaster is not around for Andy to call on any more.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With this "I will discuss it with Andy" stuff, I'm kind of seeing parallels with Jacob from Lost. ^postate 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CPWebmaster hasn't edited since a few edits in March, and those were his first since July 2009. With Iduan also gone (blocked?) it's safe to say there is nobody left with anything but the most basic wiki-fu. God forbid they should have another week that wasn't, or Andy tries to load a software upgrade... --Ψ GremlinParlez! 14:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of TWTW, I remember (again from TZB) them throwing a frothy because our TomTomTooLoose offered some suggestions on how to fix the broken wiki. Needless to say, paranoia won over reason. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

They seriously think that every single action taken by us is part of an agenda to destroy them. It's pure Reductio ad Hitlerum: "If RW wants X, then X is bad and we should never do it!" I remember (TZB: "530/aba418...") that during the brief episode when their server was hacked to rewrite certain URLs, DeanS noticed my quick and dirty Javascript (Greasemonkey) patch to allow people here to browse CP without triggering the hacked links. Just a short and simple Javascript thingy, but he didn't trust it because the function was called "rw" (as in ReWrite) and because the Greasemonkey namespace was RW's URL. --Sid (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy is not only wiki-illiterate he is completely stupid. He had a hard-on against templates, hierarchical categorisation and sentence case title names. TK just sucked up to him so that the whole site got constipated. PJR and a handful of wiki-literate peons attempted to rectify the situation but they all got forced out or ban-hammered. There was a lot of work to actually tidy up CP but of course this housekeeping was disregarded as menial work so it didn't count for meritocratic promotion. Conservative "insights", no matter how obscure or hidden amongst the scatological wallpaper, are what really matter. I think that is why the site is no more than a political blog rather than an alternative to Wikipedia. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed at how little Andy has learned about the MW environment in four years of owning a wiki. Hell, within two months of being there I was struggling to learn simple LaTeX. I doubt Andy can even write a table, in html or MW markup. All he has mastered is putting brackets around every instance of "liberal". ħuman 15:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum tunneling WIGO

The idiot's defeating his "faith" thing in his enthusiasm to show biblical foreknowledge. Where's the "miracle" if it's all scientifically explainable (which is of course crap)? He's turning his god into a time travelling alien. 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the "Scientific foreknowledge". Perhaps he climbed through a window? Ace^{word up} 02:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Room has no windows and the door is locked from inside -- a typical locked room mystery. Therefore if Jesus manages to sneak in, it has to be some form of teleportation or quantum tunneling, or whatever kind of BS that can be made up. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn ye to heck for getting me to click on tvtropes...there goes the weekend! C®ackeЯ

"He's turning his god into a time travelling alien"

If he's gonna worship a time travelling alien he might as well make it Doctor Who. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If that counts as cientific foreknowledge of quantum tunneling, thenI too was gifted with it at the age of four when I used to imagine a television crew spontaneously appearing in my bedroom to film a magical midnight documentary about my toy cupboard. 212.219.200.254 (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have forwarded your anecdote to the Nobel prize committee. Expect them to contact you. Gauss (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Andy is secretly atheist since he is attempting to find naturalistic reasons for all the supernatural miracles of the Bible.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden

Wow, I was just thinking the other day that Hurlbut had been quiet. Clearly he was devoting his time to his cluster fuck (and earning money through link-spamming his blog). However, I do love the unintentional funny Terry manages to slip in.

Morbius also provides a prize example of the arrogant scientist, complete with his own set of professor values: an attitude that he is above human law and permitted to write his own law. Perhaps I do not prefer to be dictated to on my own world.

Yes, Shakespeare was all about professor values and evolution. By the way Hurlbut - if it wasn't for professors, you would never have qualified as a doctor.

Now, I wonder who else has his own little world, where he doesn't like to be dictated to? On a more serious note, given that everywhere and everything is a vast liberal plot, designed to turn them all into raving homosexuals, what do these people do for fun? --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very rare that you get a whole 20,000 byte article complete with infoboxes posted in one go. I'm not saying it was plagiarised but it seems strange that Terry Chuckarse will make use of it only on CP. I am also intrigued by the red links in the cast list, can we expect articles on those people soon?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"you would never have qualified as a doctor." TerryH is a doctor? Of what? 68.40.166.215 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, he's an MD. I'm not sure if he still practices tho. --Ψ GremlinHable! 14:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! When they are burying the bodies of their fellow crewman destroyed by the id monster, the captain is reading "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" etc. All I can think of when I see that scene is how weird it is that atheists would use Genesis 3:19 (it's paraphrased from there I think) in that way. Boy, them atheists sure are tricksters. Please VIEW movies before you write about them CP clowns! LOL! Jimaginator (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cambrian Explosion Being Rewritten

I wonder how CP will handle this. WIGO in the future, or ignore it completely. It is typical for creationists to say that the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained, etc.

[8] Jimaginator (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

TerryH and the others will pray that AiG/CMI publishes a "This doesn't mean anything!" piece they can plaster on CP before Andy comes up with his own insight as he did with the Lenski thing (the seed of insight had been planted, like, MINUTES before the plastering there, I think, and look how that ended). --Sid (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jetstream

What's weirder, the triple bolding or the ominous link to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge?^img --Sid (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind the "ominous", I just realized that it's already there. --Sid (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a nice little parodist is still reading us closely and fixed it^img ghazi alizm, ^comments? 01:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

facepalm.jpg

I know it's the same rhetoric, but how he fails to see who the big spenders are in history is beyond me (ref). If you read Conservapedia, you'd think Reagan never had a budget with a deficit. – Nick Heer 00:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Pure commie agitprop crap. From whitehouse.gov, Column H, Deficit as a Percentage of GDP: [9]

• Highest deficit by Reagan is 6.0% of GDP in 1983;
• Obama 2009 in 10.9%; 2010 (projected) 11.2%; 2011 (projected) 8.9% of GDP.

Why don't you get a life or get real before you start spreading your hate and fear. Try dealing with facts, sir. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob, go fuck yourself. DickTurpis (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again CP's Counter-Intelligence fulfills his role by talking Counter to Intelligence. Well done Nobrot, at this rate nobody's going to believe you when you say that the Sun rises in the East. Of course, in your twisted fairytale world you probably think of the Sun as being a Communist sympathizer as well, the way it always sets in the West and all.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, did we forget to mention in the fourth year of Obama's budget, the deficit get's down to 5.9%, finally 0.1 less than Reagan's worst deficit. Only question is, how many more jobs will be destroyed from the 7.6% Unemployment rate he inherited from GWB. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Rob, you are always amusing. How about the completely destroyed and imploding financial sector and economy in general he inherited? ħuman 01:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Reagan recovery lasted 28 years, sustained growth until the crash of 2008 and 22 million jobs were created. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob, two things: 1) you should probably stop posting here or you might have to ban yourself. 2) I don't know if anyone has told you, but there were other presidents after Reagan. Clinton might have contributed a tad to the economy too. – Nick Heer 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a partisan argument; from 1979 til 2003 (24 years) there we only two Federal Reserve Board chairman, Volcker & Greenspan, spanning five U.S. Presidents of both parties, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, & GW Bush. Approximately March of 2008 (at the time of the Lehman & Bear Stearns crisis) the Fed underwent a major once in a generation policy shift. Critics warned of the Fed losing its independence. Much has been written on this, but I'm gonna quote wp:Henry Kaufman, from Nov. 2009,

All of this would narrow the gap between the Federal Reserve and the political arena. Taken to its logical conclusion, our market-based system of credit allocation would be replaced by a socialized financial system, and the Federal Reserve would become part of it....Our financial system is at a crossroads... [10]

So these partisan discusssions, blaming GW Bush & Reagan for AIDS & hurricanes while hailing Clinton & Obama for hope & salvation are beyond pointless. If any reader here has any insight at all, time to get focused on the planets problems cut the meaningless, ideological drivel. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob, your technique of introducing random bullshit into arguments isn't going to get you anywhere. The fact is that under Reagan and the Bushes, the deficit increased. Under Clinton, there was a surplus entirely of the Democrats' making. Under Obama, despite having to pick up the mess Dubya left, he has already made progress towards bringing America back to a sensible budget. Republicans increase the deficit, Democrats cut it. Fact. Now fuck off. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. As the Ginghich Congress was sworn in, William Jefferson Clinton responded to Republican proposals.

Finally, balance the budget in 10 years. It took decades to run up this deficit; it's going to take a decade to wipe it out. Now mind you, we could do it in 7 years, as [GOP] congressional leaders propose. But the pain we'd inflict on our elderly, our students, and our economy just isn't worth it.

The cp:Contract With America balanced the budget in less time, despite Clinton's publicly stated opposition to it.

[11]^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs} 20:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

More RobS bullshit. Republicans only ever want to cut deficits when Democrats are in power. Clinton, despite initial misgivings, managed to create a surplus despite Republicans, not because of them. Republicans cut taxes then never, ever get around to cutting spending. It's always left to Democrats to clear up the mess the GOP leave behind. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pure B.S.; you need to come armed with some facts in the coming debates. I don't beleive in shooting an unarmed man. Arm yourself with some brains, too. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming from you, that's a compliment. You're an ignorant piece of shit who can barely string two words together, let alone a coherent argument, as already documented here. Your continual attempts to flood a debate with bullshit don't work here so give up and crawl back into the cesspit of CP. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You sound like you're applying for a job above your paygrade. [12] nobs^{don't bother me} 21:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, there he goes again. Totally random response because he's incapable of rational thought. Goodbye Rob. You know, I was egging Terry Koeckritz on when he was trying to frame you for stuff. I mean, he's a total asshole, but you're just an idiot. Watching him fuck CP right up the ass is fun but even reading your stuff gives intelligent users a headache so it would have been good if you had been blocked so you couldn't inflict pain on us all. Gods peed, Rob, Gods peed. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob, while I applaud you for removing your head from Andy's asshole (more so then his other minions), I got to ask, why are you here? Dont you have some gays to bash, or a bible to thump?--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oct 2010: articles and namespaces at Conservapedia and RationalWiki (and aSK)

CP

RW

aSK

• 106429: cp:Essay: Attention atheists: Please get a life!
• 106447: cp:Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd

Conservapedia shows a proclivity for blogging pseudo-news (as even Joaquín found out). I updated the pic I made earlier, and added a pic for RW just for comparison: though we are not an encyclopaedia as others claim to be, we had twice at many edits in "main" as Conservapedia: 4404 to 2218.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's bad when Ken's

pseudo-essays come in 3rd and 7th respectively in pages edited for the month. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the (rest of the) CP namespace will become if we have all the WIGO's on a separate namespace. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

page	percentage of edits in Oct 2010
RationalWiki:What is going on at ASK?	<0.1%
RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?	0.8%
RationalWiki:What is going on in the blogosphere?	0.2%
RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?	<0.1%
RationalWiki:What is going on in the clogosphere?	0.2%
RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?	<0.1%
RationalWiki:What is going on in the world?	0.8%
RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?	0.6%
Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?	1.2%
Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?	14.2%
Archives and other wigos	0.7%
All other pages	81.3%

2.5% of all edits were made on pages in conservapedia-namespace other than Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? and Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia

The Elephant in the Room
wp

• In Sep 2009, there were over four times as many edits at WikiPedia than Conservapedia had since 2007!
• WikiPedia isn't as chatty as Conservapedia: 2/3 of the entries are in namespace main

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's left at CP?

In reading the dialogue above about the "discussion" on CP about the Bias in Wikipedia page, with it culminating in the blocking of Ctown200, I'm wondering who exactly is left? Is it just the sysops? Looking at the logs for Ctown200, it seems like he/she was there for a while. Was that pretty much the last productive user? Apart from the sysops and their blogging on the main page? ghazi alizm, ^comments? 20:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a few "normal people" (people who are not sysops and aren't openly emulating them) left. But they tend to stay out of the way of any sysop pet projects and don't edit as often as Andy or Ken, so they're effectively flying under everybody's radar. Plus of course the usual bunch of people who register, make one or two edits and then are either hammered randomly or decide never to return on their own. --Sid (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) According to CP's stats, there are 50 users who've edited in the past 7 days. LArron has the real info, but I'd say 20-30 of those are already banned. There's still a lot of small time parodists still around, a few red names that will be short lived, and the cabal. That's it. It would be fun to adapt Sid's recent changes Kenfilter to be a general sysopfilter. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as good faith editors go, I think they're down to FOIA and JakeRMurrin (as indicated by LArron's page edit stats). Apart from them, we've got LanceS continuing to shock me by avoiding the banhammer, and a few other people who are either extremely dumb good faith editors or crappy parodists - it's so hard to tell these days. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 23:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

CTown200 is finally dead!? I remember banning him off the go, but he managed to weasel back in. What a day. 05:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Even sysop-wannabe TZoran seems to have fallen silent. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 10:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

editors at CP

IMO, this pic gives a good overview: Personally, I'm always surprised by the absolute number of editors at CP in a month. That's because most of them fly under my radar, making just a couple of minor edits. They are often just ignored by the sysops, too (Dwain, KimSell, Hsmom). In fact, this has become one of A. Schlafly's strengths: just to ignore pungent questions, like:

• Gerontology is a pseudoscience - why?
• The theory of relativity works for accelerators - why?

Other editors are doing a lot of edits - but they are obsessed with only a few single items: not only BertSchlossberg and FOIA, but also cperlobo, Daniel1212... Meanwhile, quality control is non-existent: the regulars have neither the qualification nor enthusiasm enough to re-read old material, so that errors have to be pointed out by third parties. (An exception to this rule is cp:Center which was laughed at for many times, but still states: The center of a geometric shape is a point that, on average, the points of the shape are equidistant from. Ed Poor just fails to see what is wrong with it...) Heck, two years ago I pointed out some glaring atavisms on the talk page of an article about a major historical figure - nothing happened. All the nonsense, still there - and linking from here once would get it fixed. Go figure.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The great paradox of isolating CP from vandals is that they also isolate themselves from constructive help. There is so much misinformation and disinformation that the casual visitor will very quickly assume that it is some sort of huge joke and would be deterred from pointing out anything that is obviously wrong. In the general knowledge department they have not had anyone as good as Fox for clearing up parody, but then he was despatched by TK dribbling poison into Andy's ear. The problem is that people who care about correcting parody also tends to care about correcting the lies and when integrity meets ideology it's usually the ideologues who come out on top.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Tzoran a few weeks ago and had a bit of an exchange (friendly, but not too informative) but he/she hasn't responded to my most recent emails. If someone's too busy to edit CP they MUST be too busy to read emails, right? ghazi alizm, ^comments? 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

At least I'm still there. In more than one incarnation. Making TK dance. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's left at CP, I think everyone over there is rig-pfffffffft I'm sorry I can't even finish writing that sentence. X Stickman (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just a jump to the right...

How long before the entire GOP become RINOs?^img --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 11:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He's quoting from a Rasmussen poll: the most biased and least accurate pollster". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that in the UK so many on the left criticised New Labour for moving to the right it's a wonder that we didn't have LINOs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, New labour are LINOs. There is currently no mainstream that represents in Labour movement in the UK and hasn't been for years.--AMassiveGay (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but nobody has ever called them LINOs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If they were LINOs then people would walk all over them (sorry). Jack Hughes (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-guru User188 - please may I touch you, the goodness might rub off on me

So Bad Touch has taken to posting his inane stubs as templates now.^img Can't wait to see where these get used. Not to mention the random red-links here. Seriously, how desperate were WP in the olden days that he rose above the post of assistant tea strainer? --Ψ GremlinFale! 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He actually started doing that 2-3 months ago, IIRC. ħuman 02:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really enjoying the work he's putting into CP:Shirley Sherrod. Somehow it was all a liberal smear campaign which Drudge and Breitbart became the victims of. Reminds me of the time Ed thought we should say Palin quit her job as governor to run for vice president...only a few months after Obama had been in office. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He was doing this last week on WP. It got the response it required: SuperHamster: "this is rather useless and unnecessary, and serves as more of a hindrance than a helpful tool." SmegEd: "Okay to delete, Thanks, Ham." 15:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A tale of 2 wikis: Sane wiki - Ed, your stuff is crap and we're getting rid of it. Insane wiki: Ah, another valuable contribution by a long-standing sysop. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I just view him as a sort of dopey old guy who just figured out transclusion, thinks he's a lot smarter and more creative than he is, and doesn't really know what to do with himself. 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It definitely says a lot about his ability to learn new things and understand complex concepts. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is he doing? Aside from the pathetic deceit in his quote (There are literally hundreds of movies where the yanks are heroes, whether it's historically accurate or not), but when would such a 'template' ever be used? Or is he planning to add this drivel to every movie article? At least that would increase the length of most of his articles by 4-5 times. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My head is reeling. Ed, stop now before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself. Whoops, too late. He has redirected an article of the same name to the template.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

His hard-on for this Andrew Klavan guy goes on: Check out CP's entire article on Toy Story 3^img --Sid (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I followed the link, and verily did I facepalm mightily. "Dude," muttered I to myself – well knowing, to my dismay, mr. Poor wouldn't hear it – "putting quotes in templates is a fairly silly practice, and only creates a maintenance nightmare. Ever heard of bifurcated histories, mr. 188th?", referring to the widely-known limitation of MediaWiki that states that it is currently impossible to get exact snapshot of a page exactly as it looked at a given point of time, because templates can only be referenced in their current state. But more confusion awaited me as I clicked "What Links Here". Staring back at me from the distant website were the words "Americans as the good guys (redirect page)", the sole line, a technological enigma antithetical to my personal quest for functional computer systems, a crystalline mystery in such a grandiose scale that my brains couldn't comprehend it. What kind of a mind could produce such troublesome statements? --a random guy on a gigantic and harrowing nanowrimo streak (pardon the awful prose) wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Every post on this page should be like this! ^{ONE / TALK} 10:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I love Ed's in-depth article on JFK Jr^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedian Science got boring.

I guess I still enjoy some of the stuff that comes out of Conservapedia, but the science stuff has got boring after Andy's recent Bible science crap of late. He could come out, in all sincerity and claim that polio is a liberal conspiracy to intrude into citizens' lifes; that a passage of one of the gospels was mistranslated and actually means that the internet would one day be developed to deliver conservative insights and that Jewish people made up non-Newtonian fluids to discredit Newton's Christian-inspired works... it's meaningless to me now, he's totally worn out the, "As if somebody could believe that..." part of my brain. ^EXTERMINATE 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe try some Keigles. --Opcn (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

o_0 I missed those three. Links/captures? - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"He could come out" Emphasis mine. - π 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So does Andy not care about Joe Miller?

I haven't seen anything on CP about the Alaska tea bag v. RINO race in the last few weeks. --Opcn (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would speculate that before the election he did not even think that Murkowski was any sort of factor, and afterward he did not want to admit the possibility that a RINO running a write-in campaign could win an election contest against a Tea Party man with official backing. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have just figured it out. If Joe Miller gets in there will instantly be an uproar over it and a recall effort, the guy has a 36% approval rating (72% disapproval) and he hasn't even gotten in (probably lower with how much of a stickler he has become for the rules that don't exist but benefit him), Menendez has something like a 38-42 split. --Opcn (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could have been Andy

...why I became a lawyer, and not a doctor, or an engineer, or a scientist, because I can't figure this stuff out. Say no more! 10:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting point that he appears to want to make a judgement despite admitting he can't figure it out - although that may be his inner politician trying to be judgemental (as they often are). But he's approaching the problem very much like a lawyer, which may be the root of the wider denialism problem, when he talks about "both sides". That's fine for law, and in theory it should work like science; you hear both sides and the case should be "most convincing" equals "the right one". But in practice it's more complex because science rarely, if ever, poses simple dichotomies that can be solved like a legal case - in short, there aren't really any "sides" to hear. You have just one side; that's science. And you have just one one witness, that's empirical reality. ^postate 15:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly reads like positioning himself to appeal to the right-wing and moderate Republicans, "I don't think Climate Change is happening, but we should still consider it and keep assessing it." = "I'd like to be President." ^EXTERMINATE 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So much for added protection and vetting

StephenKP barely lasted longer than a week despite having requested an account through Andy himself. (And yes, it's connected to the Leeds WIGO) --Sid (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because of this^img exchange. It's impossible to tell whether Stephen was a sincere editor, but choosing one of the most obvious parodists in recent history over him...it's like they're wrecking their own blog on purpose. Röstigraben (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So much for my theory that these are people Andy met in real life... unless Andy repairs the damage ASAP. ħuman 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think StephenKP got booted for this.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Laughed at the "communication problem" jab. How long before this method proves unsuitable for new accounts? Btw, has anybody tried their sign up? Do they ask for any personal info? --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 16:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Leeds article is the funniest thing I have read on that site in a good long while; can we be any more narcissistic with our persecution complex? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Leeds looks alot like Plymouth Ma.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Over 500 vandalism attempts from Leeds? Is that the edit count of blocked users from Leeds, or separate users, or just a wholly made up figure? ^EXTERMINATE 18:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, my IP shows me as being in Sheffield although I'm about 15 - 20 miles away (not far by US standards but leagues for UKites) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Both my house and my parents' house show as Leeds, so I've probably contributed a fair bit of that vandalism over the years. But I'm very much blocked at both now. ^EXTERMINATE 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. We need a Yorkshire userbox.... :P ^EXTERMINATE 19:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:User Yorkshire

My humble effort, Sire. --Ψ GremlinFale! 13:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Imma call bullshit on the 500 vandalism edits number bc (a) I don't believe they have any mechanism for even knowing and (b) Patti can't count that high. 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! I've just realised how much info I've given out about my browsing habits with that screenshot. Well done me. Still, shows I've got good taste, going my the Bookmarks toolbar…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hee! I always use: "select area to grab" 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent advice Susan. I read in today's Independent about someone who posted a picture of their computer on Twitter. Unfortunately the monitor was adorned with a Post-It note that contained their credit card number, expiry date and security code. Oops! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. @SD At least you didn't have your IP address displayed. I have made screencaps before which exposed my ID. Fortunately the twits at CP thought that my sock was being framed and I got away with it. It doesn't matter now, as I have put that one to bed. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}21:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, I just screengrabbed "the whole desktop": I have 2 screens (lappy & extra monitor on which my magnum opus is permanently resident) : It grabbed both of them to my surprise. 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were so well endowed Sue. The Firefox screencap add-ons are quite powerful, especially for grabbing the entire page. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not FFX (i use Chrome) a Gnome accessory. ^{— Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs} 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DanielPulido goes down!

Andy strips Danny boy of his rights! LOL! Occasionaluse (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It was probably those Teabagging edits. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Would the puppeteer please stand up and explain? EddyP (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wonder if it has anything to do with this wonderful TK message. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 15:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Daniel gets some rights back. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just how in the world is Danielle Pudenda calling the "Tea Bag Movement" "Teabagging" the Creation of Troublemaker/Troll/Liar? Terry is one vicious bully. 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question but you do know what teabagging is? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am excitedly waiting for my missus to get home from work! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Do it with someone you luv! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what's teabagging? If I said a nickname name of the Teabag Movement was "teabagging" would you call me a troll, liar, or troublemaker? 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there were a few old/naive tea party supporters who might have used the term in earnest, but I think the media has done a good enough job making its common meaning known. Most likely, anyone, especially a hep cat like Nutty, would be trying to make trouble (as far as CP is concerned) by using it. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cp dead yet?

	Is Conservapedia dead yet? Our handy deadometer goes from green - growing rapidly! to red - deader than flares.

It's been over a week since you last declared conservapulido dead. The last pangs of death or just one more week left?--193.200.150.125 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At least once every two weeks someone posts suggesting the impending death of CP, and suggests that we cut it off, like a diseased hand. But, like any diseased hand, it comes flopping back. SJ ^Debaser 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BON is on to something. We should make a (sticky) thread about whether or not CP is dead. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or have a CP energy bar like the Obamageddon thing. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Let's pretend to brainstorm on metrics until LArron notices. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't dead - it is nearing perfection: 71 % of the articles in namespace main weren't touched for over one year, while the inferior articles in namespace main here at RationalWiki need constant tinkering: only 28% were mature enough not to be altered... (I assume that this is at least the view of 30,000-articles-are-enough Andrew Schlafly.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, BoN. If you're going to rip off my little gimmick, at least have it measure something other than Obamageddon. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin made the template, not BoN. Just sayin' Occasionaluse (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"But, like any diseased hand, it comes flopping back." That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for that. Corry (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What a wonderful example of ignorant stupidity. Danny'sPudenda has obviously heard us using the term 'teabaggers' and with no idea about it's actual meaning, tried to be constructive on CP. Needless to say, Wormtongue diddled in Andy's ear and DoublePenetration's done for. Now, will he stay or will he go? --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 09:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't take credit for it, it's from an early episode of American Dad. Good expression though. SJ ^Debaser 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Kinda weird: Why would CP have a link to a page that links to what they would consider porn?

[13]Jimaginator (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Sir Clive's lady et al... ^{— Unsigned, by: Jimaginator / talk / contribs} 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is CP getting pissy. They got what they wanted, forced prayer, and punishment of those who don't pray.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical fake outrage. OMG, they were told to go through the motions. That's one step from actually believing it!!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they were forced to pray to that nasty goatherd Allah (I was being ironic, before you declare a fatwa on my ass), and not the one, true, hold baby Jeeves. Of course, Andy would be in favour of beatings (or even waterboarding) for not praying to Baby Jeeves. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 09:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The outrage is, as usual, over the top, but I'm gonna have to agree with the general sentiment. The only thing kids should be learning about the religions is the history, the beliefs, and why it's all a pile of complete bunk. Participation in their ridiculous traditions is not necessary. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist bears invade Mainpage

The Atheist Bears have landed on Mainpage. I wonder what the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer would say about that. Christian fundamentalists are such a bizarre breed of human. --Leotardo (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

More interesting, as of this morning, no mention of Veterans Day; I suppose comparing atheists to ursines is more important then remembering American veterans (At least until they read this comment and change the CP mainpage accordingly). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long^img --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought Conservative was going to stop using the Main Page to flog his goofy essays? Ken, you dirty liar. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope he doesn't. His essays are one of the most blaring signs to visitors that CP is written by boobs. --Leotardo (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One of their sources loops.

According to here Oregon has a higher growth rate than the US average, and North Dakota has a smaller.
Acoording to here Oregon has a higher per capita income.
Acoording to here North Dakota has a higher poverty rate.
Acoording to here North Dakota has more taxes.

Also, Oregon has the The Dandy Warhols,

Bohemian Like You (uncensored) - The Dandy Warhols, and

The Dandy Warhols - We Used To Be Friends

Whereas North Dakota isn't even in the category,

Category:American rock music groups by state

As for dumb atheists, even CP has an article on Stephen Hawking however stubby and redlined is. As for Anglicans, would CP include Rowan Williams, which Christopher Hitchens attacks here (Hitchens lays into Rowan Williams--and Christianity as well)?Civic Cat (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance

Above I stated that 71 % of the articles in namespace main weren't touched for over one year at Conservapedia, while the rate for RationalWiki is 28%.

first and last edits to CP

first and last edits to RW

The pics show this excess of aged articles at CP in comparison with RW. And it is not much of a surprise, as a much smaller group of active editors has to take care of ten times the pages.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the untouched articles have simply reached such a high level of informational quality that they don't need any tweaking. Why mess with perfection?--WJThomas (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They have ten times as many mainspace articles as us? Really? Of course, most of their "debates", "essays", "conundrums", and "masturbations" are in the mainspace due to technical incompetence. ħuman 03:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that all Andy's edumakshunal courses and student homework are also in Mainspace. It can't all be technical incompetence as they managed to create a bunch of other namespaces for the various competitions which still fester in a dusty corner. In this instance I think it is mostly managerial incompetence. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can always see this in the "Reverted to last version by _____" after they get hit by a vandal wave against random pages -- it usually turns up some really old-timers who haven't been there in years. --MarkGall (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we asking for them to make a bot to scrub articles or have we excluded bot edits already? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps the untouched articles..: No doubt, that is Andy's line of reasoning. (For quite a while, Andy's last action of the day was to make a minor improvement at some random article, no doubt using cp:Special:Random. Nowadays his approach to his wiki seems to be inspired by Schrödinger's cat: An article is perfect as long as I don't look at it...).
• They have ten times as..: and even there "debates", "essays", "conundrums", and "masturbations" get stale.
• You can always see: Indeed, it is always nice to see a well-known name again!
• Are we asking for..: I could have excluded bot-edits (and I may do so in the future). But given that their only working bot is EdBot that seemed moot at this point.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The reality is even worse, since a lot of those last edits will be reversions of vandalism (or unwanted improvements and corrections, which are treated the same), to versions that are months or years older.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, an article no one has ever looked at has no known problems. In this sense most of CP's articles are in fact perfect. Hateboy (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They have an "EdBot"? What does it do, make pointless stubs at a super-human rate? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like all EdBot does is assign categories. It also did a mass reversal of edits by HarryY. That said, its edits on 21 Aug were the first since Dec 2008, so clearly user188 doesn't like using it. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 11:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of The Greatest User WP Ever Had, isn't he cute when he's passive-aggressive? --Kels (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. What a moron. He could make a user sub page explaining why he can't edit UC talk pages and answer the automated notices with it. Instead of whining randomly. ħuman 02:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeds

Meant to write about this earlier, but forgot. I think that edit^img alone is a perfect example of just how CP has given up any pretense at being encyclopaedic and has instead become a self-referential blog. If anybody was actually using CP as a source, the fact that hordes of Leeds residents (at least it wasn't Bradford - that would be a muslin conspiracy) have allegedly "vandalised" CP is of no relevance at all, except for the butthurt morons, lurking within its walls. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt was clearly frustrated and decided to vent it, in his typically childish manner, by editing encyclopedic content to adopt his petulant point of view. It happens from time to time on WP, but the difference is that someone at WP will clean it up and the user will regret his lapse in keeping a cool head. Neither of those will happen at CP. And that fact that every other sysop at CP saw the edit, and did nothing about it, is damning evidence that they just don't give a shit. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's somehow comforting when the people you despise come out with such blatant racialist shit that it confirms that you were right all along to despise them. A sort of "Surely they can't be that bad - oh yes they are." Jack Hughes (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone in the UK who reads it knows it's bollocks anyway - we all know that people from Leeds don't have the internet. SJ ^Debaser 12:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye th' do, Josh. It's called t'Ceefax. PS. There's nothing 'racist' about Pratty's edit, Jack, it's just stupid. What I do particularly like about stuff like this is that if any new editor had added it, it would have been immediately reverted as parody (or 'vandalism' as they like to call everything now), but when a sysop does it it becomes encyclopaedic. I suppose most of Ken's

shit falls in to this category... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote - "Despite the influx of Muslim people from all over the UK, Leeds citizens have lost none of their reputation for friendliness and hospitality except if you're Christian." (My emphasis). That's not just stupid, it's racist stupid implying that Muslims are unfriendly. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So Leeds is full of people who think CP and what they stand for are a load of garbage? It sounds like a pretty nice place, actually. Corry (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 2)Exactly, DS! Ken creates drivel, with the excuse "it attracts web traffic" - fine. Anybody else tries that - blocked for eternity. Same with pop culture - create an anime article - delted/blocked... unless you're Bad Touch Poor, then you can write about "loved starved Japanese schoolgirls" with impunity - as evidenced by Karajou reverting^img this^img edit. So nice to have a "one rule for us / another rule for everybody else" rule. Oh, wait, there is no "everybody else" left. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, "muslim" isn't a race, Jack. Therefore is statement isn't racist. Prattster even said "from all over the UK" (which is bizarre, as I'd imagine that the influx has been predominantly from Pakistan and Bangladesh) so you can't even call it xenophobic. When people (from either side of the political spectrum) scream "RACIST" at anything they don't like, it not only makes them look pathetic, but more importantly it massively degrades the meaning of the term. His edit was religionist, but not racist. And to be honest, I find different religions bickering and having a go at each other quite amusing. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the word people are struggling to find here is bigot.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Reminds me of a story I heard once about a football game between mp's and journo's from the correct and beautiful side of the penines and mp's from Yorkshire. One player went in rather hard on an oppo player to be met with the words 'hold on, the war of the roses has been over for a long time'. 5 minutes later said person was launched skywards by someone who, as the bloke landed, simply stated 'Not round ere it asnt'. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to know who these other vandals in Leeds are. Anyone else? ^EXTERMINATE 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why has this^img been allowed to stay on the talk page? Webbtje (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The best part for me was that after foaming at the mouth with liberal values, he leaves "Leeds is famous for being Barbara Taylor Bradford's birthplace." tacked on at the end of the paragraph. I didn't know who that is, but according to some POV Wikipedia editor, she is "one of the world's most beloved storytellers." I'm too lazy to look from where Trashbags plagiarized the Leeds article^img. --Leotardo (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you read that version of the article in full but a notable excision^img was made about a month later which explains the talk page comment. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Was it Trashbat who created the famous Hebden Bridge article over there? 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I presume you remember that because of the dyke reference. Talking of which, there is a longstanding pun on CP about "dykes on bikes" which the sysops have yet to discover. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oi! Hebden Bidge was one of mine, in pre-Bugler times, thanks very much (though not the dykes ref. I'm terribly PC). Fretfulporpentine (don't know how to do tildes on a MacBook) 22:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(It's Alt+n, but we also have a handy button at the top of the edit box for that) --Sid (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Miracles

So I see Andy has been called on his writing off miracles as science.^img Is it just me, or does his answer actually discount the miracles as being miraculous?

miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis

In other words, Jesus actually used quantum mechanics to turn water into wine, but to the unwashed masses it seemed like a miracle. So, Andy's finally now reached the point where even the basic tenats of Christianity no longer fit his world view. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 11:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is still some codswallop to call on, though. If that's his explanation, then all supposed 'miracles' in the Bible are 'signs' of the underlying reality. So the fact that Jesus came back from the dead.... is that foreshadowing the eventual scientific discovery of reanimation? Whoever is running that sock needs to squeeze the inevitably hilarious answer out of him. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy would be willing to use "science" to explain away different miracles of saints. -Lardashe

It's funny how Andy is probably the most prolific heretic I've encountered on the net. I don't think he's ever wasted just one thought about what would happen to him if the world were actually run according to his crazy theocratic notions. Röstigraben (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole "coming back from the dead" thing actually came up on the talk page? And I think that yes, Andy went "...why not?" about this not being supernatural. But I'd have to check the archives to verify later - my memory is very fuzzy there, so I may be wrong. --Sid (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"No physical law, for example, proves that rising from the dead is impossible."^img --Sid (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sad, sad Andru: The sad thing about miracles and Andru is that science (or history or any other field) would be invoked if it confirmed a miracle, but dismissed if it either cannot confirm a miracle or downright deflates one. Either Dawkins or Hitchens pointed out that if science CONFIRMED the power of prayer, it would be trumpeted to high heaven (sic), but since studies so far have shown that prayer power is nil or even negative so far, then the loonies say that science must be wrong. And, of course, science can always be forced to fit anything. Witness quantum tunneling being used by Jesus etc. Jimaginator (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's well into self-parody terrority here^img:

Closemindedness against the Bible has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years.... Jesus's calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the quantum mechanical wave function upon observation.

Somebody else WIGO it cuz I'm really at a lost for words. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Leprosy is a dumbass example, since Yeshua knew He was going to die soon anyway of painful wounds, so had no worries of His fingers falling off... ħuman 02:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, ooh, I want to help! Can't edit there, here is "close enough" though. "Cursing the fig tree ... I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly." Yeshua invented glyphosate (RoundUp™)!!! ħuman 02:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I never knew about this fig tree business before today. That has to be the dumbest miracle I've ever heard of -- Jesus is craving some figs, but they're out of season, so he kills the first fig tree he finds with magic? Of course this still makes more sense than the "discussion" on Talk:Foreknowledge. --MarkGall (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Job queue

I see the stats page lists "Job queue length - 2." Job queue being "designed to hold many short tasks using batch processing." Any ideas what this could be? --Ψ GremlinPraat! 13:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Usually the job queue backs up when you edit a high use template. - π 13:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, as evidenced by Ken's diddling around on MPR. Thx! --Ψ GremlinPrata! 13:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be the way keeps reverting himself on one of his essay. - π 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And talking of templates, Johnny X-Ray has put the Conservatism template on the bottom of the main page. Not that anyone will ever find it down there though. He might as well add the Liberal Traits template as well given the number of times LIBERAL is slapped on MPL & MPR. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

P.S. I like how the MainPage has Category:Templates at the bottom. Doh. Somebody's wiki-fu is obviously not up to scratch, eh, TK^img. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}14:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just another day's work for TightKnickers in making CP look as stupid as possible. Maybe he should add the template to MPR and MPL at the same time. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait...the main page has a bottom? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Where do you think all the shit comes from? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious if you have to use the word shit? Or is "bottom" referring to some body part I have yet to be aware of? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

'Back bottom' or 'front bottom'? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, this isn't a discussion of Shakespeare's comedies? --Kels (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Creepy

Cryptic message - Operation Gatling Gun^img joins Operation Hell-there's-a-whole-bunch-of-us-operations-that-don't-exist-anywhere-outside-Ken's-mind. However, given the - unrelated, surprise, surprise - YouTube clip of Samurai being mowed down and the fact it's directed at "The Person Most Likely To Walk Into A Fastfood Restaurant Carrying A Small Arsenal" and it takes on a creepy symbolism. Has Ken decided to do more than kill atheism on teh innertubes? (and yes, Ken, somebody is giving you some attention again. Bet that makes you warm and tingly between your legs, hey?) --Ψ GremlinHable! 16:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Has Ken even watched that clip? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

ConservaMath Medal

This isn't really news, but the "ConservaMath Medal" went nowhere. I only point it out because this piece of stupidity generated such idiotic discussions; time wasted that could have been used--yeah, right--building an "encyclopedia". I just wanted to gloat over what failures they are, and how enjoyable are these moribund testimonies to their stupidity. --Leotardo (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they should only give the medal of Geo.plrd designs it. Corry (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Veterans Day

Is it just me or did CP completely miss veterans day on the MPR (or anywhere else)? I forgot about it too and ended up driving to school, parking in an empty parking lot, walking to my lecture hall and wondering where everyone was. As a drug using flag burning liberal this is excusable, but for CP to completely ignore a holiday honoring veterans is pretty surprising. --Have Blue (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure that I saw TK covering it on the main page. *checks* Yep, on MPL.^img Andy just removed it quickly^img once the day was over. --Sid (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised they didn't jump on the Google Veteran's Day logo is Muslim conspiracy bandwagon. --Leotardo (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All that "crescent moon is Muslim" crap, but I remember a 'boot on the other foot' situation when I worked in Jordan during the late 70s - they brought out some new banknotes with a partly geometric design reminiscent of some Islamic architecture, unfortunately it was in the shape of 6-pointed stars which some people claimed was Jewish, even though they were not designed as overlapping triangles like the Star of David. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Jpatt didn't post this on MPR. --Sid (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What a fat load of crazy. Who else is crazy? This lady. I love it when people say "I'm not prejudiced" between n-bombs. Corry (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh my: "must kill Google to honor America" 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of all the people who live near him, I really hope that JP is an incredibly deep cover parodist. Corry (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Except he's not. And he's armed. 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Did that logo run worldwide, or was it country-specific? ħuman 01:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt an American flag logo would resonate that well with Canadians. Well, not counting Conservative Party members. --Kels (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it was America-specific since it was our Veteran's Day, and the Canadians, French, etc. wouldn't care about it (and might find it culturally imperialistic). --Leotardo (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

November 11 is Remembrance Day in Canada, which is essentially the same thing but without the shopping frenzy. "The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month", "Lest we forget", poppies and so forth. --Kels (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Shopping frenzy? Everything here is closed on 11/11. Not sure where you got that. ħuman 04:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Shopping frenzy starts the day after (the day when everything is closed). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In unpatriotic New York City, nothing is closed on Veteran's Day. --Leotardo (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to type what everybody knows, "Black Friday" in the US is the day after Thanksgiving. There are no holydaze between then and Xmas, and it is typically the biggest retail sales day of the year (since everybody with a decent job has the day off, etc.). I suppose with the Xmas season now starting somewhere around Labor Day, Veteran's Day could be a big shopping day.... wewll, with the economy the way it is these days, any consumer activity is probably a good thing... ħuman 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Leo, while most retail outlets were probably open, closed will be: any Federal office or operation, probably most or all state and local government offices, banks, and misc. others (I tried to call in to pay a phone bill, they had the day off!). A local hardware store was closed here. Holydaze like this one are very erratically honored. UPS worked, USPS didn't. ħuman 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right with that list, but I didn't notice any difference. With ATMs, I maybe walk into a bank three times a year for something. Nothing seemed closed in the financial district because the NYSE was open. --Leotardo (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If USPS was working, I would have had to go to bank to deposit two checks. Also I almost brought two packages to USPS to send to customers au Canada, but luckily Nutty had already whined to me about the PO being closed. So instead I thought of some veterans I have known, and some I haven't, and meditated on how a pacifist can honor the sacrifices of those who go to war. ħuman 00:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blasts from the past

Every now and again, I trawl through the SDG and TZB archives, looking for a good laugh. I'm rarely dissapointed, as evidenced by these gems from the SDG days. First up, we have Bad Touch Poor being a tad modest (SDG Level_1/New Folder/1a0a9d92f81ee391.html)

Not to lift myself up too high, but I have a hard-won reputation of being rational and fair. Liberals respect my rationality, even when they disagree on points at issue. Liberals also respect my fairness: I only block when I have a reason, and I'm magnanimous with granting clemency, forgiveness, second chances, etc.

I think they also respect the fact that it's very difficult to trick me or get anything past me. I have this pesky habit of demanding proof and evidence for everything!

They also like the fact that I am willing to be held to the same standards of scholarship that I expect of everyone else.

As the saying goes, "There are no words..."

Then - and this blew my mind - an actual discussion about whether or not some editors should be blocked. Karajou's reply is pure gold - where have those days gone? (SDG Level_1/New Folder/0fa51b44d51b613a.html}

Andy: I'd be reluctant to block too many liberals at once, because we want to keep some debate. Brian has suggested blocking all of these: Middle Man, Wikinterpreter, Jrssr5, JLindon. I'd don't know if there is enough evidence to block them. Though all seem to be liberal, some of them make helpful comments or edits.

Karajou: In the case for the blocks there would have to be a unanimous consensus first, followed by final approval, etc etc, which is why I wouldn't act on it myself.

(my emphasis)

I guess the "block by approval only method didn't last long. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 09:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This *is* hysterical. Were they ever actually like this, or were their words just the usual liberal deceit? It would add some humanity to them if they had started out like this, but just got embittered by vandalism, ridicule, untreated Syphilis kicking in, etc. --Leotardo (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they thought they were. For a few months in early 2007. Then TeamKiller pointed out to Andy that the evil liberals were wasting all his time with talk, talk, talk, and it was only three slippery steps from there to blocking all new registrations, which Andy seems to have been perfectly happy with. Problem solved. ħuman 00:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SamHB

Got to hand it to the man, he clearly has a thing for punishment. Andy's welcomed him back but it's hardly an auspicious start.^img "Hi, I'd back to edit, but please restore 'Compass and Straightedge' so I can fix it." Andy (ever the manager) "Er... I didn't delete it. Please work on something else." Given that Ed "improved" the maths category again, I feel Sam is on another hiding to nothing. --Ψ Gremlin講話 13:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

An (ex?)-Conservapedian at my university?

Through the various email exchanges and all that and somewhat of an overlap in interests (finance in particular) my shocking truth for the day is that apparently the CPian that I'd been emailing with, tzoran (Tyler Zoran) attends my university in Chicago and is actually in one of my MSF courses. Should I be disturbed that my RW/CP life is starting to overlap with my university life? :P ghazi alizm, ^comments? 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the rabbit hole. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I used to admin a DoD (day of defeat, a Half Life mod) server ages ago, and one night I got into this huge argument with someone who had become a semi-regular on the server and ended up banning him (because he went mad and started breaking all kinds of server rules, not because we'd had an argument). Then I went into college the next day and the guy was in my damn class, talking to his friend about this asshole admin who banned him for no reason. It is incredibly creepy, so yes. I can understand the feeling, Ghazia. X Stickman (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Small world, sometimes, it seems. More news on this later; I don't know too much about him personally or as a user of CP, but I can't imagine someone who's actually enough of a maniac to be there can possibly be constructive down here in our normal little reality, what with all its liberal biases. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

CP's bear

It's not often I go to CP's front page but I just had a gander and there's a picture of a grizzly bear with the caption:

Biblical scientific foreknowledge adds a new insight: the possibility of quantum tunneling was illustrated nearly 2000 years before scientists discovered it.

What, pray tell, the fuck is that about? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, without looking I can say that the quantum tunnelling is something about Jesus appearing inside a locked room (yeah, cause that's a totally accurate description of the phenomenon, Professor Schlafly) while the grizzly may be related to the thing on WIGO:Clogs about culling them all because they've killed someone (and defending the bears is a LIEberal thing to do). ^postate 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And the Bears are a sports team from Chicago, which is a liberal bastion that spawns numerous community organizers, so of course defending the bears or the Bears is a liberal thing to do. Hmmm, I tried, but I just can't. I'm just not on the same level as Andrew Schlafly so these conservative insights are hard to think up! ghazi alizm, ^comments? 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's tied to one of Ken's

latest "essays" on atheism, something about the supposed question "if atheists are smarter then the average bear" (its clever because it's Yogi Bear!).  The essay is a rehash of his previous six or seven essays, same thoughts, same logical fallacies, and same word salad, just the paragraphs and pictures have been moved around. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For some reason every time I read some recent mention of the bears and CP I can't help but hear the music from the Blue Oyster play in my head. --Tygrehart 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's Bjork turning into a bear in this video,
Bjork-hunter videoclip (long)(HQ)Civic Cat (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

When did their Biblical scientific foreknowledge page turn into scientific explanations of biblical phenomenon? Mr. Swift (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's view of conservatives as never-ending victims

I've been fascinated at how much the victimhood mentality is so pervasive with Andy. We saw it a lot during the election when he would report poll numbers from mainstream media sources and say they were "admitting" something. Like, 'Even Politico admits that a tsunami of Republicans is headed for the House' or 'Polls show Democrats headed for disaster, admits the liberal New York Times.' It was silly, the idea that they were 'admitting' something that they didn't want to, when poor poll numbers were being reported daily by the MM.

So there's a tidal wave of Republicans, they have the House, and they effectively had the Senate before the election, and even more so now. Obama has signaled he's willing to even concede on tax cuts for the rich, of all things. The Republicans in DC can't contain their hubris, no matter how they try. But don't let that stop Andy from blaming a minor drop in the stock market on 'Obama and liberals refuse to accept America's Election Day message'. As someone who works on Wall Street, I can assure all of you that the "why don't the liberals just get it?!" idea is not what caused a dip. I don't know if he's purposefully deceitful, or if he is just lost inside his own deluded half-brained head, where those damn liberals--who only maintain through deception and chicanery any shred of power--are the cause of all the world's ills. --Leotardo (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Did the DJIA lose more than it gained the previous week? ħuman 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple 2-part answer; Andy (and the others at CP) has a massive persecution complex, that allied with "everything liberals do is bad and the source of all my woes," as well as a deep-seated grudge against Obama and you get the pathetic whining shit that he is. --Ψ Gremlin講話 15:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not forgetting that the are also Christians a much stamped upon minority! 16:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy considers himself a conservative. He can't see why any other conservative would criticise him, because he's obviously such a good conservative. Therefore, any criticisms he gets must be from liberals (because liberals do nothing other than oppose conservatism). Unfortunately, Andy is a god damn idiot, so he gets criticised a *lot*, by everyone and everything. From his perspective, he must feel like an incredibly persecuted minority, that the libruls are everywhere and doing nothing but attacking good conservatives like him. He's just extrapolating that to conservatism as a whole. X Stickman (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember him coming up with "most liberals pretend to be conservative" to explain why conservatives criticized him, because it couldn't possibly be because he was a total idiot. Which led to some really bizarre concepts as there being a conservative majority, but most of them are liberals in disguise, but we should do conservative things because there's a conservative majority after all. --Kels (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll put money on the table that when both the court cases of recalling senators that he's representing loses, he'll put on MPR about liberal judicial activism. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The meme is spreading, I suppose. It used to be just Christians who were the poor put-upon oppressed majority. Now it's "conservatives" (whatever the hell that even means in USA today) as well? ħuman 00:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's martyrdom. The absolute central tenet to any fundie Christian belief isn't Jesus' life, it's his death, ultimately it's why fundies either ignore the teachings of the New Testament or seek to rewrite them. Andy's just one in a long line of "I'm Christian, therefore I follow Christ's example, therefore I'm a martyr, and if I'm not actually a martyr then I'll do everything in my power to behave like one." The simple fact is that fundies find it a lot easier to live a lie as a wannabe-Matyr, than actually follow the tenets that they claim to believe in of forgiveness, non-judgement, and blind charity.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

--Leotardo (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that fills in all the gaps in my post, thank you! ħuman 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? A martyr is supposed to die, right? So how would wannabe martyrs exist if none of those guys want to put their lives on the line? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Because actually dying for a cause would require accepting aspects of Christianity that they can't encompass. They want the martyr label (from their point of view that makes them uber-Christian) without the actual martyrdom. Hence wannabe-martyrs rather than actual martyrs.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically...yes. Martyrs are supposed to die for thier cause. However keep in mind fundies like Andy don't want to actually want to die, they want to suffer (or at least make it seem like they are suffering.) Used to be that was not hard to do. In some places (like the Middle East where Monotheism was born) food and water is scarce, the environment is hostile, and belief that your afterlife would be a paradise made dealing with these harsh realities easier.

Fast forward a couple millennia and to a new geographical location. You're a Fundamentalist Monotheist, you want to serve your god and emulate the life of your prophet. Problem is the world you live doesn't offer many opportunities for suffering, especially if you are from an upper middle to upper class household. Food is plentiful, you have access a good education and stable employment. Medical care for once life threatening ailments is plentiful and modern technology put information and entertainment at your fingertips. So how do you suffer? How do you show your god that you so deserve the riches he has promised you after you die?

Well you could give up all those comforts of life, living humbly and piously, but that's hard work. You could use the comforts you have to help and enrich the lives of those less fortunate than you, but that's also hard work. Then it hits you: you're also supposed to bring the word of your god to other people, whether they want it or not. That's tenant that doesn't take much effort and still keeps you in good with the almighty. Even better some of those you talk to will reject your word outright. Some of them even get hostile about it. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. See <insert deity of choice>? See how I try to do your works and receive nothing but insults and ridicule for it? See how I suffer? Surely I am worthy of you. Surely I am one of your chosen for it.

Folks like Andy and his ilk do not really know what suffering is, what real discrimination or intolerance feels like. They sit in their posh homes, living lives that would have made them kings (or gods) in another place and time, enjoying advantages once reserved for only the absolutely powerful, all the while wail and moan to the heavens about how hard their existence is. If their prophet came down tomorrow he would probably weep at how his words and image had been so perverted. --Tygrehart 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So... if you read books that means you're a Liberal

Very well, folks, this is it. Andy is a parodist.^img Hateboy (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No he is not, he is just an extremely narrow-minded person. - π 23:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If a sane person had written this, it would strike me as a moment of self-deprecation.Webbtje (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So apparently everyone in Laredo, like everyone everywhere else, buys their books on line now? Leaving no market for local bricks and mortar sellers? ħuman 23:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This was in the news back in January... a new bookstore has already opened. --MarkGall (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's that one, another used book store, a Spanish language book store (consider it's like 500 yards from Mexico I'd be surprised if there wasn't one, and a religious bookstore. And the comic shop. But yeah, other than that nobody there's ever going to be able to buy another book in their lives. 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I have trouble believing Andy is NOT an extremely dedicated parodist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Or an extremely predicated Diderotist. ħuman 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any medium of communication that he hasn't yet dismissed as liberal claptrap? Where does he think reliable information comes from, if even the Bible had to be rewritten? --TinOl (talk) ^{— Unsigned, by: 160.39.62.235 / talk / contribs} 01:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's been pretty thorough. He has essays about the liberal bias in cave paintings, Morse code and Incan knotted strings (sad that I have to point out I'm joking). --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

His insights, of course! ħuman 01:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘He can't even read online anyhow: he looked for "miracle" & couldn't find it^img; ten seconds: Assuming that's the biBull he means? 01:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's wigo-worthy, IMNSHO. Nice one! ħuman 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know it that's the book he's referring to: there's several similar titles, I believe. 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The New American Bible appears to be different from the New American Standard Bible. No idea how either the Judean People's Front or People's Front of Judea feel about them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just when I think Andy couldn't portray himself as being anymore idiotic, he manages to up the ante. Then again, books are full of those pesky fact things. Btw, who coined the 'don't read a book, write a book" crap on CP - Andy or SkaterBoi's Boy? --Ψ GremlinPraat! 09:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If they don't read what has been written, then how are they suppose to avoid plagiarism? Or is ripping off contents by some other people becomes some sort of conservative trait that I am not aware of? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that CP is plagiarism central, and that George W wasn't above a bit of plagiarism for his memoirs, one can only assume that plagiarism is indeed a conservative trait. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 10:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just more blatant anti-intellectualism. EddyP (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Koeckritz *loves* Sarah Palin

It figures that Terry, the Roman Catholic dolt, would find solace in the snowbilly grifter Sarah Palin. A moron for a moron. He even bigged this MPR schlock. --Leotardo (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a strictly non-sexual attraction. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Should it be Koeckritz? (check the diffs, I think a 'c' might be missing) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative learning from TK?

So Ken, in the course of perfecting his Summa Homosexualia, decided to shadowbox with an editor who was permablocked more than five months ago. Nothing unusual about that. However, as soon as Ken realized that he was fighting a ghost, he decided to reblock the guy^img, even reusing the original block comment. TK loves blocking people who have already been blocked, and I've seen other sysops do it as well, but Ken? Is this new behavior, or am I missing something? Perhaps the closed environment of CP is beginning to select for unusual mutations...a TK/Conservative hybrid would be as likely as any to survive there. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 06:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

When Ken quotes his own articles which quote other publications then we get get classic acute lexical constipation. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity theory

I see Johnny XRay is plumbing new depths, even by his standards. Seems Mcveigh wasn't a disaffected right-wing nutter. No, he was a pawn of Middle East terrorists.^img What is the "Trustworthy" encyclopaedia using as a source? A wing-nut blog, written by somebody called Pamela Geller, who isn't above using words such as "Jewpidity."

oh yes, and using ALL CAPS in your reference just makes you look like a hysterical moron... oh, wait... --Ψ GremlinTala! 09:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Geller is a prominent Jewish/pro-Israel blogger so although "Jewpidity" might sound anti-Jewish it's really an attack on more moderate and conciliatory Jews, she also uses the term "Jewicidal". Ironically she also refers to "Islamic antisemitism" when Arabs are themselves Semitic, but I guess that argument has been buried by the cruft of history. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Kenny boy...

...are you paying attention? Terry Koeckritz is trying to teach you something^img. == Iscariot (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In other news, I see Terrykins seems to be cleaning up CP's references to homosexuality. [1]^img [2]^img [3]^img [4]^img [5]^img [6]^img[7]^img

Whilst commendable, it's certainly a departure from CP's usual "let's call them every name under the sun policy" and I wonder what bought it on. Maybe a struggle with someone's inner conscience? Either way, how will Ken react to CP succumbing to the homosexual agenda and destroying Ken's soopah-seekrit plan to destroy homosexuality on the Internet? --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically, this is an ancient^img policy, but it was quickly tossed aside along with the no-gossip policy it's based on. I'm quite surprised about this sudden return to the roots, too. Guess we'll have to wait for the next SDG/TZB-style leak to figure out the full story... --Sid (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Though, re-reading the "new policy" (my brain's still fried from hours of studying), it's indeed different than the one I linked to (self-identify vs. primarily known). Very odd... --Sid (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hee! The Terry doth protest too much, methinks. 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Screen Caps

Don't forget that Capturebot will (presumably) be down for a bit, so if anything particularly stupid happens over at CP, don't forget to take a screen shot. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 13:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be alive again, unless people are doing them all manually? ħuman 01:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense

Andy sees himself as a provocateur. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: when charged with hubris, hide behind "provocateur." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it's got all kinds of applications. I'm not a hate filled bigot, I'm just being provocative. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"I just say what other people are thinking" - Ann Coulter, possibly paraphrased, "justifying" her blatant bigotry and hate speech. ħuman 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall Rush describing his own show on similar terms. So it's not unique to Andy by any means. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. It runs along the lines of "I said [epithet healthy people do not use] to make you think, not because I am a bigot!" ħuman 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, please learn to write English!

It took me a while to realise that Andy actually means "...300,000 churches and 13,000 McDonald's but 0 hospitals built by atheists." My grammar isn't wonderful, but I like to think I can avoid that level of ambiguity. By the way, does any one know if this little "fact" is at all true? --Old Fashioned Architect ^{— Unsigned, by: OldFashionedArchitect / talk / contribs} 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the minuscule proportion of atheists in this country, I am inclined to think it is, at least as far as big hospitals go. One could, of course, also point out the low proportion of our hospitals that were built by Jews, Muslims, or even Protestants. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time my great-aunt and great-uncle endowed a hospital wing in Toronto. They were very wealthy and very generous atheist Jews. This parable actually happened. 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The "Atheists don't build hospitals" argument is old, and some people here likely remember the consensus re: the truth of the claim better than I do. IMO, hospitals built by atheists likely exist, but they aren't going to scream it out to the world by calling them the "Richard Dawkins Materialism Hospital For People Who Don't Believe In God" or stuff like that. Besides, this entire thing is just part of Andy's justification for not doing shit himself: "I'm a Christian, and Christians build hospitals and give to charity! ...that's enough, right?" --Sid (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I think that somewhere in the Gospel of Schlafly there is a passage to the effect of, "Thou shalt not give a dime to the godless liberal Canadians, lest thou be damned to the outer darkness." Besides, if one allowed other countries in the tally, one would have to hand-wave away the large numbers of hospitals built by communists in the Second World. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

IIRC a user provided an example of a hospital built by an atheist, whereupon Ed stepped in and declared that one counterexample hardly disproved Andy's statement that atheists had built no hospitals. EddyP (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy also discounts atheist Bill Gates' philanthropies which, while not directly building hospitals, are very much related to health. (Though that's in the Third World, which Andy doesn't give a damn about anyway.)

Plus, aren't most hospitals today corporate-owned and have little relationship to churches beyond names and chaplains for patients who might desire spiritual comfort? They might have been founded by theists, but the connection to religion now is slim. MDB (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, is there no state built hospitals in the states? I thought the first amendment dissociates the government from religion, so it would result in all state-built hospitals being built by the atheist government. But then of course, that government is not religious thing is *still* open to interpretation by some nutjobs. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RE:OP, Andy rejects the liberal Harvard comma. The conservative comma separates independent clauses. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rejecting the Havard comma is mostly done in journalistic writing, which we are happy that Andy joins the lamestream media. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User 188 cops a ban

Ed's blocked for a day for breaching a topic ban. Naughty Ed! 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed: "Ironically, I am so great!" -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 08:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually on Ed's side here, I think blocking him was a bit of an overreaction. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by extreme stupidity. -- Nx / talk 08:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too, but if he's as clued up as he thinks he is he'd have steered clear of it anyway. User:Kitfoxxe seems to have been an accidental agent provocateur. 08:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned about POV-pushing and topic bans so many times though... asking doen't stop him, telling doesn't stop him... let him sulk on CP for a day and liveblog teen movies. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"my fellow contributors were begging me to write more" - yes Ed, because all you seem to produce is worthless stubs. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what happens when Ed gets slapped around on WP. He retreats to CP and finds someone to take his frustration out on. Oh? But what's this? CP has no editors left? Oh woe is Ed! ^{ONE / TALK} 10:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm kinda torn here. On the one hand, the block seems a bit overkill, even if it's just for a day. On the other hand, (IIRC) several people have sent such standard "I found your name in the article history and now started a discussion on X, could you give input?" messages to him, and each time he simply replied on his own talk page that he's topic-banned. This time he did the same, but then also wandered onto the off-limits talk page and practically tried to lure unsuspecting people into letting him edit again despite the ban, treating such a standard note as some sort of "Oh, Ed, please edit again on UC articles, we need you!". Sorry, but Ed either knows the proper channels to re-negotiate his ban, or he knows who to ask what are the proper channels. --Sid (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As the blocking admin said "to acknowledge a ban and then violate it three minutes later is unacceptable". If he'd just made his talk page post asking if he could edit, he'd have got away with a warning. The way he did it clearly looks like gaming the system. He even apologised for doing it on his talk page. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ironically, in the old days I was considered a model of neutrality..." You gotta admit, the man knows how to make people laugh. --Kels (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic bans are stupid and bring question on Wikipedia's alleged claim of neutrality. If Wikipedia is not going to have its admins vetted, and there have been several cases of admins lying about who they really are, it has no moral authority to say who is or who is not qualified to edit an article. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You're clinging to common misconceptions about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. The policy simply states that the subjective load (emotional, political, popularity) of any specific fact has no relevance to whether or not that fact can be included to an encyclopedia article; the only thing that matters is that the fact is published in a reliable source. If an editor cannot abide by sourcing requirements in a situation where those reliable sources are absolutely needed, then yes, it's probably better that that editor doesn't contribute material that cannot be used to improve the article. That's the bottom line: Article quality can only be improved if people agree to stick to the same standard, and it's easier to develop standards for quality of encyclopaedia articles than quality of people. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)