Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive207
Help me out here.[edit]
because Roger's editimg makes no sense. "hyphen American" is a "best new" conservative term. Seemingly because Republican Pres Teddy Roosevelt said "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American." So, just so all you African-, Hispanic- and Irish-Americans know, in CP's eyes, you're not good Americans.
Or is Roger having a bit of fun at Andy's blog's expense? It's so hard to tell these days. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a typical xenophobic swipe at "liberal multiculturalism", especially after reading a longer extract from Teddy's speech (see WP:Hyphenated American). TL;DR: if you're gonna live in America, you have to conform to American cultural norms & not maintain your own cultural identity. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
In the Theodore Roosevelt CP article under "Conservative or Liberal?" they (whoever) say that Roosevelt meant "hyphenated American" to be "people with divided loyalty in wartime". For a page about words it would have been more enlightening to include the def and not just the quote. The -American thing as it dealt with multiculturalism was an invention of the late 20th Century (I thought). --Leotardo (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget that this is the guy who thinks the native Americans stood aside willingly to allow the European immigrants to take over their land. 14:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, true. Between his "the Trail of Tears wasn't genocide" and "it's not rape, it's a communication problem" he really does come across as far more reprehensible than Andy. Andy is just terminally stupid, Roger is actually a vile human being. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 14:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
At the risk, as so often, of going off-topic, there's no reason why anyone no matter their surname shouldn't be against multiculturalism because it's such a broad term. Sure, multiculturalism can mean your kid makes cute things at school for Chinese New Year, learns the symbolism of the passover meal, knows roughly which direction Mecca is, and generally has a broader view of the world and its people. But it can also mean, not to put too fine a point on it, apartheid. It is possible to live alongside people who have a different cultural background, without living under different laws, drinking from separate water fountains. It is possible to grok the language of your ancestors without being illiterate in the land where you live, or unable to even ask a stranger for help. Failed multicultural experiments look like somebody just took two separate cultures, and geographically overlaid them. We should not accept, still less encourage, this approach even if people promise that it's just what they need, because it's so politically divisive. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow. That's not even wrong. Either you have no idea what apartheid was, or you're being deliberately deceitful. Apartheid was all about subjecting another race, and their culture, to the whims of another - in this case a culture that believed a group of white people had a god-given right to be there and to treat the interloping natives as they liked. There was nothing multi-cultural about it - hence the '76 riots, when black students were forced to learn in Afrikaans. It wasn't even that the two cultures existed side-by-side, they were forbidden from even crossing over culturally. And the surnames refers to the fact that they're of European extract and thus genetically, they're multi-cultural, whether they like it or not. --Ψ GremlinTala! 17:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apartheid is an Afrikaans word that means separateness.I understood the use above to mean just that and not the political system known as apartheid. Different ethnicities living in the same country but never mixing because they kept themselves apart from one another. It never occured to me to see the use of apartheid above as a trivialisation of the political system. Auld Nick (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, I can see your mistake. The word "apartheid", although generally described as meaning "seperateness," doesn't. You wouldn't use it in day-to-day conversation, such as "Hulle het geskei weens hul apartheid" (they divorced because of their separateness). You would use something like "afsonderlikheid" or "afskeiheid." The only connotation of the word "apartheid" is to the political system. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 09:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting - language changes because of historical events. Going off topic slightly - what about, say, lebensraum? Would people build a new bedroom on their house because they need lebensraum or would they use a different word these days? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, in this case, it's not that the language has changed. The word 'apartheid' never existed at all in the lexicon, until the National party coined it in the 30s and 40s when they formalised the separate development that had existed since colonisation in the 1600s. It was coined to describe the policy. I have no idea what the history of lebenraum is. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 10:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. My knowledge of Afrikaans begins and end with the word "boet", which I learned through working with a stupidly-large number of Saffers over the years. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Die plessier was alles myne gewees. I'm surprised 'boet' is all you picked up, most people absorb 'yislaaik!'. However, next time you're around Saffas, just say, 'Ek is 'n fokken Sout-piel and jy is 'n dom doos.' You'll get on *ahem* famously. --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I live in the UK I've just recently picked picked up the word doos and my 80 year old father, JBurg resident, was mildly amused that I knew it. Let's just say that assfly is a major doos.Oldusgitus (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, in both English and Spanish I have seen the word "apartheid" being used in the general sense Nick describes (sometimes as rhetorical hyperbole, but not always, and referring to not only ethnic but also social or economic "separation"), very much like the word "ghetto" acquired in various languages a more general meaning alongside its restricted original Venetian one. More often than not I end up wishing the speaker/writer had avoided the temptation to use the term. In any case, I interpreted 82.69.171.94's use of it in the same way Nick did. As for Lebensraum, in German it's a common word in everyday use meaning "living space, living room, breathing space, habitat". It was never a solely political (or Nazi-specific) term in the sense that "apartheid" or "ghetto" were when coined.--Xyr (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Die plessier was alles myne gewees. I'm surprised 'boet' is all you picked up, most people absorb 'yislaaik!'. However, next time you're around Saffas, just say, 'Ek is 'n fokken Sout-piel and jy is 'n dom doos.' You'll get on *ahem* famously. --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. My knowledge of Afrikaans begins and end with the word "boet", which I learned through working with a stupidly-large number of Saffers over the years. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, in this case, it's not that the language has changed. The word 'apartheid' never existed at all in the lexicon, until the National party coined it in the 30s and 40s when they formalised the separate development that had existed since colonisation in the 1600s. It was coined to describe the policy. I have no idea what the history of lebenraum is. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 10:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting - language changes because of historical events. Going off topic slightly - what about, say, lebensraum? Would people build a new bedroom on their house because they need lebensraum or would they use a different word these days? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, I can see your mistake. The word "apartheid", although generally described as meaning "seperateness," doesn't. You wouldn't use it in day-to-day conversation, such as "Hulle het geskei weens hul apartheid" (they divorced because of their separateness). You would use something like "afsonderlikheid" or "afskeiheid." The only connotation of the word "apartheid" is to the political system. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 09:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a child and teenager of the eighties. I can't think of a word that is more of a antonym of multi-culterism than apartheid.--
Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've never heard the word in any other context, & it's pretty clear the BoN above was referring to apartheid in its S.African sense, since his next comment was about "living under different laws, drinking from separate water fountains". & All of this has nothing to do with Roger's comments about hyphenated Americans. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 11:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've never heard the word in any other context, & it's pretty clear the BoN above was referring to apartheid in its S.African sense, since his next comment was about "living under different laws, drinking from separate water fountains". & All of this has nothing to do with Roger's comments about hyphenated Americans. Wëäŝëïöïď
- I'm a child and teenager of the eighties. I can't think of a word that is more of a antonym of multi-culterism than apartheid.--
- I understood him as talking about (and arguing against) "voluntary separation" in order to preserve cultural differences, such as the voluntary adoption of different legislation by people of different cultural backgrounds (like the ideas of introducing sharia courts in European Muslim communities who whish to have them, or that each ethnic group of Bolivia develop its own laws/judiciary, etc) and the "voluntary" (in the sense of not-legally-mandated) separation or ghettoization of immigrants & minorities. He cautioned about going a bit off-topic, but the issue remains that of "melting pot" vs. how much cultural heritage and differences can be preserved. --Xyr (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly Xyr. My concern is that multiculturalism is a half-step, like "integration" in the 1950s. It says "these other cultures exist" and I say "No, not other cultures, aspects of our one human culture". It's an improvement over "my culture" vs "everybody else is a barbarian", but it's not enough. So long as you try to neatly divide culture into boxes, and then associate people with those boxes, what you have is racism in a funny hat. It's pretty clear that some Americans believed "separate but equal" actually was possible. Fortunately the US Supreme Court was not among them. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I understood him as talking about (and arguing against) "voluntary separation" in order to preserve cultural differences, such as the voluntary adoption of different legislation by people of different cultural backgrounds (like the ideas of introducing sharia courts in European Muslim communities who whish to have them, or that each ethnic group of Bolivia develop its own laws/judiciary, etc) and the "voluntary" (in the sense of not-legally-mandated) separation or ghettoization of immigrants & minorities. He cautioned about going a bit off-topic, but the issue remains that of "melting pot" vs. how much cultural heritage and differences can be preserved. --Xyr (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Practicing What You Preach[edit]
It seems that some people don't mind spending all their time on talk, talk, talk when the inclination takes them, eh Terry? Only 5.7% article edits? Shame on you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, WHAT!? A CP sysop is NOT following they're own rules? The hell you say.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the surge of Andy's insights[edit]
Should the recent surge of Andy's insights and new grammatical difficulties/output error prompt an update for his quote generator? I would deem myself not skillful enough to touch it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is with the recent surge of 'insights'? Is Andy just giddy from the midterm results? Or has he stopped his meds? --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno, but he's poisoned that word for me now. I can't hear it without thinking of Mr Schlafly. 09:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno, but he's poisoned that word for me now. I can't hear it without thinking of Mr Schlafly. 09:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
interesting parody[edit]
"Willminator" has just postedimg about a story and asks how desperate atheists can get in trying to deconvert the faithful. IRL, the story is about two ministers who lost their faith, but continue to preach and convert. I suspect he's attempting to see which sysops aren't going to read the link, but comment anyway about those terrible atheists fraudsters. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- erm... what happened to "don't out obviously parody?" or is it a case of now that
my sockWillhemina has rights, he's safe from prosecution? DirtyPudenda certainly wasn't. Still not sure what his crime was. --Ψ GremlinFale! 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)- Sorry if I outed you. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's nothing a bit of licking... I mean kissing... TK's ass won't fix. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't think this proves that Willminator is a parodist. Really, how many times has one of the sysops misrepresented an article on MPR? It looks more like Willim here read the headline and not the article. Supports my theory that he's just a colossal idiot a la JPatt. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药，和那个不是医药。 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He's a total twat! (that's the Brit use of "twat" BTW) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My socks' conversations with him lead me to believe he's not that big of an idiot. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I had several email conversations with him: he's a total dick, take it from me. 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I never said he wasn't a total prick! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Psy - All DingoPenis did was create redirects from "Teabaggers" and "Teabagging" to the Tea Party Movement page. Terry Koeckritz deleted them then obviously went whining to Andy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- DP has confirmed that conversations with Andy are underway. Expect him to get edit rights back before December. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, all is well. Terry has read our analysisimg and delivered a rebuke. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is it normal for an exhibitionist to not explicitly acknowledge his audience? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He knows we know he's yanking our chains. To be fair, as a pathological contrarian with anyone not on the very short CP Approved List, Terry had to take that position with Wilma. Too bad he had to pander to this American Christian Conservative fiction by mentioning prayer. I otherwise agree with him. Stopped clock and all that.
20:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- On the bright side, we get to watch Will apologize and grovel at Terry's feet. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Send me an email when you post that bit, OC. 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Send me an email when you post that bit, OC.
- On the bright side, we get to watch Will apologize and grovel at Terry's feet. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He knows we know he's yanking our chains. To be fair, as a pathological contrarian with anyone not on the very short CP Approved List, Terry had to take that position with Wilma. Too bad he had to pander to this American Christian Conservative fiction by mentioning prayer. I otherwise agree with him. Stopped clock and all that.
- Is it normal for an exhibitionist to not explicitly acknowledge his audience? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Psy - All DingoPenis did was create redirects from "Teabaggers" and "Teabagging" to the Tea Party Movement page. Terry Koeckritz deleted them then obviously went whining to Andy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I never said he wasn't a total prick! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I had several email conversations with him: he's a total dick, take it from me. 18:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My socks' conversations with him lead me to believe he's not that big of an idiot. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He's a total twat! (that's the Brit use of "twat" BTW) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't think this proves that Willminator is a parodist. Really, how many times has one of the sysops misrepresented an article on MPR? It looks more like Willim here read the headline and not the article. Supports my theory that he's just a colossal idiot a la JPatt. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药，和那个不是医药。 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's nothing a bit of licking... I mean kissing... TK's ass won't fix. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I outed you. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Physics 101[edit]
Andy blows the commenter off completely with a total non sequitur: "...what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?" How is it "presumptively valid"??? The forces at that level are very different in scale and nature than at macroscopic levels. And wtf does an apple have to do with it, you moron? And ANSWER Brian Griffin's questions! ħuman
23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Link? Tetronian you're clueless 00:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tetronian: Link hereimg, please try to read the wigo page before asking (Physics 101 entry?).
- He shoots apples into orbit, ergo the forces that act upon the apple exerted by Earth's gravitational field will resemble planetary motion (until the apple got combusted by heat generated by air resistance anyways)
- It's "presumptively valid" because you can make some extremely complex model all the way to subatomic level to describe the motion (eventually it will be some research project somewhere); people usually don't do that because most of the stuff got balanced out anyways -- a waste of computational power. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, I looked for it in WIGOCP but somehow missed it. Thanks. Tetronian you're clueless 00:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, Tet. ħuman 01:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I guess Andy has never heard of wave-particle duality. sterile Virile 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He is aware of wave-particle duality -- he thinks that holds on large scales too. It's how Jesus walked on water. --MarkGall (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm amazed that Andy is prone to so much quantum woo - after all, he is an engineer, is he not?. Aren't they supposed to understand science and all that? Then again, I wouldn't call his relationship with mathematics anything close to "understanding." Tetronian you're clueless 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He may have been "exposed" to the "best education money can buy" (Princeton EE, Harvard Law), but that doesn't mean he learned any of it. Anyone know which fraternity he was in? ħuman 02:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My initial reaction is no one would want him in their fraternity, but then I remembered his family connections would guarantee him entry to one. - π 02:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Should we expect that Andy's vulnerability to woo is just another data point for the Salem Hypothesis? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- From my experience there are engineers who have a deep understanding of science and there are some who really, really don't. They can apply it well enough or are good with numbers, so they get by. Pretty much the same thing with doctors. However, Andy seems to be WAAAY out there even for an engineer who doesn't get how science works. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Human: How about Phi, Alpha, Iota, Lambda? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that's some fantastically funny maths joke, that you're going to have to explain to me. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 10:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- PH-A-I-L. I'm not clever enough to do maths jokes ;) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh - and fraternities tend to be named after sequences of Greek letters for some reason - at least they are on all the TV programs. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- PH-A-I-L. I'm not clever enough to do maths jokes ;) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that's some fantastically funny maths joke, that you're going to have to explain to me. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 10:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Human: How about Phi, Alpha, Iota, Lambda? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- From my experience there are engineers who have a deep understanding of science and there are some who really, really don't. They can apply it well enough or are good with numbers, so they get by. Pretty much the same thing with doctors. However, Andy seems to be WAAAY out there even for an engineer who doesn't get how science works. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Should we expect that Andy's vulnerability to woo is just another data point for the Salem Hypothesis? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My initial reaction is no one would want him in their fraternity, but then I remembered his family connections would guarantee him entry to one. - π 02:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He may have been "exposed" to the "best education money can buy" (Princeton EE, Harvard Law), but that doesn't mean he learned any of it. Anyone know which fraternity he was in? ħuman
- I'm amazed that Andy is prone to so much quantum woo - after all, he is an engineer, is he not?. Aren't they supposed to understand science and all that? Then again, I wouldn't call his relationship with mathematics anything close to "understanding." Tetronian you're clueless 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- He is aware of wave-particle duality -- he thinks that holds on large scales too. It's how Jesus walked on water. --MarkGall (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Remember the possibility that he doesn't believe any of this stuff. Rather he believes that the proletariat should believe it so that they keep the faith and vote right. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I guess Andy has never heard of wave-particle duality. sterile Virile 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, Tet. ħuman
- Whoops, I looked for it in WIGOCP but somehow missed it. Thanks. Tetronian you're clueless 00:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sneaky[edit]
I was having a look at CP's stats page, to see their ever-dwindling number of editors, and was somewhat surprised to see it standing at 60. Then I noticed the time-frame has been changed from 'last 7 days' to 'last 91 days.' So now the death watch has been extended from weeks to months. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 10:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's down to a MW upgrade. Check out RW's own Special:Statistics. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I was fooled by this, too. Infact, there was a slight increase of editors - the last 91 days is just wrong, it should read last 7 days: they introduced a new feature: cp:Special:ActiveUsers. If you check this list, you'll see that all the editors have edited during the last seven days...
- larronsicut fur in nocte 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not all. this guy is on the list but last edited 8 days ago. Ditto Tzoran. Martyp 9 days ago. Looks a bit borked. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- When did CP upgrade? I looked at them a few days ago and I could have sworn it said 1.15.2. - π 11:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not all. this guy is on the list but last edited 8 days ago. Ditto Tzoran. Martyp 9 days ago. Looks a bit borked. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that the tool doesn't work that well in the moment. However, the number 60 fits best for last 7 days. As you can see, though the number is dropping, over the last 91 days, some three hundred editors commented on CP.
- larronsicut fur in nocte 11:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pi, not sure exactly. I noticed they got the "Legend" on RecentChanges maybe 10 days ago.
- LArron, now RW is also showing 91 days, are we having the same problem or is it accurate? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- 175: that sounds like the number of active users over the last seven days - so, the period hasn't changed (neither here nor at CP), but the label is wrong. larronsicut fur in nocte 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- We've got the new Special:ActiveUsers too - and the period is wrong there also. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed! larronsicut fur in nocte 14:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oops - didn't see that. I'll get back in my box. Sorry. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- nil desperandum! When I saw the glitch first at Conservapedia, I got all wound up :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, looks pretty wrong. Bollocks have Human and I done just 300 edits in 91 days! Maybe stick a 0 on the end.
d hominem 14:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, looks pretty wrong. Bollocks have Human and I done just 300 edits in 91 days! Maybe stick a 0 on the end.
- nil desperandum! When I saw the glitch first at Conservapedia, I got all wound up :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Back-scratching[edit]
hmmm... judging from Andy's source,img he's quite happy for Hurlbut to earn a dime or two by linkspamming him to MPR. Interesting circular publication going on tho - "ah, I'll use a story written by a CP-sysop elsewhere, to back up a story written on CP." --Ψ GremlinParlez! 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know we should expect Andy to be such a blinkered, pig-ignorant dipshit but the way he's going on about the Democrats doing all the gerrymandering is just incredible. Most authorities agree that the GOP will pick up 20-30 seats because they control most of the state legislatures and can gerrymander away to their hearts' content with no Dems to stop them. Of course, that's probably "making sure the voters are heard" in Andyland.
- OTOH, I read a good article the other day that basically said there are limits to what either side can do, because if you cheat too much to get 5 seats this time, you stand a good chance of losing all five next time the political makeup shifts a bit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder what Andy felt about the 2003(?) redistricting fight in Texas, which was so out of the ordinary, a bunch of Democratic Senators fled the state to Albuquerque to keep the legislature from having a quorum and voting on it. (If they remained in state, the Texas Rangers could have forced them to come back to the state house.)
- Willie Nelson sent a crate of whiskey to their hotel to encourage them. MDB (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I remember that. The Texas Dems took refuge here in Colorado for a bit if I recall correctly. Delay got in some serious trouble for trying to force the FAA to reveal their confidential flight plan. Essentially he said "I'm in congress damn it, break the law and tell me what I want to know!" SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 06:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Willie Nelson sent a crate of whiskey to their hotel to encourage them. MDB (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
And he's gone![edit]
Terrykins grabs DannyPudenda's scalpimg and CP loses yet another long-time editor. I wonder what "Violation of Commandments and / or CP Guidelines" he broke? --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- We all like to make fun of how gullible Andy is, but what's really funny is how easy it is to pull a fast one on TK. He knows what I mean. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- About time. I was expecting this to happen a month ago. Tetronian you're clueless 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think whoever was Daniel must have been getting bored, he was dropping a lot of assquotes lately. Is there anyone left to take the Bible course besides Andy? Daniel and LanceS have both gone down now, and TeacherEd is MIA. --MarkGall (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll pick up TeacherEd once Ace sends me the log in details. Btw, on the subject of socks long gone - was cp:user:Deborah ever confirmed as being one of us? Countdown to TK deleting user page... --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 21:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ace isn't running TeacherEd this week, Carleton from the forum on the other site is. Shoot me an email and I'll hook you up with him. 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well I was SharonS but I lost the password. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ace isn't running TeacherEd this week, Carleton from the forum on the other site is. Shoot me an email and I'll hook you up with him.
- I'll pick up TeacherEd once Ace sends me the log in details. Btw, on the subject of socks long gone - was cp:user:Deborah ever confirmed as being one of us? Countdown to TK deleting user page... --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 21:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think whoever was Daniel must have been getting bored, he was dropping a lot of assquotes lately. Is there anyone left to take the Bible course besides Andy? Daniel and LanceS have both gone down now, and TeacherEd is MIA. --MarkGall (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- About time. I was expecting this to happen a month ago. Tetronian you're clueless 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You are all so chicken. If I dropped my socks (and trousers) there'd be nothing to write about over there any more. All self-respecting RWians run at least one protective sysop and three or four (or more) undercover angels. ħuman 01:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uh-oh: You just created the perfect quote mine for anyone (cough, cough, RobS) who wants to argue that RW is trying to sabotage CP. Tetronian you're clueless 01:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Come The Ides, no one will care, since the internet will no longer work. No one cares whether or not I am TK, and why would I use my RobS sock to quote mine myself, except for humorous parodic reasons? ħuman 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the same reason I'm using my Human sock to argue with myself. Tetronian you're clueless 02:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. All this logging in and out is so tiresome, why can't us three just be one for now and forever? Damn you, son, you don't stand a ghost of a chance. ħuman 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit rate precludes the possibility of you being Conservative. That we can be pretty sure of. Although I've still never seen you both in the same room. Also, n00b fail, you don't need to log in and out again, just use
porn modeprivate tabs. Simples. It's how Trent and I can have coherent conversations despite both being sock puppets of Toast.d hominem 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit rate precludes the possibility of you being Conservative. That we can be pretty sure of. Although I've still never seen you both in the same room. Also, n00b fail, you don't need to log in and out again, just use
- Exactly. All this logging in and out is so tiresome, why can't us three just be one for now and forever? Damn you, son, you don't stand a ghost of a chance. ħuman
- For the same reason I'm using my Human sock to argue with myself. Tetronian you're clueless 02:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Come The Ides, no one will care, since the internet will no longer work. No one cares whether or not I am TK, and why would I use my RobS sock to quote mine myself, except for humorous parodic reasons? ħuman
CP/RW Watch[edit]
I'm guessing this CP/RWimg chat thing set up by TK in 2008 didn't last long? --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- As with everything TK related I am sure it was a complete failure. Much like the man himself. Aceword up 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that is his response to this. What is his obsession with finding out people's real name? - π 01:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to link to ED, so I'll just say PowerWord:Realname. They have more detail, but it is the idea that if you know someone's name you have power over them. It rarely really works.
An iron, yet caring fist 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Here you go Pi, form WP80 [2]. That's what he is trying. An iron, yet caring fist 01:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, people have been saying "get beyond CP" since 07. That's quite damming, really. d hominem 13:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think from the very beginning people realised there was no long term potential in tying RW to CP. Howevere, CP is still RW's biggest recruiting tool and we would be stupid to just lock everything about it down and act like it never existed. - π 14:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- RW has gone beyond CP even back in 2007. Just because this page and the WIGO is a big draw doesn't mean we aren't doing other things completely unrelated to that CessPit. ħuman 03:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- RW has gone beyond CP even back in 2007. Just because this page and the WIGO is a big draw doesn't mean we aren't doing other things completely unrelated to that CessPit. ħuman
- I think from the very beginning people realised there was no long term potential in tying RW to CP. Howevere, CP is still RW's biggest recruiting tool and we would be stupid to just lock everything about it down and act like it never existed. - π 14:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, people have been saying "get beyond CP" since 07. That's quite damming, really.
- Here you go Pi, form WP80 [2]. That's what he is trying.
Uh-oh[edit]
I bet Andy just felt a chill go down his spine. User wants to know when they'll upgrade to the new mediawiki s/ware.img I'm guessing by Andy's "what new features are there" the answer is, "When hell freezes over." --Ψ GremlinTal! 04:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Oops". User found out it was the latest version. Turns out CP keeps the old school skin on by default, not the new "Vector" one. – Nick Heer 09:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really, really hate that new "Vector" skin. Turned it off here as soon as I stopped vomiting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that's true, you're just used to monobook and have it in your head "what a wiki should look like". If Vector was the first skin and then it switched to monobook, I can almost guarantee you'd say the same thing again. d hominem 13:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see he's paid the price for bringing it up. --Ψ GremlinParla! 14:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I still have a few more socks at my disposal, but Terry's clamping down. Terry, I know you're reading this. Give up. – Nick Heer 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, no. With vector, the relative sizes of the text are just wrong. I tried turning it on again, and to get the text to a usable size I have to magnify the screen to about 120%, which makes all the images too large and the text in this edit box WAY too large. The headlines don't match the text either. Yes, I know I could tweak that with some custom CSS, but I shouldn't have to do so. I have no idea why MW decided to make this the default skin with a new release. Who thinks "Everybody on the Internet is used to it like this so let's change it and see what happens!" is a good idea? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see he's paid the price for bringing it up. --Ψ GremlinParla! 14:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that's true, you're just used to monobook and have it in your head "what a wiki should look like". If Vector was the first skin and then it switched to monobook, I can almost guarantee you'd say the same thing again.
- I really, really hate that new "Vector" skin. Turned it off here as soon as I stopped vomiting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, kudos to the CP webmaster for pulling off a stealth MW upgrade without breaking the database or diluting Andy's precious bodily fluids pagecounts! 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- On an unrelated note, WUNH just played "White Man in Hammersmith Palais"... 3:58 of pure bliss. Now it sounds like Lydon... DJ has a funny accent, too... ħuman 03:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Poor old Ed[edit]
I haven't seen this commented on but just prior to being sent to the naughty corner at WP, Ed made twoimg editsimg (replete with red links and a typo) then ran off to Andy looking for praise and recognition.img What a sad old man he is. Lily Inspirate me. 17:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see Andy gave him a pat on the head.img It's been a while since Ed's done this sort of thing. Must have that need for affirmation again. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh boy. Andy is not picking up the typo! How did he pick up all the other ones? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Best New Conservative Phrase: "We are hypocrites!"[edit]
The pictures WIGO is great. What a bunch of hypocritical dickheads you are at CP. As far as I am concerned, any encyclopedia which claims to be unbiased should find the best picture of a person they can, or a least a typical shot. ANYBODY can be made to look foolish in this digital age, even your precious Jesus. You guys suck! Jimaginator (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I clicked the up arrow 10 times. Thats how good it is. I've been bothered by the pictures they use for a while. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like how he just assumes there's a plethora of FREE or FAIR USE pictures of this person lying about, and that Wikipedia, the gestalt entity, chose the one that was least flattering. Good old "I Hate Women" Schlafly. --Yo-YoInvitation to a Beheading 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
theory of mind[edit]
Absolutely amazing... "books are liberal clap trap, cept my translation of the bible." and "The bible doesn't have miracles in it, they are signs that conform to physical laws." Andy is really pushing it these days, he isn't even close to mainstream conservative or even an extreme tea bagger. His arrogance really defies belief. He actually reminds me of some asperger/HF autistic people I've known in that he will come up with some kind of bizarre theory that only makes sense in his head. Then when people question it he will assume they are either misinformed or being dishonest. This seems like it could be related to impaired theory of mind in that he really can't fathom someone thinking differently then himself. Of course maybe we could chalk it all up to anti-intellectualism, but Andy has one of the best educations money can buy. — Unsigned, by: Have Blue / talk / contribs — Unsigned, by: Have Blue / talk / contribs 22:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Catholic Church, at least, recognizes that miracles are exceptions to natural law. To quote the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
“”A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life, e.g., Lazarus (John 11), the widow's son (1 Kings 17). [3]
|
ListenerXTalkerX 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you have to use the word "autistic", I don't think Andy is HF by any means. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Y'all should know me by now, Andrew Layton Schlafly, the originator of Conservapedia, the electric-conservative encyclopedia..." 86.131.218.123 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah the similarity is there. Both Andy and Chris Chandler are arrogant narcissists who have huge difficulty determining friend from foe. Both face organized trolling do to their ridiculous internet presence and both troll themselves better than anyone. Hell both are products of really really bad parenting too. Andy isn't a virgin (presumably), but that's about it. I might have to create a break down of the similarities. --Have Blue (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- What's a motor engineer got to do with it? 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- This Chris Chandler. (The concentrations of bizarreness, creepiness and unintended hilarity were so massive that the guy needed his own wiki.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Their attitudes to religion are similar as well, in that both have formed a worldview that suits them and then tried clumsily to fit Christian scripture around it. Might I suggest this article examining Mr Chandler's beliefs. 212.219.200.254 (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- This Chris Chandler. (The concentrations of bizarreness, creepiness and unintended hilarity were so massive that the guy needed his own wiki.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- What's a motor engineer got to do with it? 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah the similarity is there. Both Andy and Chris Chandler are arrogant narcissists who have huge difficulty determining friend from foe. Both face organized trolling do to their ridiculous internet presence and both troll themselves better than anyone. Hell both are products of really really bad parenting too. Andy isn't a virgin (presumably), but that's about it. I might have to create a break down of the similarities. --Have Blue (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Y'all should know me by now, Andrew Layton Schlafly, the originator of Conservapedia, the electric-conservative encyclopedia..." 86.131.218.123 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you have to use the word "autistic", I don't think Andy is HF by any means. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that Andy is a parodist[edit]
I mean, for all we know, this guy isn't really Phyllis Schlafly's son. It might not even be his real name (has he ever verified his real life identity)? This might just be a persona that he invented, and the whole site might just be a big joke to make conservatives look stupid. I don't see how anyone could be this delusional unless they're posting from a computer in a mental hospital or something.
I mean, he claims stuff such as that Germany did bad in the World Cup because of a "lack of religious homeschooling" and that "books (except the Bible) are liberal propaganda". RFLMAO! The only thing that makes me think he's for real is the fact that he invests so much time on the site - but I can't picture someone being this crazy and being able to function as a teacher in real life (let alone have law degrees from Yale and Harvard which he claims). --74.196.239.161 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, Andy is very real (or running the possibility of a major defamation case). He's appeared on Mother Schlafly's talk show and the very fact that she hasn't distanced herself from him, speaks wonders about just what an insane old bat she is. Then again, in her defense, she did describe Andy's pride and joy as "this... thing he has on the internet." Of course, we're still not 100% sure that Andy isn't taking the piss out of Mrs Martial-Rape-Is-Cool. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's tempting to believe that at times, but it seems massively unlikely. It's more realistic to view it as a corollary of the "martyrdom" section above: Germany cracks down on homskolling therefore any failure on Germany's part MUST be down to that; most books refuse to support Andy's brand of extreme wingnuttery therefore most books MUST be liberal. His level of paranoia is at clinically-dangerous levels. I feel sorry for his postman / milkman: walking up to his front door must mean taking your life into your hands. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd take that one step further. Given his hatred of vaccines; support for doctors who are at best quacks and at worst incompetent; lack of instruction on sex-education, insistence he "owns" his wife's body (based on his upbringing by Mother S); and subjecting his children to his own special brand of education, and living under his roof must mean taking your own well-being into your hands. Of course, having been brainwashed accordingly, little Phy and Andy Jnr can't see this. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 10:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- If he is a parodist, he's a phenomenally successful one. All of the other parodies of conservatism/fundamentalism sites (Landover Baptist, Blogs 4 Brownback, Sarah Palin) were found out or outed themselves within what, a year or so? Andy's kept it up for several years now, and has actually gotten media attention (generally incredulous, but still...) MDB (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- My guess is that he went completely nuts sometime after he finished law school. He may have always been a little weird, but for whatever reason his condition got worse and the insanity has gotten up to 11 in recent years. I find it really hard to believe that he could get a degree with how his mind currently operates. I know he got into some debates at talk.origins about 10 years ago. Someone should do some sort of psychological project and document his online descent into complete madness. (If he's a parodist he's an EXTREMELY dedicated one.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's just him realizing he's not where he things he should be in life -- he's having a mid-life crisis, and CP is his substitute for a sports car and trophy wife.
- I mean, he has a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and a law degree from Harvard. I understand that's a killer degree combination leading to a high paying job as a patent attorney. But then he basically fucked up some case when he worked for AT&T, so that badly limited his legal career. He's reduced to being an advocate for a crackpot medical association and representing tea party groups in cases that are quixotic at best.
- He's the son of a well-known conservative commentator, his family has money, elected office would have been a natural choice for him, but when he ran for the House, he came in sixth or so in the Republican primary. (Of course, he was running in Northern Virginia. Republicans can and do win there, but not hard core right wingers.)
- His fantasy of CP becoming a replacement for Wikipedia failed. It's only barely a resource for homeschoolers.
- Basically, ever since he finished Harvard law, his life has been a series of failures. All he really has produced are two kids. (Which is something. And they don't seem to be quite as nuts as him.)
- I think Jag above is just about right. We all say "Andy is fucking nuts" all the time, but I do believe he actually literally is mildly mentally ill (if I may use the shit out of adverbs for a moment). Of course, my diagnosis means nothing, but I imagine he has to have deteriorated over the years; it seems inconceivable that he could have functioned in an academic setting if his mind were always in the state it is now. Of course, this brings up the conundrum of us making fun of a mentally ill adult, in addition to a clearly mentally disabled one (By which, of course, I mean Ken). If they weren't such insufferable dickheads I might feel bad. DickTurpis (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some good assessments up there; my take is that much of what we witness from him is due to his being trapped in ever decreasing circles of paranoia and a persecution complex. One particular failure in his past must have triggered this; he needed something or someone to blame for it, and once he'd started down that route he kept it up, then it got to the point where he could no longer get out. This ties nicely in with the martyrdom issue, and explains why he thinks anything bad that happens (in his opinion) is due to atheism/evolution/public schools/relativity/liberalism etc etc et-fucking-cet. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll go as far as to take the roots back his days at Harvard. Something happened when Andy was on the HLR - and it involved Obama somehow. I have a feeling Andy was used to getting his way, family money & connections got him into Ivy league schools, onto HLR ect. Suddenly (and we have to assume Andy saw himself as conservative back then) his plans to run for pres are thwarted when the conservatives withdraw, in order to support somebody else (Silverman?) running against Obama. If only that affirmative-action caqndidate hadn't been there. Then he gets whupped by a bunch of RINOs in his House bid, and we're all set for a massive persecution complex. Especially after getting trounced on talk.origins. sadly, it's now that he's safly tucked away in his intellectual rabbit hole, where nobody can directly persecute his insane ideas, that the persecution complex has really blown up out of all proportion. Then again, what else would you expect, given the simpering sycophants he's surrounded himself with, constantly whispering 'conspiracy' in his ears. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 14:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's his wife I feel truly sorry for. At least the kids have been able to move away. Webbtje (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- What, his wife actually read CP? It's "Ignorance is bliss" if she didn't know what goes on at CP, I guess.[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can leave his wife out of things - she's certainly never shown up on CP and Andy never, and I mean never, mentions her. In fact - I think we've had this discussion - I don't think they've even been away on holiday for the past 4 years. There certainly hasn't been a day (maybe a couple) where Andy hasn't edited on CP. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 16:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- What, his wife actually read CP? It's "Ignorance is bliss" if she didn't know what goes on at CP, I guess.[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's his wife I feel truly sorry for. At least the kids have been able to move away. Webbtje (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll go as far as to take the roots back his days at Harvard. Something happened when Andy was on the HLR - and it involved Obama somehow. I have a feeling Andy was used to getting his way, family money & connections got him into Ivy league schools, onto HLR ect. Suddenly (and we have to assume Andy saw himself as conservative back then) his plans to run for pres are thwarted when the conservatives withdraw, in order to support somebody else (Silverman?) running against Obama. If only that affirmative-action caqndidate hadn't been there. Then he gets whupped by a bunch of RINOs in his House bid, and we're all set for a massive persecution complex. Especially after getting trounced on talk.origins. sadly, it's now that he's safly tucked away in his intellectual rabbit hole, where nobody can directly persecute his insane ideas, that the persecution complex has really blown up out of all proportion. Then again, what else would you expect, given the simpering sycophants he's surrounded himself with, constantly whispering 'conspiracy' in his ears. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 14:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some good assessments up there; my take is that much of what we witness from him is due to his being trapped in ever decreasing circles of paranoia and a persecution complex. One particular failure in his past must have triggered this; he needed something or someone to blame for it, and once he'd started down that route he kept it up, then it got to the point where he could no longer get out. This ties nicely in with the martyrdom issue, and explains why he thinks anything bad that happens (in his opinion) is due to atheism/evolution/public schools/relativity/liberalism etc etc et-fucking-cet. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I feel pretty comfortable saying that Andy, along with most of the CP sysops, would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. It would be easy to diagnose them since so much of their behavior and the way they think are documented at CP and RW. --Leotardo (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Back to Psy's comment, somewhere between HLR/Law school and the TO stuff, he "stopped believing" in evolution. That would be the key event to try to identify. Since then it's been all downhill. ħuman 19:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Back to Psy's comment, somewhere between HLR/Law school and the TO stuff, he "stopped believing" in evolution. That would be the key event to try to identify. Since then it's been all downhill. ħuman
Quantifying craziness[edit]
It might be fun to draw up a short timeline from 2006 to now, highlighting each year's additional dose of nuttiness from Andypants. The list below is a bit of the thumb-suck by me, so please feel free to correct the descent into insanity.
- 2006 - Homeschooling, prayer in classrooms, Evolution
- 2007 - Abortion & breast cancer, Bias in Wikipedia, FBI incident
- 2008 - Lenski, Obama is a Muslim
- 2009 - CBP, Conserative words,
- 2010 - Tory "landslide", liberal claptrap, (adding Relativity is a liberal plot; Biblical foreknowledge)
--Ψ GremlinSnakk! 14:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- A better one for 2010 would be the relativity debacle. Real first name and last initial (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- no no no, for 2010 is is hands-down the Bibbelist Scientific Foreknowledge crap. ONE / TALK 14:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- 2010 is a vintage year. Is the craziness growing geometrically? Real first name and last initial (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd submit that the CBP is the high point. That's the point where even conservatives realized he's nuts. MDB (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are the big public stunts (the CBP at Colbert, the blog-buzz about Lenski and Special Relativity as a liberal plot), and the more private moments (world cup, Conservative Words, FBI incident). The nuttier he gets, the more difficult it becomes to get the public interested in his current follies... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I think it's no longer "Son of Phylis Schlafly does something crazy" or "owner of conservative version of wikipedia makes dumb claim", it's now just "crazy fundamentalist weirdo does more dumb crazy shit" - which is obviously not as interesting. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's the ol' double-down betting strategy. "Well THAT one didn't come off, but if I make a claim that's TWICE as conservative, people will HAVE to take me seriously!" –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I think it's no longer "Son of Phylis Schlafly does something crazy" or "owner of conservative version of wikipedia makes dumb claim", it's now just "crazy fundamentalist weirdo does more dumb crazy shit" - which is obviously not as interesting. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are the big public stunts (the CBP at Colbert, the blog-buzz about Lenski and Special Relativity as a liberal plot), and the more private moments (world cup, Conservative Words, FBI incident). The nuttier he gets, the more difficult it becomes to get the public interested in his current follies... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd submit that the CBP is the high point. That's the point where even conservatives realized he's nuts. MDB (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- 2010 is a vintage year. Is the craziness growing geometrically? Real first name and last initial (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- no no no, for 2010 is is hands-down the Bibbelist Scientific Foreknowledge crap. ONE / TALK 14:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Andy waged war against relativity in usenet groups as early as 2001, I think. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You forgot about that stillborn adventure known as the Bible Retranslation Project. Somehow Andy failed to see that the more ambitious CBP would suffer the same fate. EddyP (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- That was fun watching Andy shout down people who could read Greek and Hebrew with references to obscure blogs and shouting "I'm right! I'm right!" At least he was more hands-off for the CBP, which led to the best of the
parodistspublic making a complete dog's breakfast of it. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)- Best of the parodists, sorta. I participated in the CBP and wasn't so much doing parody as actually translating from the Greek to the most stilted, unreadable, just absolutely awful English prose I could muster. That CBP was pure derp from the word go. How absolutely amazing that all but like 3 translators, none of whom lasted long, could even read Greek but were nonetheless eager to purge an already extremely high quality translation of liberal bias. It stands head and shoulders above everything else Andy has ever done, the magnum poopus that got him nearly all the attention he's gotten from the press in the last few years. And we mustn't forget CBP was a direct cause of the Douglas Moo letter. I wake up in the middle of the night wondering what Moo's response was that Andy never mentioned the incident again. So that with the relativity nonsense Andy and his brother have been on since the 90's makes 2010 a banner year. 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Best of the parodists, sorta. I participated in the CBP and wasn't so much doing parody as actually translating from the Greek to the most stilted, unreadable, just absolutely awful English prose I could muster. That CBP was pure derp from the word go. How absolutely amazing that all but like 3 translators, none of whom lasted long, could even read Greek but were nonetheless eager to purge an already extremely high quality translation of liberal bias. It stands head and shoulders above everything else Andy has ever done, the magnum poopus that got him nearly all the attention he's gotten from the press in the last few years. And we mustn't forget CBP was a direct cause of the Douglas Moo letter. I wake up in the middle of the night wondering what Moo's response was that Andy never mentioned the incident again. So that with the relativity nonsense Andy and his brother have been on since the 90's makes 2010 a banner year.
- That was fun watching Andy shout down people who could read Greek and Hebrew with references to obscure blogs and shouting "I'm right! I'm right!" At least he was more hands-off for the CBP, which led to the best of the
- I personally like that public schools are atheistic but things like public hospitals built by the government or corporations are somehow...religious/spiritual? There's no line of reasoning, it's only what he thinks and defines inside of his own head, regardless of any evidence or consistency. I mention in the previous section above that with all the evidence documented here and there, he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. --Leotardo (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know we always try and diagnose Andy, and someone always comes along with jibing about how we couldn't/shouldn't do that, but come on...that list fits him like a glove. My favorite is delusional disorder. Andy undoubtedly has many distinct delusions according to the symptoms. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's said we shouldn't diagnose Andy. Ken's a different matter - he seems more disturbed than anyone without the support network. Andy's got a long life ahead of him if longevity is an inheritable trait. His ma's 86 and his papa died at 84 (ish). 19:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Someone else concluded Paranoid Personality Disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder frequently coexists with PPD. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's said we shouldn't diagnose Andy. Ken's a different matter - he seems more disturbed than anyone without the support network. Andy's got a long life ahead of him if longevity is an inheritable trait. His ma's 86 and his papa died at 84 (ish). 19:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know we always try and diagnose Andy, and someone always comes along with jibing about how we couldn't/shouldn't do that, but come on...that list fits him like a glove. My favorite is delusional disorder. Andy undoubtedly has many distinct delusions according to the symptoms. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You know, given how my very first post here was myself wondering out loud if Andy is a parodist, it warms my heart to see the matter discussed to this very day. That said, I think he's in the mentally ill camp rather than that of an actual parodist. Although partially at this rate I hope he's a parodist because honestly... being Andy Schlafly has got to be one of the most possibly miserable existences out there. He's been trolled by everyone from Stephen Colbert to Richard Dawkins and is one of the laughingstocks of both the mainstream media and the internet, to say nothing of his own incredible failures in life since college. Photovoltaic Array (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The poor fucker is a laughing stock amongst his own; conservatives think he's an embarrassment, fundamentalist christians think he's a heretic. Fuck, I bet even Sarah bloody Palin would disassociate herself from him. I think we're doing a civic duty by keeping CP going; can you imagine what he'd be like if he didn't have his tiny bunch of sycophants around him? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- A bit late to the party, but here's my take: Andy's problem is that he never grew up. He's behaving like a spoiled brat, he's incredibly egocentric and has an enormously overblown notion of his own importance, he cannot tolerate any dissent or evidence that the world isn't what he wants it to be, he's self-righteous, petty and vindictive. All of these are traits that aren't uncommon in young children, especially when they've gotten lots of attention from their parents, but haven't interacted much with peers yet. Usually, socializing will do the trick, and it's very rare that a forty-ish adult still exhibits the same traits. Andy simply can't function in the world of adults, and instead of reevaluating his own beliefs, he chose to withdraw to his own little internet kingdom where he gets nothing but applause for his "insights". He's at least dimly aware that the rest of the world will never acknowledge him as the visionary conservative intellectual he thinks he is, and that's the source of his resentment. This picture says it all, really. Anyone who wants to examine the validity of old lady Schlafly's views on how families are supposed to work should look no further than how her own son turned out. Röstigraben (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's an interesting thought; I wonder what old mama Schlafly honestly thinks of how her son has turned out? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy has definitely got worse since NOTBK as has his low state of hyperneeding to be right. Lily Inspirate me. 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Re:DeltaStar is she really proud of any of her sons other than Bruce? One's an evil homosexual, ones a hillbilly divorcee, and the other is Andy. Anne seems like a decent person, judging from 2 minutes on her website, no clue of Liza. so at best 50% of her children are unpalatable to her. An iron, yet caring fist 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, I suppose how far she goes into it. Andy has two college degrees, lives in a nice house, is (presumably) happily married to a nice well-educated woman, has two seemingly wonderful children. Now, if she judges him, say, by his "impact", he'd fall lower, but she might not expect that of her children. Just that they make themselves a happy and reasonably successful way in the world. Remember, to the prank caller on her radio show, she said "I love all my children". ħuman 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dunno, I suppose how far she goes into it. Andy has two college degrees, lives in a nice house, is (presumably) happily married to a nice well-educated woman, has two seemingly wonderful children. Now, if she judges him, say, by his "impact", he'd fall lower, but she might not expect that of her children. Just that they make themselves a happy and reasonably successful way in the world. Remember, to the prank caller on her radio show, she said "I love all my children". ħuman
- Re:DeltaStar is she really proud of any of her sons other than Bruce? One's an evil homosexual, ones a hillbilly divorcee, and the other is Andy. Anne seems like a decent person, judging from 2 minutes on her website, no clue of Liza. so at best 50% of her children are unpalatable to her.
- Andy has definitely got worse since NOTBK as has his low state of hyperneeding to be right. Lily Inspirate me. 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's an interesting thought; I wonder what old mama Schlafly honestly thinks of how her son has turned out? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- A bit late to the party, but here's my take: Andy's problem is that he never grew up. He's behaving like a spoiled brat, he's incredibly egocentric and has an enormously overblown notion of his own importance, he cannot tolerate any dissent or evidence that the world isn't what he wants it to be, he's self-righteous, petty and vindictive. All of these are traits that aren't uncommon in young children, especially when they've gotten lots of attention from their parents, but haven't interacted much with peers yet. Usually, socializing will do the trick, and it's very rare that a forty-ish adult still exhibits the same traits. Andy simply can't function in the world of adults, and instead of reevaluating his own beliefs, he chose to withdraw to his own little internet kingdom where he gets nothing but applause for his "insights". He's at least dimly aware that the rest of the world will never acknowledge him as the visionary conservative intellectual he thinks he is, and that's the source of his resentment. This picture says it all, really. Anyone who wants to examine the validity of old lady Schlafly's views on how families are supposed to work should look no further than how her own son turned out. Röstigraben (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- The poor fucker is a laughing stock amongst his own; conservatives think he's an embarrassment, fundamentalist christians think he's a heretic. Fuck, I bet even Sarah bloody Palin would disassociate herself from him. I think we're doing a civic duty by keeping CP going; can you imagine what he'd be like if he didn't have his tiny bunch of sycophants around him? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What words has CP ruined for you?[edit]
Prompted by a Susanpost above I want to know: what words has CP ruined for you? As with Susan, I simply can't read the word "insight" without thinking of Andy. Acronyms also count: I deal with Contract Purchases at work - or CPs (luckily I don't encounter TKs). ONE / TALK 15:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Clueless. and anything with a CP in it. "open your mind" --Ψ GremlinSprich! 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Christian" - my family are Christians, and they're nothing like Andy and his idiotic beliefs. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the word "conservative" was a respectable term (even though I'm quite left-wing) before CONservapedia came along. Other than that, "machismo" was the one word they completely and utterly ruined for me. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 15:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Rewritten" or "Retranslated." I can't see either word now without wondering which bits of the original are too liberal that they have to go. Oh, and "Gentlemen." Can'r hear that now without shivering and going "Ugh".-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The name CP alone ruined mostly everything that taks the acronym of CP, like child porn, construction projects, ... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed on "Christian." I thought I was Christian, what with the praying and going to church and whatnot, but it turns out I'm an atheist because I trust the scientific method and don't think the earth was created after the pyramids were built. --TinOl (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Christian" - my family are Christians, and they're nothing like Andy and his idiotic beliefs. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Machismo wasn't ruined for me because most civilized folks don't consider that an admirable trait; however, it's now one word I totally identify with CP. Another term that is not in common usage so I only identify it with them is "Godspeed". --Leotardo (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- A mailing list that I'm on with a bunch of law students (now associates) was talking about some issues of free speech v child porn/fanfic. The abbreviation CP started being used, in phrases like "From what I know, cp is illegal because it harms the children involved, and they cannot consent to being involved." - Lardashe — Unsigned, by: 192.136.22.4 / talk / contribs 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Liberal. Here in the UK at least it is still a very descriptive term, but my CPing has devalued it to such an extent that it now means nothing to me. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- A mailing list that I'm on with a bunch of law students (now associates) was talking about some issues of free speech v child porn/fanfic. The abbreviation CP started being used, in phrases like "From what I know, cp is illegal because it harms the children involved, and they cannot consent to being involved." - Lardashe — Unsigned, by: 192.136.22.4 / talk / contribs 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
"Liberal", "Open Your Mind", and sometimes "Progressive". Thank Zeus some people in the world were liberals, had open minds, and were progressive, or millions of human beings would be slaves. I wish CPers actually knew what it means to "open your mind". "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." ---Oliver CromwellJimaginator (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Deceit" is another one that makes me laugh now when I hear it outside of CP-land. --MarkGall (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The big ones that it ruined for me are "machismo" and "deceit" - thankfully, it's not in everyday conversation that I hear those words. In addition, both "CP" and "TK" were ruined. I've seen my friends talking about child porn on Facebook (yep, I have good friends), and for a split second, I thought, "Oh! You guys check out Conservapedia too?" As for TK, just the other day, I saw a license plate that said TK, followed by some random numbers, and, well... ~SuperHamster Talk 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- "TK" made Dead Rising 2 a lot more entertaining. Other than that, I can't recall...CP's favorite phrases don't seem to come up very often. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I used to like toasted tea-cakes but I can't even bring myself to ask for them anymore and "vulva" is definitely tarnished since Ed got his hands on it. Lily Inspirate me. 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's ruined the GUI builder for my favorite scripting language. (Not that I've needed to write anything in Perl/Tk for over three years, mind you...) MDB (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Man, we should have an article on something like this: Words that get ruined by reading CP. (Which isn't child porn) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's ruined the GUI builder for my favorite scripting language. (Not that I've needed to write anything in Perl/Tk for over three years, mind you...) MDB (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I used to like toasted tea-cakes but I can't even bring myself to ask for them anymore and "vulva" is definitely tarnished since Ed got his hands on it. Lily Inspirate me. 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome[edit]
Um, Terry, just because JPatt created the account, doesn't mean you have to forge the welcome message from him.img And you've already deleted his talkpage. Looks like closing open registration isn't working. What next - flagged revisions? --Ψ GremlinHable! 05:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I guess he just "moved" Jpatt's welcome message from the user to the user talk page. Posting the welcome message on the user talk page and letting the user himself de-red his name if/when he likes is a Good Thing, of course. However, TK's been doing this for ages himself, even as recently as three weeks ago.img So it looks like he either changed his mind or somebody tapped his shoulder. --Sid (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Bias in Wikipedia #eleventy million[edit]
Andy's bleating about how WP is showing an unflattering picimg of a conservative moll. Of course, CP would neverimg doimg thatimg.
Bonus points for whoever can find that other hideous pic CP have of some female radio commentator (I think). Human and Jpratt still had words over using a more suitable pic. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, found it.img Actually, this is worth a WIGO. --Ψ GremlinParla! 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a particularly flattering photo, but try doing a Google Image search for her and see what comes up. Of course, in full "martyr" mode, Andy would rather moan about it than log on and change it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the photo my campus paper used of Ronald Reagan when I was there in the eighties. It was one that made it look like Ronnie was saying "oh shit!" MDB (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Liberals must censor flattering pics of conservatives from the public domain. Pretty hilarious. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would complain about someone not using the link to the revision (so the next time someone misuses it on the same page will get the old pic), but I am afraid of braking something else if I am to fix it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Liberals must censor flattering pics of conservatives from the public domain. Pretty hilarious. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the photo my campus paper used of Ronald Reagan when I was there in the eighties. It was one that made it look like Ronnie was saying "oh shit!" MDB (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness, it's difficult to find a flattering picture of Helen Thomas, at least a recent one. Perhaps the politest way to put it is "the years have not been kind to her". MDB (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- She's a writer, she doesn't have to be pretty. Just smart. ħuman 02:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- She's a writer, she doesn't have to be pretty. Just smart. ħuman
- This oneimg is my personal favorite.PACODOGwoof, bitches 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- If Andy was a noob who knew nothing about the copyright and Wikipedia, then you might consider the critique to be just uninformed. But he does know that Wikipedia is limited by copyright in what it may use, so this is just shameless liberal deceit by Andy. And pointless: who gives a shit about Sally Kern, a two-bit state legislator from a two-bit state? --Leotardo (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and let us not forget this little image which, yes, does appear in the Al Gore article. DickTurpis (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy doesn't care so much about Sally Kern as he does about any excuse, no matter how petty, to bash Wikipedia. Remember Andy actually believes CP is some sort of Wikipedia alternative instead of his persona blog feigning as an encyclopedia, perpetual punching bag of RW, and playground for parodists. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they all believe that because Wikipedia only improves (IMHO), and is generally glad that crackpots like Ed Poor and Andy Schlafly have somewhere else to push their weirdo worldviews. I don't know anyone who misses "Uncle Ed" on Wikipedia. --Leotardo (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like this "purportedly fake" oneimg. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they all believe that because Wikipedia only improves (IMHO), and is generally glad that crackpots like Ed Poor and Andy Schlafly have somewhere else to push their weirdo worldviews. I don't know anyone who misses "Uncle Ed" on Wikipedia. --Leotardo (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy doesn't care so much about Sally Kern as he does about any excuse, no matter how petty, to bash Wikipedia. Remember Andy actually believes CP is some sort of Wikipedia alternative instead of his persona blog feigning as an encyclopedia, perpetual punching bag of RW, and playground for parodists. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and let us not forget this little image which, yes, does appear in the Al Gore article. DickTurpis (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"Sissy fit", Andy? Really? Are you five? --Kels (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think he meant cp:Hissy fit:
- A hissy fit is an outburst of an irrational, emotional tirade characteristic of liberal underachievers.
- ONE / TALK 13:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I demand...[edit]
...that poo sandwichimg be added to CP's list of best new conservative words. Go on Terry Koeckritz, do as you're told like usual. -- Iscariot (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- On a related note. What kind of lame fucking union doesn't have healthcare? Why the hell would unions need waivers? --216.67.21.47 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- This was Conservapedia's desperate effort to be part of the Rightwing Outrage Machine, who are the only ones talking about this 'growing scandal'. Rightwingers should read the tale of Peter and the Wolf - people are going to stop listening to them when all of their "SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!" talk is shown to be...yawn...nothing. Credibility is not an infinite resource. --Leotardo (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think you mean The boy who cried wolf. There really was a wolf in Peter and the Wolf. Cantabrigian (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heh - thanks, I actually wondered if I got that right, but had to take care of something at work. --Leotardo (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. Peter & the Wolf is right - the message, of course, being that the Reds always win! Ha ha, haha, hahahaHaHaHA!-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I remember reading a theory somewhere that Peter and the Wolf was intended as an allegory of Soviet society; something like Wolf = USA, Grandfather = pre-revolutionary reactionary, Peter = Soviet hero! Cantabrigian (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. Peter & the Wolf is right - the message, of course, being that the Reds always win! Ha ha, haha, hahahaHaHaHA!--
- Heh - thanks, I actually wondered if I got that right, but had to take care of something at work. --Leotardo (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think you mean The boy who cried wolf. There really was a wolf in Peter and the Wolf. Cantabrigian (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- This was Conservapedia's desperate effort to be part of the Rightwing Outrage Machine, who are the only ones talking about this 'growing scandal'. Rightwingers should read the tale of Peter and the Wolf - people are going to stop listening to them when all of their "SCANDAL! SCANDAL! SCANDAL!" talk is shown to be...yawn...nothing. Credibility is not an infinite resource. --Leotardo (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Too trivial for a WIGO[edit]
And I only noticed it because I'm a sort of a "local", but...
a school in Fairfax County is in Virginia, not D.C.img For that matter, the head of a school is a "principal", not a "principle". MDB (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but it works better with "assistance principle" instead of "assistant principal". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Gotta love bashing schools with confused homonyms. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have the impression that JPatt was the recipient of a great number of Fs in his time at school. It must be a great personal blow that this reform came too late for him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder what is the lowest grade Andy Schlafly has ever given a homeschool student and I'll bet $20 it wasn't an F. 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- 97/100? ħuman 03:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 97/100? ħuman
- Being publicly ridiculed/expelled qualifies as an 'F'. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder what is the lowest grade Andy Schlafly has ever given a homeschool student and I'll bet $20 it wasn't an F.
- I have the impression that JPatt was the recipient of a great number of Fs in his time at school. It must be a great personal blow that this reform came too late for him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Gotta love bashing schools with confused homonyms. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, spelling and grammar are important, but "I think the Conservapedians who are struggling should not be penalized for not learning at the same rate as their peers." --Leotardo (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I bet JPatt used to dream of getting an F. I'm sure that he only became a second-hand X-ray salesman because the letter X matched his signature. Lily Inspirate me. 08:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Andy's hard-on for Rubio[edit]
Does Andy really think Marco Rubio can and should run for President in 2012? This after all his attacks on Obama's inexperience? Sure, Andy, Obama was one of our less politically experienced Presidents, but if he was too inexperienced, as you've said so many times, how is someone with substantially less experience qualified? If Rubio runs, he'll have to start campaigning within a couple months after being sworn into the Senate. At least Obama had more than 2 years. Then again, maybe if he resigns after 3 months in office he can attract some Palin supporters. DickTurpis (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ignoring the fact he wouldn't meet the Constitutional age requirement, Andy would probably endorse an eighteen year old fresh out of high school if he met with his standards of conservatism. MDB (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- He does, MDB was talking about the hypothetical 18 year old. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- (I just ECd with you, Dick with exactly the same wording! 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- As my sockpuppet, it makes sense you would. DickTurpis (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell 'em. The'll stop us voting in the upcoming elections! 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't tell 'em. The'll stop us voting in the upcoming elections! 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- As my sockpuppet, it makes sense you would. DickTurpis (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- (I just ECd with you, Dick with exactly the same wording! 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- He does, MDB was talking about the hypothetical 18 year old. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Andy buttboying for the Pauls[edit]
It's becoming embarrassing. --Leotardo (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly, both Ron and Rand are members of the AAPS. They're the ones who supply him with a generous salary in exchange for a little legal advice every now and then. Röstigraben (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Moribund CP:Murkowski[edit]
The Lisa Murkowski-Joe Miller campaign for Alaska's Senate seat is in the top two most fascinating campaigns this election, yet there is absolutely nothing written about it on CP. The cp:Lisa Murkowski article hasn't been edited since September 17, when she announced her write-in campaign. cp:Joe Miller is even more dead.
I've followed the Alaska race closely and I would have liked to read Conservapedia's spin on it. There were interesting themes in modern conservatism that would have been a joy to explore for an encyclopedia writer. Andy showed early promise for some wonderful wingnut material, but of course he doesn't really do content.
The five editors left are so lost in bizarre essays and keeping the place locked down, that the site is a disappointment even when you want to read their perspective. --Leotardo (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- And predictably, just a short time after some issue was raised here it was fixed on CP with both entries getting updates. Surprisingly it wasn't by Terry Koeckritz this time but by whoever is running the TeacherEd account this week. I wonder if they'll fix the Sheffield article now... -- Iscariot (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they aren't going to say anything about it. For one thing, it's a highly embarrassing reminder that their beloved tea party candidates who seem to have the GOP help hostage are too crazy to be elected. For another, the CP-endorsed crazy is now trying to win by having activist judges override the clear intent of the voters. It's not a happy scene if you're a CP true believer. Best to consign this to the memory hole. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's the problem with CP is that they take sides too strongly, particularly within their own movement. This is one of the reasons CP is more an opinion/propaganda blog than it is a place to learn the various strains and nuances in conservative philosphy. The entirety of the site has become one big Tea Party Op-Ed. Even the Murkowski-Miller updates are at best unenlightening and at worst reductionist uninformed propaganda. CP can't keep up nor explain some of the most dynamic events in their own movement. --Leotardo (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- She leads by 2,247 votes that they think are legitimate, and another 8K or so that they don't. They got their asses handed to them in a huge way, yet they think that the election was stolen. --216.67.21.47 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Eventually the Republicans are just going to be the Hypocrite Party, which is not a recipe for success. It's pretty amazing--and a huge indictment of Joe Miller--that so many votes spelled her name correctly, enough to make his lawsuits invalid. The guys engaged in some pretty disconcerting (scary?) tactics that go against what the Tea Party say they are about: accountability and the will of the voters. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are the idiots at cp REALLY saying that mis-spelling things points to an un-educated electorate andimg quite how fucking condescending are those twats to say it anyway? About republican voteers as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Eventually the Republicans are just going to be the Hypocrite Party, which is not a recipe for success. It's pretty amazing--and a huge indictment of Joe Miller--that so many votes spelled her name correctly, enough to make his lawsuits invalid. The guys engaged in some pretty disconcerting (scary?) tactics that go against what the Tea Party say they are about: accountability and the will of the voters. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they aren't going to say anything about it. For one thing, it's a highly embarrassing reminder that their beloved tea party candidates who seem to have the GOP help hostage are too crazy to be elected. For another, the CP-endorsed crazy is now trying to win by having activist judges override the clear intent of the voters. It's not a happy scene if you're a CP true believer. Best to consign this to the memory hole. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- AP have called it for Murkowski. Let's see how this gets reported on MPR. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- At best the folks at CP will call it a giant case of election fraud (in spite of no one reporting any fraud until the counts showed that murkowski would win even if the challenged ballots were thrown out). As it turns out a large portion of the electorate does not speak English, When you are living in a village in the bush it's less important. --137.229.121.26 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- They've ignored this thing since 9/17, they'll ignore it more because Joe Miller is a total nutjob who praises the Stasi. Clearly, the State of Alaska does not want him to be their representative, but that doesn't matter to CP; what matters is winning at all costs. But when they end up with egg on their face and embarrassing candidates, they STFU. --Leotardo (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- At best the folks at CP will call it a giant case of election fraud (in spite of no one reporting any fraud until the counts showed that murkowski would win even if the challenged ballots were thrown out). As it turns out a large portion of the electorate does not speak English, When you are living in a village in the bush it's less important. --137.229.121.26 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- AP have called it for Murkowski. Let's see how this gets reported on MPR. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Terry Koeckritz acknowledges the win but can't help adding a typically-nasty little postscript. Not up to your usual standard though, TightKnickers. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's Palin's Presidential prospects pillaged, purged, and pissed on. It's going to have to be up to us to get the bitch on the ticket. All you Americans, sign up and vote in the primaries, Palin on the ticket guarantees a Democrat win.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's what we thought about Reagan. And The Shrub. See where it got us? ħuman 03:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with human, the attitude of "she can't win" could lead to a slightly decreased democrat turnout. Meanwhile, if the teabagger have proved anything, its that they can drive a decent turnout.
EXTERMINATE 03:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The difference is that the Republican Party got behind Reagan, and found something there that they could sell to the moderates. The first election for the Chimp was, obviously, controversial, and the second election was run on "It's a time of war, America's under attack, you have to support the Commander-in-Chief" which is a story you can sell to an American moderate, and it helped that Kerry's campaign got bogged down and mired. You can't see the Republican Party all getting behind Palin, certainly not during the primaries, and is there anything about Palin that can be sold to the average American moderate? I can't see it. It takes about 30secs of Palin on TV for the average Britain to come to the conclusion that she comes across as fake and incredibly condescending. The question is can Palin run through an entire set of primaries and the election and not have the same conclusion occur to the average American. Throw in somebody who now also has the reputation of running for office, getting voted in and then deciding to give up the job because it no longer suits her career desires and I can't see there being a package that can be sold to the only American voters that matter, and that's the moderate swing vote.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 03:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, the other difference is that the Teabaggers got their vote out (sometimes) on, what was it, about a 30% turnout. For 2012 you'll be looking at an expected 55%-59% turnout. Can the teabaggers recruit the extra numbers they need to just keep their share of the vote to cope with that 25-point increase? I just can't see it. I think the teabaggers have peaked as a movement in terms of numbers and I can't see who else they are going to get out and vote there way in 2012 that they didn't in 2010.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, the other difference is that the Teabaggers got their vote out (sometimes) on, what was it, about a 30% turnout. For 2012 you'll be looking at an expected 55%-59% turnout. Can the teabaggers recruit the extra numbers they need to just keep their share of the vote to cope with that 25-point increase? I just can't see it. I think the teabaggers have peaked as a movement in terms of numbers and I can't see who else they are going to get out and vote there way in 2012 that they didn't in 2010.--
- The difference is that the Republican Party got behind Reagan, and found something there that they could sell to the moderates. The first election for the Chimp was, obviously, controversial, and the second election was run on "It's a time of war, America's under attack, you have to support the Commander-in-Chief" which is a story you can sell to an American moderate, and it helped that Kerry's campaign got bogged down and mired. You can't see the Republican Party all getting behind Palin, certainly not during the primaries, and is there anything about Palin that can be sold to the average American moderate? I can't see it. It takes about 30secs of Palin on TV for the average Britain to come to the conclusion that she comes across as fake and incredibly condescending. The question is can Palin run through an entire set of primaries and the election and not have the same conclusion occur to the average American. Throw in somebody who now also has the reputation of running for office, getting voted in and then deciding to give up the job because it no longer suits her career desires and I can't see there being a package that can be sold to the only American voters that matter, and that's the moderate swing vote.--
- I'm with human, the attitude of "she can't win" could lead to a slightly decreased democrat turnout. Meanwhile, if the teabagger have proved anything, its that they can drive a decent turnout.
- That's what we thought about Reagan. And The Shrub. See where it got us? ħuman
- Well, that's Palin's Presidential prospects pillaged, purged, and pissed on. It's going to have to be up to us to get the bitch on the ticket. All you Americans, sign up and vote in the primaries, Palin on the ticket guarantees a Democrat win.--
- Terry Koeckritz acknowledges the win but can't help adding a typically-nasty little postscript. Not up to your usual standard though, TightKnickers. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps worse than a stub by Ed Poor[edit]
Andy takes a snippet of his American history lecture seven and makes it a new article Brooklyn Bridgeimg:
- The Brooklyn Bridge is a cable suspension bridge that was completed in 1883. It still stands today on the east side of lower Manhattan, connecting it with Brooklyn.
- It was remarkable at its time, and heralded in many new suspension bridges to span across many American waterways.
- Soon the Brooklyn Bridge enabled the transportation of 33 million persons a year, and that was before the arrival of automobiles!
No source for the statements - which isn't problematic for those representing common knowledge (completed in 1883), but for the less obvious ones (33 million persons a year).
As in his lecture the bridge is given as an example of Yankee Ingenuity, the name Roebling is mentioned nowhere in his wiki. And who was the Yankee to invent the automobile?
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Typical Andy hypocrisy. He tells people that they shouldn't take everything teachers say as true without question, then throws out "facts" like these with no sources and expect people to do exactly that. "Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?" ([4]) No, but it was a hell of a lot more reliable than the crap spewed out at CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and "Roebling"? Is that jewelry made out of fish eggs? (badum-tish) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the main reason why Andy doesn't want to mention the Roebling family is this fact from WP:
- "After Roebling's debilitating condition left him unable to physically supervise the construction firsthand, his wife Emily Warren Roebling stepped in and provided the critical written link between her husband and the engineers on-site. Under her husband's guidance, Emily had studied higher mathematics, the calculations of catenary curves, the strengths of materials, bridge specifications, and the intricacies of cable construction. She spent the next 11 years assisting Washington Roebling helping to supervise the bridge's construction." Röstigraben (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- What a precedence: Imagine a day when Andy isn't able to lord over Conservapedia. His wife could step in, having learned everything Andy knows about wiki-editing in a quarter of an hour... larronsicut fur in nocte 11:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and "Roebling"? Is that jewelry made out of fish eggs? (badum-tish) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what got Andy so interested in bridges? He put another one up a month or so back. Lily Inspirate me. 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ooh, that's got to hurt. A lowly woman doing engineering?! And in a time when they were expected to stay home and make babies. How long until cp:Mystery - how much better would the Brooklyn Bridge have been if some silly bint hadn't messed with the best of the public's men building it? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- fucking lol. I haven't laughed quite so much in a long time ONE / TALK 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like how it led to many other bridges being built over American waterways. Also, does Andy realize how many trolls can live comfortably under a bridge of that size??? ħuman 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like how it led to many other bridges being built over American waterways. Also, does Andy realize how many trolls can live comfortably under a bridge of that size??? ħuman
- Ooh, that's got to hurt. A lowly woman doing engineering?! And in a time when they were expected to stay home and make babies. How long until cp:Mystery - how much better would the Brooklyn Bridge have been if some silly bint hadn't messed with the best of the public's men building it? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what got Andy so interested in bridges? He put another one up a month or so back. Lily Inspirate me. 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
DOJ targeting Christians[edit]
So I was reading on MPR about how, according to a Daily Caller story (bogus enough already), "a troubled history in the DOJ and attempted in the past to use her position to smear conservatives....and Christians." So I followed the link, to find out how big of an ellipsis this was. Because it seems strange that the DOJ would to to smear Christians. Guess how many paragraphs that ellipsis covers? (Hint: It's more than 5!) I know CP has always been a cesspool of stupidity and hate, but they are really getting paranoid now. Also, you might have missed this in the Daily Caller story, but "Chris Christie...took...a...leak...on...the...General...Lee." Them Duke boys are gon' be mad! Carlaugust (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe "Persecution Complex" should be added to their "Best New Conservative Words".--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Amazing[edit]
Andy posts a story that DOSN'T attack liberals (At least not Liberal Democrats). But wait, here comes TK to save the day.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think he even wonders "will I get away with this" anymore? Terry, you've got to keep pushing the limits. You know you're getting just as bored as we are. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Given that the other members of TZB are too cowed and too cowardly to speak up against him, and that Andy is happy as long as whatever TwinKle-toes posts sounds vaguely pro-conservative, TinKiewinkie can get away with posting anything. Except maybe "Mama S does it with horses." But time will tell. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Horses?! There's no reliable, publicly accessible evidence of that! --
15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's it. That's the word association with cp has forever ruined for me. I will never look at a horse the same way again. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Horses?! There's no reliable, publicly accessible evidence of that! --
- "Terry, you've got to keep pushing the limits. You know you're getting just as bored as we are." - Ha! So true! --Leotardo (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Given that the other members of TZB are too cowed and too cowardly to speak up against him, and that Andy is happy as long as whatever TwinKle-toes posts sounds vaguely pro-conservative, TinKiewinkie can get away with posting anything. Except maybe "Mama S does it with horses." But time will tell. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Roger and Pinochet[edit]
A little investigating shows that TK is not a Pinochet apologist. Will he revert Roger's edit? Come on, TK, we know you haven't quite reached the level of being able to revert His Majesty yet, but surely you can make his brother your little bitch? You got the balls, Nancy-boy? DickTurpis (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't resist[edit]
So Andy thinks "whip" is a conservative word.img Well, at least he's in good company. Now picture Sarah Palin in thigh-highs and a leather corset... --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Now picture Sarah Palin in thigh-highs and a leather corset..." Ummmm, no. Now picture Palin in restraints and a spreader bar. Yes. With the added bonus of a cage so she can't escape and ever disgrace the TV screens again.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 21:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The cartoon line "it fits perfectly" gets funnier with every
henlayer Andy smears on that blog entry. ħuman 03:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The cartoon line "it fits perfectly" gets funnier with every
Salvatore Giunta on CP main page?[edit]
Is medal of honor recipient Salvatore Giunta an atheist/liberal? Why is CP ignoring him? Hop to it, Terry!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because it would involve showing Obama honoring military service, and in CP-world, liberals all despise the military. MDB (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ireland rejects EU bailout - why can't liberals?[edit]
Well, this is a good example of how Andy, with his Narcissistic Personality Disorder, defines everything in his own intellectually incurious head. He writes:
Ireland to European Union: we don't want a bailout! [7] Why can't liberals act the same way?
The problem is, Prime Minister Brian Cowen of Fianna Fáil supports the rights of gays, uses government cash to support business and his coalition includes Ireland's Green Party. So...this government that denied the bailout is, um, conservative how? Andy sees one thing that he thinks is evidence of a conservative position and assumes that makes the government conservative. Fianna Fáil is the same party that produced Mary Robinson, who, despite being pro-life, "believes that there is a right to information and access [to abortion] that must be upheld" and has stated support for gay marriage[5].
So yes, why is that liberals can't act the same way as conservatives? --Leotardo (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's interesting that Andy would quote... Creation Science Monitor... as a reliable source on European politics. Maybe that's because it says what he wants to here? Ireland certainly hasn't rejected the bailout, and most political commentators are saying they're just holding out for more assurance that a bailout won't compromise their economic soverignty.
- So the news item becomes Schlafly quoting an inappropriate source, thus getting the Irish position wrong, and then assigning his political values to them, incorrectly. Yey. EXTERMINATE 06:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be the Christian Science Monitor. ListenerXTalkerX 07:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Monitor is not a religious publication, but one known for neutral and excellent journalism. They have won numerous Pulitzers. --Leotardo (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be the Christian Science Monitor.
CP vs. WP[edit]
Regarding Andy's comparison of CP to WP...
How was it the Klingon described Kirk in in the Star Trek (Original Series) classic episode, The Trouble With Tribbles. Ah, yes... "Tin Plated Over Bearing Swaggering Dictator with Delusions of Godhood".
That so fits Andy. MDB (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Life would be so much better if I could delude myself as well as he could. "Superb educational resource?" Does he believe that? EXTERMINATE 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wait wait wait wait WAIT. Did he actually just compare Conservapedia to the Bible? Not that we didn't know he thought that, but now he's actually SAYING IT. --
YossarianThe Man from the USSR 23:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wait wait wait wait WAIT. Did he actually just compare Conservapedia to the Bible? Not that we didn't know he thought that, but now he's actually SAYING IT. --
- Life would be so much better if I could delude myself as well as he could. "Superb educational resource?" Does he believe that?
- (ec*2) I would believe those claims. It's a "meritocracy", since those best at gaming the system rise in power. It's "Superb", as there is no better example on how insane some ideas can get. In fact, if you keep identifying the various hypocritical statements, you'll probably be less susceptible to the claims made by extremists on the other side. Users are enriched by the experience with Conservapedia, when they realize the amount of insanity on a daily basis. It doesn't fool anyone, because they practically lampshade it. I have a bit of trouble fitting "best of the public" into the picture, but 4 out of 5 isn't bad. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see this one becoming one of the "Best of CP".... Un-be-fucking-lievable... -- 00:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is the first-name-last-initial requirement history or was there a baby naming fad involving cationic constituents of obscure phosphates at some point during the seventies? Or am I missing something else? Hateboy (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it in some peon's userspace subpages anyways? Is the user even active? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- With this comment, and the rewriting of the Bible, if Hell did exist Andy would surely end up there.
- Actually, now that I think of it, maybe CP isn't that different from the Bible. Both are a hodge-podge of misogyny, bad science, extreme egotism, patriarchy and insanity. Hell, the Bible even has cut-and-paste plagiarism. At least the writers of the Bible have the excuse of living in extremely primitive times. The fact that Andy's crap is being written on a computer is pathetic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Someone should make a Fun: or Conservapedia: page listing similarities between the bible. As you say: misogyny, bad science, egotism, patriarchy, insanity. On top of that, you've got complete inconsistency: they're say one thing in one place, the opposite elsewhere. EXTERMINATE 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Add to that bad math, if that's different from bad science. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Someone should make a Fun: or Conservapedia: page listing similarities between the bible. As you say: misogyny, bad science, egotism, patriarchy, insanity. On top of that, you've got complete inconsistency: they're say one thing in one place, the opposite elsewhere.
- Why is it in some peon's userspace subpages anyways? Is the user even active? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The gem in question is actually at the talk pageimg and Andy at his delusional best. This may be one of the most hilarious piles of tripe he has ever typed, concise, to the point, and fractally wrong. Damn, if only WP could quote Andy to describe him at his article or the CP one... This "entry" deserves to be shouted from the rooftops, trumpeted from the battlements, and echoed across the Galaxy. ħuman 03:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, but it's only when you add in the spelling error in writing the name of his own blog that it becomes a true classic of the schlaflyesque genre. -- 08:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Meh, be fair, "a" for "s" is really just a tpoy. ħuman 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Meh, be fair, "a" for "s" is really just a tpoy. ħuman
?[edit]
[1]img 04:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Either Mr. Schlafly is having delusions of grandeur yet again, or he is spieling his "Don't waste your time on the Internet; edit Conservapedia!" shtick yet again. ListenerXTalkerX 04:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- What, there is a way to edit Conservapedia without spending time on the internet? I thought one can only access Conservapedia through the internet. Is there some new telepathic channel/paper-based billboard for that opening soon? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I read the news, today, oh boy, they didn't "... complain about Conservapedia". BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS YOU MORON! ħuman 06:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what the church's reply to CP would be. Come to think of it, I don't think I wanna know either. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the minister knew all the facts about Conservapedia, he would probably say to his congregation, "Stay away from those heretics!" ListenerXTalkerX 06:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notice how he hasn't started indiscriminately banning websites?!? Andy is a cretin of the first order. EXTERMINATE 06:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, someone with a well-repected sock over there simply must pitch the idea of launching Conservabook to Andy. Let's make this happen. Röstigraben (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notice how he hasn't started indiscriminately banning websites?!? Andy is a cretin of the first order.
- If the minister knew all the facts about Conservapedia, he would probably say to his congregation, "Stay away from those heretics!"
- I don't know what the church's reply to CP would be. Come to think of it, I don't think I wanna know either. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I read the news, today, oh boy, they didn't "... complain about Conservapedia". BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS YOU MORON! ħuman
- What, there is a way to edit Conservapedia without spending time on the internet? I thought one can only access Conservapedia through the internet. Is there some new telepathic channel/paper-based billboard for that opening soon? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The pastor is "forcing about 50 married church leaders to delete their Facebook accounts," which is destroying relationships. Andy, oh, master of grammar, is it Facebook that is destroying the relationships, or is the deleting of the accounts destroying them? Oh, by the way, the comma should be outside the quotes. CS Miller (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heh! those who can, do; those who can't, teach. 07:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Heh. I also notice the pastor didn't complain about Wikipedia. Seriously, could Andy stick his head any further up his own ass? --Ψ GremlinHable! 08:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not into NJ geography, Is/are the pastor's church/es anywhere near Andy's pad? He might know him. 08:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure Andy got the comma right, on this one... EXTERMINATE 08:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh okay, you're British too.. then it's a lot more subtle with different rules. The yanks need simpler rules, so commas almost always go inside.</casual racism> EXTERMINATE 08:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh okay, you're British too.. then it's a lot more subtle with different rules. The yanks need simpler rules, so commas almost always go inside.</casual racism>
- I'm fairly sure Andy got the comma right, on this one...
- Heh. I also notice the pastor didn't complain about Wikipedia. Seriously, could Andy stick his head any further up his own ass? --Ψ GremlinHable! 08:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, as far as I can see the Living Word Christian Fellowship mentions no email address to make them aware of Andy's take on the story and ask for comments.--Xyr (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, if only our resident NJ'ian Spiny were here, he could give them a call or something. Point the pastor in the direction of CBP. Now that's a fire and brimstone sermon I'd listen to. --Ψ Gremlin講話 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This pastor actually does preach pretty close to Andy's house, probably within a 20/30 minute drive. Unfortunately I am a bit farther north in NJ, so I'm not going to go knocking on his door. Tetronian you're clueless 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy doesn't want to admit that his Conservapedia Bible Project made most Christians (those who even know about him) find his little Internet project to be odious: "insane hubris" BeliefNet; "it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes" Little Green Footballs; "This isn’t conservatism at all. It is heresy. Hokey heresy, but still heresy" The Christian Post. You can find more citations. Saying that the pastor doesn't complain about Conservapedia--implying that means he does not have a problem with it--is a form of the logical fallacy wp:Argument from ignorance called wp:Evidence of absence. --Leotardo (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I thought this and that thing about books being liberal claptrap were pathetic attempts at humour, sort of like that hilarious gag about the contents of a whale's stomach including a lap-top logged onto CP. That time he had the courtesy to note that he was joking though, this recent stuff just sounds too much like his usual barking keyboardarrhoea to be distinguished. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wondered that, too. Some of the CP Five seem to only write/do things to make us talk about them, hoping to "drive the despicable liberals nuts". If that is the only cynical reason they write some of the things that they do, they hurt the CP brand to simply dance for us, and we get a laugh since nobody takes their site seriously. Ken definitely does that. Here, I think Andy was serious: he defended it on Talk:Mainpage. --Leotardo (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I thought this and that thing about books being liberal claptrap were pathetic attempts at humour, sort of like that hilarious gag about the contents of a whale's stomach including a lap-top logged onto CP. That time he had the courtesy to note that he was joking though, this recent stuff just sounds too much like his usual barking keyboardarrhoea to be distinguished. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit]
Does Andy not see a problem with a pastor forcing church members to give up their Facebook accounts? "Advising" is one thing, but forcing? That's a little cultish...
Though the article makes it seem a little less draconian -- they have to give up their Facebook accounts or resign their leadership positions in the church. He's not making them choose between church membership and Facebook. MDB (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Gawker has a hilarious take on this, and in the comments you can see what the guy who complained about it to the pastor looks like. --Leotardo (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Physics Prof. Essay on CP and Relativity[edit]
Paul Fishbane, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Virginia, wrote an essay on the Nazi dismal of relativity and that of CP's. Not the first person to make that comparison.
Fishbane does get one thing wrong though. He mistakenly writes that Andy uses Jesus turning water into wine as a counterexample to relativity. As we all know, Andy uses Jesus' instant healing power as a counterexample to relativity. He uses the water-into-wine thing to show the Bible had foreknowledge of quantum mechanics. To be fair to Fishbane, the passage cited in "relativity counterexample" begins: "Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine" and it doesn't explain how the passage shows action-at-a-distance. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ireland WIGO[edit]
That Ireland WIGO might be better reworded, it doesn't look right. I just thought it was so funny because Andy got absolutely everything wrong. Regardless of what all the "lamestream media" were reporting, he quotes CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR to say the Irish said no to the bailout and implies they're rejecting liberal policies. In fact, they've just accepted a huge bailout and are very left relative to the USA. EXTERMINATE 09:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday's news tomorrow[edit]
Ok, this is more a Fox news than CP thing, but TK posts about Wikileak's founder being wanted for rape.img Given that this case was withdrawn in August I thought he was merely trolling for a change. Either way, good to see the Not-the-National-Enquirer sticking to sound encyclopaedic entries.
But no! Faux news appear to be running it as a current news item. Smear campaign, or Faux being utterly stupid? Nobody else is commentating on it, other than the Aug 21 coverage. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC has it on its front page, and the article is very recent. Seems Fox and CP got it right. D'oh. EXTERMINATE 12:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC has it on its front page, and the article is very recent. Seems Fox and CP got it right. D'oh.
- (e/c) Here is the BBC story. The case was re-opened a while back. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm a fat cat Obama contributor!!![edit]
Apparently, anyone who isn't an idiot and can find the publicly available General Motors IPOimg is! Occasionaluse (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't it a truism that most major IPO's are largely limited to institutional investors? MDB (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. And even an article in TK's own
blogencyclopedia can tell you exactly you can find it. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)- Anybody can buy shares in a listed company. True, due to buying power, institutions will end up with the bulk of the shares. However, if Joe Public puts in an offer for 100 shares, it's as valid as XYZ Fund Managers bidding for 100,000 shares. The worst that can happen is the offer is over-subscribed, in which case you'll receive proportionally less shares than what you bid for. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take you all's word for it, then. Though I thought I remembered that it made news when Google IPO'd and they specifically left some shares open for the general public. MDB (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- All I'm talking about is the IPO that TK lied about and said is only available to fat cat Obama contributors. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they were lies. On top of it, they are complaining about the free market, which is that those with the money are free to buy the goods (shares). This isn't rocket science, it's the basis for our economy. What, exactly is his point? That shares should be closed off to all except, um, "The Best of the Public"? That would take government intervention, because companies certainly don't want to limit who can buy their stock since it would drive down the price. And we all know what government intervention in business decisions means... --Leotardo (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- What I find rich is that TK is bitching about not being able to buy stocks he doesn't want, even though he is able to buy them. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly is his point you ask? The IPOs are tied to Obama, and that is the only point. It doesn't matter even if the powers that be of CP would otherwise fully endorse whatever the idea, plan, position, or belief happens to be, if Obama is for it, or worse directly involved with the implementation, then they are against it and will twist the facts to vilify the guy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they were lies. On top of it, they are complaining about the free market, which is that those with the money are free to buy the goods (shares). This isn't rocket science, it's the basis for our economy. What, exactly is his point? That shares should be closed off to all except, um, "The Best of the Public"? That would take government intervention, because companies certainly don't want to limit who can buy their stock since it would drive down the price. And we all know what government intervention in business decisions means... --Leotardo (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- All I'm talking about is the IPO that TK lied about and said is only available to fat cat Obama contributors. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take you all's word for it, then. Though I thought I remembered that it made news when Google IPO'd and they specifically left some shares open for the general public. MDB (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody can buy shares in a listed company. True, due to buying power, institutions will end up with the bulk of the shares. However, if Joe Public puts in an offer for 100 shares, it's as valid as XYZ Fund Managers bidding for 100,000 shares. The worst that can happen is the offer is over-subscribed, in which case you'll receive proportionally less shares than what you bid for. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. And even an article in TK's own
I'm sure I heard over here in the UK that the GM IPO was restricted to institutional investors only. An IPO can be placed with anyone and as an example the company I work for listed on LSE a few years ago and the public were specifically EXCLUDED from the IPO. We had to wait until after the placing and go to the market to buy shares. I was under the impression that more IPO were restricted than were not, simply because it is easier that way for the placement to take place. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you exclude the public from an IPO is it still an Initial Public Offering? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because the public includes companies, banks, etc. It is the norm that institutional investors have first dibs on a stock, because they pack the punch and have the money to set the stock price highest. They don't buy 100 shares, they buy millions, underwriters and law firms make commissions off the sales at an IPO, etc. An IPO is an orderly introduction, not a free-for-all. Google's IPO in 2005 stood out for not going the institutional investor route ("By skirting the traditional IPO apparatus and allowing small investors to bid for stock on the same terms as institutional investors, Google's IPO was a radical experiment in shareholder democracy."[6]) Some of the logic behind this can be read at wp:Initial_public_offering#Procedure. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Public part of IPO referes to the company becoming a public company, that is a listed one. It has little or nothing to do with who is allowed to tender to buy the shares. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, nope, nope. I'm afraid you're all wrong and/or Hitler. You can only buy GM stock if you've personally given Obama a nice sensual massage. And this is completely different then every single one of the thousands of other IPO's that, presumably, happen when a company just makes it's stocks magically appear on the NYSE and free and orderly trading begins. Why is this different? One word; Obama is a communist.
- In all seriousness, the GM IPO was a huge success, and done exactly like almost every other IPO in the history of the world. For CP to say that on only Obama's contribuators get to buy GM makes them idiots. If they wanted, they could go buy a share now. Or they could have this morning when it opened. Then they would have made money from the pop, just like the SAIC is done. Or they could have lost money if the stock went down, just like SAIC would have. That's how stocks fuckin' work!
- Did institutional investors handle the IPO? Yes. Did they make money off of it? Yes. Did they deserve every penny they earned? Judging by the 6% pop in GM, which amounts to several billions of dollars, YES!
- I apologize for the rant. I work in the financial industry, and CP makes me so angry sometimes...It's one thing to not understand a complex thing like an IPO, but it's completely another to say to yourself "I don't know how this works, so Obama must be giving out free hand jobs to the Chinese." Carlaugust (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Public part of IPO referes to the company becoming a public company, that is a listed one. It has little or nothing to do with who is allowed to tender to buy the shares. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because the public includes companies, banks, etc. It is the norm that institutional investors have first dibs on a stock, because they pack the punch and have the money to set the stock price highest. They don't buy 100 shares, they buy millions, underwriters and law firms make commissions off the sales at an IPO, etc. An IPO is an orderly introduction, not a free-for-all. Google's IPO in 2005 stood out for not going the institutional investor route ("By skirting the traditional IPO apparatus and allowing small investors to bid for stock on the same terms as institutional investors, Google's IPO was a radical experiment in shareholder democracy."[6]) Some of the logic behind this can be read at wp:Initial_public_offering#Procedure. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mass participation IPOs do happen, but they're expensive to run and they're usually done to reward some group that wouldn't already have stock in the private company. For example some huge list of people (including yours truly) were invited to the RHAT (now RHT on NYSE) IPO because they'd been major contributors to the Free Software that is its core business. The minimum investment was not within everyone's means but people who flipped the stock made out very well, and so did those who held it -- up until the dotcom crash. The exercise probably cost Red Hat (and thus in some sense its new public owners) a pile of money compared to a "normal" IPO but it was effective PR within the community. There is no parallel with General Motors tho 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Menendez Recall[edit]
DENIED!! NJSC Decisions page Suck it, Andy!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even better, in section 9 of the decision: "The dissent uses various techniques to challenge the above analysis. It attempts to bypass the historical record with broad swipes; it champions marginal items; it offers rousing rhetoric about disenfranchising voters; and it appeals to emotion. But those techniques cannot rewrite the Constitution." Oohhh, that'll leave a mark.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even the dissent is only on the grounds of wanting to wait and see what happens. They don't say anything about whether or not they agree with Andy's essential point. Can't wait for this to make it to MPR! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha! Regarding that little letter from Washington to his nephew, this is how the court addresses it ("the dissent" = Andy Schlafly):
If the Framers had offered evidence that arguably supported the right to recall, the dissent apparently would have received them differently. Indeed, the limited history that the dissent chooses to champion is revealing. It devotes two full pages to defend Bushrod Washington even though in the end, no matter his accomplishments later in life, the document President Washington sent him was but an ambiguous, private letter to his nephew, which cannot serve as a substitute for volumes of actual, public
debates involving the Framers.
In addition to marginalizing the historical record, the
dissent does not spare aspects of U.S. Supreme Court rulings with which it disagrees. For example, straightforward observations about the lack of a right of recall in Thornton -- made by nine Supreme Court Justices in dicta -– were “inexplicably . . . included” by the Court. Id. at __ (slip op. at 32). But the U.S. Supreme Court is, of course, the ultimate
arbiter of the Federal Constitution.
It's hysterical that the New Jersey Supreme Court sees in one argument what we see everyday on Conservapedia. They cherry-pick, "marginalizing the historical record" and disregard rulings by the Supreme Court that Schlafly disagrees with. Andy had to be reminded that they are the "ultimate arbiter" of the Constitution, not Schlafly. It's going to be hard for North Dakota to come up with a different ruling without good cause. --Leotardo (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, after he got up in front of them and claimed that all of their evidence was invalid because of one letter from Washington, I'm not surprised that they gave him a spanking. Tetronian you're clueless 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is how they summed up Schlafly's arguments: "[Schlafly] attempts to bypass the historical record with broad swipes; [Schlafly] champions marginal items; [Schlafly] offers rousing rhetoric about disenfranchising voters; and [Schlafly] appeals to emotion. But those techniques cannot rewrite the Constitution." They basically laughed him out of court and told him that his reasoning is composed of logical fallacies (such as wp:Appeal to emotion --Leotardo (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wonderful! Then again, I don't think anybody expected anything less, especially after listening to Andy make his case. Now, how long until 'Judge values' on CP. Of course, there will be no mention of the ruling on MPL. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 15:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)So, the extremely short NY Post headline version is "NJSC to Assfly: Shut it, bee-yotch." MDB (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is how they summed up Schlafly's arguments: "[Schlafly] attempts to bypass the historical record with broad swipes; [Schlafly] champions marginal items; [Schlafly] offers rousing rhetoric about disenfranchising voters; and [Schlafly] appeals to emotion. But those techniques cannot rewrite the Constitution." They basically laughed him out of court and told him that his reasoning is composed of logical fallacies (such as wp:Appeal to emotion --Leotardo (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only line Andy will quote: Today is indeed a sad and dark day in the history of this Court.
- larronsicut fur in nocte 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- or: "Nothing at all happened today".-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- or: "Nothing at all happened today".--
Brilliant, I am just getting a chance to look over it now. Rivera-Soto's dissent was predictable based on the oral arguments. He actually tried to drag Schlafly kicking and screaming to the argument that the time is not ripe yet for a decision, but Schlafly actually fought that pretty much saying yes it needs to be decided for me now! I wonder if Schlafly focused only on the ripe argument if it might have gone better. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The dissent seems to write that "the right to vote" is synonymous with a "right to recall". I haven't finished reading, though. --Leotardo (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, sorry to dissent TM, but when I go back to contemporaneous commentary it looked to me exactly like that was the argument he was making - that the Justices making a decision at that point would be judicial activism. I don't think he needed dragging kicking/screaming at all; he absolutely made that argument in court. MaxAlex Swimming pool 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't we have a 9/10 finished article on this that we can now wrap up? ħuman 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- @human: another log of epic fail for Andrew the great. The gaiden of the epic fail, which isn't decided yet. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing I'll complain about: Please advocate to the government to stop using Microsoft Word to such obvious extents (at least hire people with the skill to kill the "Microsoft word" from the title when I open the stupid PDF). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- TerryH adds it to MPRimg, with the expected whining. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and they're going to be taking it to the US Supreme Court. Meaning none other than Andrew Layton Schlafly will argue before the highest court in the land. For the first time, I think it would be a good idea for the Supremes to televise their proceedings. It could be the funniest thing on TV since Arrested Development got
massively screwed overcanceled by Fox. MDB (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)- I'm more concerned that 2 judges ruled in Andy's favour. Maybe they were swayed by the "heartfulness" of GW's letter. Concur tho - Abdy in front of SCOTUS will be the funniest thing ever. Altho, I think the plaintiffs might hire a real lawyer for that. --Ψ GremlinFale! 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Expect link from MPR to Terry's blog's indepth analysis of the affair, thereby earning him a few more bucks. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh please, please let Andy argue this incredibly weak case in front of the US supreme court. That could make for a better bitchslapping than Lenski. Lets hope the committee to make life difficult for elected officials doesn't wise up and find a competent lawyer. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Expect link from MPR to Terry's blog's indepth analysis of the affair, thereby earning him a few more bucks. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned that 2 judges ruled in Andy's favour. Maybe they were swayed by the "heartfulness" of GW's letter. Concur tho - Abdy in front of SCOTUS will be the funniest thing ever. Altho, I think the plaintiffs might hire a real lawyer for that. --Ψ GremlinFale! 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, and they're going to be taking it to the US Supreme Court. Meaning none other than Andrew Layton Schlafly will argue before the highest court in the land. For the first time, I think it would be a good idea for the Supremes to televise their proceedings. It could be the funniest thing on TV since Arrested Development got
- Some years ago, there was a similar issue, when some of the states tried to set term limits on their Federal representatives. The Supremes (admittedly, a different court) basically said "the Constitution sets the restriction of elections of Congress-critters; you can't change them." MDB (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I would be surprised if even the Roberts Court accepted their petition to hear the case. This is something that liberals, moderates and conservatives should agree upon, because it would hurt the ability of Senators to carry out their jobs. Code Pink could get Jim DeMint to constantly defend himself against recalls as easily as Teabaggers with Menendez. --Leotardo (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- What, those people actually get things done? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a strong argument. States that allow recall of state-level officials generally don't see regular recall battles. They generally set the threshold for holding an election pretty high, so it has to be more than a few activists trying to force someone into defending their job regularly. You really have to be perceived as a screw-up by a pretty decent chunk of the populace for a recall election to go forward. MDB (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even better yet, will the argument be taped in SCOTUS? More fail on tape for the lulz if they do. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a strong argument. States that allow recall of state-level officials generally don't see regular recall battles. They generally set the threshold for holding an election pretty high, so it has to be more than a few activists trying to force someone into defending their job regularly. You really have to be perceived as a screw-up by a pretty decent chunk of the populace for a recall election to go forward. MDB (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I am currently taking 10 to 1 bets that SCOTUS never takes this case. DickTurpis (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can the RW foundation submit an amicus brief suggesting that the court should accept the case for the lulz? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The only way I see SCOTUS granting cert is if another state supreme court rules that it is constitutional. I think it was Montana that heard the last one right? Then it would pretty much demand a SCOTUS ruling. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking that, after I posted my handicap. Still a huge longshot, especially now that Montana or whatever (I sort of thought it was a Dakota) has a precedent they can (but don't need to) cite in the NJ decision. Looks like Andy's interaction with Supreme Court justices will have to be confined to his dinner table. DickTurpis (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Montana North Dakota, whatever same damn thing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
On an organizational note, this seems to me worthy of the kind of WIGO that is built to last. No offense to the person who wrote the Hurlbut one. Junggai (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Break[edit]
Seems a good place to put a break and post this response from the crazy woman leading the pack. Guess what letter she references? Can you guess? Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I like how she said that they "declared our NJ Constitution unconstitutional" Like, the entire thing? --Leotardo (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- By "crazy woman leading the pack", I assume she is the one featured on this page? (Seriously tho, don't ask me which one) And oh, was that the letter of George that Andy mentioned, and which the justices went facepalm? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we won't likely see video of Andy bombing in front of SCOTUS, as funny as that would be. They have never allowed cameras in their courtroom. May get audio however. The Menedez camp has said that it's very unlikely that SCOTUS will hear it. They're of course quite bias, so who knows? --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would like the sound of headdesk on the audio tape if they can't show facepalm due to the camera restrictions. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMO There's a very simple reason that the SCOTUS could never, ever, ever go ahead and allow recall. There's no recall in the US Constitution, whatsoever. Therefore, to allow recall, the terms of the recall would have to come EXCLUSIVELY from that state's constitution. And once you rule, "Recall can happen in accordance with a state constitution," then a state could pass a constitutional ammendment that allows a very, very small number of people to begin recall proceedings. Basically, if you allow recall without a US Constitutional Ammendment to make it possible, you rely either (A) on state constitutions, which could go horrible... (B) On congress to regulate it, which is sort of the status quo. EXTERMINATE 11:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The minority argument is essentially an appeal to democracy: "But the people said..." which is really bad law. Even the Founders, who liked democracy way too much to be healthy, rightly understood that "the people" are goofs and their whims don't provide the sort of stability you need to run a nation. That's why we still have representative democracies, decades after telecommunications (you don't even need the Internet) made direct democracy technically feasible on a grand scale. Their best trick is arguing that in theory the Senate could deny them representation if their senators were imprisoned and could not attend. But that's even more a hypothetical than the recall scenario itself, which they claim is not ripe. Can't have your cake and eat it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- IMO There's a very simple reason that the SCOTUS could never, ever, ever go ahead and allow recall. There's no recall in the US Constitution, whatsoever. Therefore, to allow recall, the terms of the recall would have to come EXCLUSIVELY from that state's constitution. And once you rule, "Recall can happen in accordance with a state constitution," then a state could pass a constitutional ammendment that allows a very, very small number of people to begin recall proceedings. Basically, if you allow recall without a US Constitutional Ammendment to make it possible, you rely either (A) on state constitutions, which could go horrible... (B) On congress to regulate it, which is sort of the status quo.
- I would like the sound of headdesk on the audio tape if they can't show facepalm due to the camera restrictions. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we won't likely see video of Andy bombing in front of SCOTUS, as funny as that would be. They have never allowed cameras in their courtroom. May get audio however. The Menedez camp has said that it's very unlikely that SCOTUS will hear it. They're of course quite bias, so who knows? --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- By "crazy woman leading the pack", I assume she is the one featured on this page? (Seriously tho, don't ask me which one) And oh, was that the letter of George that Andy mentioned, and which the justices went facepalm? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful[edit]
I'm not sure who's running TeacherEd today, but thisimg is beautiful. "Julian Assange is an alleged rapist from Australia, best known as the founder of the controversial liberal website Wikileaks." Yes, that's how Not-the-National-Enquirer writes articles. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest I'm surprised the word "alleged" is even there. ONE / TALK 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but that link is TK, and something else... EXTERMINATE 11:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's just you (sez he, sweeping the evidence under the carpet) --Ψ GremlinHable! 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, he is an alleged rapist. The article may be pointless and poorly written, but currently, it's factual. ... ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's a comment on CP's new high horse of not identifying people as homos when they're not primarily homos. Assange is in no way primarily an alleged rapist. And with the number of powerful people/governments after this guy, I'm inclined not to believe anything they say about him. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, he is an alleged rapist. The article may be pointless and poorly written, but currently, it's factual. ... ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's just you (sez he, sweeping the evidence under the carpet) --Ψ GremlinHable! 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me, but that link is TK, and something else...
Abortion Idol[edit]
Here Terry Koeckritz, divert attention from the discussion about outing you by being a good little lapdog and taking this to Andy. The subsequent WIGO should bring much mirth. -- Iscariot (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the "bad post in bad taste" smiley? Recommend above post and this one be deleted from view by someone who knows how, on the grounds that the phrase "outing [TK]" is appalling bad form. ħuman 05:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not to complicate matters but I don't think that was TK. I find it seriously unlikely that he'd forget about that. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Active Editors at CP and RW[edit]
During the update of the mediawiki software, a new feature was introduced, a list of active editors: cp:Special:ActiveUsers, Special:ActiveUsers
Unfortunately, the text of the definition of active users changed from (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) to (Users who have performed an action in the last 91 days) at both wikis, while the actual procedure wasn't altered - the number given was still the one for a single week.
Now, Conservapedia has changed the period to fit the definition while RationalWiki changed the definition to fit the period: as usual, RationalWiki preferred the liberal trait of consistency, while Conservapedia just liked the bigger numbers...
Conclusion: generally the numbers can't be compared easily, though at the moment we can say that we have roughly as many active users in one week (212) as they have in thirteen weeks (234).
For a more detailed comparison:
larronsicut fur in nocte 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. The problem is these numbers don't mean much, especially at vandal-infeated CP. A guy who creates an account, makes a single edit, and is banned is counted as much as Ken or Assfly. (Do they even have to make an edit, or is simply creating an account an action?) That's why those charts that rank the active users are awesome. They rock. DickTurpis (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I were the Assfly and I saw that graph, it'd worry the hell out of me. His core userbase is down to about 10 people who edit at least once a week (and lets face it, most of those people only edit broken news and block people.) Contrast RW where regular users seem to number close to 100, and you can see how insular their little slice of the interwebs has become. Certainly, never letting anyone register isn't helping and of course neither is the constant paranoia about who is and isn't a genuine editor. This deathwatch is growing rapidly more amusing! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- But in Assfly's warped little mind, these statistics just show that CP is nearing perfection. Though it is possible he doesn't truly believe that and is just saying it to save face. On the other hand, this is the guy who believes a doubling of conservative words every century points to a future conservative utopia. ONE / TALK 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- While human intelligence is steadily and irreversibly decreasing. — Pietrow ☏ 16:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Reagan - Bush Snr - Bush Jnr - Palin... I see a trend here... --Ψ GremlinFale! 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bush sr, in fairness, was more luckless than stupid. I've never seen anyone trying to make the case that he is of anything less than average intelligence, and I personally would bet he has more in common intellectually with Clinton than with Reagan. Some of his ancestors seem to have been downright brilliant, if evil, however, so perhaps the hypothesis holds at least for the Bush dynasty. Hateboy (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've also heard it said the Jeb Bush (Bush-41's first son) is pretty smart, and that, in fact, Jeb was the one the parents thought would make a great President. By contrast, they say Neil, the third son, makes George look bright. MDB (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Makes W look bright? Can't be. Not possible. [Making my regular useless edit to keep me well established in the 90-day list...]Fawlty (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe not Neil, but certainly Sarah Palin. DickTurpis (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, true.Fawlty (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Obama makes Bush look like a friggin genius. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- While I find arguments about W's intelligence banal (by most who would know, he was smart - just totally disinterested), I wonder why you think he would be any smarter than Obama. Your economy would be in a far, far worse situation with W - you think solutions like TARP have done it any good at all?? MaxAlex Swimming pool 09:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Obama makes Bush look like a friggin genius. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, true.Fawlty (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe not Neil, but certainly Sarah Palin. DickTurpis (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Makes W look bright? Can't be. Not possible. [Making my regular useless edit to keep me well established in the 90-day list...]Fawlty (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've also heard it said the Jeb Bush (Bush-41's first son) is pretty smart, and that, in fact, Jeb was the one the parents thought would make a great President. By contrast, they say Neil, the third son, makes George look bright. MDB (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bush sr, in fairness, was more luckless than stupid. I've never seen anyone trying to make the case that he is of anything less than average intelligence, and I personally would bet he has more in common intellectually with Clinton than with Reagan. Some of his ancestors seem to have been downright brilliant, if evil, however, so perhaps the hypothesis holds at least for the Bush dynasty. Hateboy (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- But in Assfly's warped little mind, these statistics just show that CP is nearing perfection. Though it is possible he doesn't truly believe that and is just saying it to save face. On the other hand, this is the guy who believes a doubling of conservative words every century points to a future conservative utopia. ONE / TALK 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I were the Assfly and I saw that graph, it'd worry the hell out of me. His core userbase is down to about 10 people who edit at least once a week (and lets face it, most of those people only edit broken news and block people.) Contrast RW where regular users seem to number close to 100, and you can see how insular their little slice of the interwebs has become. Certainly, never letting anyone register isn't helping and of course neither is the constant paranoia about who is and isn't a genuine editor. This deathwatch is growing rapidly more amusing! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
short info: the numbers at cp:Special:Statistics and Special:Statistics include all editors who performed an action, including those who didn't comment, but blocked, created an account, etc. OTOH, the pics only show those who made an actual comment. Edits by IPs are just(ly) neglected. --larronsicut fur in nocte 20:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the pic doesn't include IP edits, then the real situation is more in favour of RW. woo. EXTERMINATE 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
My Jesus is about HELLFIRE, liberal scum![edit]
Ah good old LanthanumK (whom I'm sure is not long for the world of CP) - he's pushing all of Andy's crazy toes re: the Bibleimg and Andy rises to the occasion like the champion he is:
- 'Father forgive them..." is just another (unauthentic) liberal plot (not citation)
- Jesus talks more about hELL than heaven (and don't forget rich people getting fucked over too, Andy) (no citation)
- Repentance is needed for forgiveness. Ok, so you get the prodigal son, but screw the guys Jesus forgave... and that other whore. Oh yes, and if you're Jack Chick, raping your daughter is ok, as long as you ask for repentance.
It really is a strange magic man Andy worships. And of course TwinKle has to make a guest appearance. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 02:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In other news, do I sense another letter to Prof Moo coming?img Also, why is he ranting about statements made in the Feminist Bible, when talking about the NIV? --Ψ GremlinTal! 02:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why do they do anything they do. They're about 4 cans short of a six pack over at Conservapedia.--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Even as an atheist and having had plenty of time to get used to him, I'm uncomfortable with Andy's attack on the bible. Christianity, or at least the teachings of Jesus, were unequivocal on matters of forgiveness, kindness and charity. And yet this fundamentalist movement has evolved in America, and so many things have gone wrong. Once, the people who studied the bible in depth were brilliantly intelligent men. Newton wrote more about Christianity than Science. And over some time, this anti-intellectualism has arrived on the scene. Now, a brilliant man in America writing insightful writings about the Bible wouldn't have much love in fundamentalist America, while a hate-filled idiot who's only read through the Bible once, looking for things to support his positions will get far. And now people who're influenced and twisted by these hateful teachings have the audacity to go back and REVISE the Bible. He's actually REMOVING parts of the bible. It's a fucking disgrace, and I hope more good Christians tell him so. EXTERMINATE 09:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah and once again a
resident parodistloyal minion steps up and saves Andy from making an even bigger toss-pot of himself. And takes out another voice of moderation while he's at it. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 10:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)- A classic Schlafly Rearguard. Corry (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah and once again a
- Even as an atheist and having had plenty of time to get used to him, I'm uncomfortable with Andy's attack on the bible. Christianity, or at least the teachings of Jesus, were unequivocal on matters of forgiveness, kindness and charity. And yet this fundamentalist movement has evolved in America, and so many things have gone wrong. Once, the people who studied the bible in depth were brilliantly intelligent men. Newton wrote more about Christianity than Science. And over some time, this anti-intellectualism has arrived on the scene. Now, a brilliant man in America writing insightful writings about the Bible wouldn't have much love in fundamentalist America, while a hate-filled idiot who's only read through the Bible once, looking for things to support his positions will get far. And now people who're influenced and twisted by these hateful teachings have the audacity to go back and REVISE the Bible. He's actually REMOVING parts of the bible. It's a fucking disgrace, and I hope more good Christians tell him so.
Few Christians, and very few American Christians, have any idea what the Bible says. Some of you will know that a bogus psych claim is much more likely to be believed if accompanied by brain scan images (this effect doesn't work on experts but it works on lay folk and psych undergrads). Similarly, I think, bogus religious claims are more likely to be believed when accompanied with a Bible quote. Like the brain scan, the quote can be entirely out of context or even fictitious, because no-one will verify, just seeing that it's there is somehow reassuring. So Andy's really missing a trick. There's no need to edit this stuff out of the Bible, or rewrite it, just cite whatever you like and then claim it supports your position. PMDs routinely cite passages about the Roman occupation as prophecy for the future. Nobody leaps up to deny it, or even coughs nervously, their followers swallow this nonsense and come away believing it's "all in the Bible". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Normal service has been resumed[edit]
there are no words.img --Ψ GremlinPrata! 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedians as public figures[edit]
It's an interesting question whether Conservapedians would legally be considered public figures, which would make much, if not all, of the commentary on RW above-board. Wikipedia had a decent summary of the general legal concepts about who constitutes a public person:
- a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
- a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.
- A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]... Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children, were fair comments]... within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
Once a person engages in public affairs, they give up a lot of rights to privacy. Food for thought. --Leotardo (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why Schlafly would certainly be a public figure, but I don't see how the other sysops fall into those definitions. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.'" Writing public biographies of public people, some that could be considered defamatory or false, and advocating positions on the front page of a blog that gets millions of hits doesn't count for you, huh? --Leotardo (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, not even a little. I don't see the creation of commentary as thrusting oneself to the forefront of anything unless it gets substantial readership, and can have an actual effect on public controversy. Really, rather than us just spinning wheels it would be nice to look at some case law to see what specific reasoning and standards have been used. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would be better to look at case law, you're right. I was out late with friends last night (before I came on here), and I'm feeling lazy watching Weeds. It's worthwhile to note that the United States has the most liberal free speech laws in the world (I didn't say that, wp:Floyd Abrams did). Though since you feel that way, you might want to reconsider having the Conservapedia sysop articles at all. --Leotardo (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I view the issue of public figure here as having three basic categories, there are people who are obviously public figures celebrities, politicians, major commentators, etc. Then there are people who are "public figures" only on RW because of our relationship with them which usually revolves around our mission statement or interactions. And finally people that would not even meet that standard. It is important vis a vie the privacy discussion because what rules we apply and how vigorously we apply those rules depends on their public figure status. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lets find some case law, I am hungry though. Maybe later. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deal. I have Abram's book Speaking Freely, which I read and marked up awhile ago - I have to dig it out. It'll be a good place to start. Conservapedia:Summa Homosexualita would cross the same TK line. --Leotardo (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Without meaning to be harsh, Leotardo, it feels like you're being a little smug. Fine, you won't let this issue rest, but do we need to play lawyer and decide on the law? The wikipedia article you're quoting from says that for it to be defamation under US law, there'd have to be provable malice. If you think that the conversation above about TK was not malicious, and that everyone deciding he's gay off a Yahoo page is totally cool, then you're being very naive. The conversation was plain nasty, the source very weak... regardless of his legal position as a public figure or not. EXTERMINATE 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're confusing the legal definition of malice--which was defined in parenthesis on that article as "knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth" which I don't think was the case above--with the other definition used popularly, which is delight in another's misfortune. I don't think anyone really said "he's gay" but were discussing the possibility, weighing evidence and what it means in the context of edits like these.[7][8] I don't think the conversation was nasty either, bymm. Sorry if I come across smug, but I'm a little surprised that considering the stuff that exists and is said all the time, that this somehow crossed the line. Obviously I have a vested interest. RationalWiki can be a difficult site to figure out standards, as they seem to be created on-the-fly and applied unevenly. I could see how pointing that out could seem smug, but it's not meant to be. BTW, I was hoping to make this thread about an interesting side idea; not re-start the TK thread above. --Leotardo (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "Those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." - CP might well try to influence the debate on issues, but how on earth are they on the forefront of anything? We regularly make fun of how irrelevant CP has become and how it's circling the drain, but now we're suddenly supposed to acknowledge their sysops as public figures? Seriously, by these standards, the top two dozen of RW's editors would qualify as such as well. Not to mention just about any regular commenter on a blog, forum or Twitter. Röstigraben (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're saying that they're not important on a wiki founded to criticise them? Seriously? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's our opinions that they aren't at the forefront of anything, it's not a fact and it would be very easy to make the case that they are. Unique visitors, hits, Google searches (say, for homosexuality, where they are the second hit and TK writing things like this on the Talk page). Then you could also look at the blogs that regularly discuss them (albeit in an unflattering manner, but it shows that they are not unseen). And of course I wouldn't need to prove they are influential or widely-read, because they make that claim themselves and trumpet their evidence all the time. --Leotardo (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Read the definition given above. There's no way CP is on the forefront of any controversy. True, we still care about them, but I'm afraid RW's attention isn't sufficient to turn them into public figures. Whatever documentation we come up with should strictly concern itself with their behaviour at CP, which is more than enough to discredit them anyway. This is getting ridiculous. Röstigraben (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- My final comments on the matter: Like so many internet disputes, this has all come down to "who broke what rule" and has even gone to that fun, fun level of trying to play lawyer and justify shit as fair comment and legal. I don't care, honestly, who's been slanderous and who's well within their legal rights. The whole conversation, after the yahoo link was posted, brought the worst out in people. To the select few involved: Next time you laugh at Andy for seeing a source which says what he wants to hear and running with it; you're a hypocrite. Next time Andy takes pleasure in something when he should know better, and you just him, you're probably being a hypocrite. Don't you guys get it? It's no fun at all to sit here and bitch about Conservapedia when we act in just the same way. Alright, we don't throw in crazy bible shit, we don't see stupid links betweens 'liberalism' and scientific theories, but some of the stuff said on this page could've been copy and pasted from Conservapedia, and had the names changed. I wholly agree with everything Human and Trent have said about all of this, and really wish I hadn't seen any of it. There're some of you who're OBSESSED with CP, and it just comes across as childish with one or two of you. Dislike it. Anyway, rant/complaint over, I don't plan to say anymore on the matter. Bleh. EXTERMINATE 23:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be frank, it's surprising that so few people around here seem to understand the legal ramifications of RW and CP. This site publishes information and it's public. Everyone's been grasping at legal straws to say why this one particular thing shouldn't be up, so it should concern the site's owner that lots of this stuff exists. I have a legal background, but not a thorough knowledge of these issues (not my area); however, I do have a working knowledge and don't think it's a problem. This is real world stuff; RW is a top hit for quite a few real life individuals. You don't have to be CNN or Wikipedia to have this stuff bite you. So if you don't have a working knowledge of the laws of free speech and publishing, someone around here really should start. It's not a minor concern. --Leotardo (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- By the standard employed elsewhere on the site, Occasionaluse did not violate any policy by posting the link. In response, several people - including some for whom I used to hold a large measure of respect - replied without apparently having read what was posted. Dalek, you and others have invoked the RW version of Godwin's law - "You're as bad as CP" and as such I'm afraid you lose by default. I have no idea why certain members of a site that has no problem with suggesting that one CP sysop is a paedophile and another is guilty of child abuse would get so riled about outing a third sysop and pointing out his hypocrisy. Frankly, this debate puts another nail in the coffin-lid of RW's credibility. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's all getting bitter (just as much on my side of the argument as the other side), I still have no intention of any more involvement, other than to say I did read every word of it. EXTERMINATE 00:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- @ Leotard, we aren't "grasping at legal straws", we are invoking the general site "non-stalking" guideline. @ SR, we have made many efforts to clean up the scurrilous accusations that CP-freaks seem to enjoy spreading. Back at Leotard, "BTW, I was hoping to make this thread about an interesting side idea; not re-start the TK thread above" is the very definition of disingenuous - you didn't actually say anything in your OP of interest, you were just trying to start wanking about the TK/other sysops/etc. AGAIN. And to swagger your alleged legal qualifications. Please zip it up. ħuman 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- @ Leotard, we aren't "grasping at legal straws", we are invoking the general site "non-stalking" guideline. @ SR, we have made many efforts to clean up the scurrilous accusations that CP-freaks seem to enjoy spreading. Back at Leotard, "BTW, I was hoping to make this thread about an interesting side idea; not re-start the TK thread above" is the very definition of disingenuous - you didn't actually say anything in your OP of interest, you were just trying to start wanking about the TK/other sysops/etc. AGAIN. And to swagger your alleged legal qualifications. Please zip it up. ħuman
- Since it's all getting bitter (just as much on my side of the argument as the other side), I still have no intention of any more involvement, other than to say I did read every word of it.
- By the standard employed elsewhere on the site, Occasionaluse did not violate any policy by posting the link. In response, several people - including some for whom I used to hold a large measure of respect - replied without apparently having read what was posted. Dalek, you and others have invoked the RW version of Godwin's law - "You're as bad as CP" and as such I'm afraid you lose by default. I have no idea why certain members of a site that has no problem with suggesting that one CP sysop is a paedophile and another is guilty of child abuse would get so riled about outing a third sysop and pointing out his hypocrisy. Frankly, this debate puts another nail in the coffin-lid of RW's credibility. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- My final comments on the matter: Like so many internet disputes, this has all come down to "who broke what rule" and has even gone to that fun, fun level of trying to play lawyer and justify shit as fair comment and legal. I don't care, honestly, who's been slanderous and who's well within their legal rights. The whole conversation, after the yahoo link was posted, brought the worst out in people. To the select few involved: Next time you laugh at Andy for seeing a source which says what he wants to hear and running with it; you're a hypocrite. Next time Andy takes pleasure in something when he should know better, and you just him, you're probably being a hypocrite. Don't you guys get it? It's no fun at all to sit here and bitch about Conservapedia when we act in just the same way. Alright, we don't throw in crazy bible shit, we don't see stupid links betweens 'liberalism' and scientific theories, but some of the stuff said on this page could've been copy and pasted from Conservapedia, and had the names changed. I wholly agree with everything Human and Trent have said about all of this, and really wish I hadn't seen any of it. There're some of you who're OBSESSED with CP, and it just comes across as childish with one or two of you. Dislike it. Anyway, rant/complaint over, I don't plan to say anymore on the matter. Bleh.
- Read the definition given above. There's no way CP is on the forefront of any controversy. True, we still care about them, but I'm afraid RW's attention isn't sufficient to turn them into public figures. Whatever documentation we come up with should strictly concern itself with their behaviour at CP, which is more than enough to discredit them anyway. This is getting ridiculous. Röstigraben (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Without meaning to be harsh, Leotardo, it feels like you're being a little smug. Fine, you won't let this issue rest, but do we need to play lawyer and decide on the law? The wikipedia article you're quoting from says that for it to be defamation under US law, there'd have to be provable malice. If you think that the conversation above about TK was not malicious, and that everyone deciding he's gay off a Yahoo page is totally cool, then you're being very naive. The conversation was plain nasty, the source very weak... regardless of his legal position as a public figure or not.
- Deal. I have Abram's book Speaking Freely, which I read and marked up awhile ago - I have to dig it out. It'll be a good place to start. Conservapedia:Summa Homosexualita would cross the same TK line. --Leotardo (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lets find some case law, I am hungry though. Maybe later. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I view the issue of public figure here as having three basic categories, there are people who are obviously public figures celebrities, politicians, major commentators, etc. Then there are people who are "public figures" only on RW because of our relationship with them which usually revolves around our mission statement or interactions. And finally people that would not even meet that standard. It is important vis a vie the privacy discussion because what rules we apply and how vigorously we apply those rules depends on their public figure status. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would be better to look at case law, you're right. I was out late with friends last night (before I came on here), and I'm feeling lazy watching Weeds. It's worthwhile to note that the United States has the most liberal free speech laws in the world (I didn't say that, wp:Floyd Abrams did). Though since you feel that way, you might want to reconsider having the Conservapedia sysop articles at all. --Leotardo (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, not even a little. I don't see the creation of commentary as thrusting oneself to the forefront of anything unless it gets substantial readership, and can have an actual effect on public controversy. Really, rather than us just spinning wheels it would be nice to look at some case law to see what specific reasoning and standards have been used. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.'" Writing public biographies of public people, some that could be considered defamatory or false, and advocating positions on the front page of a blog that gets millions of hits doesn't count for you, huh? --Leotardo (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)