Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive209

This is an archive page, last updated 6 December 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

WIGO over Jpatt's CP obituary

There is just too much to love about Jpatt's memorial of CP. It's written the way a child would write a therapeutic essay exploring his feelings about his father's constant vegetative state on the fourth anniversary of the man's car accident. There's plenty of paranoia and Christian persecution ("This ensures this wikis survival even though outside forces seeks [sic] its demise.") and unwitting irony ("When talking autos, you can't discuss GM without talking Ford" - and w/o Obama, you wouldn't be able to discuss GM!) and delusion ("When discussing wikis, you can't talk Wikipedia without discussing Conservapedia"). --Leotardo (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt is my favourite man-child. Incidentally, I assume he is aware of the existence of RW? He is the only one I know of that hasn't at least once made mention of us. Remembering it took Jinx (Oh how I miss him!) a couple of years to find us. Ace^{word up} 02:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "outside forces" an RW shout-out? --Leotardo (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Also extreme denial. Wikipedia is rarely discussed because it's rarely controversial - it just sort of, well, happened Black Swan style and most of the press have yet to catch up with what it means. And when Conservapedia is discussed, frankly, find me one truly positive reference that has a wide audience - it's mentioned a lot because people are laughing at it. ^theist 02:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help contribute to those half-billion page views they'll undeniably have in four years. I need more amusement in my life. «-Bfa-» 02:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I liked the idea that when Wikipedia comes up in conversation, that of course Conservapedia as some sort of equal counterpart just must be mentioned. Why, it's almost impossible for the news media to write about Wikipedia without somehow mentioning the interesting way that Conservapedia has tackled the same issue. --Leotardo (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

When I saw the title of the essay, "Conservapedia at Four," I thought it meant that there were only four active editors left. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay that was the best comment yet. --Leotardo (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thought he meant at 4 o'clock, like The News at Six, and I was plain confused. I like the Conservapedia is less than 1/10 the size, try 1/100 based on the number of content pages. - π 02:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia is less than 1/10 the size of the biggest wiki of all" Lol, you mean 1/1000 or 1/10,000 don't you? Anyway, JP, how does Andy anus taste? Nice work, whoever you are. ħuman 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, JPatt has a point as far as I'm concerned. When I'm talking about Wikipedia with someone, I often tell them to check out CP. Unfortunately, all of my friends are liberal Euro-trolls and potential troublemakers. Still, happy fourth anniversary, Conservapedia, may the flow of Andy's hard-earned money never cease, and may you continue to brighten our days with a little laughter for a while longer! Röstigraben (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

	wikipedia	conservapedia
content pages	3,481,183	34,523	< 1 %
pages	22,262,126	85,689	< 4 ‰
active editors	137,464	213	< 1.6 ‰

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, LArron, thanks. Now remove the homeworks and essays... also, how many kb are in each mainspace? Just curious. ħuman 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what percentage of CP pageviews are actually from RWians, and from those who learn about CP from RW and go there to see the crazy from themselves? And how many of their active editors are RW moles/socks? I suspect that a large (if not the main) factor keeping CP from sinking itno complete obscurity and literally becoming a blog is RW. -- 10:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think nasty, librull WP say it best when talking about pageviews: "This is not a measure of notability." --Ψ GremlinTala! 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

JPatt has really no sense of perspective CP is not Burger King to WP's Macdonalds, it's the Colonel Mustard's Last Hamburger Stand. CP is not the Ford to WP's General Motors- it's the fibre-glass, build-it-yourself, kit car where the doors don't fit properly and the roof leaks. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Conservapedia, the Trabant of the wiki world. Or in the spirit of Western capitalism... the Edsel of the wiki world. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 12:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"When talking fast food, you can't discuss McDonalds without talking about Burger King. When discussing wikis, you can't talk Wikipedia without discussing Conservapedia." ... Um false? You can totally discuss WP with out discussing CP. In fact 99/100 conversations I've had about WP have left CP off the map, and I'm particularly invested in CP. --216.67.39.3 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The only context in which CP does ever get mentioned in the same breath as WP normally starts, "oh yeah, and there's this insane site I found..." --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not fair, because "The internet is a powerful source of information and thanks to Andy Schlafly it has become an educational tool." Thanks to Andy Schlafly, the Internet now is educational. --Leotardo (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk of unfair - the Trabant? Lots of people owned a Trabant, I've been round a city in one, seeing the communist era sites. It's not a great car, but it is clearly a proper car, if Wikipedia is a Ford the Trabant is WhatPort80 or something. Conservapedia is a total joke, it's like the cars you doodle when you're ten, with eight wheels, huge wings and fire shooting out the back, that couldn't possibly work. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thank Andy for opening my eyes to how incoherent, fallacious, and sordid much of what passes for analysis from the right is. Happy birfday CP! 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the sheer mendacity that always astonishes me. The fact they don't even try to be honest. I read left wing satirists all the time but at least they admit thay are being satirical. cp is just lies pretending to be genuine honest truth from beginning to end. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Claim: When discussing wikis, you can't talk Wikipedia without discussing Conservapedia. Even though Conservapedia is less than 1/10 the size of the biggest wiki of all, there is always the mention of Conservapedia by the media and that is good news for sure.

Fact:

number of search-results at news.google.com
Conservapedia	16
Wikipedia	5,406
Conservapedia+Wikipedia	6

Conclusion: claim is bullocks.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news for sure! --Leotardo (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@LArron, I think the correct English word you want is "bollocks".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the BBC News 24 tech show 'Click' just interviewed Jimmy Wales about Wikipedia and guess what? There wasn't a single mention about our favourite bunch of paranoids and that far right blog they like to run. Weird that.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 03:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The majority of links on your Conservapedia:In_the_media show the Conservapedia/Wikipedia connection. BTW, more than 6. --Flabbergasted

When people mention Conservapedia they also tend to mention Wikipedia, the reverse does not hold true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Now the "greatest conservative songs" get pwned

in the Indypendent magazine. Calls some of the selections "quite a stretch" - something we're quite used to where Schlafly is concerned. --Ψ GremlinHable! 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I'm glad you read WIGOCP, so you know about CP's latest pwning, but it's not a positive thing for CP.^img --Ψ GremlinPraat! 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I strongly doubt Andy reads RW. Or at least he's got way to big of an ego to ever admit it. Second, he's taking a page from the Palin playbook. Anything that mildly irritates people outside your base is considered a resounding victory within. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I go with the "too big an ego to admit it" school of thought. His ego undoubtedly is big enough to deny anything he disagrees with, but that also would mean his ego is big enough to read anything about him or his blog, even if only to work up his righteous rage. Also, I doubt he is good enough at the intertubes to actually find much unless he simply googles CP+subject or himself+subject - and ego sufficient to do that is again one sufficient enough to read RW, methinks. -- 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Andy suddenly adds a week-old story within an hour of it being highlighted here. Coincidence? --Ψ GremlinFale! 16:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

They didn't really get pwned as much as the writer was looking for an angle to write actual reviews. Halfway through the column it totally switches gears, and I kept trying to figure out how the new songs he reviewed fit into the CP list. Alas, they didn't, so *I* got pwned. --Leotardo (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) IMO, it's more likely that a CP cabalist let him know about what libs were saying. I don't think anyone but Andy would have put that on MPR. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone going under the name 'Andrew Schlafly' posted the following on RW's Andrew Layton Schlafly talk page:

I welcome constructive criticism, but not lies. --Andrew Schlafly (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea if it was actually him. Not impossible. He's deluded enough to believe that he actually welcomes any sort of criticism. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that as good enough source for WP? ħuman 05:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of greatest conservative works of art^img.... --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Only Andy could take every little girl's fantasy of being a princess and turn it into a reality of being pregnant in the kitchen, baking cookies. Shoes optional. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've really been pondering this one. What exactly is he seeing in Beauty and the Beast that's so anti-feminist? Normally it's just Andy labelling things he likes "Conservative" and things he hates "Liberal", but I really don't see what distinguishes this one from any other Disney Princess Movies (TM). Anyway, he must have gone into paroxysms of rage when he saw Mulan...in fact, I wonder if that's not what he's referring to when he's complaining about later "liberal" Disney movies... --_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 07:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also also, at 6:30 (or is it 5:30) PM on Thanksfuckinggiving Andy is editing his blog? All REAL Americans were eating or digesting dead birds and/or watching teh footbul. What kind of sad family life does this ass have? Hell, even I was gone for ten hours enjoying the company of friends and strangers (although supposedly I am the strangest) and good food. ħuman 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's ever actually seen it. BatB is a feminmist dream. Belle is a powerful, independent woman who doesn't need a man in her life, but marries the beast after she brings out the good in him.... and the main villian is a walking feminist cliche of what's wrong with men.... What a moron.

(SirChuckB, from Alaska, too lazy to log in) 209.193.45.141 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain...

the difference between liberal and conservative name-calling.

I ask because - with comments such as 'Despicable Harry Reid' and 'huckster Al Gore' - CP seems to be indulging in one of them. Problem is, I can't tell which one. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 16:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that conservatives only call people names when it's true. Liberals call people racists/bigots/gay when they're not. I'd bet that's exactly how they rationalize it. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, exactly. So when Andy calls Bruce Springsteen a "buffoon^img" he's only calling a spade a spade. But when we call Ken a buffoon, it's because we are liberal name callers who don't have an argument. --Leotardo (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, conservatives will ignore the arguments liberals put forward, so it is kind of like "if you are (labelled as) a liberal, you are incapable to have valid arguments and therefore whatever you are labelling people with, it is not true". Kind of like those times slaves are treated (If you have been (tagged as) a slave, you are not entitled to the constitution protection and therefore your rights as a regular individual being are invalid). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a common conservative tactic -- use vicious insults towards liberals, and, when they respond in kind, accuse them of name-calling. Ann Coulter almost defines that "debate" style.

For what it's worth, an acquaintance of mine was mocking Prius drivers, calling them "little old ladies" who drive "granny cars" and loudly expressing his preference for muscle cars. (Which Prii definitely are not.) Several who own Prii, myself included, started with rational arguments -- "no one buys a Prius for power, they buy it for fuel efficiency, environmental concerns, and fascination with the tech" -- but he persisted in insulting us, so we finally started accusing him of preferring muscle cars because he was... a-hem... "compensating" for something. At which point he brought out the "liberals always result to name-calling" argument. His hypocrisy was resoundingly pointed out. MDB (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Buying a fast muscle car to "compensate" for the fact you can't run very fast is a well known and completely rational, acceptable reason for owning one. I pride you friend on his common sense approach to car ownership :P -- 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that guy is buying a fast muscle car to "compensate" the fact that all the other things he is doing finishes very fast, if he was "given the chance to do" it, that is. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. You're talking about penises and sex. X Stickman (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you know that most conservatives hate all import cars right? Even tho I hate the Prius myself, but your friend probably thinks that all imports are inferior. Seen too many muscle guys telling me "I'll smoke your JDM piece of crap anyday." (It's a 1999 Civic Coupe w/spoiler, custom hood and turbo V6 swap, not rare at all in reality-in fact they are somehow becoming too common.) Even tho my car is a racer, it isn't that good of a racer and I'm not looking for 1/4 mi drags anyway. They bore me. On the topic of hybrids, I would prefer a Civic Hybrid to a Prius anyday (better looks, handling, comfort and performance) but again, that's just my opinion. Some sort of performance is important in my world, lol. You can flame for "rice" now. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought one can buy a Chevy Volt if one hates import cars that much. Oh well... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 08:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I always though that the name Prius was too close to Priapus. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree the Prius isn't a great car, but not because of the "'Dem so-called hybrids are a LIEbrul-facist-muslimist-atheist-commie-franco-japaneese plot to destroy Uhmerika" Andy-esque view. IMHO the Prius is a dinosaur. The electric only range is ridiculous, and it's practically impossible to drive normally without the fossil engine kicking in. Plug in/Range extended hybrids are a much better solution until fuel cell designs become widely available. Also, from an aesthetic view, the style gives it a sense of weight and clumsiness, it's not a pleasing car to look at, nor particularly great inside. For cars in that size range Ampera/Volt design is both technically and aesthetically more pleasing, IMHO, though I prefer small smaller/easier to drive things. I'd really like to see a Citroen C1 or Smart2 plug in hybrid design. It would probably be one of the few things to persuade me to get a car again.-- 10:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with the Prius is that you can be more economical with a small modern diesel without the weight and environmental impact of those sodding great batteries. We have two HDI-engined cars - a 1.4 and a 1.6. Both reasonably large cars - an estate and a van derivative. And I get 52 and 57 average (British) mpg out of them. Don't set the asphalt aflame, but cars are boring anyway compared to bikes. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chevy Volt; Nah, because Rush Limbaugh hates it. And he hates Motor Trend too.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said AKJ, very few hybrids offer anything over modern ultra-high pressure direct-injection Diesels. This is not a new thing, even in the early 90s you could a small hatchback with an old-fashioned Diesel engine that would do 70mpg, and my Missus has a 2002 BMW 3-series (which is a good sized saloon) with a 2.0L common-rail Diesel motor that goes like shit off a shovel but still does 50+mpg. Damn those Krauts make good cars. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the one major advantage of hybrids is the reduction in local pollution. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest Clipart

The latest piece of clipart^img stolen by Terry Koeckritz seems to come from here, or possibly here. You have to love the way these Xtians are always willing to take, but never give credit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, why would they? Neither of those sites look they are looking for attibution. The "Free Christian Clip Art" header on the second one certainly suggests that the images are copyright-free. & Really, is there nothing more interesting to talk about than some guy uploading some clip art on a wiki? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets talk about how fucking stupid and ugly that gif was on MPL. Im so glad they took it off! Senator Harrison (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it, it's very 1990, Like something out of the Apple 2E Oregon trail, I saved a copy to my harddrive to enjoy later. --216.67.39.3 (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Free Christian clipart says "© 2010 Christian Clip Art" so I doubt they're saying their stuff is copyright free. They don't seem to have any terms of use but they're probably fine with people using their stuff for small home projects. Stuff like conservapedia is more iffy but since it they're still non-profit and their view point may be close to conservapedia's they may be okay. I definitely wouldn't use them in a commercial project without either seeking permission or under some sort of fair use or smilar claim. I wouldn't even bother to try if I were preparing a commercial atheist clipart website. It's a mistake to think 'free'=can use for whatever I want although I suspect whoever runs that website has little idea of copyrights themselves and hasn't really thought about what they want people using their stuff for (this isn't necessarily a good thing, who knows whether the owner drew that picture or they took it from some random place without permission). Of course this means conservapedia is like most of the rest of the web (Christian or not) Nil Einne (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• You wretched liberals must be bored. No surprise really. When your atheistic ideology is incapable of creating anything of value you resort to lies and smears. Like all atheists you know nothing of charity or good will toward anyone but yourselves, and even then the mask will eventually come off to show you to be the villainous jackals you are. Happy thanksgiving. -- TK

Wow, TwinKle, did you write that with a straight face? Now how about you fuck off, you pathetic hypocrite. --Ψ GremlinTala! 08:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He's so funny! I may be an atheist but I've never stolen anyone else's work and passed it off as my own, something you do with alarming regularity, Tiny Knockers. I imagine you're already hard at work scouring the Internet for another pretty Christmas graphic to spam onto everyone's talk page and claim as your own? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say he's feeling butt-hurt, but I'm under the impression that's not a bad thing where he's concerned. Obviously TinkieWinKie feels the need to regain some street cred with AndyPants. Instead of just admitting, yeah I fucked up... again. --Ψ GremlinFale! 12:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Thought you shit heels would have noticed from the edit history that i wrote that inspiring holiday message. 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, one: edit histories are for pussies; two: your TK impersonation is creepily accurate; three: that wasn't turkey. --Ψ Gremlin講話 15:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He certainly had me fooled. But then I'm a typical ignorant atheist and victim of the public school system. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why everyone was taking what you posted seriously. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh. As they say in the classics, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Terry Koeckritz...

...I know I only went to one of those English universities, but remind me, does an apostrophe^img indicate a plural? -- Iscariot (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought an apostrophe after name is possessive and after an alphabet (A's) is plural. Perhaps I lack the English skill to comprehend further. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 08:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

His grammar fail is compounded by a temporal fail: that story is dated November 12, so it's about the protest two weeks ago. Good work Terry Koeckritz. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckrit'z misplaced an apostrophe? Wherer'e the wigo's? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob the Angry Flower wants a word with the TK. (<srs>Apostrophes never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever indicate plurals.</srs>) -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 08:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He's in good company.^img Then again, as we've seen from Andy's "tests" good spelling and grammar are optional for conservatives. --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

For a man who claims to be well-travelled and a frequent visitor to the UK, he doesn't half love denigrating the British. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as with images^img from the internet, our hard work is stolen without credit. Though, as usual, we pull the strings and the puppet dances to our tune. -- Iscariot (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And just like Andy he deceitfully conceals his correction in another edit. How despicable. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

..with a bonus misspelling of "dandies" in the edit summary. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

About apostrophes and plurals, it was at one time correct to use an apostrophe to pluralize things like initials and numerals (1970's, CD's) at least here in the US, but I think that's being dropped. I wouldn't call it incorrect to do so, anyway, just perhaps slightly archaic. Nothing to do with TK's post, really. DickTurpis (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Apostrophes are often used with initialisms because visually they distinguish the "s" from the actual initials, but it depends on who you're talking to as to whether that's correct or not. The numbers thing could be from a similar attempt to differentiate, but I think that just comes from over-misuse, which has simply become semi-acceptable -- you just don't need to distinguish numerals and letters that way. From what I learned (the little I learned) in grammar class at university, it's usually poor form, in either case. The Wikipedia article is helpfulish. But, aside from some odd exceptions, it's a pretty hard and fast rule. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 13:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess it sort of comes down to what's widely accepted and what's "officially" correct. I checked a few books on usage, and Fowler's says there is no need for the usages I mentioned, while Follett's Modern American Usage says "The further wide use of the apostrophe is to make plurals for special occasions -- cross your t's and dot your i's / the 1920's / the Montgomery's -- though in recent years the stylebooks of certain editors and publishers have tended to enforce the 1920s, the three Rs, and even the Montgomerys." DickTurpis (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My Gowers' The Complete Plain Words (HMSO 1986) says:

Whether an apostrophe should be used to denote a plural of a word or symbol that does not ordinarily make a plural depends on whether the plural is readily recognisable as such. ... It is clearly justified with single letters: "there are two o's in woolly"; "mind your p's and q's". Otherwise it is rarely called for. It should not be used in contractions (e.g. MPs)

He also says that "whole books have been written about the usage of the apostrophe, and it is still true, as it was 500 years ago, that no two authorities completely agree". Even so, Fop's was incorrect.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that "fop's" is incorrect. It just prompted a pedantic discussion on grammar. DickTurpis (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I know but I just wanted to make sure that the original point wasn't forgotten.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Those Fops & Dandies would presumably be better employed chanting "No means yes. Yes means anal". 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Susan wins the thread. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 00:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit late chiming in on this one, but there is no ambiguity at all here: You never ever use an apostrophe to create a plural, to do so it just plain wrong. (Also it is NOT acceptable to simply add an apostrophe to a proper noun ending in "s" to denote possession, you must also add an "s" as you would do normally. This Americanism seems to be creeping in to the UK, and it is wrong wrong wrong!) ^{— Unsigned, by: DeltaStar / talk / contribs}

Not any more. A modern convention, (whether it originates in America or not is irrelevant), is to spell the possessive as it sounds. So "James's house" but "Achilles' heal". The Times, for example, uses this convention.

But the wider point is that this is English, not French. We don't have an "official" set of rules dictated to us by the state. Rules are by convention. And if the convention changes or there are several conventions, then they are used. Of course, the BBC's or The Guardian's conventions carry more weight than what some yoof posts to Twitter from his iPhone. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll meet you half way there, I understand the reasoning behind The Times's approach. It's infinitely more annoying when people don't spell the possessive as it sounds, and I end up cringing at "Stirling Moss' car" or "Jesus' word". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although what we want for English and what it actually is are two separate things. If the convention becomes that txt spelling or some other phonetics is acceptable, then that is what becomes acceptable. It's down to common usage. Evolution, man.

As a brief aside, the "Jesus' word" thing is an old convention, not a modern Americanism. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As Ajkgordon says, there are no legally enforceable rules for the English language. However, teachers need to impose some sort of rules and we probably end up following what we have been taught. Having attended schools in different areas I have been taught different things so refer to style guides when unsure. With regards to possessives for nouns ending in 's' Gowers advises adding an apostrophe and an 's' - so St. James's Street, Mr. Jones's room and Sterling Moss's car - but for multi-syllable words just to use an apostrophe - Jesus' parables or Dickens' novels - even if the possessive 's' is added in speech.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy and quantum mechanics---the insanity never ends

Andy, regarding your latest anti-relativity rant, the notion that space and time are smooth and continuous is not peculiar to Einstein or relativity. It goes back to Newton, Kepler, Galileo, etc. And speculation that quantum mechanics implies that spacetime is granular (often described as "foam-like"), with peculiar dimensionality, near the Planck length, has been going on for many years. It has nothing to do with relativity. It relates to the geometric structure of the universe. Try Googling "foam-like+spacetime" (without the quotes.) I get 20000 hits, going back to 1979. The Christian Science Monitor article isn't new, and it isn't a counterexample.

Also, your link is busted. I think what you want is this one. Yeah, with a period. You should use "preview". Gauss (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Gravity doesn't operate in the Quantum world and the energy is opposite to the negative gravity energy so they can in fact work together. Ace^{word up} 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IN fact, the more I think about it, I have never heard anyone suggest that spacetime should be smooth and continuous. Virtual particles are continually being created and destroyed and relativity suggest time isn't smooth as large objects distort it. Fucking weirdo. Ace^{word up} 02:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics also can't explain gravity's opposite, comedy. ħuman 08:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "comedy" of which you speak is a morally bankrupt fictitious construct foisted upon the long-suffering proleteriat by the less tasteful, more repugnant elements of the bourgeoisie. It is yet another outrageous example of the commoditisation of freely available common property, which both accuses and convicts its perpetrators. These parasites will inevitably be subject to an inevitable comeuppance at the hands of a righteous yet unruly mob. Yours in all levity, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you can call it english

Pretty terrible syntax though.^img Ace^{word up} 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"She came to national attention when her ranking for competitive dancing sharply rose." Uh, she came to national attention when her repugnant mother tried to turn her into a pro-life poster child. Corry (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Even by Ed's standards that is pretty awful English. Actually, given his pathetic grasp of basic English and maths, I wonder just what he does teach... if his frequent boasts are anything to go by. --Ψ GremlinFale! 09:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lockdown

Wow, so now creating an account is a blockable offense? Or is TwistedKnickers finding new ways to achieve sexual gratification? --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 09:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

McChrystal - from "war hero" to "washed up liberal"

When McChrystal criticized Obama, CP championed the right of the "war hero" to free speech, whether or not it violated any military code of conduct. As soon as McChrystal decided to teach at Yale, Andy decides he is a "washed up liberal". Bonus points to "new user" Martyp for helping making CP self-referential.^img I wouldn't be surprised if that catches on. Bravo! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet Andy (claims) he has degrees from "ultra-liberal" schools Princeton and Harvard. And Bush had degrees from Yale and Harvard. I guess that makes Andy and Dubya "washed up liberals" then right?--74.196.239.161 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on, you're not keeping up. assfly can't be washed up, he don't go in for no liberal washing stuff. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It gives me a boner when Andy refers to someone as "washed up". Hateboy (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

More anti british stuff

Two more anti(ish) british stories on MPR including some anti vaccine stuff (I don't know enough to comment on that). I am sure it has been asked many times before, but why do they hate us brits so? The more atheistic and more socialist Europeans don't get this treatmentAMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Because they feel so inferior to us. As Andy said in one of his anti-Britsih rants, Britain had an effect on the world disproportionate to its size. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind quite so much if the criticism was in any way valid. There is probably plenty that is genuinely wrong with the UK, it seems pointless to attack it with such bollocks.AMassiveGay (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then again, what I would consider wrong, CP would probably applaudAMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the anti-NHS propaganda came from vactruth.com and the Daily Mail, those well known purveyors of trustworthy information by which to make important decisions. Didn't Andy once make a speech for Doctors for Disaster Preparedness about vaccines? AlexR4444 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So, the vaccine story comes down to this: An FOIA request got back the answer that 40 kids had died over some period (may have been seven years, it's not entirely clear). They take this fact and they apply this convenient rule of thumb that 90% of deaths aren't reported. Because, you know, parents who lose a child probably just chalk it up to bad luck and go get pizza, after all Britain is Liberal and liberals don't care about kids. So that gets you 400 dead kids. They've combined this made up statistic with the fact that doctors intend to provide three vaccines (for six diseases) in a single scheduled appointment (which will mean less side effects, because most of the side effects seem to be, let's be generous, unrelated to the pharmaceutical content of the vaccination) and they say, well, obviously we can't allow this convenient and sensible decision because of all the kids it will kill. For a denialist this is perfectly logical, and if Andy isn't yet a denialist, he's well on his way. Sadly, just as public transport gives rare but spectacular and thus newsworthy accidents while private cars just lead to endless unreported tragedy, public health interventions result in scarily large numbers (even if they have to be inflated ten times to sound better) that can get you headlines whereas disastrously wrong private decisions (like say treating your kid's cancer with homeopathy) are relegated to a footnote. Most important thing you can do for your child on vaccination day? Drive safely. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said! --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Ken has deleted his user page 50 times since July. Why? 15:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of his other comments he seams to be on some kind of drive to get his own user page displaying on a certain search engine beginning with G. That and the fact he is proper mental. And by the way if you're reading this Ken, a cat laughing at you is not the same as a cat yelping. StarFish (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of his SEO obsession, but how could deleting stuff possibly help? Hateboy (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He does it to hide errors, usually minor typos. - π 00:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he does it to hide his typos (everyone makes those), but rather, to hide the bajillion edits that it takes to fix those typos. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In general Ken makes very few typos (although 'homoschooling' was one of his best), most of his edits are rephrasings, reversions of those rephrasings, additions of UTube videos links, and 1 pixel changes to image sizes. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, after all these years, no one knows why Ken engages in repeated deletions and recreations. Someday he may enlighten us, but I doubt we'll understand the shoe even if it hits us upside the hyena. ħuman 08:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Or should that be "fits us upside the hyena"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. Hateboy (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

He also thinks it's a clever ploy to break any diff-links to his insanity. Plus, given that it takes him 12 edits to move a full stop, it's a handy way of uncluttering the history page. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 10:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Movies

I love it when Andy (with a bit of help from Jpatt) opens his mind and lets his ignorance out to play. I'd say the Hurt Locker is anything but conservative. Obviously Andy - who hasn't seen it - is thinking, 'It's about the bomb disposal guys in Eye-rack, must be conservative, because they're brave.' Ignoring the fact that it shows just how they're getting fucked up mentally over there. And it's by a woman... and those filthy liberals gave it a heap of Oscars.

Here's some more for your Andy - Green Zone, it's about Eye-rack so it must be conservative, and the Midnight Meat Train, all about the evils of public transport. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 09:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Team America too. Its about a group of americas who protect the world from the commies and Film Actors. --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about Speed – it's about publik transit terrisum. – Nick Heer 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deep throat: putting women in their place. 15:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse Now. It's about upstanding, clean-cut American soldiers and their heroism protecting tiny yellow people from Communism. Also, Citizen Kane. It's about personal growth and spiritual fulfillment through the accumulation of wealth, in other words, about the American Dream. Hateboy (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then, five minutes later, 'rosebud' is added to the list of greatest conservative words. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Debbie Does Dallas? It’s a movie about the best of the pubic, sorry, I mean public, in which the protagonist earns money though honest hard work. It’s what the American and many wet dreams are made of. Deny credibility and lose all this. JumboWhales (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Behind the Green Door, what those filthy ecologists get up to in private.82.23.211.127 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you missed The Devil In Miss Jones, which puts a special emphasis on hHell, just like Jesus did! --Kels (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Slug WIGO

I don't understand the "punch line". Was the idea that Karajou left it in that state? The latest revision is of Karajou blanking most of it (probably because of the request for deletion), so it looks like JessicaT left it in that state.--74.196.239.161 (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be worded better, but now that I look at it, I see Karajerk's mass removal of info came after the request. Comprehension fail on my part. Sorry Brian. Kiss kiss. hug hug. --Ψ Gremlin講話 10:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick, before it's gone

Saving BishoiH's parthian shot^img for posterior.--Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Got bored, but it was worth it all for watching Ed and TK go into HCM and start randomly reverting stuff, factual/genuine or otherwise. Typically they missed the best of both... --BishoiH (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How useless Ed is, he merely reverted the post rather than oversighting it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And twatknickers also missed oversighting this^img and <capture>this^img and this^img Oldusgitus (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like capturebot is having a rough day in the office. --BishoiH (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No Bish, he got them :-) If you full res the first one it's there. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. All this new-fangled intertubes 2.0 business, beyond a simple right wing hack like my good, pure and godley self ;) --BishoiH (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I decided to leave it because threads like this one directly link vandals and planting false information to Rational Wiki, which of course you guys claim not to sponsor. Keep up the good work! XXOO

Dance little puppet, dance for your masters.Oldusgitus (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

And it has nothing at all to do with your plans to make CP look as stupid as possible. As for false information, there's lots you need to look for - I'd start with cp:Barack Obama. Run along and play now, little boy. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

“”As for false information, there's lots you need to look for - I'd start with cp:Barack Obama Barack Hussein Napoleon Pol-Pot Osama, allegedly born in Honolulu, HI

• Ha, how do you know it is really me and not one of my sock's? ṬK 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed :) -- 13:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about him dancing for his masters, but he'd probably kneel before them. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

TK, learn to thread to properly, and WTF are you on about? -- 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but is it him? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another conservative moment of rank stupidity

Andy "defensive weapon of gun" Schlafly^img can't seem to see the difference between trained soldiers handing weapons and teenagers carrying loaded and concealed weapons in public. Seriously, does he keep crib notes handy to remind him to breathe? --Ψ GremlinSprich! 15:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely up there on the list of stupid comments by Andy Schlafly. The stuff he adds in italics after his news headlines just make the site seem like a joke. Why would I want to read any articles after I've read that? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Andy on this one. If other people in their twenties are legally allowed to perform surgery, why can't I perform surgery on people? ^EXTERMINATE 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It would probably do Andy some good to meet a couple of these gun-totin' teenagers. 10 internets sez he comes home sans wallet and pro gun control. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 16:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, how do you know they aren't trained? It's not like they have licensed programs where you have to have a certain hit percentage and/or know certain conduct and practices to pass. But yeah, let Andy meet these guys on his way to collect mail at his AAPS branch to see how it works. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I view it as when you are an eighteen, you are an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities of. If those above 20 can carry such weapons, then so should 18-20 year olds. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes me wonder, does Andy pack heat when he teaches his homeschool class? Or if one of the kids 'goes postal' would he hope that the rest of the class would take her out first?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

All or nothing theories where majority automatically coincides with all changes in the rights and responsibilities of a citizen are often proposed, but seldom implemented. Given how simple they would be this ought to caution us against assuming they work. The inconsistencies can often be made fun of (example seemingly crazy age restriction outcomes from major countries: You can join the military and shoot people but not buy a beer, you can have sex with a girl but not own a naked photograph of her, you can vote but cannot be elected to high office) but that doesn't tell us whether these absurdities are worse than the ills they may conceal. Personally I believe that majority can and should legally vary with the individual's ability and desire to accept additional responsibility rather than triggering on the anniversary of your birth no matter what. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I gotta side with andy on this one. While I don't take my gun with me in to 711 or work, I do feel safer knowing I'm packing heat.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Andy knows exactly what he's talking about here, after all he remembers clearly the age at which he signed up to do his patriotic duty and the age at which he successfully encouraged his kids to follow his example. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Poor Touch Strikes Again!

The wrongness^img, let me count the ways:

• Original research
• Red links to pointless trivia
• Irrelevant, it shouldn't be in the page for the first film
• Inadequate knowledge, you can red link a game from Harry Potter but not know the name of the 'villain', who isn't actually the villain
• The wrong spelling, it's actually 'Spider-Man', it's an easy mistake to make, it's not like the correct spelling has been on three of the highest grossing movies ever, innumerable video games and thousands of new comic books every week for the last 48 years

Come on Ed, the movie has two villains, one with oily skin and the other made of sand, there's a much easier conservative reading to be taken from that film. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, in what world is TV Tropes^img an acceptable source for a 'trustworthy' encyclopaedia? -- Iscariot (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You are thinking like a Wikipedian, no original research, what is and isn't a reliable source, etc. Conservapedia clearly doesn't use those rules. - π

I can't turn my brain off to think like a Conservapaedian. However I shall now think like a puppet master. Ed, TK, we know you're reading. Go look up the CP page on TV Tropes and then remove the link like good little bigots. -- Iscariot (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed had better tread carefully. According to TinkiewinKie, it's "certainly one of the great liberal deceits of all time" (TZB - 40/7798012db2f65327.html) Then again, given the paucity (or should that be Poorcity?) of information, there's nothing really to complain about. Oh, and why is "deserted" capitalised? Seriously, just what does this ignoramus teach? --Ψ Gremlin講話 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Deserted is capitalised because Eddie's C+Ped the sentence from TV Tropes without realising that they've capitalised it because it's a link to a trope page. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That CP:Lord of the Flies stub is pure gold - "depressingly realistic . . . British schoolboys . . . the darkness of humanity spills forth". I guess those British junior Fop's and Dandies should get jobs. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile ...

... on WP, Ed liveblogs ... what exactly? 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

He's confusing words again, he was looking for masturbate, not Masbate. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No masbate is the word Mooines use, so Jesus Rev Moon doesn't find out. Besides, it's hard to type, diddle yourself and hold the Holy Handkerchief at the same time. So I've heard. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 10:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. He holds out the tenuous promise of possibly adding some unattributed comments to an article. It sounds like one of Ken's Operation Future Nothing posts. Anything he posted which he had heard would not only be unverifiable it would also be OR. The correct place for that post would be his Twitter feed rather than a WP talk page.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Small Point

I know that this may be a small point but it has been gnawing at me for a long time now. I am concerned that Andy's hobby horse "Professor values" should more properly read "Professorial values". Further, is there a minor irony involved in using a ungrammatical phrase to attempt to denigrate those of professorial rank? --Horace (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's coming from the same place they got "Democrat Party," which as far as I know, Republican partisans love to say because they know its ungrammatical sound drives them well-schooled liberals crazy. Junggai (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty standard for those kind of phrases - family values, not familial values. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of family values. I did consider judicial values, political values and priestly values. The last of which has something to do with an admiration of young boys:

There once was a parson called Bings

Who talked much of god and such things

But his secret desire

Was a boy in the choir

With a bottom like jelly on springs.

Or so I hear. --Horace (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

reading --Opcn (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to my opponent, Mr. Schlafly" --Horace (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perspective is important

So I've been fairly inactive here (WIGO:CP and RW in general, compared to my usual activity), focusing mostly on Citizendium, which looks more like CP Lite with each passing day. And hey, CZ struck me as fairly crazy, so I needed to recalibrate my Insane-o-meter. Randomly open CP's Recent Changes, check out this discussion^img - and BOOM, recalibration successful, and I even know that this is tame by Andy's standards. Ahhh, the sweet smell of A-grade WTH...

(And if my brain wasn't as fried as it is, I'd actually go into the question if Andy's "conservative message" includes gunning down the people who mistreated you academically...) --Sid (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that some people here may have no idea what you are talking about here, so, for future reference:

Insanity in Griggs is a sigmoid function of absolute insanity; the graph looks very much like that of the Gauss error function. Zero Griggs is complete absence of insanity, 1 Griggs is infinite insanity, ie. complete and permanent detachment from reality. One obvious way to calibrate an insanity meter is to find a source of limited but consistent insanity of known and well documented average severity. Examples would include Fox News, WND, or any gathering of three or more Libertarians. You would take readings and adjust sensitivity until the average reading you saw would match the average reading you would expect. While theoretically sound, this approach is very often impractical in a formal academic context; disputes over distribution functions mean you may have to invest tens of hours and take hundreds of readings to obtain the level of confidence your results will need to be considered fit to be published.

One popular alternative is to use a source that alternates between mildly loco and totally bonkers. Ideally, you would want a stream of fairly mild and reasonably consistent baseline crankiness that contained spikes of infinite or nearly infinite gaga at vaguely regular intervals. You would initially set your meter to the most sensitive setting available and slightly decrease sensitivity every time you would obtain a reading off the scale. Once you would have seen a handful or two of spikes that failed to slam the needle against the stop you would be tolerably certain your setting was true; if you had chosen you source well these spikes would be obvious.

Eric S. Raymond's blog is thought to be nearly ideal for use with this method as far as the probability distribution of the insanity is concerned; it changes back and forth between consummately deranged genocidal hatemongering and technological punditry more adequately described as inane than delusional. What has prevented Raymond from becoming the gold standard of quantifying crazy is simply that the volume of his output is insufficient, him being but one monkey with but one typewriter. Conservapedia is the Raymond substitute the academic community has tacitly agreed on. There is no apparent consensus as to where to turn when Conservapedia is unavailable, although Steven den Beste's USS Clueless archives are reported to have experienced a notable upsurge in traffic during the Week that Never Was.

Maybe there should be a FAQ on these things somewhere. I seem to remember many people never even found out how to properly surge-protect a simple irony meter.

mb 02:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, Sid! I followed your link, then looked at the state of the list these days. And now my head hurts. --Kels (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Er... no, Andy

You're thinking of Muhammad Ali^img "Allahu Akbar" means "Allah is Greater." Tomorrow I'll teach you "Amandla Awethu." --Ψ GremlinPraat! 15:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For record purposes only, now he claim he knows Arabic. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy actual claims that 'Allah' does not mean 'God'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Given what is likely to be Andy's definition of god, though, he makes a twisted sort of sense if you assume that "Allah" refers to the specific Muslim idea of god whereas "God" refers to Andy's bizarrely specific Christian god. X Stickman (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have personally heard Arab Christians refer to their God as "Allah". Hateboy (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. In fact a Persian Christian even told Andy just that. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course Allah is different from Yahweh or God, just like Christopher Columbus is a different person from Christoffa Corombo, Cristoforo Colombo, Cristòfor Colom, Cristóbal Colón and Cristóvão Colombo.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

...so by Andy's logic the God he prays to is not the God the Pope in Rome prays to? Wouldn't that make him an apostate? Hateboy (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm saying it makes Andy-sense. He seems to think that allah refers to a specific interpretation of god rather than simply being a foreign word meaning the same thing. Considering that Andy has probably only ever heard of "Allah" in reference to muslims in general (and terrorism in particular) he probably thinks it makes perfect sense. X Stickman (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't critizising you, I was meaning to point out the rank absurdity of Andy's position. Hateboy (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that Scumfly thinks the Bible the Pope (and everybody) else uses is no good, "apostate" is the right word. I'd go as far as to say the "God" Scumfly worships isn't the Christian god (or Allah for that matter). He might be the vicious, jealous bastard of the Old Testament, however. I wonder if he (I doubt the other sysops are that insane) takes a printed copy of the ConsBib to church with him on Sundays? --Ψ Gremlin講話 08:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The name of Andy's God is Quantum Jesus Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no God but Andy and TK is his lackey. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your all idiots. Its best translated as "God is the akbar." Occasionaluse (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

God is a trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On the subject of "washed up buffoons..."

I give you Republican celebrities. How long until "Best non-Hollywood values people?" Seriously, are any of these a-list anymore? Anyway, Anna Paquin kicks Buffy's ass any day. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems oddly appropriate that Darth Vader is a Republican. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a Democrat celebs list too. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaargh! Nicholson's got bigger, LOTS bigger, tits than me; take that image from my mind PLEASE! 10:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post the same thing. His are bigger than my own manboobs, but mine are firmer. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to make Andy aware of this list. I reckon he can slander every one on the democrat list within a month. ^EXTERMINATE 13:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind Buffy being a fascist, provided Faith isn't. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And what about Victoria Jackson? Perhaps she's left off because she has Poe alarms ringing off the hook. DickTurpis (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens, Cancer

Can't get much classier than that. Christian my foot. Can we start calling him "the oedipal-complex-stricken Andrew Schlafly"? I'm sure someone can think of a better one... -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 00:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The first time I saw the edit, I was prepared to let it go... but the more I think about it there's only one way to take that comment: that his cancer is directly related to his atheism. It would be like saying "...France's Sarkozy, Britain's Cameron, and the USA's black president Obama". There's absolutely no reason to mention cancer in that headline and it's just further proof that Andy is one of the world's most obnoxious people. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If I were to experience an uncharacteristic empathy with Schlafly, or more likely, if I were being Advocatus Diaboli - I would suggest that this is Newspaperese, which would be inexcusable from an encyclopedia, but no-one here believes CP, and particularly it's Main Page is an encyclopedia. In Newspaperese, unusual things may be done with the English language. For example "Bat Man Flies Over" is hopeless as an English sentence, but completely acceptable as a newspaper headline. In Newspaperese it is common to refer to people with context instead of or as well as easily forgotten names, for example "Bat Man" in the previous headline probably refers not to a comic book hero but a man in some way involved in a story concerning bats. Perhaps the paper previously reported he'd stolen one from a zoo. So, it would definitely be acceptable to write "Cancer sickened atheist Christopher Hitchens attended the festival" as a shorter way to write "Christopher Hitchens is that famous atheist. The one with cancer. Now you know who we mean? Great, so, he was at this festival the article you're reading is about". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely inconceivable. But, it's Andy, and it's hard to read anything but malice in that, especially from such a hateful person. --УФББДЯЇДИ^{Bend Sinister} 02:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Yossie how about "the breast cancer fixated dribbling moron"? --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 08:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, always referring to him as "son of activist Phyllis Schlafly" would tarnish his star.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You forget - a true conservative calls out Mama S's name whilst masturbating. --Ψ GremlinTal! 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ewwwwww, I don't think any amount of bleach will ever scrub that image from my brain. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight

Scumfly has his knickers in a knot because Obama "perpetuates the Afghanistan War and just broke the record set by the communist Soviet Union there."

Now, looking at this from a sane point of view, it's clear just what a lying sack of steaming feces Scumfly really is. So Obama - who's been in the Oval office for nearly two years - sets the record for a war started by Dubbya 8 years ago. I wonder if Obama used to beat Andy up behind Harvard's bikeshed to make him shed and semblance of credibility in slandering the man? I get the impression that every time there's a positive Obama story, Andy spends a few hours foaming at the mouth as he thrashes around on his office floor.

Also, am I right in assuming that CP is now against the Iraq and Afghan wars?

I will, however, agree that the Peace Prize was a stupid award. --Ψ GremlinHable! 09:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Embarrassingly so I fear.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The peace prize was entirely appropriate - any one who displaced Dubya from the White House is de facto going to make the world a more peaceful place. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right in assuming that CP is now against the Iraq and Afghan wars. If Obama is for it, they are against it. I hope Obama will endorse "breathing" this morning, so the entirety of CP will hold their breath until they pass out. MDB (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately breathing is an unconscious reflex, so they'll start again as soon as they pass out. Although it's a great fact to know when there are children around who threaten to hold their breath until they get what they want. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Breathing is only an unconscious reflex in the world of science, and in that "real world" that's full of liberal bias. – Nick Heer 04:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia: The Movie

the conservapedia network

The story of the creation of Facebook has been made into a very fine movie called The Social Network.

Andy had also given indication he thinks Conservapedia is on a level of prominence equal to Facebook.

This leads to a question I came up with while getting ready for work this morning: How would you cast Conservapedia: The Movie?

Since we only know what a few of them look like, and modern make-up can do wonders, cast based on previous roles they've played, similar to their role at CP.

I've had a few thoughts...

• Andy Schlafly: Andy Serkis (aka Gollum from The Lord of the Rings). CP is clearly his "precioussssss".
• Phyllis Schlafly: Meryl Streep. If you've seen The Devil Wears Prada, you know she can play "despicable bitch" brilliantly.

And if you so desire, add how you'd cast yourself, since RW would clearly be the "bad guys".

I can only see myself being portrayed by Ben Affleck. He isn't quite the gorgeous hunk of man-flesh I am, but he's the only one that comes clo... oh, who am I kidding? John Goodman.

MDB (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the tradition of how CP has been constructed and managed over the years the movie should be directed by Uwe Boll. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 12:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if only Ed Wood was still with us... MDB (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite my lack of prominence at RW - can I have Alan Rickman? Webbtje (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, it would have to be called "The Anti-social Nutwork.

As for cast, let's go big budget here.

• Andy - Willen Dafoe in full crazy mode
• TK - Sean Penn (because of his work in Milk)
• Karajou - Jack Nicholson - you can't handle our "truth", liberal!
• Ken - that ugly little bugger who played the psycho in Con Air, the one feeding the guy into the chipper in Fargo (That would be Steve Buscemi.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.})
• Ed Poor - who the creepy, obese actor was who played Swelter the chef in Ghormenghast, with his "little spittle boys"
• Hurlbut - John Malkovic - ditto in full crazy mode

As for me, it could only be the delectable Haneyuri as Kotomi Tanaka (and now you know where the name came from.) --Ψ GremlinSprich! 12:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gary Busey as Andy. He's the only person who can pull off that much bat shit crazy.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I call dibs on Peter Woodward. We're both bald and have rough;y the same physical structure, except his bulk is all around his shoulders, whereas my bulk is slightly more southwards.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Picture — Just me, but I think I would have gone for: "You don't get to 84 million page hits without a horde of clickbots and 0 in mental problems".-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't Phyllis be portrayed using CG, much like the recent version of Grendel? --Kels (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, but where's the fun in that? Hmm, maybe Vin Diesel as Bugler and Jason Sudeikis (from SNL) as RodWeathers...nada, nada, nada. And Tom Cruise as Human..that's all for now.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 23:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We already cast Conservapedia: The Musical. I guess this would be the same but we don't need musical stage actors as much? DickTurpis (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia kinda reminds of The Office (US version) actually:

• Michael -> Andy
• Dwight -> TK
• Kevin -> Ed Poor
• Creed -> Conservative

Or maybe Ed Wood (movie) mixed with Glenn Beck? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have forgotten DouglasA. Who can sit around in the background and call everyone an asshole? Needs to be a bit old. Some actor past his prime. All I can think of is Jon Voigt. – Nick Heer 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Onion accidentally parodies Andy.

here^{— Unsigned, by: Dalek / talk / contribs}

How do you know it was an accident? They may well have got the idea from the CP Bible retranslation project in the first place. After all it did make some mainstream news outlets and was on the Colbert Report.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly the kind of writing that would have Scumfly in orgasmc bliss. In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't used the verses about Jesus telling his guys to buy swords and Peter lopping somebody's ear off with one, to stress that the Bibbel says it's ok to bear arms. Because Jesus was all about peace and not a member of a cult of zealots fighting Roman occupation... --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 13:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fundie MadLib

It's a TK original, so I won't WIGO it, but this is hilarious in a sort of "I've had one-too-many-whiskies this Thanksgiving" kind of way. – Nick Heer 04:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh. It's just a copy-paste from a bush-league wingnut site. I don't think Conservapedians deserve full credit for finding crazy people. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 04:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservopoly

We should so invent a Conservapedia version of Monopoly, easily done with something like this. The streets could instead be articles, in ascending order of infamy (Mayfair has to be Obama, surely?), and we could have chance cards like "You contradict one of Andy's insights using facts. Go directly to Jail, do not pass Genesis" etc. Who's with me? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple years ahead of you, Crundy. Check out the Chance cards. DickTurpis (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Goddamnit! I even searched the site to make sure first! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The story of how it came about is amusing, if I remember correctly. MPR posted a congratulations to Roger for placing second in a hot dog eating contest. Some of us thought it sounded like a condescending back-handed compliment, while someone else pointed out it reminded him of a Chance card from Monopoly. That got the ball rolling. I did what I do best: snark and stealing templates from Wikipedia. It could still use some fine tuning. DickTurpis (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This site was funnier back then, we use to do really well thought out and complex satire. - π 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried something somewhat elaborate here, but it fell totally flat. Krusty Gets Kancelled flat. Did I choose an inauspicious day or am I just a lot less funny than I think? mb 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that suffered from tl;dr syndrome. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The cards are fucking hilarious. Best read in a while. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is Made of Win. Really want to make a hard copy of that as a joke for Xmas. Is there any way to get up a full list of the Chance and Community Chest cards to print out? I'm thinking of Conservative themed money as well, perhaps with the heads of conservatives determined by value, i.e. Andy's head on the $1, through Dubya and up to Kissinger ;) --BishoiH (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way is to look at this and trim out the markup. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Andrew Schlafly, who allegedly graduated from Harvard . . ."

I hate to concede anything to Aschlafly, and I may have missed some of the finer points, but the case to which he's referring - that of Alan Gross - would seem to involve a measure of injustice insofar as the guy has apparently been imprisoned in Cuba for nearly a year without even being charged. Tylersboy (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay... I'll admit this was a marginal one. My point is that Andy admits what the guy did was illegal, and then says that his imprisonment was unjust anyway.

It's not the strongest WIGO, but I thought the point of a lawyer saying "Yes, he broke the law but his imprisonment was unjust" was worth a note. With hindsight I should have stuck it here rather than on the main WIGO page. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Although having read Nutty's next topic, I'm not sure again! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy's implication is that while he broke the law, the law is unjust. Which it seems to be, as long as the guy wasn't really spying. EddyP (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

EddyP hits the nail on the head here. Rosa Parks, for instance, broke the law, but the law was unjust. I don't know enough about the case in question to comment, but my instincts are that Andy was right this time. MDB (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being overly-literal here, but while a law may be unjust, being imprisoned under an existing law cannot, ipso facto, be unjust. My point is that his argument is "Courts followed their laws, and this is unjust". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read that.... godawful post. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're sticking to the letter of justice, but not the spirit. Is the Chinese detention of the Nobel Prize winner just? He was convicted in a court after all. EddyP (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes.... I commented it out. There's still a point to be made here, but it seems I can't write right now. See Nutty's post in the next topic. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Time for the obamageddon meter to go?

The powers that be have stopped reminding Schlafly and Co. they need to be angry about that black guy in the white house. You know, because the elections are over. Therefore the obamageddon meter doesn't register much these days. We've had obamageddon, right on schedule, is it now time for the obamageddom meter to be honourably retired? JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need a Brit-bashing meter or something. But yes, the Obamageddon meter has passed through it's topicality window.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I might like a stock market ticker style of Andy (and only Andy's) ravings (almost like a word cloud):

• Give it up: 12 (+2)
• Liberal double standard : 19 (+3)
• Tea Party: 8 (-2)
• When will liberals...?: 6 (+1)

Occasionaluse (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What about a fantasy league of Schaflyims?AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oooh!! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The food of my cat smells like cat food! --I'm bored (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows Obama got a shellacing except Obama; while the world teeters on nuclear war over Korea, Obama still delivers a stump speech in Indiana on the glories of Socialism and how the UAW workers overthrew the capitalist oppressors to seize the means of production for cars nobody wants to buy. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь! --151.81.175.123 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Less absurd non sequiturs on here Knobber, and more mock-Fairey pictures on CP MPR - if you want to save the Obamageddon meter then get it glowing again! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But does it go to 11? --I'm bored (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't think I've ever seen him make a relevant reply to a thread. It's always, like, "Look over here guys! This other thing is so great and totally topical! STOP LOOKING OVER THERE!" Also, teeters on the brink of nuclear war? Srsly? The same skirmish that takes place between the Koreas, like, every five years? Sigh. Cue Nobby Boy's reply with some stupid pdf about something stupid that doesn't have anything to do with anything but how frighteningly dull he is. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob, what do you do for a living? I really want to know what sort of business hires a person who replies to everything with irrelevant, nonsensical non sequiturs. I'm trying to picture you working at Best Buy. Customer: "What is the difference between plasma screen and LED?" Rob: "Well, Obama and his commie cronies have already destroyed the private sector of the country, and are now taking on the public sector with full force. Once that happens the nation will be de facto ruled by Al Qaeda." Customer: "...I see..." DickTurpis (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, Rob took a sabbatical from CP while setting up his own business (see ZB passim). So he gets round the problem by working for himself. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy that for a second. One could marginally get by in a menial job with Rob's brain, but a business plan cannot be a tirade about Alger Hiss proving all Democrats are communists. Rob writing a business plan is about as likely as Ken writing A Midsummer Night's Dream. DickTurpis (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think he has a business plan? He may have just rented a building, put in some furniture and started doing what ever the hell it is he does. Of course that is a recipe for disaster as there is probably some government regulation he has overlooked and might get find one day, but that will just add further to his "big government" persecution complex, so all will be good in the end. - π 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, he doesn't have a business plan. He has registered a company on the cheap. He's not a creative thinker. And yes, Obamgaeddon meter should go. --Leotardo (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought he shot birds at airports for a living. Also, the above comment is hilarious.^{An iron, yet caring fist} 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Everyone knows Obama got a shellacing except Obama." Er, what about when Obama admitted he got a shellacking? Or was that just liberal deceit? Bondurant (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A. I'm self employed in merchandising. A.1. I'm starting a service-oriented business right now. A.2. My customers love my daily analysis of news events and come just to hear it (i.e. in otherwords, I'm a professional paid pundit). A.3. Obama did deliver a campaign stump speech 2 weeks after the election on the day the world faced nuclear oblivion over the Korean crisis. Geeezuz, nobody told Obama the election was over two weeks earlier and he & his ideology got spanked and now was t he time to do his job. Of coarse, maybe the brains needed to be president are above his pay grade. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually read any of this? Your response is almost a Ken-like, turing-test-failing, inconsistent concatenation of micro-responses. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's explain reeeaal slow, (1) I responded to questions about the type of work I get paid to do; (2) as per Obamageddon, Obamageddon was the countdown to the election, my first comment was pointing out Mr. Obama evidently hadn't realized the election is passed as he still was delivering campaign stump speeches and not doing the job he was elected to do, i.e. manage an international crisis. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"on the day the world faced nuclear oblivion over the Korean crisis." Why do conservatives need to so much extreme drama in their worldview? They think and discuss in such extreme hyperbolic terms that it's no wonder they are so whacked-out of reality. Only through a complex but unlikely series of 'could happen because I think it' scenarios was the "world faced with nuclear oblivion over the Korean crisis." Rob, you need to be more rational, or more informed. The cables released by Wikileaks should have been eyeopener for you in that regard. --Leotardo (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's no more of an international crisis now than it was when North Korea first developed their nucular weapons, and under whose watch did that happen, and what did he do about it? Bondurant (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob - "self employed in merchandising" - Amway? Jack Hughes (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally. --Leotardo (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

From his own description he sounds more like newspaper seller.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, guys, aren't you paying attention? He's a professional paid pundit! Don't you listen to his show on satellite radio for 3 hours every day? I know I do. DickTurpis (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm sorry, but people paying Rob for his political analysis, is a bit like people paying to star in their own snuff movie. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 13:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Was the Cuban missile crisis a joke, too? Ya'll be laughing when your hair turns green and your dick falls off from radiation sickness. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in New York - what missile does North Korea possess that will deliver a nuclear weapon to my neck of the woods, or for that matter, to Seattle? They don't; the only talk out there is that it maybe could reach Hawaii or Alaska--maybe. You're vastly overstating North Korea's abilities, which is a shame for the followers of your uninformed politics. --Leotardo (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the Obama Pentagon's recent report (pg. 8) says,

North Korea and Iran continue to develop long-range missiles that will be threatening to the United States. There is some uncertainty about when and how this type of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) threat to the U.S. homeland will mature, but there is no uncertainty about the existence of regional threats. They are clear and present. The threat from short-range, medium-range, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs, MRBMs, and IRBMs) in regions where the United States deploys forces and maintains security relationships is growing at a particularly rapid pace.

and of course, discussion of "development of systems" is meaningless, cause a deliver system can be purchased from elsewhere. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I can't believe you, of all people, actually believe that shit. North Korea is in shambles. Their sabers rattle because they know they'd break if they actually used them. Those guns trained on Seoul? Most of them are fake, and most of the rest don't work. And all of them could be neutralized before they could put their malnourished finger on the broken button. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hypotheticals are different than actualities, Rob, and you were talking about the world being on the verge of oblivion right now ("on the day the world faced nuclear oblivion over the Korean crisis."). If you just informed yourself now that the danger is not eminent, then in the future you should inform yourself before passing on your sage uninformed knowledge to your followers, who doubtless wait for you to explain the world to them. --Leotardo (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the shakedown Bill Clinton paid to get North Korea's bomb off the front page, get himself re-elected, and kick the can down the road for the next president (whoever he may be, President Gore of President Bush). Shakedown cash is usually deemd "humantartian assistance". Bill Clinton paid North Koerea $61 million to build a nuclear bomb.

In today's money, the North Koreans probably want $100 million, if Obama wants to get re-elected and kick the can down the road 24 months till after the next election. Obama needs to raise $700 million privately to get re-elect, shouldn't be a problem doling $100 million out of some State Department Emergency spending account.

Of coarse maybe $40 million of that will be delivered by ship in bags of wheat (USDA Ag surplus) for TV camaras, the rest ends up in a Swiss Bank account.

How do you cope without a dick, Rob? Ace^{word up} 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘He use assflys, tk's and kens? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that explains why he would label himself with a word that is slang for "penis". Gotta start compensating somewhere. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Titanic... conservative?

Wait, let me try and get my mind around this. "Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young RINO are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues" To that let's add:

• theft of jewelry
• steerage class being locked down and left to drown like rats
• pre-marital sex (although without contraception)
• pornography

What media and RINO (I assume Kate's wannabe fiancé?) If anything, Titanic is about the hypocrasy of class divisions, and the arrogance and hubris of big business in thinking they'd built an unsinkble boat. Does Scumfly actually watch any of these films before writing them up on the main page,^img or does he rely on TwinKle's pillow talk for a potted summary? --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Psygremlin" (please recreate your account using your first name and last initial), you're clearly a liberal and are attempting typical liberal deceit in denying the obvious facts. Titanic was the biggest grossing film of all time for over a decade. Liberals are never successful, therefore since everything is black and white, Titanic is Conservative. Godspeed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Professor Scumfly. I am ready to renounce my evil, baby-eating ways and open my mind. Please explain to me the conservative message behind, Avatar, the new "most successful movie evah". --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of one of my all-time favourite wigos: 212.62.5.158 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

98

The last survivor of the Titanic — a British-owned, British-built ship — dies, having lived in England all her life. To Jpatt, this somehow constitutes "an American story."img

And oversighted. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good old TwinKles - never fails to rise to the occasion. Hey! Jpatt - are you going to let Terry fuck you in the ass like that, or will you, like Karajerk et al, just moan and say "harder! harder'" --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not TK this time. This one was caused by trashing the main page - there's no history for all of 2009. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not I haven't seen Avatar, which I believe is something I have in common only with a newly-discovered tribe of pygmies deep in the Amazon jungle - and they're getting a copy on Blu-Ray for Christmas. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, you're not missing muchAMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'd heard. "Boring", "Overlong", "Looks great but the plot is shit" just about sum up the word-of-mouth reviews from my chums. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts on Avatar were that it was technologically amazing, but saddled with a weak plot. And how many times has "soldier discovers the people he's there to fight aren't so bad, 'goes native', and fights the oppressive army" been done as a movie, anyway? Basically, the movie was "Dances with Wolves... in Space" MDB (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's Titanic meets Aliens basically. I'd be uber impressed if they could shoehorn the plot as Conservative, though... it's pretty much the most liberal film ever made and hits you with it like s stick. ^theist 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Andee's nutty about the Titanic (the real one) in general. I recall him claiming that there was Pul-Lenty of lifeboat space available, that everyone who died did so voluntarily out of a sense of Christian chivalry. Or something.--WJThomas (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He's actually sort of partly right. There were not enough lifeboats to take everyone off, so, on that part, he's dead wrong. However, this shortage was exacerbated by lifeboats being launched less than half full, and things like that, due to lack of evacuation drilling and miscommunication (such as the order 'women and chlidren first' becoming 'women and children only'). This meant that, although there were enough lifeboats to take 1178 out of 2222 passengers and crew, it was actually only 711 that actually managed to survive the initial sinking. 92.0.197.62 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I know a little bit about Titanic, living where I do. There's nothing really special about Titanic in a way. The disaster was, in that sense, entirely to be expected. It was normal to have too few lifeboats for the passengers (let alone crew) on the new steamships, it was normal not to practice evacuation procedures and not to do a drill with passengers even during a multi-day voyage. It was normal that nearby vessels had no radio operator on watch, and that emergency signals were unintelligible to non-experts who saw them. Titanic did not motivate private enterprise or the best of the public to come up with a solution; instead it provided political will to create an international treaty, SOLAS, which today requires all ocean-going merchant vessels have lifeboats, satellite distress beacons and so on. Is Andy normally in favour of surrendering US sovereignty to international treaty organisations? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon study: Gays could serve with no harm

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101130/D9JQDT383.html^img

So a pentagon study including the opinions of service men and women shows that most of them either don't care or think that gays serving openly would be a good thing. What are the predictions on Conservapedia's response? They've been so hardcore about the will of the people v.s. the rulings of the courts that I can't imagine how they could backtrack far enough to counter this. Will they disparage the men and women fighting right now who gave their opinions? Has the liberal underground infested the very heart of the pentagon and skewed the findings? Will Conservapedia call for a re-count? Or will they just ignore it and pretend like nothing ever happened? What do you think? ^{— Unsigned, by: Darkwingpuck / talk / contribs} --Darkwingpuck (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should sign your fucking comments and get the fuck off Psygremlin's wiki before you break it. 16:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Signed. Thanks for the friendly advice.--Darkwingpuck (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That comment was totally uncalled for, Nutty. Biting the n00b is a dick move, and the random insult to Psygremlin was just silly.

@Darkwingpuck, they'll either ignore it or claim it's a liberal poll. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SR - Coming from you that's cute. Darkwingpuck - I was kidding - Sorry. 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem biting long-timers who should know better and act like overbearing jerks. Sorry for the confusion. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A typical call for reason from resident collossal shithead SuspectReplicant. Nutty's comment was entirely appropriate, despite Nutty being a gangrenous arsehole. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck all of you, and especially fuck you. (Oh, and I think that conservapedia will completely ignore it. It doesn't fit their world view therefore it's wrong) Senator Harrison (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I take serious exception to being called a "resident collossal shithead". At best, I'm an itinerant colossal shithead. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Back to the topic at hand... the conservative media and blogosphere is undoubtedly pouring over the entire report now, desperately searching for the one factoid they can point out to argue letting gay serve openly would be a bad thing. MDB (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Gays in the miliary hasn't harmed any other country that allows them to serve. In the UK the top brass were worried that many soldiers would resign over it, but very very few actually. Perhaps the American GI is just a little more delicate than us UK commies. Also, I think with CP and ilk, it harms their ability to attack gay folk as destroying society if they gays are doing their patriotic duty and dying for their country. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a meeting between the CP's "staff" and Eric Alva, as they attempted to explain to him why he shouldn't serve. MDB (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

They will follow John McCain's lead, if at all. McCain is advocating running the military and setting policy in the same way we run our adept government: obsessively polling people and then doing whatever the polls say at that moment. Don't like what the polls say? Run a new poll. --Leotardo (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but think that the fact that the Pentagon came out with such a report NOW seems to be related to recruitment pressure more than anything else. The U.S. military is stretched very badly, and letting gays in could help a bit methinks. Jimaginator (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

McCain is entering a holding pattern of endles stalling. He said he will listen to the military, now he will just listen to the particularly homophobic elements. He lost his integrity long ago, and he's not going to worry about sacrificing the rest of it to keep up his newly-found, hard-right bigotry in an effort to avoid being run over by teabaggers. I personally think that it is insulting to our professional servicemembers to think that they aren't mature enough to serve with open homosexuals, and I hope that McCain figures out that he is carving his legacy right now in a page right next to George Wallace. Just like nobody remembers anything about Wallace except his bigotry, McCain will only be remembered for the same. His war record and long service in the Senate will be completely forgotten, and the only thing anybody will remember of him will be his efforts to perpetuate the segregation of homosexuals. Corry (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've heard the point they'll be using. A story I heard this morning on NPR said that the survery does say a majority, albeit a slight one, of troops in combat zones oppose allowing gays to serve.

As far as McCain goes, I know I'm not alone among liberals in saying "I remember when John McCain was the cool Republican." We may not have agreed with him on a lot of things, but he seemed like the type who held his beliefs honestly, wasn't just a party loyalist, willing to cross over the aisle to make needed compromises or just because he thought the Democrats were right on an issue, etc. But he's turned into just another conservative hack. I don't know if it's because he's bitter after losing the election, or if it's because he's had to go hard right to keep his seat, or maybe he's just getting old and cranky. Whatever it is that's causing it, I miss the John McCain that ran against Bush in 2000. MDB (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy make up your mind on public institutions = atheist

We all know you aren't too bright, Andy--just ask the NJ Supreme Court--but you should work on the consistency in your logic since you make it appear you learned nothing at Harvard Law (just ask the NJ Supreme Court). So if a public school is atheistic because it is a public school then you can't go around saying atheists haven't built hospitals when there are plenty of public hospitals built with government funds and no religious intent. Public schools allow prayer, and so do public hospitals. BTW, I'm pretty sure China has hospitals. --Leotardo (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the Christian tax payers who are under the thumb of the Evul Atheist tax collector who built the hospitals and schools. --Opcn (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not in China nor Cuba... --Leotardo (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Those places are not hospitals. In andyland lalaland they are evil factories in which old people and foetuses are cruelly slaughtered. Any incidental saving of life is pure coincidence. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Exceptionalism WIGO

I'm sitting in a lobby waiting for a meeting or I'd do this myself, but my phone doesn't like wading through all the shit at the top of the WIGO page unless all I'm going to do is add "AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM" in all caps. The Cuba WIGO needs to better explain Andy's position and then ridicule it without mercy. He seems to be both implicitly questioning whether "bringing internet devices to Jewish groups" is actually illegal, which is cute considering the source cited takes no position on that nor does it indicate that anyone else does either and then he says the guy has been unjustly imprisoned for a year, which likewise is a position you don't see anyone in the article take. The source goes so far as to describe Gross being detained for a year without being charged without editorializing about it one single bit and to quote a Cuban official as saying "[t]his adheres to Cuban law. There is no problem." So clearly Andy is reading something into the article that's not there. What's unjust about the detention? He surely doesn't think it's that Gross is 70, has ulcers, and is limping from gout, or he would have said something about that. I gather his health was the basis for prior requests for humanitarian release, which were rejected. That's a better source of outrage than the vague exceptionalism I see just barely under the surface in Andy's response. And that deserves open ridicule on my planet. Back to your regularly scheduled drunkenness, you vandals. 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent WIGOs have received criticism for being overly-verbose or overly-cryptic. With this one I went for the bare bones, and as I said in the previous topic, I might have missed the mark. I wanted to make the minimal point that in one post, Andy admitted something was "illegal", but decided that imprisonment was "unjust". The exact nature of the "crime" under discussion didn't even register. I didn't want to get bogged down in minutiae - I assumed the double standard would be obvious. Please: improve the WIGO, delete it, or whatever. It seems I missed the target on this one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, he's probably right about the detention being unjust but he's not saying why he thinks so, so it's up for anyone's guess. I'm more inclined it has nothing to do with the only reason one could possibly discern from the article (detainee's health) but is exactly what we'd expect it to be. But then who the fuck knows when it comes to Andy. He's as incapable of providing a cogent explanation as any of his other goons. It's all just oblique smears and innuendo that boils down to: I think America is a pretty cool guy. eh kills commies and doesnt afraid of anything. 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

YAY /b/ --Thunderstruck (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Andy is the cancer that is killing WIGO. Hateboy (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shooter.

Is it me, or did andy take pitty on this kid. Quote the Assfly: "the lamestream media do not disclose the title of the movie that his class was being forced to watch when he pulled out a gun to shoot at the projector." Forced to watch like in some wierd movie where the kids are shackled to chairs with there eyes forced open. He got the issue wrong ANYWAY because this is what Andy's own source says: "Fifteen-year-old Samuel Hengel burst into the school at around 2:30 p.m. EST Monday and held the hostages for about five hours." So its not like he was being forced to watch a (potentially edumacational, and there for full of LIE-beral bias) film.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He just needs to justify his hatred of anything public-school. Sympathising with a potential mass-murderer is just one way. – Nick Heer 01:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

From what little can be found at the moment it sounds like the poor kid was severely depressed. The kids that he held hostage have gone out of their way to say that he never fired in their direction and didn't seem interested in threatening them. Seems like one of those really sad stories where, for whatever reason, no one realised that the kid needed help until it was too late. Frankly, the only people that are interested in using this story to make a point are the viscous, deliberately ignorant, bile-filled buboes of humanity like Andy Schlafly.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It will be ironic if the film appears on the 'Greatest Conservative' list. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My pedantic hackles were raised by the opening words - The 15-year-old public school gunman. Why The not A? When are you going to run your next English language course Andy?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And FauxNews prominently gives the film's title in its coverage. Google couldn't find a report in WND; I'm not going to explore that cesspit to check if they are reporting on it. CS Miller (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I must be blind - can't see the title referenced there, although it was apparently about Hercules. There you see - if I was also being taught about some heathen muscleboy, I'd also take a gun to the projector and all those around me. I wonder if the teacher's and the class' bravery in keeping the shooter calm counts as "best of the public?" --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 11:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic, Psi. CS Miller (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A public school teacher could never qualify for "best of the public". Public school teachers are experts in their field. A homeschool teacher, on the other hand... ^{ONE / TALK} 12:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Psy, I think it was a snarky point that Fox isn't mentioning it either. Typical Andy though, he just can't resist an attack on the "lamestream media". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail snark forever. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't schools teaching rather than showing movies? Err. Why do pupils read novels in class? Perhaps the next part of the lesson would have been on the movie. CS Miller (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do pupils read novels in class? They aren't bibles, so they must be liberal claptrap.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

At least when I was in school, teachers who showed a lot of movies were generally the lazy ones. The occasional movie can be worthwhile, but a lot of them serve as an excuse not to bother teaching. I remember one history teacher at my high school who spent two weeks showing her class video tapes of the TV mini-series "The Blue and the Grey", which is really nothing more than a soap opera set during the "late unpleasantness". I had a different teacher, thankfully, and she's as responsbile as anyone for making me a history buff. MDB (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'Trusworthy' News

It's just a shame that Andy-kins didn't pick up on it at the same time. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That just illustrates how pathetic Faux News have become. Between this and the Obama kiddies' book thing, it's clear that they're firmly in the mouth frothing attack Obama at any cost camp. Also the memory-holing, with no apology or retraction, would be something Andy would be really proud of. Even down here, people watch Faux and go, "WTF?" --Ψ GremlinParla! 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that story was on WIGO:World days ago. It's about 14th on the page now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Onion confusion isn't just endemic to Fox. If I remember correctly, Kerry's campaign went off about this article. That said, idiotic Fox viewers are idiots. Corry (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How could anyone ever miss anything on the always exciting and up-to-date WIGO World??? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bug report

I clicked on a vote arrow on the WIGO and although it seemed to add my vote in, an "error report" popped up. It wasn't presented in a way I could copy and paste, though I guess I could screencap it if necessary. I tried another vote, vote worked, same error popped up. Asterisk (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be fixed already, but you'll probably have to refresh your cache. -- Nx / talk 21:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be better. Thanks. Asterisk (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Things just haven't been the same since RW 2.0. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Where are we now? Rationalwiki Legacy I guess. Who the hell is playing a digitally young Jeff Bridges? You know, I think that's Ace behind the pixel makeup.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Ace^{word up} 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not you? Oh. A digitally lightened hobbit perhaps?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservative parables...

So I was reading through the Conservative parables and This one caught my eye. *pause to let you read* What I get out of this is that there are two shrinks: a young one who listens and tries hard, and an old one who doesn't give a shit what you are saying and just doesn't even remotely do his fucking job. And a "good" president (Reagan) is like the old shink? Doesn't this story come across as boiling Reagan's philosophy down to "I don't care about voters. Why? Because fuck voters, that's why." I'm just mighty mighty confused...Carlaugust (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem the sage wisdom of the old codger does boil down to "just don't give a shit." Maybe that should be the GoP's official slogan? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a good example of Andy seeing what he wants to see rather than what's there. If Reagan had told Andy to "fuck off" he would have taken it as an order to have another child, thus reducing his wife's likelihood of getting breast cancer. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh. --Leotardo (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It also implies that St. Ronnie considered standing again, halfway through his second term. 22nd Amendment *cough*. CS Miller (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, that parable is in my book "The World's Best Jewish Jokes", except instead of psychiatrists there's just plain old Dr Ginsberg and Dr Goldberg, and the punchline is "So who listens?"Grumblejaws (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't easily sock up anymore

I was looking through an oldie, but a goodie cp:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions and thought it would be amusing to add Andy's latest judicial clusterfuck, The Committee to Recall Robert Menendez v Wells. Ah well. Stile4aly (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The term limits decision is on there. Short version: Andy loses. 16:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I particularly like how they highlighted at the bottom the Thomas quote that says, 'Nevermind what the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution, the situation is different today' - this is a philosophy known as the 'living Constitution', which both Scalia and Thomas claim to hate. --Leotardo (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the idea on why the phrase "one man one vote" appears on the list. Do they try to promote otherwise? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The case, Baker v. Carr, let courts review legislative apportionment of districts, which he probably thinks is "judicial activism". Blue (is useful) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I still find this 'reference' hilarious:

9. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who later lamented hostility to religion, wrote the Lemon decision for the Court but admitted privately in a dinner conversation with Andrew Schlafly in late 1991 that Burger never intended for it to be applied in the broad manner that it was.

Citation: the guy told me so at a party! --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Andy

I've been reading this^img discussion, and for some reason, Andy's comments make me giggle like he's telling a joke. Particularly I like the phrase "Lots of atheism". I'm not even really sure why, it just seems like a funny phrase. Maybe I'm a bit toasted (probably), but everytime I say it to myself, I smile. On a more serious note, I see that Andy has developed mind-reading capabilities, as you can see when he says "And not many unspoken prayers either." Anyways, I'm off to eat Pop Tarts. I do love my days off. Carlaugust (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He really does seem to think time not spent actively worshipping one or more deities is time spent being an atheist. Maybe he avoids all that atheist sleep the rest of us do. It might explain his behaviour. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He really does think and argue like someone with little formal education, to a degree that I find bizarre. Alphanumeric1 gives one example of prayer in school, and Andy takes that as the only example. He then decides it didn't include Jesus, with no evidence. And even more laughable, he writes "And not many unspoken prayers [in schools] either". Andy is so magic that he can see into the young, lustful, unprayerful minds of public school children everywhere! Swoon! i wish Andy was gay so I could go to New Jersey with a hope of having my unrequited love requited. Then, and only then, would I see how the lack of "unspoken prayers" is an issue for the school to sort out, not the parents, which contradicts what Andy says about parental rights:

The issue of parental rights arises most often when public schools indoctrinate students with ideas against the wishes of parents

His genius and logic is obvious: open your mind, and your ass will follow. --Leotardo (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to two degrees I find it bizarre. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is more interesting than watching Andy Schlafly debate people with 75+ IQs. 19:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1) the phrase "lots of atheism" makes me chuckle too. 2) I'm thinking about trying to toilet train my cat. Apparently, it's kind of a pain in the ass and I'd have to keep the litter box in my only bathroom. Then you have the problem of guests closing the bathroom door and then your cats have nowhere to shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that sucks. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a sure sign Andy is being belligerent when he uses three question marks. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Who knows with Andy. It's just as likely he's giving an indication of just how obvious he thinks his point is and that it's mild sarcasm, not belligerence. Even though he can only argue by assertion, repetition, and handwaving away contrary evidence without giving it a remotely honest treatment. I truly believe he sees the world in black and white, that he and those he approves of are the only ones wearing white hats, and that, like some of those Baptists, Pentacostalists, and other fundies believe, he thinks anyone he disagrees with is satanic. That at least explains why his political hermeneutic is nearly indistinguishable from the religious hermeneutics of fundies. In other words, their assumption is that their god and faith determine the truth and how their bible gets read and that therefore any outcome that's inconsistent with that must be wrong and any person who pushes it satanic. I'm sure just confused by the demons whispering atheism (read: satanism) into my ear. 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Divorce

So, back in February the AAML publishes a paper that comments that Facebook is now the primary source for compromising evidence in divorces. Interesting but no great news there. The world is changing, so what. Then the Daily Fail sensationalises it to "Facebook - The Marriage Killer". Of course Schlafly sees what he wants to see and it's on MPR. As inevitable as night follows day, really. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is facebook's fault. Nothing to do the state of peoples marriage or the inability of folk to keep it in their pants. Its always someones elses faultAMassiveGay (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is remarkably well informed. I would never have known Facebook is also causing kid to fail in school without reading it on Conservapedia. The more ya know... 16:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If there was a Conservapedia one hundred years ago, Andy would probably blame the "telephone" for divorces, and insist that the marriages would have lasted if the couples had just stuck to the Conservaphone, which is growing rapidly. Oh, and Alexander Graham Bell is a liberal. MDB (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy decided at some point he was going to hate Facebook (probably because unlike CP, it's popular), and any article since that makes Facebook look bad is going to get top billing on his little blog. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish he could fathom a conservative version of facebook. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.faithout.com/ Webbtje (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We all know that the CP weirdos talk out of both sides of their mouths, so it's not surprising that Andy blames Facebook, a neutral platform that is being used for a particular purpose that he considers odious, as opposed to kooing on MPR in his sweet Christian tone, "It's the people who are cheating who are at fault - they need to take personal responsibility." Before Facebook, it was chat rooms; before chat rooms it was bookstores and theaters; before those it was truck stops and bathrooms. We really should blame all of those things for destroying marriages. So obvious it must be true. --Leotardo (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

TK desperate or what?

Why was the user blocked^img for this^img edit? Am I missing something here? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He smelled Poe, and he is probably right, legitimate editors don't sign up anymore. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Gay on CP?

Is it just me, or does MPR's DADT story quoting Admiral Mullens when he says "Have A Problem With Gays? Don't Serve", sound moderately pro-gay? Carlaugust (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it's TK making up for The RationalWiki Thread That Must Not Be Named. But I doubt it. More likely it's for the 10 readers of CP (the rest just go there to ridicule) who will be outraged that Mullen is stating something obvious given the very few soldiers who have problems with lifting the ban, which is something most Americans want. --Leotardo (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very pro-gay to link the word "Gays" in the headline to "Perversion." SJ ^Debaser 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hahah - I hadn't noticed that. Sneaky bigots! I have a fun exercise - change the words "gay" to "black", and then change "perversion" to "monkeys". Now you have exactly what CP would have been if it existed during the 1940's Carlaugust (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Even so, the story can only really be read as pro-gay. It seems Terry Koeckritz's stance is ambiguous at best. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

TK is ambiguous at best - tee hee. --Leotardo (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely the next step is a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy for homophobes ;) Jammy (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tri Wiki Watch November 2010

01. Editors at CP

02. Editors at RW

03. Editors at CZ

04. Editors at CP

05. Editors at RW

06.Editors at CZ

07. Editors at CP

08. Editors at RW

09. Editors at CZ

10. Editors at CP

11. Editors at RW

12. Editors at CZ

• It's surprising that there are still editors to block left at Conservapedia
• Conservapedia has less active editors than Citizendium
• Citizendium has its separate message board, so there is more activity than shown by the graph (and much more behind closed curtains :-)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so once again 7 sysops make 67% of the edits for the month. And they say it's not the angry stupid white men's club. --Ψ GremlinTal! 12:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, since the number passed the max of some of the charts anyways, should we go use a larger scale or log scale or whatnot? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Only lately, I added the data for 91 days: these numbers are generally too big to fit the old scales. But I wanted to preserve the scales, as they allow for comparison. So, I created the following three pics:

13. Editors at CP

14. Editors at RW

15. Editors at CZ

16. Editors at CP

17. Editors at RW

18. Editors at CZ

The classes for the editors are taken from here. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Here are the daily edits (not editors) at these three wikis:

19. Edits at CP

20. Edits at RW

21. Edits at CZ

• It is remarkable how stable the ratio between the groups of different activity became here at RW (17), even during drops and surges in general activity.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Those last graphs are beautiful. I love the use of a sort of 'fade' effect on the information.

The previous month was a record-breaker for CP's decline, wasn't it? How does last month stack up against it? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The pics for last month are here: Oct 2010 was disastrous, Nov 2010 faired a little bit better...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Narcisstic Personality Disorder: Good news for liberals or good news for Andy?

This is pretty rich, but I couldn't craft a pithy WIGO. Andy writes on MPR^img:

Good news for liberals: the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will eliminate narcissism as a mental disorder.

In order for one to be diagnosed with NPD, they must meet only five of the following criteria. Does this sound like that monolith known as "Liberals" or a certain washed-up son of Phyllis Schlafly:

• Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
• Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
• Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
• Rarely acknowledges mistakes and/or imperfections
• Requires excessive admiration
• Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
• Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
• Lacks empathy: is unwilling or unable to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
• Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
• Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitude.

Andy is so joyous that his personality will no longer be a DSM disorder, that he had to shout it from his own molehill under the cover of projection. --Leotardo (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

... and (so often unmentioned in lay discussions but central to an actual diagnosis) this must cause an actual problem. It doesn't matter how weird your beliefs are, how strange your preferences and opinions, if they aren't causing a serious problem for you or other people then there is nothing to diagnose. Most people can find several entries in the DSM that describe them to some extent, but they remain functional members of society, and don't need any treatment because they don't have a problem. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but I guess it depends on how one measures 'problematic'. I have no issue diagnosing Schlafly, particularly given how many descriptors fit him perfectly; it's improbable that his online behavior is compartmentalized and doesn't affect his interpersonal relationships offline. --Leotardo (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that assfly had NPD a while ago and was told off for armchair psychology. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we were all drunk then, so it doesn't count. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

FFS, can we replace the obamageddon meter with a "how shitfaced is RW" meter instead then? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been sober for over 36 hours, and am likely to remain that way for at least another 8. SJ ^Debaser 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that it would be at maximum any time Ace was editing and unless we used logarithmic scaling, zero at all other times. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

SR beat me to it. --Leotardo (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely this has got to be a WIGO...

"Senate Republicans intend to block action on virtually all Democratic-backed legislation unrelated to tax cuts and government spending" on the CP Main Page. http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageright&action=historysubmit&diff=831033&oldid=831006^img Apparently this is a good thing.

We should all prepare ourselves for the surprise when atheist/muslim Kenyan hypnotist Barry/Obama is accused of lack of action or some other bullshit. AlexR4444 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be a good thing. Lets say the roles are reversed in 2 years, the Republicans take the white house and senate but not by enough to jam things through, Democrats could block all Republican legislation causing a simmiler out come to the 2010 elections; I.E. Unhappy voters voting the right wing bums out.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Democrats don't practice the zero sum street politics of the Republicans, who inject a lot of misinformation and outright lies into an issue ("death panels" anyone?) to create confusion amongst the voters, who then support the liars. Gumming up the government doesn't work unless you have an uninformed electorate willing to support you. The question will be whether the Republicans can get public support this time, when it was not there last time in 1994, causing them to be spanked by the voters. --Leotardo (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Three internets for Leotard-o. Correct entirely. The parties play by different "rules". Asterisk (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I freakin' hate nature so damn much!

This is comical beyond belief^img to a degree that I think it's awesome. It says, "Hi CP visitors, we are retards." If my 10 year old niece was a fundamentalist wingnut, this would be one of her observations about atheists. Thankfully, Uncle Leotardo is indoctrinating her well ("Do you really think it makes sense that there is a magic man in the clouds? Remember reading about Zeus and Athena? People once believed they were real, too. Remember when you believed in Santa...?") --Leotardo (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What I find funniest is that the flower is designed to be beautiful and compelling to bees, birds and other pollenators as opposed to humans. Ace^{word up} 19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not designed to be anything ffs. It has evolved so that the radiation emited by the petals are most significant in those wavelengths which are visible to the eyes of pollinators. That's how it has survived and prospered. The fact the human eye, or more accurately the human observer behind the eye, generally also finds it pleasing is simply a by-product of it's natural purpose.

And on a basic level it's natural purpose is to have sex.Oldusgitus (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I used the word "designed" to mean "its purpose". Ace^{word up} 19:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I know and realise that Ace but one handed typers like rob will use every chance to quote mine and lie and that is exactly the kind of thing that lying shit would use.Oldusgitus (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You used the word "designed" to refer to the Magic Man and you know it. Is this roses shit a reference to autumn leaves and beauty as an alleged counterexample to evolution? 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mrs McWicked bought a shitload of peonies for our upcoming wedding. Waste of goddamn money because we are both atheists and therefor don't find things pretty. Ace^{word up} 19:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well this is just depressing: there's a Mrs. McWicked. <pop><pop> <-- sound of my dreams. --Leotardo (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a heartbreaker, that randy fucker. 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of asshole designer would make a rose look so good and then give it thorns to fuck up your hand. Presumably Andy also endorses putting metal spikes on drinking glasses as "beautiful design". X Stickman (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not even that you don't need pretty things. YOU DENY THE EXISTENCE OF BEAUTY BY DENYING YOUR CREATOR GOD. REPENT. 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also so trite to use a rose to signify beauty. Any writing teacher would tell Schlafly to stop using hackneyed, overdone symbolism and be a little more original and creative. "The White Tiger is beauty and design in nature that Atheists hate." Or Aurora Borealis. Or icicles or the fronds of a fern. Anything besides a stupid rose, for the love of god. Then again...I'm an atheist who likes lilies. --Leotardo (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I like pussy cats. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that why the religious look so much forward to dieing? Any human that does not wish for immortality, or has a problem with anything against it, clearly is not a nature/lover of this universe enough. Sen (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Crap...I both like roses and am an atheist. However, thanks to MPL, I know those two things are mutually exclusive. Hm...I think I'm going to keep on liking roses. Which, of course, means, Praise our rising Lord Jesus Christ! Carlaugust (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nature's beauty pisses me off so much that I want to see all pollution controls removed, wildlife refuges opened to oil drilling, and animals taken off the endangered species list and added to the menu at my favorite restaurant. That's why I'm voting Republican. Röstigraben (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do the 'good post' gif, but everything I put in kept showing up with redlinks, and I didn't want to hunt it down. That works - aye aye, Röstigraben. --Leotardo (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I like roses, and I also like atheism, but which is better? There's only one way to find out... Larynx Pharynx (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nature's beauty my taint. Actually, the picture in question shows a rose cultivar which is a product of human selection for beauty as seen by humans, and in fact has petals that are too tightly wrapped for insect pollination. Bees usually go for the tasty inner bits, guided by patterns we cannot see. Their eyes are more sensitive to UV than ours, but red appears black to them. Carry on... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I was just thinking that. Wild rose - not that interesting. - π 22:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

FerWormsSake, a rose like that is not natural anyway. It was "designed" by rose breeders to be pretty to humans, smell nice to humans, etc. It's NOT NATURE'S BEAUTY Andy you moron. It's a hothouse flower, an inbred hybrid not found in nature EVER. Asterisk (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I sorta repeated Sprog's comments, which were spot-on. Asterisk (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And the red rose (as well as being the symbol of Lancashire) just happens to be the emblem of the socialist British Labour Party.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)