Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive21

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Andy, Obama and "Affirmative Action"[edit]

You know, up until a little while ago - less than a year or so, I guess - I would've called myself an agnostic. And I would've said that there is such a thing a "spirit" or a "soul," whatever that was, that resided somewhere in people. Then I started reading the words of Andrew Schlafly. And I started to wonder about that stuff. And thinly-veiled but unqualified racist musings like this are leading me to believe that there can be no God and human beings - at least the one who wrote that Barak Obama is only in the position that he's in because of 'affirmative action" - have no souls. Thanks, Andy - you've managed to kill something inside of me. PFoster 21:28, 8 January 2008 (EST)

His fears are showing...he doesn't think any republican can win against Obama: He wants Hillary to be the dems choice since he thinks (I think), she's the best chance the republicans have at winning in '08. CЯacke® 21:52, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Any kind of hate is bad. Allowing the musings of one lunatic/liar to change the way you feel....well, nothing to be proud of in that, is there? --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 22:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Well - I *am* exaggerating the case somewhat, TK. There's a lot more going on than that. That being said - I find it interesting that the people who make the most noise about their faith are the ones I find most lacking in those qualities that I would associate with soulfulness, never mind basic human decency - Andy, Kenservative and most of the nutjobs on CP are pretty close to the top of that list.PFoster 22:22, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I strongly agree. One thing that I'm especially aggravated by is the preoccupation with the aggregation of personal wealth, and its retainment, that many people in Andy's camp exhibit. Personally, I'd give away the majority of my finances in a second, and will probably end up doing it as soon as I get out of college (i.e. don't need huge funds anymore), and I feel that this is the course most compatible, in my mind, with Christianity. I don't see why people get so upset about this stuff. --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, I knew you were, just was making the point about Andy, is all. I agree with you 100% about those proclaiming their faith, and extend it to those proclaiming their "liberalness" or "conservatism" as well. My experience here has shown me that those claiming to be the most liberal are also among those seeking to censor or punish others, exactly the same as those on CP who disagree with any small amount to moderation, anything that goes against their very small minority YEC/Fundamentalist POV. I guess the intolerant/angry crowd just meets someplace around the bend, LOL! --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 22:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)
+Help help! I'm being oppressed!" Third verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse.  :-P --Gulik 02:00, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Couldn't help yourself from hating, eh? Maybe you need to find Metapedia? --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 02:23, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Wow. "Hate" is TK's favorite word? humanUser talk:Human 02:28, 9 January 2008 (EST)
My favorite word is "facetious". Not that any of you ever asked. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:26, 9 January 2008 (EST)

When the shoe fits, wear it. I like the word drunk, parodist too, as well as liar. You have something against words, Human? Or do you just like to intimidate? --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 03:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Obviously you have never gone shoe shopping with my brother. He takes hours. Apparently, if the shoe fits, it's ugly. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:28, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Back in 199X, I (a progressive-liberal-scientific minded-environtmentalist-etc), was tempted to vote for a right wing nut - only because I couldn't stand the continuous attacks on him by the leading (leftish) newspaper in my country. He ended up being elected and being the laughing stock of Europe for many years. What I mean is, it's easy to overreact to something like that, the newspaper in my case, CP in yours. Laughing at them is good - changing your mind because of them probably not. I don't know the state of religion and christianity in the States, but definitely the CP version is as far from the real one as conceivably possible, at least in my world. Organized religion has many good and often overlooked qualities and achievements - despite their stands on some issues. Ed @but not the Poor one! 04:51, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Thankfully, you surmise correctly, Editor! Andy's/CP's version of Christianity is far from what is normal! They often mistake religion for politics and vice-versa. Odd that as Christians they seem to cling to so much of the Old Testament, I think. Thankfully the vast majority of Christians utterly reject the hate Andy screams daily from his blog. --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 05:14, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Bump This needs to be talked about to no end. What a loon! Schlafly's criticism is mainly "he has no experience". Who does? (Being President.) Certainly not the decider. CЯacke® 19:01, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Topless swimming in Sweden[edit]

PJR is apparently very easily tempted. Does he assume every topless woman is attractive and not like 50+ years old?Shangrala 23:17, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Am I the only one who has ever wondered if PJR is a parodist? Not totally serious here, but sometimes it gets a bit too OTT (Over The Top). Same with Kenservative. --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 23:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Meh, almost every single editor at CP says things that make me think they're parodists, and that doesn't except you. Sheer probability suggests at least one or two of them are the genuine article, but wouldn't it be kind of funny in a schadenfreude kind of way if every single person at CP didn't in fact believe the things they said? Anyway, as one of those breast loving liberals, you know what I reckon is a crime? When you go to the beach in India, and half the people there are covered head to toe and 90% of them can't swim. Damn, people, show some skin and get in the water. Cricket on the beach is a waste of a perfectly good holiday. --JeεvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 23:41, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Actually when you go to a nudist beach most of the bodies are actually pretty ugly unless you find a beach with an above average percentage of 18-30s. And PJR's temptation arguments are rather in the vein of those Islamists who justify raping women for exposing their hair or somesuch. Of course in a "proper" swimming pool there is a good reason for wearing a swimming costume, it reduces the drag of all those floppy bits and hair. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 02:42, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Gawd knows I would gross out that beach! Maybe not 20 yeaaaarrrrs ago, but now? I apologize if I appear! humanUser talk:Human 02:46, 9 January 2008 (EST)
What gets me is that PJR can't, seemingly, tell the difference between nature, and nuture; most people from Sweden, or indeed, most of the planet, wouldn't be greatly tempted by the sight of bare breasts; this seems to be a mostly American thing.--142.177.20.174 18:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Exactly, because in the U.S., as most of North America, nude beaches are not the norm. PJR is a master at using the Bible to support whatever it is he is postulating, and ignoring it when it doesn't, or finding something else that marginally undermines another's biblical argument. In other words, like most zealots, he picks and chooses what best suits him, and buries his head in the sand otherwise. --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 19:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Except that PJR is Australian. ;) Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 19:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)
As for me, being a Brit, I say the more breasts anywhere is good. And as PJR is an Ozzie, he should be very used to seeing them untethered Down Under. ;) Spica 18:16, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hilarious image captions[edit]

One of the small things I love about Conservapedia is their inability to choose proper images, or to give them appropriate captions. Examples:

Maybe this would work better if you explained what it is about those images that you think is improper...... --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 23:34, 8 January 2008 (EST)
It probably has to do with the over simplification of the subject matter; it's not France, it's a map of the nation during the second world war (or at least, it should be set during the second world war).--142.68.54.222 00:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Ahhh...well the article is about WWII, so I was confused! --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 00:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Well, the WW2 case is mostly WTF because the image is so completely not representative of the article. An article about World War 2 should have an image of... I dunno... something you associate with it at the top. Hitler, a Nazi parade, war victims, a propaganda poster, a tank, bombers, something like that.
The undisputed king of image overkill abuse has to be Conservative, though. He fanatically includes image of EVERYTHING that is mentioned in the article (Esp. in pet articles like Atheism, Homosexuality, ToE, etc. Not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that he is also responsible for all the images in the Dawkins article). --Sid 08:22, 9 January 2008 (EST)
What make that especially funny is that User:C's first upload, (which that link points to), was at the end of JULY...a full four months after starting to edit CP, (and after months of editing WP under kdbuffalo), after being a sysop for three full months!!! His edit to other people's talk pages in early summer were filled with requests for uploading pictures until Hoji and others walked him through the download/upload routine...See the mess they're made! It's ALIVE! — Unsigned, by: Cracker / talk / contribs
Oh God, yes! How many tried to teach that to Conservative, anyway? I think I also remember TK posting step-by-step instructions, along with a "If even I can learn it..." comment. --Sid 13:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

LMAO! You remember that, Sid? God....he kept running around asking everyone, anyone to upload for him....several of us were doing it at the same time, same pictures, I grew so frustrated...almost as much as some of you had to have been with me, bitching about archiving my pages! I was such an ignorant asshole over that! Fortunately, since then, I have been an ignorant asshole over many other things, just to prove I wasn't biased against just certain people. I pledge to continue that now and then, to completely prove it wasn't merely a ploy.  :P --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 15:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)

DECEITS!!!111[edit]

Hey guys - did we miss this, or was it just me? SimonA and Moderate Catholic didn't stand a chance; this is classic Andy, at his best! UchihaKATON! 00:04, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Classic RW as well, since SimonA is a sock of a RW member, and I do think an admitted one. No idea of who "Catholic" actually is, but I don't think it's the best example of honest debate one could find, lol. I do agree Andy's responses to their baiting are indeed classic Andy-isms, however, and have been used on apparently legitimate users as well. Are there any actual "legitimate" (non-socks of RW members or previous socks, or other previously blocked names) users at CP anymore? --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 00:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Tk we all know (By your own admissionIt's gone missing with your archives.) that Tmt is your sock. Therefore your question is impossible, as most users here are his socks, by his admission, of course. Pinto's5150 Talk 00:39, 9 January 2008 (EST) P.S. I was User:Question on CP
Yeah I saw that exchange while it was going on but you know there's only so much "Schlafly covers ears and closes eyes while going 'La, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you!'" that one can reasonably fit onto WIGO. Honestly, I do not see how the man gets across the street. (PS I'm SimonA) CЯacke® 00:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Odd, because someone else Fox told me they were before the account was made. Go figure! --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 00:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Oh! Now you accuse me of being TMT, yet you have nothing to back that up? You should be blocked for a minimum of one minute! I do remember being Colin's sock. Twice. ;-) --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 00:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
It's not my fault that they deleted your archives. However, by my own logic above, I think we can say with 99.99876% certainty that most users of this wiki, are in fact, socks of either you, Aschfly, or Bohdan. Pinto's5150 Talk 00:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)
HALPLIBRULS.jpg


--TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 01:16, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Is it on WIGO CP, so I can vote for it? humanUser talk:Human 01:21, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Not Fair Use image[edit]

The Farside cartoon on Conservapedia's Main Page (this version here) does not constitute Fair Use. Why? Because there is no reason to have it. How does it further the understanding of anything? No. It is an unlicensed use, with no purpose, on a privately run website. Karajou thought it was cute, and put it there, having uploaded it in the first place. It violates every definition of Fair Use. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)

On a side note, Conservapedia cannot make the same accusation about Wikipedia. I was there when the decree was passed from on high at Wikipedia to make it more like a real encyclopedia: no pictures, just a wall of text comply well within the limits of Fair Use, rather than push those limits. As a result, my beloved pet article was completely stripped of its many helpful images—in a single edit. ...Cripes. I'm ranting on a tangent. I didn't know that was possible. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:06, 9 January 2008 (EST)

For what it is worth, I've filled out the form on the Universal Press Syndicate contact page about the infringement. Some day, don't know when... but some day, Andy's gonna get hit with copyright infrimgenet... and I am certain that Far Side is registered with the Library of Congress so you get putative damages tacked on there too. --Shagie 14:50, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Ed Poor really is a parodist[edit]

How can you say something like this and not be? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:16, 9 January 2008 (EST)

LMAO! I haven't looked at the Main Page in a month, and it does seem more National Enquirer than NewsMax or even The Drudge Report! --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Better 05:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Yep, that was a serious "WTF" moment of CP. Right in line with Ed using the word "sluts" to refer to Britney and Madonna and musing about schoolgirls without panties (not on the front page, though). --Sid 08:14, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Now, now, remember: WP is The National Enquirer of the internets,
CP is The Watchtower of the internets. 13:16, 9 January 2008 (EST) CЯacke®
CP is The Watchtower for Dummies of teh intarweb. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 16:02, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Breaking News?[edit]

The perils of Biblical Literalism--Think we'll see this on CP?--WJThomas 15:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)

OMG! This is the sort of mental state that leads to suicide bombings or the murder of family planning workers. People think they are doing something to please god, but I'm sure Jesus would have suggested amuch less drastic measure. Unfortunately, most of the fundyloonies take more notice of the violent stuff in the OT rather than the love-thy-neighbour stuff of the Gospels. As a liberal I'm going to call for the immediate banning of circular-saws. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:23, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Please, all evil RWikians, check your hands! As for the article, a mark on his hand means he was worshipping the "beast". I can see CP's Breaking news: Liberal recognized his error and cut off his hand. Do the same, Liberals, before it's too late, or you will "drink the wine of God's fury"! Ed @but not the Poor one! 15:27, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Addendum: obviously, if his neighbour or daughter had a gun, he would never have been able to cut his hands. Ed @but not the Poor one! 15:28, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Nothing's wrong with my hand, but I do have a mole on my schwanz. What might that mean? Stile4aly 15:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Reciprocal-saw.jpg










P --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 15:43, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Damn, that's messed up. This is the sort of crap that would make Jesus *facepalm* --Sid 15:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)
"Hospital spokeswoman Lisa Johnson would not say whether an attempt was made to reattach the hand, citing patient confidentiality." - It had been microwaved for Chrissake! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:59, 9 January 2008 (EST)

OMG, I have to cut off my schwartz (and arms, legs, eyes, mouth, nose, ears, ect. It is best to remove the body part that can commit the sin rather than have the whole body go to hell...--TimS 16:39, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Exactly right, Tim! Take that which offends God and pluck it out/off! By your pain you will prove how much you love him! --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 16:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
What if you think "bad thoughts"? Hmmm, where's that guillotine?16:57, 9 January 2008 (EST) CЯacke®
Obviously that passage is not meant to be taken literally, but hey, they're strict literalists! *ba-dum shhh* -Linus(plot evil tech) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, I know my onomatopoeia are poor. --Linus(plot evil tech) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

If you think "bad thoughts" go to Metapedia! I just love that place...... :P --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 17:15, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I was thinking moer along the lines (ahem) of Kitten Huffing but okay. CЯacke® 17:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Kitten_huffing?--TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 17:53, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Mmis.gif

...Putting on "According to..." on Main Page... Sterileminichatroomthingy 18:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I think there was a Little House on the Prairie episode about this. --PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 18:25, 9 January 2008 (EST)





Looks like this is crazy season for the fundies. I cast out the demons!--TimS 10:29, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism[edit]

My irony meter rock-slammed and blowed up on number 9. I fixed it but it all went to hell when I got to 11. CЯacke® 18:26, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Damn, you got that far? I gave up after One, with Andy's so-self-evident-it-doesn't-need-any-refs-at-all measurement of deLiberalization. We need an article, the conservative constant, or something.--Offeep 18:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
If he intends to say that a reliance on "feelings" more than logic and fact, then doesn't that mean it's more likely in our culture for women to be liberal than men. Oh wait, according to Ann Coulter if women didn't vote, no democratic president would have made it to office, so obviously women are part of the liberal agenda to destroy morals by using our body? I honestly don't know right now. I certainly hope to the Goat, the Goat be praised, that this is all just some big awesome and hilarious scam. My worst fear, (I'd say in life, but I don't particularly need to worry after death) is that they are acting whole-heartedly, and honestly believe what they are saying. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 19:05, 9 January 2008 (EST)
They are serious, although they do fall victim to ever-more-expert-at-fitting-in parodists. Andy is a public loon, and really thinks this stuff is gold-plated Truth. humanUser talk:Human 22:49, 9 January 2008 (EST)

It is obvious God didn't intend women to vote! Ask PJR. What's wrong with you, Eira? :P --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 19:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Apparently, what's wrong with me, is that I'm a woman! :( I guess they think the uterus drives us crazy, insane, and/or hysterical!? (BTW: It's not chance that "hysteria" is so similar to "hysterectomy". They're both based on the same root word meaning "uterus".) No wonder they're so scared of our bodies! I seem to also recall there have been some people who had believed that the vagina was literally (this time used intentionally with correct meaning) a mouth, and that if the woman wanted to, she could bite off your penis, or something entirely christian stupid like that. Well, it must be another random whacko idea that was invented to keep kids abstinent until marriage. I certainly hope CP doesn't pick up that belief... although I wouldn't really put it past them. I can just see it now: "The vagina is the spring from which all evil flows, this is because of how often it fills with blood. It is a loathesome hellhole where the devil, bathed in blood, eagerly waits for you to stick your penis in, whereupon he will cut it apart from your body with a hacksaw hewn from the bones of aborted fetuses... unless you're married, then it's fucking awesome! But only if it's your wife's!" (this post is entirely not serious...) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Oh! You're female! Well that explains it all!.......:P.... --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 00:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)
And as TK himself pointed out, you probably rely on your feelings more than logic and facts. All part of being female, I guess. Bondurant 06:02, 10 January 2008 (EST)

A cartoonish view of conservatives and conservative principles, it says. Gee, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get a cartoonish view of Conservativism after visiting CP.... :-P --Gulik 12:29, 10 January 2008 (EST)

How right you are! Luckily I didn't have coffee to spill on my new notebook. Ed @but not the Poor one! 12:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

In-phasedness[edit]


We appear to be in phase with page-views at CP. Sterileminichatroomthingy 18:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Thank me later. :P --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 18:50, 9 January 2008 (EST)
No! It's like Harry Potter - it can't die unless we do too! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
This site is growing rapidly!!!!.Shangrala 18:45, 9 January 2008 (EST)
It would be interesting to see how much traffic CP gets directly linked from us. I can imagine that if we're running in phase, that it's likely a result of a significant amount of CP readers coming from RW itself. I mean, it's not like people can really do much more than read CP, you're most likely to get banned in the first 10 hours. "You didn't post anything within the first 10 minutes of your registration, BANNED!" --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 19:16, 9 January 2008 (EST)

That reminds me, can everyone try to use links in the [http//example.com] format for CP until I can set the rel attribute for the interwiki links to CP to nofollow, so we don't boost their rankings? --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)

You mean instead of [[cp:user:Aschalfly|Aschlafly]]? Warren Terra 22:34, 9 January 2008 (EST)
In English, that means? --TK/MyTalkRemember: Communication actually works! 22:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)
That using links, as Warren Terra stated, like [[cp:Main Page]] tells Google and other search engines to take into account that link when calculating page rank, or more accurately, doesn't tell it not to. Using the other form does, in fact, tell the spider to ignore it. --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (EST)
You know I gotta save shit like this to Notepad, Linus! So, when linking to someplace else, do it like: [[http://whatever]] not the cp:____ stuff, right? And can't you or Trent just take out that cp:whatever deal, so it won't work? (trying to be helpful, lol) --TK/MyTalkRemember: Communication actually works! 23:01, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Link like this: [http://www.conservapedia.com/some stupid article] not like this [[cp:some stupid article]] humanUser talk:Human 22:55, 9 January 2008 (EST)

As far as the phase thing, did anyone notice that a day or two before t-day and again a day or two before xmas, their line slumps and ours rises? Weird. What's really amazing is that our page views are pretty much equal to theirs for the last week or two. humanUser talk:Human 22:55, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Probably 'cause a good portion of our people edit while at work or at a college, and most of theirs edit at home. --Linus(plot evil tech) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (EST)
There is no place like home! --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)
BTW This is page views, not rank or the such. We're still not in the same league as CP in rank or "reach." Sterileminichatroomthingy 08:48, 10 January 2008 (EST)
But you're right, CP is "rank".CЯacke® 08:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I have a "theory": it's because more and more, the same people go to CP and RW. Not necessarily our people, or theirs, but we are increasingly linked in the tubersphere. I'd bet there are many folks who have put wigo on their daily lulz list, hitting us and them with parallel volume. The last week or two has been creepily in sync regarding pageviews, with several days in a row of almost identical numbers. If I had to guess, I'd think some shady characters are doing one hell of a job of gaming Alexa. humanUser talk:Human 06:29, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Wow[edit]

The Return of the King - we already have this up there - but I feel like a talk section needs to be dedicated to it. Will TK be given his power back?--Danielfolsom 21:18, 9 January 2008 (EST)

It's not like we didn't know that he was unblocked (circa Saturday), it is a bit surprising the (belated but warm[ish]) welcome from the grand poobah himself. And TK, no-one has offered to start a flame-fest. Relax, we're all friends here. Warren Terra 21:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
No, we're not. --Gulik 12:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Why is Tk's talk page still blocked? Tohuvavohu 06:57, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Because CP sysops are eager to lock, but have to be poked and prodded when it comes to unlocking. Happens all the time when a user actually returns after a "permanent" block. --Sid 08:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I have emailed Andy a couple of times (the latest right after Andy's "welcome back"), told several sysops that I never asked for my pages to be deleted, to no avail. When Andy removed me, I asked Justine (Jallen) to please lock the talk, to avoid any drama being played out there. She informed me my presence here had increased "alarmingly" and therefore she decided to delete them and block me. So I must assume it is Andy's decision to keep my user and old talk pages deleted. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 12:47, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Heh, good to know that CP doesn't block for off-site behavior ;)
And at least your last talk page before the block wasn't deleted (the archives apparently were deleted, though), so you could (in theory) restore that once it gets unlocked. And since you're now back, you could ask somebody to restore the archives (even though that assumes that CP sysops actually use Earth logic... so I guess it seriously depends on who you ask...).
Jallen is one of those sysops who really embraced the "Block inactive users and remove all traces of their existence" attitude, it seems... --Sid 13:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)
That isn't a policy, just something she did on her own. She was questioned about it in the SDG, relented for a while, don't know if she's started back up with it or not. Someone told me she was on several other sites; is there a list of them here? I have asked several of the more "reasonable" sysops, and that is why I said it must come from Andy directly. Or maybe PJR, that kindly Christian trainman. :P --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 13:17, 10 January 2008 (EST)

What happens when..?[edit]

What happens when you combine the usual anti-science and anti-evolution crap, and the ruthless import/copying from other sites by Karajou? An article that ALMOST makes sense. Ed @but not the Poor one! 05:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)

HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS HAPPEN?! *spontaneously combusts from absolute shock* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 07:07, 10 January 2008 (EST)

SFX now Liberal Deceit[edit]

Check out Talk: Speed (movie)[1]. CP now considers Hollywood action movies part of the "liberal media", and special effects are examples of the distortion of science by liberals. Let's add "Star Wars", "Independence Day" and "Alien" to the list of Liberal Deceit. PoorEd 08:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Well, it's part of the Liberal biased media if it's more Liberal than THEY are--which is practically everything that isn't the 700 Club or Rush Limbaugh's radio show. (And DanH is complaining liberals distort scientific fact. I think he's got something stuck in his eye....) --Gulik 12:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Well taking into account that movies are nothing but pure deceit just in the fact that they are single frames of film moving at such a rate that our brains are, (in effect), lied to and we end up seeing what we're "told" to see. See? There are still sects in USA Pentecostalism that rail agin motion pictures. CЯacke® 15:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Does this include SFX in films like The Ten Commandments?— Unsigned, by: bunchanumbers / talk / contribs
No, because those scenes of Charlton Heston, I mean Moses, parting the Red Sea were actually filmed by a dinosaur. PoorEd 15:24, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Atomic wristwatches[edit]

do they blow up if you overclock them? — Unsigned, by: 92.227.118.164 / talk / contribs

Link? (Unsigned, by me: Ed @but not the Poor one! 13:15, 10 January 2008 (EST) )
No. You're thinking nuclear, the "atomic" in atomic clocks refers to the vibrations at the atomic level, which are used to calibrate the clock. I find the whole thing stupendous. Superaccurate, portable, and everyone's watches will still say different times! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:29, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Errr, I'm pretty sure atomic wristwatches are so-called because they're in regular communication with accurate atomic clocks somewhere else in the world. Unless this is some new type of atomic wristwatch. Slink 16:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I think Slink is right there. The clocks (and wristwatches) have radio receivers, I think, tuned to GPS-type synching signals. It's crazy anyway, a simple AA battery driven quartz clock is accurate enough to get me from springing forward to falling back.

WIGO Template[edit]

Just a note: I think the WIGO template only goes to 250 or so. Since the polls in the December archive are still there, we're QUICKLY running out of space.

As a temporary measure, I extended the count to 256 as a hotfix, but doing that forever won't do the trick (we'd end up with a HUUUUUGE template).

Anybody with knowledge of this template here? Suggestions, opinions? --Sid 13:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I will try and get this done today. tmtoulouse beset 13:51, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Since there is no way to automate the move to Best of yet...if someone could lock this down and then move those with enough votes manually to Best of it would make my life easier. tmtoulouse beset 13:52, 10 January 2008 (EST)
A>What is "enough"?B can you set the template up with a date code, (stop point) that would allow multiple templates that didn't interfere with one another because of the date code thingy (that may not even exist)?
OR We could try starting with 0001 to 0002? Or does the SW assume 0001 and 1 are the same value? CЯacke® 15:23, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The problem is the template is only the tip of the iceberg for how WIGO works....the back bone is a hacked together extension/sql database that I set up piece meal so things are...picky....I have been using 10 votes as a Best of cut off. tmtoulouse beset 16:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I have no idea what you guys are talking about (but that's never stopped me from butting in), but instead of jury rigging stuff like this, why don't you make a proper one in the first place? I mean, this is a crowd of young white liberals, so at least one of you has to know software programming. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Because there is no "proper" way to do this, since mediawiki software is not designed for this we are essentially forcing it to do something it is not set up to do. That means anything we try will be jury rigged. tmtoulouse beset 17:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
See? I cautioned I didn't know what I was talking about. And darn it if I wasn't right! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:23, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Computers[edit]

I would really like to see where CP gets some of their information. The "Analytical Engine" wasn't built until fairly recently, not back in 18-whatever like they claim. Jrssr5 17:01, 10 January 2008 (EST)

It gets better. This is total parody. CЯacke® 17:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Nonsense! Keep your liberal agenda to yourself Cracker! We only provide Trustworthy information. DogP 17:12, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Shaddup! They'll notice & vape it! SusanPrunes and custard 17:16, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Damn! You're right Susan - they read RW too much! It just got tweaked. Presumably it's now headed for a boring future. DogP 17:37, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Why do I get the feeling that we're doing their proofreading for them? SusanPrunes and custard 18:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yes-I had that thought too. If we're not careful we will end up pointing out everything they need to work on, and CP will become less mad, which is not what I want. Complex. DogP 18:15, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia less (?) mad! SusanPrunes and custard 18:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I've tried to say this before. It is not WIGO's purpose to expose parody and disinformation. It's to point out the stupidity and absurdity of it's main contributors. Goodness knows there is plenty of that. 86.140.207.240 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Amen to that. SusanPrunes and custard 18:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Shaken, not stirred Baby Syndrome[edit]

I cannot believe that a man who detests abortion as murder, and considers vaccination tantamount to injecting children with cyanide has no problem with shaking babies to the point of severe brain injury and death. I feel like shaking the shit out of him. Stile4aly 18:25, 10 January 2008 (EST)

It wouldn't do any good. The man is an automaton with no soul who feels neither the pain of others nor his own pain. PFoster 18:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Œdipus complex - he can't comprehend a carer (mother figure) being anything but gentle & succouring. SusanPrunes and custard 18:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)

It's part of the AAPS bullshit. Our own article on the AAPS talks about this nuttery. Also, I hate to do this but I can't resist...go here--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 18:55, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Of course, this will ruin a perfectly good edit that's been there since june.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 19:00, 10 January 2008 (EST)

CP once had an excellent article on the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons ;-) Auld Nick 19:15, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, is physically located in that liberal bastion of....wait for it...Ogden, Utah. You bastards! CЯacke® 19:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)
More LDS/Romney conspiracies!! Damn them! --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 19:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm...they drones aren't patrolling much tonight. the link is still good! --PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 19:52, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Seeing as the ex-chief super drone edited just above & didn't vape it, I'd say he's not really back on the AS bandwagon. SusanPrunes and custard 20:13, 10 January 2008 (EST)
(I'm trying to be nice TK) SusanPrunes and custard 20:16, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I kind of thought I was throwing him a bone, just in case he wants it.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Oh hey, now we know what happened to Assfly.--142.68.89.0 23:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I was simply so disgusted with the original post made by Aschlafly... Even what's in there now. I cannot believe that someone would argue that such an syndrome exists. Now, criticizing, it's application, etc, is certainly a good idea. However, making it out to be a "prosecutorial tool" which is essentially hell bent on destroying a caregiver... Can I get a restraining order to keep those kinds of people at least 8 miles away from my children? kthx. Well, that whole deal just took everything out of me... I'm done for today, after looking at one single article. I just... ok, I'm done, I guess. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 00:02, 11 January 2008 (EST)

WTF Ed[edit]

I was just reading up on Poor Ed's latest brown-nosing expedition to Andy's talk page. They range from the lamely obscure, to his SFX criticisms, to the WTF LIBERAL BIAS???

...did he really write an article that quite blatantly favours sex education through liberal public schools over Andy's good ol' homoschooling homeschooling? UchihaKATON! 19:34, 10 January 2008 (EST)

The article on Denethor is twice as long as the article on Al Sharpton. FINALLY an article on evolution and creationism at conservapedia. This line speaks for itself: "Racial profiling is the use of race in a "profile" of a suspected criminal". Oh, and apples are those red things that look like apples. And I'm willing to bet that the articles he listed that are more than 5 lines long are copy-paste jobs. So as Andy said, phenomenal! --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:28, 10 January 2008 (EST)

AG final exam.[edit]

I've gotten as far as q2:

"2. Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States?
(a) He is at least 35 years old.
(b) He was born in one of the 50 states.
(c) He served as a governor or in Congress before becoming president.
(d) He fought in the military.
(e) He is a Christian."

Note the first word in every possible answer. humanUser talk:Human 22:37, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hahahahahahahahahaha.Shangrala 22:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)
The correct answer of course being "Christian"  :) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:43, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Parody time![edit]

2. Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States? (Conservative version)
(a) Must be a white male Protestant.
(b) Must be masculine.
(c) Must be anti-intellectual.
(d) Must be heterosexual.
(e) Must support Israel.

Correct answer: (f) Must be channel Ronald Reagan.

2. Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States? (liberal version)
Fill it in! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)

(a) She must be a minority and support surrendering to teh terrorists!
(b) She must support taking guns away from law abiding citizens!
(c) She must encourage, nay, insist on same-sex marriage quotas in every town!
(d) If it's a he, he must be in the pockets of Big Feminism!
(e) She must support the destruction of Christianity, the One True American religion! humanUser talk:Human 23:06, 10 January 2008 (EST)

(f) She must be a member of a so-called "minority" group in order to fulfill liberals' love of quotas. PFoster 23:34, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Don't forget that she (and by "she", I mean post-op transsexual who used to be a man until after the Democratic convention) must also insist on tripling the number of government agencies. We know that liberals also love bureaucracy.--Bayesupdate 23:37, 10 January 2008 (EST)
"Big Feminism" earned a chuckle from me. Must remember to use that later... --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:48, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Hehe. humanUser talk:Human 23:51, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I've got a better question:

51. Which of the following presents the best argument for the Democratic Party?

(a) Not all their candidates are old white men
(b) They support women having control of their own bodies
(c) They see that, due to the many different religions existing in America, no one religion whould receive preferential treatment
(d) They don't cheer the slave and segregation history of their party
(e) Batshit Insane people like Andy Schafly vote Republican

In case you're wondering, the answer is A
SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Boring[edit]

CP during night editing block. One, only one, edit in almost five hours. All "night" time fun relies on PJR - but even he has off-days. A bored Ed @but not the Poor one! 06:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Bored, "Ed" (is that your real name??????!!!!) Why not improve RationalWiki with some substantial (although concise) edits on HOMOSEXUALITY?!?!?!?!!?!?!? humanUser talk:Human 07:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Probably over 90% of people who complain about the night-time editing block are not American. Over 80% of those don't support class-room prayer and promote gun control, evolutionism, atheism, government dependence, British spelling, communism, homosexualism, baby killing and Hilary Clinton. We're not fooled here. Open your mind, Ed. Ajkgordon 07:16, 11 January 2008 (EST)
99% liberal deceit!!!! oneone eleven @!e2qe2#2324 humanUser talk:Human 07:19, 11 January 2008 (EST)
100% of your edits over the last 20 minutes are talk talk talk. I suggest you contribute some quality edits or find somewhere else like Conservapedia to practice your parody. Satanspeed. Ajkgordon 07:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Nice :-) Human, there already is a CONCISE article on homosexuality here. 'Ed', a name I gladly leave to the Harris one and the Poor one. Ed @but not the Poor one! 07:33, 11 January 2008 (EST)

OMG, that's amazing. My computer fell over when it tried to hold it up! humanUser talk:Human 23:10, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I can't be alone...[edit]

...in wishing that CP had a RationalWiki:What is going on a RW? article. In polar opposition to what they must think of our WIGO, I would love to see CPers rail against the things that have been written here. Of "my" articles, I most like to see their reactions to That fine-ass Mary Magdalene and Old Testament oddities. Although I'd like to see them go batshit insane over anything here. I tend to believe that they would love to so badly, but just can't. --Edgerunner76 07:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

The Unwritten Commandment at CP is "Thou Shalt Not Mention Rationalwiki.' The Goon Squad blocks people and deletes entries mentioning this pit of iniquity. --SockOfGulik 15:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
If I remember correctly, they actually often referred to us as "That other place" or "RatWiki", but then they realized that even that made people come here in relatively large numbers (Thank you, Google). So the new rule is to basically memoryhole us, and that rule gets broken VERY rarely. Ironically enough, the biggest ads for RW were made by sysops in edit comments, I believe, sometimes even posting the complete URL or name in there. Of course, the memoryhole gig doesn't stop us from inviting people every now and then ;) --Sid 17:33, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Interesting - I googled "that other place" and we weren't listed. However, after ten or so "real" RatWiki sites, there we are in all our glory tattered rags. humanUser talk:Human 23:14, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, but we're number one for "that other place" Conservapedia and number two for RatWiki Conservapedia, both of which are likely searches of people who want to find out what that other place with the nickname RatWiki is, compared to Conservapedia ;) --Sid 23:19, 11 January 2008 (EST)
You're right, of course, but I was kind of joking - a search for "that other place" on its own is fairly meaningless - like searching for "and then they"... humanUser talk:Human 23:45, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, it's often very enlightening to search for seemingly meaningless phrases! ...okay, and my humor detector is kinda broken at... oh dear God, almost 6am? Excuse me while I drag myself to bed... --Sid 23:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Order and Godspeed head to head[edit]

Order crticises ASchafly over the 6 x more liberal statistic [2]. How long can he survive? Sorry, forgot to sign Silver Sloth 09:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)

He seems to have a deathwish. But he CAN'T DIE! Ajkgordon 09:44, 11 January 2008 (EST)
This discussion has been going on for a long time [3][4] Tohuvavohu 11:09, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Parodist?[edit]

Surely. Ajkgordon 13:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I thought about warning about him to some Sysop... but then his parody isn't so far from some genuine writings by Andy himself or Ed Poor (the Men article). Ed @but not the Poor one! 13:56, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I know. Extraordinary! Ajkgordon 13:57, 11 January 2008 (EST)

An old article[edit]

But I didn't know/remember about Liberal hysteria, started by our own TK. Ed @but not the Poor one! 13:57, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Andy doesn't forget[edit]

Liberal professors CAN'T teach well: there must be another reason if a Liberal (was it Greg Larson?) fared well in Andy's test a long time ago. Ed @but not the Poor one! 17:19, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Almost. The liberal was Greg Larson's teacher. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 18:45, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Typos[edit]

There seems to be quite a lot of WIGOs dedicated to pointing out typos and petty mistakes. Kinda leaves me cold, ya know? Not really worthy, IMHO. Let WIGO be full of good old-fashioned WTF wackiness! Ajkgordon 14:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Here, here! Lurker 14:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)
See also #Computers above. SusanPurrrrrrr 14:38, 12 January 2008 (EST)
My sister-in-law was a meter maid for a small town. When she first got hired she was WAY above her quota issuing tickets to even off duty cops! and hizzhonor the mayor! Fair and ruthless, she ticketed her own car (that had been parked by her own child!)
About a year or so later she was called into the office for failing to meet her monthly quota, (which had been risen once they saw what "the market" could bear). Her contention was since she had been so ruthless and exacting about who got a ticket that no-one parked illegally and the meter revenues were at all time high levels, (though no-where near what "expected" ticket revenues could be.
She asked, "Well, what did you want? People to obey the parking laws or more money from parking tickets?
People aren't stupid, if it begins to cost more to not put money in the meter, they will (eventually) figure out that it's better to pay the 25¢ to "feed the meter" than to pay a $5 or $10 fine.
Same thing went on here...after months of pure lulz CP editors (Sysops) are being more careful about what goes into the thing, there is less and less gold in them thar edits. Schlafly musta got some work because he's not there near what he was in the summertime. (And he's the "source" of most of the things that end up here and over to BoC). -14:46, 12 January 2008 (EST) CЯacke®

Having said that, Conservative's typo of "homoschooling" was absolutely inspired and should be kept for posterity. Ajkgordon 16:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Link, NOW! P.S. I agree, even though I've been guilty of it.NightFlareSpeak, mortal 17:38, 12 January 2008 (EST) (See Homoschooling SusanPurrrrrrr 17:52, 12 January 2008 (EST))
OK. Yeah... there's typos, then there are gigantic gaping freudian hilarities. Like if Andy typed "goatspeed". humanUser talk:Human 17:41, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this conversation. Just wanted you all to know that. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:57, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Hey! I know for a fact I have way less to contribute to this topic than you do! --Kels 22:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Assfly at The Onion[edit]

Anyone notice how Dr. Babyshakes himself made it into the pages of the Onion? He changed his name to Penelope and is looking pretty good, but it's certainly him. -DickTurpis 18:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Nice catch! humanUser talk:Human 19:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Vandalism is funny[edit]

This was up for over a day before anyone changed it. I wanted to mention it beforehand but I didn't want any of the many CP'ers who monitor this page to see it. GrandSoviet 23:55, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Nice one! And true, concise, and verifiable, to boot! humanUser talk:Human 01:06, 13 January 2008 (EST)

RobSmith[edit]

So - Rob has not posted on CP since 16 December. Did he take his bat and ball and go home? Or did the commies finally get him? PFoster 01:16, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Mebbe just winter holydaze from school? Perhaps he has a "friend" back home who keeps him busy? humanUser talk:Human 02:22, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Conservative has been inactive for two weeks now, too....Hmm...--WJThomas 05:59, 13 January 2008 (EST)
There is no truth to the RW Bureaucrat rumor that I am both Rob and Kenservative. Just wanting this on the record. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 16:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

odd[edit]

The recent entry about vit. C does not really link to anything obvious.... and within 15 minutes is bumped up to +9. I call shenanigans, but I won't roll it back without input. This is (was?) the diff link. Thoughts? Hmmm, as I think it over, I decide to revert it, since the source is abunchofnumbers. humanUser talk:Human 06:18, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Although I must admit, the article dating from 2 Nov is obviously a copy/paste job from wikipedia. humanUser talk:Human 06:24, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Good man. I'm myself very suspicious of those shady people that use IP addresses. Why can't they use a webbrowser instead, like all straight people do? --NAN 06:31, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, bunchanumbers (User talk:62.141.59.167, are you related to them? There is no "user:NAN"), I'm more suspicious of sneaky internet addicts who con website managers into giving them mighty bureacratic/administrative/syoperative powerz to abuse. humanUser talk:Human 06:49, 13 January 2008 (EST)
The computers one raised from -5 to 12, the baby shakers one lowered from something I forgot to 7, and as soon as I see the TK one, it is at 10 (a matter of minutes). NightFlareSpeak, mortal 09:55, 13 January 2008 (EST)
OK, I know that made sense in some way, so why don't I understand it? humanUser talk:Human 09:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Summary: Votes are being tampered/sabotaged/tweaked/manipulated/corrupted/etc. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 10:06, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Yah, I see the "TK" comment that is up to 14. Jokerz trippin' on us! Trus us for trussing' bunchanumbers to play nice! humanUser talk:Human 10:09, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Although, I gotta say, unlike that stupid Vitamin C entry, TK being blocked twice in a row by Fox for "please do not call fellow users idiots" (1 day) and then "off-site harrasment, threatening emails" (1 month) is classic. humanUser talk:Human 10:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)

(undent) Yup, wigo voting is being hijacked. The TK entry is up to 29 since my last post, and xtians who support ACLU is down to -18 all of a sudden. Damn children. humanUser talk:Human 10:14, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Jallen to us[edit]

(This probably would belong to Talk:RationalWiki or something) I was surprised that Tripp wasn't blocked in a matter of minutes for his Talk page comment - but it was night time. Anyway, Jallen eventually blocked him - and her goodbye message applies to all of us, doesn't it? Why do we "waste" our time trolling CP and laughing at it here? Is it for fun? Are we deluded of a social role, that we warn clueless readers of CP's absurdity? Or is she right and we just have nothing better to do in life? Ed @but not the Poor one! 07:01, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Both. PS, I corrected the link above.
"Really, TRipp? I'm surprised to see you admit that you've wasted your time on Conservapedia pretending to be someone you obviously aren't. Spending a month on a website pretending to be someone you aren't certainly doesn't put you any steps forward. You don't have anything better to do? Jallen 06:10, 13 January 2008 (EST)"
I feel so pathetic now. Pretending to be a socialist to get cred for my subversive articles and editing here on RW. I feel so 'shamed! humanUser talk:Human 08:20, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I've never really been in favour of socks on CP anyhow, except for the obvious ones who are folks who go back in order to publically argue points. I got hooked on this crowd in the early days, almost a year ago, learning a lot from the various refutations of CP dishonesty and insanity, so I just keep going. But I don't sock over there, and I actually don't read much of CP besides the WIGO stuff these days, so meh. Personally I wonder about the life of someone like Jallen, who actually thinks they're doing something useful over there. --Kels 10:49, 13 January 2008 (EST)

PJR states that Conservatives can be deceitful! Has Andy been notified of this breakthrough? --Gulik 18:44, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Jallen is a admin on several boards/wiki's it seems, so she is no more addicted than most of us, I would guess. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 16:53, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Why, oh why, oh why, does everyone pick on poor andy?[edit]

Still got those Feds in there & someone else has conected homophobes & Homosexuals. SusanPurrrrrrr 12:24, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Because it's fun! And because he probably deserves it. Master Bra'tacKree! 12:42, 13 January 2008 (EST)
I've always wondered, what do the "18 USC § 1470" and "18 USC § 1030" (in the commandments page) things state that makes Andy believe he can be a policeman? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:52, 13 January 2008 (EST)
<rant>The evil mother-fucker deserves every little bit he gets. He's a fascist pig whose project thankfully is an abject failure. But his kind deserves no mercy. They need to be hounded and their deception uncovered daily---he is a boil who will fester if not intellectually lanced.</rant>--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 12:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)
To Google!
18 USC § 1470. Transfer of obscene material to minors
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.


18 USC § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
Too much to copy/paste here, but essentially says "no breaking into secure systems." Linky!
As far as I can tell, he may be right about 1470, but I'm fairly certain that 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism on a wiki-type site. I can't be sure, though. Who's our resident lawyer-type? AmesG? -Master Bra'tacKree! 13:00, 13 January 2008 (EST)
We have a pretty extensive database on it. I think it's under Conservapedia:FBI .--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 13:07, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Ahh, that article was worth reading again. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 14:01, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Pal; is that (far above) a medical diagnosis? 'cause if it is the I deserve an honorary MD - it was almost verbatim my estimate of his condition. SusanPurrrrrrr 14:16, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Unfortunately, I cannot make a diagnosis, but if he showed up at my office, I would refer him elsewhere. We don't like sociopaths in our waiting room.162.82.215.199 14:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I used for work to the post office, and we were throughly versed on 1470. That statute was created for porn, snuff films and the like. It was designed to keep adult companies from mailing stuff to kids without parental consent. Langauge is not covered under the law. There is not agreement on what constitutes obscene language, so he would have no grounds on that one.... His best shot would be if someone posted nude pictures.... But the statute is written to indicate direct selling, so he's actually be in more trouble than the poster SirChuckBCall the FBI 18:07, 13 January 2008 (EST)

In addition, it's probably the responsibility of the site's owner to make sure that obscenity is not present on CP, not the contributors. Sterileminichatroomthingy 18:23, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Fox[edit]

Uh-oh, somebody dropped the R-bomb on his talk page! Swing that hammer! UchihaKATON! 15:17, 13 January 2008 (EST)

In other news: why was TK blocked, anyway? Does Fox even have the authority to do that? One month to a returning sysop sort of seems an assholish thing to do (not very "prodigal son" and all that)... UchihaKATON! 15:19, 13 January 2008 (EST)

From what I saw TK tried to "pull rank" on (another) lowly editor and called said editor an "idiot" in an edit summary. Fox was having none of it and issued a 1 month block.CЯacke®
Well actually, the Great Andy himself backed TK in a posting on EvilSpartan's talk page, but that didn't stop Fox from blocking. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 02:44, 14 January 2008 (EST)
But it was really friggin' funny (not the TK part).User:PalMD
Actually, the block was for "threatening mails" or something... wasn't there just a 1-day block for the "idiot" thing? --Sid 15:54, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Does Fox have the authority?
Short answer: Yes. Welcome to CP.
Long answer: Yes. He's a CP sysop, and as such, he has 100% authority, is always 100% correct, and has 0% accountability... unless somebody higher up in the chain disagrees. So if Fox felt like dishing out a month, then that's his call. Andy can overrule him, and other sysops can discuss the block in public or private with him. But effectively, only Andy and Fox can undo the block without discussion. (Exception: Obvious mistakes, like banning the guy who reverted vandalism.)
CP has a very arbitrary block/appeal system. Don't expect any logic behind the block lengths. It could've been anything between 1 day and 5 years. And don't expect too much from the appeal process. I've gone through it a few times, and I bashed my head against the keyboard every time. --Sid 15:54, 13 January 2008 (EST)

can someone fix the new thing about fox added on this page, i messed it up (not) HelpJazz 16:23, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Points of interest: (1) kbolton = TK sock. (2) Some people do not want to see CP returning to the full-on TK cyberstate ruled by his special brand of Stalinist e-thuggery. 89.241.175.151 16:25, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Jeeze! Try and keep up, will you, bunchofnumbers! kbolton was a sock of LukeOrlando. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 02:44, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Excuse me mister bunchofnumbers, but do you have proof of either of those? Pinto's5150 Talk 17:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Greetings, Fox. Any chance of registering an account and sticking with it? --Linus(plot evil tech) 17:20, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not the only one basking in the warm glow of the schadenfreude TK's CP tribulations are generating, am I? --Gulik 18:48, 13 January 2008 (EST)

...Wait a moment. I recall you guys saying that Fox wasn't an admin. Is he one now? By the way, despite his Jewed-up userpage, Fox is still not a real Jew. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Fox came back on Dec 19, he got block rights on Dec 23, edit and upload rights on Dec 25, and sysop rights on Dec 27. Weird, I know. --Sid 19:03, 13 January 2008 (EST)
If memory serves he's a British, ex-military, messianic (whatever that means) Jew. Lives somewhere down the west country (near one of us I think. SusanPurrrrrrr 19:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Duh everybody, Both Fox and BrianCo are the same person, they are socks of Genghas Kahnt here at RW. (not) HelpJazz 19:31, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, everyone who's contributed to this thread is a sock of... ME.-αmεσ (tailor) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I'm a sock of God. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:37, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, wasn't your God a sock of our Goat? Ed @but not the Poor one! 03:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

An appeal to Fox, who maybe reads RW. Please don't do those things again. Whatever your goals at CP (that is, to improve it, etc.) TK will be a good addition. Better to have him on your side anyway. If you have problems with him, use a sock here in RW and discuss matters with TK here, in a civil manner. Ed @but not the Poor one! 03:26, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Don't talk out of your elbow, "Ed" - people at CP get banned for longer than that for having "silly" names. TK himself is an advocate of block IP banning on the grounds that one amongst hundreds of thousands may be a sock of someone at RW. The man is a liar, and a cyberthug: his time here proved that. Having failed to win a sysop position here, or many friends, he came crawling back to CP -probably at "someone elses" instigation... - and expected to be received like the returning hero. Wrong. Within a few edits he was trying to throw his weight around, and then went and did exactly what anyone who knows him knew he would: sent email threats to a sysop because of his vastly over-inflated ego. TK will NEVER be a good addition to CP, and is the cause of the majority of the things that are wrong with its administration. I think he's been lucky so far: a month is nothing, personally I'd like to burn his account and sprinkle the ashes with salt. Still, give 'em enough rope and they always hang themselves... So wind your neck in. 89.241.175.151 03:41, 14 January 2008 (EST)
That's quite strong - and unsubstantiated talk, number. So, what do you honestly wish for CP? And do you honestly believe Fox will do it better than TK? In that case, you are entitled to your position as I am to mine. I was banhammered by TK back in those days, my user and talk pages deleted, without, not a good reason, without a reason at all! But much water has passed under the bridges. Can you honestly say, whether you are a loon fundy or a troll RWikian, that CP is a better place without TK? For Andy, TK would be a valuable asset, the only strong Sysop who can keep the house going - Ed, PJR, Conservative being lost in their creationisms and homoschoolings. For RWikians, he is an unending source of fun - even when he blocks us. And when was his last block? And Fox's? Ed @but not the Poor one! 04:07, 14 January 2008 (EST)
It seems to me that nobody is seeing the obvious, which is to ask "TK, did you send an email threat to Fox?" He hasn't denied it, despite it being mentioned several times here. Before people start leaping to his defense, maybe they should ask that? If he did, then he really hasn't got any recourse, has he? That would usually warrant a lifetime ban at conservapedia. Impartial 05:20, 14 January 2008 (EST)
How many new users today! I don't want to pass as "TK's official defender", but it depends on the threat, doesn't it? I have seen "threating" e-mails by him, here in RW and elsewhere, that wouldn't warrant such a block, not here nor there. And since we are talking CP, let me have a BIASED opinion: I think that block had less to do with e-mails than with some RW happenings. People get personal at times (even TK). But if Fox is ok with his conscience, that's good for me. TK will entertain us here, CP will manage without him. Ed @but not the Poor one! 05:31, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Could someone describe to me what constitutes an email threat? Is it "I'm going to expose your sock" (ooer)? Or is it "I know where you live, I know where your kids live, I know what you did last summer." Just askin', like. Ajkgordon 05:37, 14 January 2008 (EST)

"Better back off, and know what you are doing, before blocking me again. That user duplicated my post on his page onto mine, ping-ponging. And his category changes are vandalism." That is the entire contents of the "threatening and harassing" through CP email. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 16:30, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Jesus H. Christ, that's fucking awful! Quick, call the FBI! I think Aschlafly has their number. Ajkgordon 17:27, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Censorship Allergy[edit]

The allergy to discussion of censorship at CP is very interesting. Within one minute of an attempt to add some decent content the topic Censorship, Assfly reverted it[5]. Poorly organized, but it was actually a relatively conservative take on the topic. PoorEd 17:57, 13 January 2008 (EST)

(Moved misplaced comment --Sid 18:06, 13 January 2008 (EST))
Uh, I'm not Fox. PoorEd 17:59, 13 January 2008 (EST)
You inserted your section between the old section and the last comment of that section (either by accident or through an edit conflict). I moved it back up - it wasn't a reply to you. --Sid 18:06, 13 January 2008 (EST)
That version was a copypaste job of the Anarchopedia article. Anarchopedia is GFDL 1.2 just like WP, so copy-pasting from there is actually forbidden both by the Commandments and the GFDL terms. Not sure if Andy knew those details, but there was a dead giveaway: Broken templates and images. --Sid 18:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for dispelling my confusion. PoorEd 18:17, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan[edit]

Iduan is leaving--Danielfolsom 23:24, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Beware, 6am edit incoming... have mercy if this makes no sense...
...wha? *checks* *reads* Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting reasoning. And I can understand it completely. Night-time edit rights have been a ridiculous issue lately (*points at HelpJazz, too*), and it must be highly frustrating to be limited by something that was only introduced because (after blocking tons of people who questioned CP's crazy bias) CP had too few "trusted editors" to monitor the "night shift", which is anything from morning to afternoon for others. Especially since there are people who could do just that... but they don't got the rights, so there is no way of proving to Andy that there are people who could do that. Yay, Catch-22! (And don't even get me started on how Andy doesn't trust anybody he ever disagreed with on some issue...)
It's also crazy how people get block rights before they get edit rights. --Sid 23:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)
In the post-TK era, it's hard to see how Andy could easily trust anyone again. In losing TK, he not only lost his best banhammer-er, he also found out that he'd been infiltrated to a pretty high level. He's gotta be pretty reluctant to give out the car keys, at least in the near future.--Bayesupdate 00:17, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry Bayes, to steal your immense ignorance, but I wasn't the biggest blocker, and you and 100 others posting that, over and over, will never change that. And are you contradicting several other RW sysops and Bureaucrats now, and saying I infiltrated CP for Rational Wiki? Because there are many posts here, and on the RW Forum stating I was never helping or working for RW. I think we have been through all this before, and surely you don't want to be the cause of another round of posted emails, IMs and the like, possibly outing even more current RW socks, etc., right? --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 02:51, 14 January 2008 (EST)
But Bayes is right in that Andy, right or wrong!, felt betrayed - and after you left is being suspicious of almost everyone - but a couple of Sysops. He welcomed you back, but didn't undo your 1 week (?) month block for vague claims of offsite harassment. I must say I expected a different behavior from Fox, I'm disappointed in him. On a side note, nice to see Greg Larson back. Not on Andy's team in the contest, though. Ed @but not the Poor one! 03:19, 14 January 2008 (EST)
"Vague claims"? Unlike TK who betrays other people's confidences and personal details at the drop of hat, for lulz or in order to buy the approval of those who actually dislike him for being the snake he is (the delicious irony of seeing a person hated for being a sneak try to win friends by being a sneak! lulz) not everyone else publicly displays dirty laundry. TK's email threats are sufficient for noone to want to unblock him - except you and he - and that's more information that most people are given when they receive a block. See comments of mine just added above also. 89.241.175.151 03:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)

ROFLMFAO! Another coward who takes advantage of anonymity to attack those who don't! I just love it! Fox/BrianCo/Mr. Kahnt, sooner or later you will be exposed, and guess what? CP will still be there....as will RW. BTW, the Yorkshire Dales/Hetton area is just lovely! --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 03:55, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Moron. I live in Hampshire, and I'm not hiding behind anonymity: everyone knows who I am. There's nothing about me to expose, and perhaps the fact that I've never made parthian shots, never publicly dissed people at CP, and nevr reprinted personal conversations is the reason why I'm happily editing at CP still and you are still out in the cold on your sad, treacherous, pathetic ass. :D 89.241.175.151 04:00, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I guess you should be blocked for the insult, bunchofnumbers, but somehow I doubt you will be, unless it is when you tell them you are sleeping, lol. Everyone cannot know who you are, because I certainly do not. So your statement is one of ignorance. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 04:06, 14 January 2008 (EST)
If you don't know who I am, then don't post above that I am Fox/BrianCo/Ghengis and live in Yorkshire, you twat. So your statement is one of dumb-fucker-ishness. 89.241.175.151 04:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, play nice, kids. Bunchamunbers, we have no idea who you are, so you could be anybody. Take 3141 seconds to reflect on your namecalling, please. humanUser talk:Human 04:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Second offense, Human, so I think the actual block should be longer, no? His IP, that he gives, is from that area I cited. Oddly enough, the same area a well-known CP editor posts from occasionally..... --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 04:21, 14 January 2008 (EST)
No previous block of that IP came up in the block screen. Which can be meaningless, of course. Anyway, bunchofnumbers can rue their nastiness in contemplative silence for a bit... humanUser talk:Human 04:30, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Quote: "Second offense, Human, so I think the actual block should be longer, no?" LOL, I have a feeling that there will be more delicious schadenfreude to come when those words come back to haunt you TK /wink 72.232.88.218 04:37, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I think your undoing is closer at hand than you like to think. But isn't that just always true of those who begin to feel they are just too clever for words? :P --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 07:19, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Back to the topic at hand: TK, you are correct. I am ignorant about a lot of the details of this stuff, and all I have to go on is my own speculation and interpretation of events. I respectfully submit that you're reading a little too much into my comment. When I said "best" blocker above, I didn't mean in terms of quantity; I have no idea what the numbers are. But I do think (and this is my opinion) that you were the "best" (for lack of a better word; maybe "most effective" is better) gatekeeper in terms of deciding who stayed and who went. And I never stated, nor did I mean to imply, that you infiltrated CP on behalf of RW. I actually have no idea what your motives at CP were, and perhaps I should have used a word different from "infiltrate" above. But given that you were blocked, and given the position you had there before, I conjecture that Andy has realized that he allowed someone whom he disagreed with enough to block (you) to become a pretty influential sysop. In my opinion, if that's what happened, then he'd be less likely to let that happen again by circling the wagons a little tighter. That's all I meant by my previous comment. I apologize if it wasn't clear.--Bayesupdate 04:43, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks, Bayes! I appreciate and understand the explanation. While I was there it was my perception that DanH and TerryH were the most influential. At least those were the two main sysops I almost always checked with before doing a block. Funny how we all look at things so differently when standing in different parts of the same room! --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 07:19, 14 January 2008 (EST)
(Random indent level since this is a reply to Bayes, way up there. Also warning: Excessively long reply.)
The issue of Andy's trust started way sooner than TK, although I think we all agree that the TK fallout didn't exactly lighten his mood.
No, Andy's entire approach is screwy, and people like me criticized his "Meritocracy" months ago. While a true Meritocracy might work, Andy's version doesn't, and for a bunch of reasons:
  • Andy defines "merit" as "things he likes". It's completely based on ideology. People like Richard became sysop in little to no time because they pretended to be just as ultra-conservative as he is. On the flipside, people who showed knowledge of the wiki software and fought vandalism weren't (and aren't) promoted because Andy simply doesn't like their point of view. (A more extreme case of this can be found below)
  • Building up on that, it's easier to become sysop than to be stripped of power. Way easier. When you are sysop, you have practically zero accountability, and Andy will only slap you if you bully one of his darlings. But as long as you bully "liberals", you're safe. Andy sides with his sysops (which represent his choice of who is trustworthy - and Andy would rather break his fingers before admitting that he totally screwed up), even and especially when people complain about them. Back, when CP actually had a dedicated Sysop Complaints page (as opposed to the Help Desk section there), Conservative needed his own page. With dedicated archives. And nothing ever happened. Eventually, the pages were simply deleted again.
  • The general paranoia about socks and proxies also led to the behavior CP shows now. Karajou for example uses Checkuser on practically everybody he doesn't like and interrogates them when he thinks something is up. So no matter how much merit your edits have, you can still get banned or insulted because a sysop doesn't like your IP (see also Conservapedia:Forbidden Cities)
  • Connected to the first point: The question about what has merit also strongly influences content discussions. See for example... that talk page about that ancient bird... Archeo...whatever, I can look it up if you dunno what I mean. Andy has a habit of dismissing edits or arguments whenever he sees fit: "You just researched references for ten pages? That doesn't have any merit whatsoever, and neither does your argument that YEC and pro-evolution sites disagree with my claim. So STFU or I ban you."
  • To make things even more screwed up, CP reacted to wandalism by taking away more and more rights. The rights to move articles, upload images, or even edit after Andy went to bed were stripped away and only granted to those Andy trusts. Which simply means that the old sysop criteria are now used as a measure whether you'll be allowed to edit when it's dark in New York. Read: Suck up and bash liberals. That's why people like HelpJazz and Iduan most likely will never get even edit rights. Both of them are highly skilled and dedicated to improve the site, but they don't nod and smile whenever Andy makes insane claims about liberals.
So yeah... the TK case really didn't help (and you'll notice how Andy never commented on this issue in public - TK was simply memory-holed), but the problem is in the system itself. Things have always been terribly screwed up, but over time, it shows more and more clearly. --Sid 10:16, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Interesting analysis Sid. The system is indeed a huge contributor to the current state of affairs, and I'm sure that Andy's trust began heading down a slope some time ago. The thing is, Andy is the system. Whatever contributes to his general mindset automatically becomes a factor in CP's management. You've highlighted another point in your second bullet: Andy's ego. He'd doesn't want to be "proven wrong" in his judgement of someone's sysop abilities again--one of his mantras seems to be "I am right, case closed." That means he has to be right 100% of the time. So when any of his insiders turns out to be something other than what he expected, it threatens his aura of invincibility because he's been proven wrong in his assessment of someone's ideology. As a result, I think he now wants to be absolutely sure that he only promotes people who are, in his mind, ideologically pure--meaning that they'll unquestioningly toe the do-what-Andy-likes line--so that he won't "lose face" by having to demote anybody. What I find fascinating is that I actually had edit rights there for a short while (didn't realize it at the time though; no grand announcement was made), and I was nowhere near as dedicated, knowledgeable of the software, and productive as Iduan and HelpJazz appear to be. But then again, that was back in August. I wonder if someone like PJR would get promoted to sysop if he started editing today?--Bayesupdate 13:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)
It's actually a very good question whether PJR would get sysop rights on the current CP, especially now that he spoke out on the "gun control" article, among other things.
And yes, the ego thing (and the "Andy needs to be 100% certain" conclusion you pointed out) certainly explains the sysop promotion for CollegeRepublican. Andy is apparently willing to promote people who didn't do anything on the site as long as he knows he can trust them.
On the flipside, the current sysops are likely quite aware that they will only keep their rights as long as they don't get in Andy's way. At most, they'll voice their opinion, but in the end still bow to AndyTruth.
About edit rights... it's also very odd that, back when he introduced that "right", Andy didn't grant it to all active editors. I mean... people who edited there for weeks or months aren't exactly prime candidates when it comes to suddenly abusing a "right" they had all the time so far anyway. So the overall effect was actually collective punishment of all people who were suddenly judged to be not worthy of doing what they did so far: Editing CP whenever they saw fit. --Sid 16:25, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Was Iduan a creationist? We've seen creatioinsts constantly held to a lower standard; MexMax just got edit and upload recently, after MANY less edits than Iduan. A stroll through the User Rights Log brings up many other examples.-αmεσ (tailor) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan never posted that he was a creationist, however his first contribs were ruled "liberal" and argumentative, especially arguing with RobS. He successfully changed his tack, albeit too late to escape the "L" notation next to his user name, it seems. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 17:00, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Ouch, yeah, that's a lost cause then. Being judged as "liberal", arguing with Rob, and that just after joining... "He's dead, Jim." --Sid 17:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Didn't really follow MexMax and dunno about Iduan's views, but I think that being a creationist certainly helps. Same goes for being against gun control or abortion. The more you openly agree with Andy's views, the better. And if you don't oppose Andy when it comes to topics you disagree with, even better. --Sid 17:01, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan is not a creationist - although if it is him disagreeing with Rob that's a pretty insane reason for them hating him. I mean, the disagreement with Rob, from what I recall, wasn't even a liberal v conservative thing - basically it came down to Iduan saying that at some point they need to say that communism is an economic and political theory, and robs saying all we need to say is communism killed people.--Danielfolsom 20:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Details, details, Daniel! I invite you to make substantial and factual contributions here! It is documented that Communism has killed millions. Unlike WP, we don't get bogged down in petty details! We value being concise.--TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 20:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
TK you haven't been on the light side long enough to use sarcasm, 'cause idk if you're bein sarcastic or not--Danielfolsom 20:55, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Well, since it is the expert authority of the world so saying that, Daniel, I simply must accept it! LMAO! IDK if you have been around long enough anywhere, CP/RW to even speak to the matter, but oh well. You go right on making hate speech, and I will ignore you. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 21:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Hate speech? So ... you haven't been around long enough to even identify sarcasm ...--Danielfolsom 21:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I have been here since May 2007, you since August 2007. I guess my math skills are off, Daniel! In any event, I was being funny above, and sorry you chose to think otherwise. I thought it was pretty obvious, but must have been wrong. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 21:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)
TK, you really don't want to pull "rank" back the first few months you were "here". Really. Hey everybody!!! See the nifty template just below here? humanUser talk:Human 21:36, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Human, you really shouldn't be so openly abusive. I never pulled anything. Just merely corrected an inaccuracy that implied I was new here. I am sure you will agree that introducing facts is never pulling rank, and as a "lowly editor" I really, absolutely, don't have a rank to pull, right? So I protest your unfair characterization of my post, and think it really isn't something an admin should be engaging in. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 21:40, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, go suck a rock, you crump. Or at least, borrow some change and buy a clue. Better yet, a ticket to ride. humanUser talk:Human 21:45, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Wow. Just wow. Such overt hate, Human! I wonder if you being a bureaucrat and all, your public statements would, out of fairness, make you unfit to hold the position you do? Seems to me administrators shouldn't be allowed to make personally insulting comments to others. At least that's what you said about me, at another site. Clearly the rules of someplace else don't apply here, that's for sure. But just the same, your own statements about how I should have been removed for insulting editors as a admin, are your true thoughts on the matter, and surely you don't think you are above the same rules you want applied to others, right? And yes, I am saying all that in partial jest, to try and lighten this up, using the good example of AmesG! --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 21:52, 14 January 2008 (EST)


Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Penalizing Threats[edit]

Massively off-topic conversation moved to RationalWiki:Site politics

Invite him?[edit]

Anyone up for inviting Iduan? He strikes me as a reasonable person who might enjoy a wiki where it is still possible for reasonable people to earn a sysop-ship. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You mean like User:Iduan? --Shagie 14:35, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Could someone copy his ban message and paste it over here somewhere, like as a subpage from the timeline?-αmεσ (tailor)`

Oh. I didn't know he was already here. Silly me for not checking.  :) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:08, 14 January 2008 (EST)

On a lighter note...[edit]

Is RSchlafly back to stay? His contributions are always so fun, including the latest one. Ed @but not the Poor one! 04:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Gun Law in the US & UK - Assfly just doesn't get it, does he?[edit]

Assfly doesn't understand the basics of gun law in the UK - i.e. it's *NOT* the same as in the US. He seems to think that we should all have pistols and assault rifles tucked away in our houses for some bizarre reason. Spica 05:43, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You fool! Dying, together with your rottweiler, from the hand of your sister with her assault gun, is much more honourable than dying bit (bitten?) by the rottweiler! And why haven't I heard you crying for dog control? Typical liberal bias in action. Ed @but not the Poor one! 05:48, 14 January 2008 (EST)
But people are afraid there, and they are more afraid the less guns they have
- I've just done a completely representative poll of 3 Unix Admins working in the North West and we're all quaking in our boots! Silver Sloth 05:51, 14 January 2008 (EST)
<srcasm>Oooh, yeah, I'm shitting myself about not having a gun.</sarcasm> As for dog control, my dog is under control XD Spica 05:58, 14 January 2008 (EST)
What I find most frustrating about "debating" (although it's impossible to debate with him actually) is that he refuses to acknowledge that the UK experience of gun politics is completely different to that of the US and is irrelevant when making arguments against gun control in the US. It seems he is incapable of empathy and looking at an issue from different perspectives. Ajkgordon 06:02, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah... I found myself thinking things like completely different settlement patterns and eras. The UK/GB was overrun and civilized by Europeans using swords and bows & arrows, while the US/NA was overrun and civilized by Europeans using firearms. I am amazed at his willful blindness, and attempts to superimpose his rather speculative version of US politics on other countries. humanUser talk:Human 06:11, 14 January 2008 (EST)
And even more frustrating is that he often forms an opinion based on wrong data or him reading it wrong, and then never backs up, even when his cohort of Sysops point to him that he is making an ass(fly) of himself. Well, maybe 'frustrating' is not the best word, maybe 'interesting, entertaining, funny' is better. Ed @but not the Poor one! 06:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)
He doesn't appear to understand just how difficult it is for a UK citizen to get a gun licence these days, plus the fact that we don't have a "right to bear arms" enshrined in law (not since about the 1700s, anyway). No-one I know is quaking in their boots because they don't have a gun to hand...... Spica 06:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)
By the way, help me: "to back up" is not what I mean. I hate english phrasal verbs. I mean "to understand you are wrong and be ready to admit to yourself you were wrong". "to step back"? Ed @but not the Poor one! 06:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I like "to back up". I take it as in a toilet backing up from all of the crap in it. --PROMHQEUS - FORETHOUGHT 07:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)

It is very frustrating doing research on gun-related crime and all of that. I had to a couple of years ago, and it was damning that the major studies, reputable ones, were so conflicting on if outlawing guns actually did decrease crime. In point of fact the police were actually re-arming themselves due to the wide-spread increase in crime. Statistics can be way too troublesome. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 07:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed. One can find and interpret statistics on gun ownership and crime to support either gun control or gun freedom. The only conclusion that seems to be drawn from the endless research is that there are far more factors to take into account and that drawing parallels between different countries (and even different US states) can be fraught with problems.
Instead the arguments appear ideological rather than pragmatic. But I do wish Schlafly would quit using the UK as a source of pro-gun lobby support. He obviously has no idea what it's like in the civilised world over here. Ajkgordon 07:39, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I don't recall, but I wonder if anyone has ever asked him if he has traveled much of the world, and when. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 07:44, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Didn't you rise to my "civilised world" barb? Goddamnit, getting God-fearin' septic folk to be all reactionary ain't what it used to be!
Good question to ask him. I'll decline because it will be obvious even to him that it would be related to UK gun control and he doesn't like being the subject of ad hominem attacks, even if he loves dishing it out. Ajkgordon 07:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

CP down[edit]

Always Watching...

again. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Working for me, Linus. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 16:38, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Really? I just tried to find a picture of an uzi there, no dice (!), but the site worked. Ended up stealing a picture from teh wikipedia. Wikipedia is better. Except they have no assfly crawling the walls... humanUser talk:Human 16:41, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Works for me, too. But I did have severe connection issues about an hour ago, so something most likely did happen. Maybe a nameserver briefly being dead? --Sid 16:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Hmm… I'm pinging it… my results are a follows.
ping conservapedia.com
PING conservapedia.com (209.85.100.44): 56 data bytes
^C
--- conservapedia.com ping statistics ---
33 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

Might just be me, though. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Could be they are installing more extensions, like the recently installed "who's online" deal. ;-) --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 16:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)

What's that?-αmεσ (tailor) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Google suggests this one for example - seems to be kinda like what we you know from all sorts of forum systems: "Users Online: Guests: 1 Registered: 2 (name1, name2)". --Sid 16:56, 14 January 2008 (EST)
No. It is a Mediawiki one, as I remember, and it shows exactly which user names are logged in, and their IP's, I believe. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 17:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)
...okay, that's slightly creepy. What's worse is that I'm seriously not surprised. Karajou and Andy must have had a surveillancegasm when they installed it. ALWAYS WATCHING YOU... (Where's the creepy eye when you need it? I never memorized the filename...) --Sid 17:12, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You mean "eye.jpg"? UchihaKATON! 19:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Eye.jpg

I believe you were looking for Template:Watching. Pinto's5150 Talk 20:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)