Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive210

This is an archive page, last updated 14 December 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Tom DeLay

Anyone noticed all the stuff on CP about how Tom Delay, former ultra-conservative Republican House Majority Leader, has got well and truly screwed for money laundering and is likely to be banged up for a very long time? No?? Really??? Oh silly me, only lib'ruls are corrupt; conservative money is good money. (I suppose this is a WI-not!-GO.) The Real James Brown (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How long before Tommy boy is changed to a RINO?

The indictment was added to their Tom Delay page by our favorite Troll King over a week ago, whose official line is that Delay fell victim to a partisan witch hunt. Cute, Terry, cute. Junggai (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No no no, you guys have it wrong. They are a conservative until they money launder, tap their foot at a bathroom, or hire male prostitutes. Since those are liberal traits, they must have always been seekrit liberals. Looks, quacks like ducks - they're ducks. --Leotardo (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction: They're conservative until they do that stuff and get caught AND the story becomes big enough it can't be spun into an attack on liberals. If that happens, then officially they were liberals pretending to be conservative all along, and no true conservative was ever fooled. --Kels (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Dick Cheney article also ignores the recent charge against him of corruption and bribery in Nigeria. And considering the only people who don't either take or make bribes in Nigeria are dead then Cheney must have done something seriously bad to rile the government that much. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember when...

Andypants was doing all these speaking engagements? I recall one at a college he was worried about, because Ames might show up, there was another where Dinsdale (where is he these days?) asked him a few questions. These seem to have dried up, or at least notice of them has. Makes you wonder if the crazy has finally caught up with him and tarnished his halo to the point where he's now untouchable. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe he just doesn't announce them on CP any more. Remember his doctors tea party appearance that we only found out about after the fact? In the olden days, that'd probably be front page news. Now, I think he keeps it on the down low to avoid mockery. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess that means he's... learning? That's good, right? X Stickman (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If he's keeping it low to avoid mockery, where is the last mockery tape? The Colbert report doesn't seem too much of a mockery to him the last time he put that up, I believe. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

RSchlafly plays with fire...

...Countdown to revert and argument......^img Ace^{word up} 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Is Rob Schlafly not all that bad? Every time I read something by him he seems somewhat reasonable. --Leotardo (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant indeed - I can't see that staying long, especially after having been mentioned here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, TK has found a work around^img. - π 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a conservative fundie, but he's not as gibbering as Andy. He also has a Ph.D in mathematics and is an engineer; he appears somewhat terse at Andy's views on relativity - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, that's RobRoger "You can't rape a wife, it's just a communication problem" Schlafly. He's just as gibbering and despicable and Andy, only in different ways.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, it is Roger Schlafly. - π 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, fuck it. I can't get anything right at the moment. Fucking Seroquel and its ability to totally fuck up my short-term memory. Okay. Corrected. Although to be fair, it is really easy to confuse Oman and Qatar, after all, they are identi-kit countries where the highlight of entertainment is an evening of male-voice choir singing finished off with some sheep shagging. Or is that Germany……-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that he just retold the content of his source (anti-rape) for this article. The sentence about "communication problem" had been taken directly from the source. It's cheap to attack RSchlafly on this basis -- if somebody retells somebody else's opinion it doesn't mean (s)he agree with it. Trycatch (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know - I write articles all the time about what a fantastic and misunderstood bloke Hitler was. Of course, I don't agree with him. Don't be silly, Trycatch, nobody is going to post something they disagree with, without using it to highlight why they're against it. If Roger had posted that and then said, "However..." then your theory holds, and he wouldn't be a dipshit. However, when you combine it with other examples listed below, and add in an upbringing by Mama "martial rape id a-ok" Schlafly, then he means - and agrees with - exactly what he wrote. Deny this and lose all credibility (or at least half your deposit). --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 11:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so both Andy and TK must have seen the lambs blood above the Homeschool article, because they let Roger's 'Julian Assange was homeschooled' stand. TK spruced up this intro for the inclusion of Julian Assange:

Throughout history, a remarkably high percentage of accomplished and/or daring people were homeschooled, including many great mathematicians. Not all are people to be emulated, but do have a common trait of excelling at what they do. Here is a growing list of such achievers

"Remarkably high percentage" is haw haw funny because the list shows they have trouble finding anyone born in the last 100 years. Most were born at times and places where there was little, if any, access to public education. --Leotardo (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is another example of why Terry Koeckritz is a troll. Turning a "pro" list into a "pro/anti" list is class. Sheer class. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, what TK did is sensible. Either, you remove people because you dislike them (dishonest) or you make a complete list and be up front about the fact you don't agree with the views of everyone on the list. People are using Andy's liberal logic when it comes to TK: TK is a troll, therefore everything he does is troll-like; as it is troll-like, it proves he is a troll. - π 01:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But changing a whole list to "prominent/infamous" for the sake of keeping one new entry in deftly undermines the original purpose of the list. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And Andy has the balls to rollback TwinKletoes. Asterisk (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how it mentions John Stewart Mill learning Greek at 3 and latin at 8 but never touches on the fact that he had no friends and had a crippling mental break down at the age of 18 and did nothing for several years. --Opcn (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Make no mistake. Dodgy Rog might not be the fundie, anti-science dribbling gimp his brother is, but given his stance on marital rape (and womankind in general), edits along the line of "the trail of tears wasn't as bad as liberals make out" and his pro-Pinochet drivel, he's every bit as big a malignant cunt as Scumfly, just in different ways. --Ψ GremlinHable! 09:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that a precedent has been set perhaps they'll reinstate Karl Marx, Heinrich Himmler and Oscar Wilde.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:the discussion above, concerning Roger quoting what the source says. Bollocks, he's pulled a page out of NobRot's handbook of wiki-editing (although to be fair to Rob, he wouldn't stoop this low) and quote-mined that source to say what he wants it to say. The section in that source is clearly describing why marital rape is so unreported, and why women in such abusive relationships have difficulty seeing that they are in such an abusive relationship. It's opening line is "Many women who are victims of marital rape have great difficulty in defining it as such.", then the paragraph goes on to say, "A wife being raped will often question her right to refuse intercourse with her husband, and while she may realise that legally it now constitutes rape, there are many reasons which may prevent her from perceiving it in such a light." and then lists the communication problem as one of the excuses that an abused woman can use so as to not recognise the fact that she was actually raped. Essentially that cankerous, pus-filled, syphilitic piece of distended rectum, Roger Schlafly, is parroting the line that many abusers in abusive relationships use, 'what I'm doing is perfectly okay, it isn't actually abuse, because it's justified by the way she/he talked or behaved around me'. Or to shorten it to the vernacular - she asked for it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this the same Roger that went to great lengths to justify the Trail of Tears as a good move, and done with the natives' well-being in mind? --Kels (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

CNN's liberal questions to Sarah Palin

Andy: CNN shows up and asks Sarah Palin "liberal questions". What are those liberal questions? The liberal questions were: Are you any closer to deciding if you'll run for President?' and some question about a Mitt Romney comment. Des Moines Register: "Palin should expect political questions when venturing into northwest Iowa, said Chuck Laudner, a GOP strategist from Rockford, Ia., and former executive director of the Iowa Republican Party." --Leotardo (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberal question, n.: A question asked by a liberal, or by extension a person affiliated with an organization deemed to be liberal. Such questions are, by definition, devious attempts to trip up true-blue conservative luminaries, which is what liberals spend their lives plotting to do. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But you forget, Palin was there for the music and the good enthusiasm and to earn money of her new book. Answering questions would mean thinking and she can't engage her brain that fast. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 08:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tax cut vote WIGO

To be fair, Andy is not rejoicing in the defeat of extension of Bush era tax cuts, he is rejoicing in a failure of compromise. He, however, remains a moron. The compromise was to extend the tax cuts for people that make below some annual salary that I would be envious of- maybe $250k/yr, I can't remember. The thing is that without some kind of legislation, the tax cuts will go away completely for everybody, so the pigheaded obstructionism will result in a tax hike across the board. What the Republicans fail to realize is that some compromise is required to pass anything, and it won't go well for them if they just sit down and do nothing for two years. Ugh, what a bunch of assholes. So basically 1) Andy is still a moron, just for a slightly different reason, and 2) the Republicans take on winning one house of Congress, even though the President is still a Democrat + veto and the Senate is slightly Democrat is I WIN TEH GOVERMINT RESPECT MY AUTHORITAE!! Corry (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"...it won't go well for them if they just sit down and do nothing for two years." Want to bet? They've spent the last two years being nothing but obstruct, and they gained massively in the polls. 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The shitty thing is that you're probably right. They've convinced a lot of people that a complete government shutdown would be the best thing for them. One thing I ant to see is if these firebrand teabaggers really think that just yelling at each other is a good way to accomplish things or if they're just stirring up the rabble for easy votes. Corry (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually had hope when I saw the CNN live feeds of the political parties sitting down to discuss things and "get the important things done", and both left with a +1 faith in the government. Then, just a few short days later, the Republicans sign that letter vowing to blockade everything if they don't get their way. It's shit like that, that kills erections. Fuck it all, gimme a job. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 04:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a factual note, since even a lot of newspapers are getting this wrong: the tax cut was for all Americans on income up to $250,000 - so even the richest would have gotten a tax cut on that first quarter-million in income. Not really correcting anyone, but few people seem aware of this.--^talk 04:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair. It's easy to forget about marginal tax brackets. Still, DONT TAX MAH MEGAYACHT THIS IS MERICA! Corry (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

---

This discussion was moved to Forum:Tax cut expiry.

WIGO bias

The only reason the last WIGO has so many votes is because it has been the top WIGO for almost a week. This makes your "Best of Conservapedia" page as statistically rigorous as Conservapedia law.--Tlaloc (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. He's seen through us. Trent, you might as well turn off the servers now. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a legit beef. Perhaps the "earlier entries" should be a template of archived WIGOs with voting turned off. Every WIGO gets a set amount of time. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tlaloc, the implications of What is going on at CP are striking. Over the long term, Conservapedia and Andy cannot withstand the more powerful forces of what is going on and up-voting. What is going on at CP ensures that the internet will, over time, inevitably become more lulzy regardless of the best efforts of the red arrow. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Oh puh-leeze. Let's not over-think things, hmmm? BoCP is fun. People vote ones they like up and ones they don't like down. It doesn't claim to be scientific, nor does it claim to predict any geometric doubling of Scumfly's insanity over time. Also, by Tlaloc's logic, the entry below the most recent WIGO should also have a doo-doo load of votes, seeing as people only vote for the top few WIGOs.

WIGO and BoCP do what they're designed to do. Let's not fuck around with them. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's over thinking for you, you're a fucking half-wit. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it can't be a little more fair/standardized. Just because it functions in some way doesn't mean we shouldn't improve it, you lazy bitch. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking as the token lazy, inept bitch, get your fucking fat ass into gear and fix it, instead of whining like a stuck pig, you contrary piece of shit. Love and hugs. --Ψ GremlinTala! 15:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, because you'd love it if I started tinkering without consulting your highness. Fuck your wiki. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh FFS, calm down, hug somebody, talk a walk round the block. Talk about mountains out of molehills. Do what you like to it. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 15:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm frothing at the mouth.. It's just odd when someone makes a suggestion for an improvement and you get some jerkoff fighting it for the sake of...? Now I know how Nx feels. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(ECx99) It appears as if the page WIGO:CP was a rather large shoe. The reason I say that is there appears to be a cat that has been struck with the large shoe and is yelping quite loudly. I guess what infuriated this cat is he tried on the shoe and it fit quite nicely. You know, every yelp from this point is an admission that the shoe fits quite nicely. :) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

+1 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

+11 Asterisk (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WIGO is fun, that's about it. Maybe there're arguments to be made for limited time voting, but I don't see a pressing need. Replying to Psygremlin with, "If that's over thinking for you, you're a fucking half-wit." is just being an absolute dick. ^EXTERMINATE 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking = Over thinking. Got it. Keep doing what you're doing. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Occasionaluse being an absolute dick? Whatever next? Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was just kidding, it was not my intention to cause a fight. Godspeed. --Tlaloc (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm Area

And we are now entering the calm area, where we can discuss this WITHOUT SHOUTING! Think fluffy rabbits and nauseating unicorns. InternetGoomba (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that another you, Goonie? Asterisk (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Christ almighty, who shat in everyone's hats this morning? Webbtje (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this isn't another Goonie; checkuser me to be sure though InternetGoomba (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, InternetGoomba is not me. Though I think they deserve a pat on the back for doing my usual job for me. And for the record, I agree with them. Conservative Punk (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ConservativePunk is Goonie? I haven't had this much of a shock since I found out the Narrator and Tyler Durden were actually the same person. SJ ^Debaser 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to the original issue, perhaps a WIGO could only be voteable for a week, during which it is corralled off from the rest, but once its time has elapsed gets displayed while the page has space (to stop it getting too long). InternetGoomba (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So many commented out WIGOs

Why? - π 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

People don't read the previous ones? 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I started commenting out crummy TopKunt WIGOs so only his best trolling gets attention. This is an experiment that is likely to fail. 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The last one I put up was so crap I self-commented. My average is still probably +100 though. (Now *there* is a task for somebody!) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a competition.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Never said it was, but it would be interesting to see what the averages are. Tricky, though, because several are multi-authored. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Most could multi-authored, it a community page. Also who made Nutty arbitrator of what can and can't WIGOed? - π 05:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, last year sometime, somebody (Larron?) did do a list of the top 5 or 10 WIGOers, by average. However, if you think I'm going through teh ark hives to find it... --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I did. here and here. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 10:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. Thank you! An updated version would be good, but in the meantime I yearn to drink clarified butter from your armpits, etc. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least give me time to shave them first. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 12:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those numbers tell an interesting story - when the list was put together in May '09, there were only 10 WIGOs with over 100 votes. Now, the whole first page of BoCP ends on 115 votes. Either we're writing teh awesome WIGOs these days, or more people are reading us than in '09. --Ψ GremlinParla! 13:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking the same. I guess it's a bit of both. There used to be a tendency to WIGO every little thing, but in general only the good stuff gets on the page now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Main Page Left

It is especially atrocious at the moment, isn't it?

Conservapedia: Over 186 million Views & Over 800,000 Edits. Email us at conservapedia@zoho.com to request an account. Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge shined again Wednesday, with "a cosmic embarrassment of riches – the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many astronomers might have estimated only a year ago." [1] October had a record-breaking number of unique visitors here, and November did likewise for a 30-day month.

Here, you have everything: bold font, italics, links, bold italic links, etc: it's surprising how awful a layout you can create just by using wiki markup! Especially, I love the split quotation - half in bold face, half italic.

And for the content? There are four points:

1. the number of views and edits
2. where to ask for an account
3. the Bible obviously stating that the number of start triples each year
4. the number of unique visitors in October and November

Of course, 1. and 4. should be grouped together, 3. should be stated separately, and for 2. - this particular idiocy should be displayed as prominently as possible!

As for the number of unique visitors: Record breaking? In which sense? The awkward formulation implies that the average number of unique visitors in November was slightly more record-breaking than the average in October. The question remains what kind of record is it? Lowest number of unique visitors? This I would believe. But it is very unlikely that the number of unique visitors was higher than after Andy's visit at the Colbert Report - or during the Lenski affair! No absolute number is given, and it is possible that these are just the best values for the last four months...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For 2. no, it should NOT be prominent. Every radio show and TV show he has been on, and perhaps will be on, he says anyone can sign up on site. I don't remember the last time he mention a policy change publicly through radio/TV. Especially if he is still hanging onto the idea of conservative alternative to WP, no he wouldn't put that up prominently.

and 4. is a technique like callback or whatever it is called -- like he expects your mind to be at elsewhere already after 2. and 3., so even he knows his own writings are bad. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The verses Mr. Schlafly cites to back up the claim about the Bible and the stars only say that (1) the stars cannot all be counted by people, (2) there are not quite so many stars as there were descendants of Abraham in the Apostolic Age (if, that is, one reads the thing so literally as to make oneself look stupid). ListenerX^TalkerX 19:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's like Andy thought web design peaked with the introduction of Geocities, Angelfire and whatever that third one was with the black spherical logo. – Nick Heer 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage this stuff because it really is what keeps them small, these asinine pronouncements. This is why even the teabaggers aren't signing up. But what he's saying is that the more information we learn as humans, the more the bible is right. So, say in the medieval ages when people thought a stomach ache was called by a small gnome living in a person's stomach (or witchcraft). Andy would say that the discovery of stomach cancer proves the bible was right somehow. Nobody every said "I counted the stars and this is how many there are" but just estimates. So we get better technology and can see more, and this somehow shows biblical scientific foreknowledge. Combined with "Atheists don't see beauty in nature" with a man-mande rose, few people want to join such a silly motley crew. --Leotardo (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Andy use the Bible to make a scientific discovery? Someone of his talents should be able to do this easily. It would demonstrate clearly that the Bible has scientific foreknowledge. If he uses the Conservative Bible that might even give credibility to that project as well. (I'm pretty sure the answer contains the phrase 'close-minded, liberal scientists' in it.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

He's also forgetting that the Bible was written in a time of mass illiteracy, not to mention innumeracy. Anybody looking at the sky would go "one... two... many... lots" so of course the stars would be innumerable.

Bonus laughs for the new photo showing one of those pagan stone circles in Ireland. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 08:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of the photo? The heading is "Gallery of photos" but there is only one and it only links to the Ireland article. It's wonderful when they end up daubing shit on the walls in the belief that they're making the site more beautiful.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There’s none so blind as a liberal who cannot pee. The number of stars clearly refers to Hollywood actors. Working backwards from the number left now due to inevitable breast cancer it’s easy to see that the total diminishes in accordance with Conservapedia’s (inverse) Law, meaning that there were very few in Biblical times. You liberals take everything so literally and never stop to wonder what the hell he’s on about this time in all its glory. Deny 2 + 1 = 5 – sqrt 4 and lose Uncle Ed completely. JumboWhales (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Ken^img and Andy.^img --Ψ GremlinTal! 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

...TK hates JessicaT ...

Wow, that wigo is so wrong it's not even funny. I am embarrassed for whoever posted it. Blancmange (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a WIGO that is far more accurate. - π 09:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, you really pwned the white pudding. Lithograph (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before, the only worthwhile TK-related WiGOs are the ones about how Andy supports what he's doing. Otherwise, it's boring reportage of trolling. --Kels (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. How did that wigo get so many up votes? -- Nx / talk 16:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one thought it was quite interesting to see how TK is spending his time now there aren't any newbies to abuse and bully. Revisiting past glories, it seems like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that WIGO, and I am neither proud of it nor embarrassed by it. I know that a number of people dislike TK WIGO's and routinely vote them down; others disagree. In general, more of the same for anyone (Andy claiming victory for conservative words, TK blocking/bullying someone) can get tiresome. But this seemed to be a completely new example of TK's cowardice, abusiveness, and insecurity. I'm not aware of him or anyone else resorting to forgery (that is, malicious alteration of another person's signature.) Well, OK, he's probably done this before. Gauss (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

heh. Ace^{word up} 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the WIGO. It's a really bizarre thing, this bit of DM on TK's part. She was a long-standing, honest editor. She was no Bugler. Corry (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't she say mildly uncomplimentary things about him when she left? That's usually all it takes to rouse his inner (and outer) misogynist. --Kels (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think she did. They were probably true. On a side note, do you think he's a misogynist? He seems equally vile to X and Y chromosomes alike. Corry (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be a deliberate thing just to unsettle folks, but he does tend to be a little more outright nasty against the various females. I know he's used pretty venomous language to Susan and I in the past. --Kels (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to enjoy dropping the c-word a lot in arguments with women. - π 04:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there it is. Hot or Not, of all the places to become a professional troll. I always forget about that. Corry (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A homosexual misogynist with small feet? Word. Ace^{word up} 06:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also elsewhere cited examples of his utter crassness when dealing with HSMom and Jallen. TeenKywinkie wouldn't know chivalry if it came up and poked him in the bum. Then again, neither would Andypants. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples if we look, but it's fairly safe to say that TwinKle can't keep a civil tongue in his head when dealing with breeders. It's clearly over-compensating for when he's dealing with people who are cocky, aggressive and who KNOW they're a god who needs to be worshipped. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 08:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In related news, when I first came across this I (in my innocence) merely thought it a bit weird. But now it makes so much sense. Especially the forced enemas bit. --Ψ GremlinFale! 08:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I never knew TeenKywinkle or Arsefly to be misogynists. Just banners of non-ultra-right-wingers, whom are all inappropriately labeled as "liberals". And that's been made easier thanks to "email request accounts"! Anyway, if I'm not that familiar with those nutty archconservatives, they possibly still could be. And Arsefly does have a definition of chivalry (basically for teenagers; carry heavy stuff for girls, open doors, yadda yadda yadda1). And given his intelligence, it is an extremely superficial definition really having nothing to do with respect, just gestures that might symbolize respect. And that isn't even the traditonal definiton of chivalry (the medieval definiton of honor in knight warfare). Anyway, point is, I just think this really has noting to do misogyny and more to do with typical Conservapedia bigotry and hatred.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yay sneery fuck

Not only am I over the moon with pleasure to see the atheist special forces^img on the main page but my favourite man-child, Jpatti^img removes any doubt, in my mind anyways, that he is a fully functioning adult. Ace^{word up} 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I get sick of saying it, but I will anyway: Conservative promised he was going to stop doing this. Maybe he forgot about that, though, because he's also been inserting his nonsense into (relatively) encyclopedic pages. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 21:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I got no idea what you're talking about. The guy's a pure delight. Everything he touches turns to shit. Keep it up, Ken. I wouldn't want you on our side! 22:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may… There’s a 94.6% chance that atheists wear a misery scarf that they try to unwind but they try and try and it never comes off and only flaps about the face. The tedium is only broken by the Chicken of Depression landing on the windowsill and looking glum. Yeah, that’s it, glum. Can you say glum? I bet you can! But, hey! The Special Atheist Service will be defeated by Richard Dawkins not attending a debate! Yay!!

I think that’s what he’s try to say. The percentage is only a long forgotten work in progress. JumboWhales (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats all fucking great and all but, as always there is more work to be done. Ace^{word up} 22:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn you to Leeds and back. I was all ready to agree with the questionable forces of Dawkins and then you point out that his so-called theory of liberalution needs more work!? Sheesh, that was close! It’s only thanks to Ken’s huge crayon that I’m now better informed. JumboWhales (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the special forces have been vaped from MPL. A rare moment of sanity perhaps? Did Ken get a spanking from the Fab Five? --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 08:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel, if you expect us to follow the conversation, please use "capture" tags around CP links. Especially ones referencing to "off his meds on a regular basis" Ken. I hope the snow did not inconvenience him too much. Lithograph (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Ok, I know it's amateur reporting at best, and TwinKle trolling at worst, but by referring to Assange as a "wanted fugitive rapist",^img could Terrykins be opening CP up to a libel suit, by removing the word 'alleged'? --Ψ GremlinTal! 11:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I think Assange has enough to worry about, but if he ever stands trial and is acquitted yes or his defense team could argue jury prejudicing, although I doubt CP has enough readers that the judge will take any such claim seriously. - π 11:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember British libel laws - you can sue even if one person in the UK has read the material and it damages your standing in their eyes. Now I do not support our libel laws at think they need reforming at the earliest possible opportunity, but I would make an exception if Assange needs a British witness to sue CP for every cent Andy's got. Remember that Assange isn't even accused of rape. Having read CP, though, I'm certain there must be something in it, since a good Christian, Conservative site would never lie. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But justice eady's gone from the libel bench now hasn't he and it was that wingnut that allowed all the libel tourism to flourish. I expect far less descisions of his idiotic kind to be allowed in the future.Oldusgitus (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

TK omitted the word 'alleged' the first time he posted about wikileaks last week. However, Andy has deleted any trace of TK's post and instead re-posted the story with the word 'alleged' in. Jammy (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen a previous version without "alleged". Thank you for confirming it. Obviously Andy is aware of the possibilities here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet still TornKnickers persists... --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course he does. His trolling has backed the rest of the editor's as far as they can into paranoia and so they've gone into bunker mentality, nothing TeaKake does alarms them anymore or shifts their position. As far as he is concerned the only left now is to bring down the site by leaving it open to libel suits.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, come on... we all know there are hundreds of libellous statements on Conservapedia, and there's probably a fair few on RW. Leave them to their insanity. ^EXTERMINATE 21:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny how in the "news" post about Assange calling for Obama's resignation, he is no longer a "wanted fugitive rapist." --Composure1 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Assange is a nasty rapist man for revealing US secrets! That is, until he releases US secrets that will force Obama to resign, of course. All hail Assange!" ~SuperHamster Talk 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, TwinKle. Also, whether the article says makes it clear or not, is irrelevant to your libellous headline, you moron. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I like his pathetic justification on the talk page^img that "since the news items are not original, merely linking to original news stories, libel doesn't enter into the picture". Well wrong and wrong, TinyKnockers; a) repeating a libel as fact is also libel, and b) the source didn't say anything about Assange's alleged crime anyway. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WIGO'd this before seeing it'd been discussed. Think it's the perfect example of their style: spew hatred against somebody, then when they criticise Obama, give them credibility.... ^EXTERMINATE 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It really is something special, though, ain't it? I don't follow CP too much, so I don't know how they've been describing Assange. But I imagine they're towing the line of Palin's "hunt him down like Osama," at least privately. He's evil to them, they're throwing around that he's a rapist without qualifying it.... then he insults Obama, and it's cool. These guys would publish Hitler quotes if they were in favour of free market capitalism and gun ownership. ^EXTERMINATE 13:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Um... in CP's defence (my goddess! that I should ever utter those words!) - it has been TwinKle who's been posting the libellous stuff, which Andy has toned down, and supported. Joaquín posted the anti-Obama scree, maybe he hasn't cottoned on yet. That said, I bet it doesn't get changed. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 13:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Assange is in the clear as far as CP is concerned. It wasn't rape, it was a communication problem. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 14:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(Good post emote)Webbtje (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely to happen. If the noted free speech campaigner Assange started suing people for libel, he would look like the biggest hypocrite in the universe.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The biggest? A tie, at best. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

AddisonDM is back

[2] Jammy (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. And here I had thought (or at least hoped) he'd been permaretired by Terry Koeckritz by this point. Scotch (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Hoax

I'm happy for Andy that he has the phrase "global warming" to cling to like his personal woobie blanket, because then he doesn't have to contend with concepts such as "unseasonal cold snap" "unprecedented snow fall" etc, etc. Because to his befuddled mind, global warming can mean only one thing. Then again, he can probably hardly spell meteorology, let alone understand how it works. Can you imagine him in that "great conservative movie" Titanic? "I'm got getting out of bed; open your mind and see that the ship is unsinkable; I don't care if you say you built it, unfounded claims of expertise do not impress me; la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you blub blub blub glug..." --Ψ GremlinHable! 14:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the 'it's snowing, there is no climate change outside winter, spring, summer and fall' is classic stupid. But nothing beats climate change stupid as when Andy wrote "the global warming hoax is deadly" citing a poor job that was done during the blizzard by the Buffalo, New York street crews. He uses a CNN story for the cite - and nobody in the story says, "we thought it was global warming so we didn't think winter in the Great Lakes still needed decent plows and crew" when in reality the poor handling of the blizzard was "just too much in too short of a time". --Leotardo (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What impresses me about Andy is that his stupidity is both so wide and so deep. Sure, there are plenty of very stupid people around, but they tend to be particularly stupid only on one or two things. Andy offers such sustained stupidity on such a wide range of topics that one can't help but wonder if he tries to do it.

One could probably get a functioning Andy-bot simply by taking any phrase, scanning it for negative words and replying that these are the fault of liberals and that all would be fine if you were a conservative. "I like coffee but I take care not to drink too much of it or I can't get to sleep at night". Reply: "Open your mind! These lies about coffee are spread by liberals, who only have difficulty sleeping because they know their nazi/socialist plans are destroying America. Conservatives can drink as much coffee as they want." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It does beggar belief that he went to Harvard. Was Phyllis Schlafly once that influential? It's an open secret you can buy your way in there. I would bet there was a nice donation made sometime before his first year. I can't imagine any other way given how poorly reasoned are his arguments. --Leotardo (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

His last year too, I'd imagine. -- 20:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha - 'yous get the first half at entry; the second half comes when he gets the diploma. Kapish?' --Leotardo (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just yesterday I saw Bill Maher (Communist!) on TV talking about the one issue that seems to cut across all of the Teabaguettes is that almost all of them believe that global warming is a hoax. If this is true, it's just plain weird. I would have expected religious affiliation, or "cut taxes" or something to be the most prevalent belief. Perhaps it is something that they all can rally round since it is science and scientists are always wrong about everything, like heliocentrism, electricity, and gravity. Jimaginator (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a misperception to that they're all anti-science in general. The ones that come out of the religious right tend that way, but there's also a decent number that come out of the libertarian movement, and, global warming aside, they're not generally anti-science, just opposed to the government funding scientific research. MDB (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

PZ vs. Hurlbut

PZ takes on the monumental idiocy that is Terry H. We're talking Ken levels of stupidity here, folks. DickTurpis (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"but Hurlbut goes beyond mere inanity to lie about science."

Hurlbut? Lie about science? Since when? Scotch (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Terry! Terry! Why aren't you writing this sort of stuff on CP? This is WIGO gold! The Moon is "locked in place" - I assume you mean "tidally locked?" Mamoths - with their big furry coats - lived in the tropics? A little wooden boat and 8 people survive the world turning into a giant reactor, without at least turning sterile? And this man is a medical doctor? How does he cure headaches - trepanning? --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Superb. Just superb. And scary. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I read this but didn't know that this was TerryH. Nice. Corry (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As a wise man once said: "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?". Hurlbut's unquestioning loyalty to Schlafly evidently has a similar basis in la-la land. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"I know how Hurlbut would respond: with more pseudoscience shouted very loudly and with complete and absolutely incompetent confidence." I giggled.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that Hurlbut really gets around making a dick of himself on the internets. As if his own blog wasn't enough. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, those "theories" put out by Hurlbut are hilarities for the ages; I mean I knew YECs had some bizarre notions in their attempt to fit scientific reality into their ridiculous 6000 year old, once surrounded by a canopy of water, flooded Earth mythology, but never have I heard ideas so completely pulled out of someone's ass without a shred of proof. The best is the idea that the Earth was once full of quartz (that disappeared conveniently), which through a flood of water electrified and somehow that made the crust of the Earth into a giant fusion engine creating heavy elements (but just the radioactive heavy elements). Oh and conveniently and surely coincidentally Carbon 14 also; because according to YECs, we date the age of the Earth and dinosaurs with Carbon 14. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hurlbut is such an unfortunate name; it sounds like someone pukes anytime they see his ass. --Leotardo (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the perfect name for him; he hurls pseudoscience from out of his ass.--Night Jaguar (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, looking at the page and searching for "Conservapedia" yields nothing. Does PZ even realize (or forgotten) he's TerryH on CP? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC) EDIT - there's one result (I searched earlier today), a commenter finally linked the two entities together. lol

They refer to it as "the Conservative Encyclopedia" because after Ken

's putting "Conservapedia" in a post relegates it to the dustbin. 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All kinds of crazy

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#All kinds of crazy. 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kowardjerk's plagiarism marathon

The guy's copy/paste finger must be aching by now. I don't know why I care, but I just find it so galling when people pass off others' work as their own. All of this American civil war stuff is lifted straight from this retro-looking website, and it does say that all the work is PD and can be reprinted, so there's no copyright theft issue (Kowardjerk can always rely on JM to cover that base), but it's still incredibly dishonest and it annoys me! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Links or it didn't happen. - π 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It bloody well did! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. - π 00:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)The easiest link is his contributions 'cos right now about 95% of his latest edits are copying this stuff. It's not just from that website, though. See this, this, this, this, and many, many more. It seems to come originally from the National Parks Service.

What's funny is the mass of errors he's adding from other sources. I haven't said anything because I didn't want to tip him off, but some of the "Forces Engaged" and "Casualty" figures are off by miles. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but fixing those errors would require learning about the topic, ctrl+c then ctrl+v is much quicker (assuming he knows the shortcuts and isn't just using a mouse). - π 00:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hotkey refs are kind of a turn-on!! Leotardo (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange a "credible source"

I actually read that post as Andy saying that Obama's support was so weak that even die hard "liberals" (...in the Andyesque reading of the word, i.e. anyone who doesn't think exactly like him) were turning against the guy--not as using Assange as a "credible" commentator. DarkStar (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're both right. The idea behind "Even [this liberal] doesn't like [x]" is to try to hurt the credibility of [x] using a person's values against them. We do it all the time with CP because they fail at keeping to their stated values so often. Here, it is mostly an example of how warped Andy is, because few liberals are "pro-Assange" or see him as some fellow traveler. Only in Andy's sad head is Assange a liberal opinion-maker. --Leotardo (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was Andy who added it, JPatt? Not sure. But yeah, I accept the points made, but stand by the WIGO: When you've made somebody out to be Public Enemy #1 in every post about them, and then drop all criticism and don't qualify his name with "Alleged rapist" or the like for the one time he seems to support your view, it's suspicious. ^EXTERMINATE 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, definitely agree with you there. --Leotardo (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" with the knobs turned way up. You can imagine the CP headlines if Allenge supported Obama: "FUGITIVE RAPIST SAYS OBAMA GOOD BLOKE!!!" --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 16:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That was the point of my Rob Smith is a dumb ass thread back in September. --Leotardo (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lenski revisited

This was a good WIGO. The creationist Discovery Institute released this bit on their misnomer evolutionnews.com:

Lenski's work was cited by Richard Dawkins most recent book (The Greatest Show on Earth) as the ultimate refutation of irreducible complexity. Dawkins' book, however, made a straw man argument by discussing a misguided attack on Lenski's work by Conservapedia editor Andrew Schalfly, completely ignoring critiques of Lenski's research by Behe in The Edge of Evolution.

This is a pretty glaring indication that even in causes that Schlafly believes in, he and his site do more harm to those causes than good. Here Discovery Institute is complaining that Dawkins focused on a buffoon's arguments instead of a more scholarly, intellectual critique like Behe's.

Andy, TK: this is why we all enjoy following you, because you are wingnut failures who hurt your causes more than help. It's very cathartic for atheist gay liberals to watch. March on, brave Christian soldiers! --Leotardo (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wonderful about this is that the DI and WND are slap bang in the middle of what Andy sees as his target audience. And both have turned around and told him - for different reasons - that's he's wrong. Maybe Hurlbut will grace us with another letter, to the DI this time. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, where's the first one? I have a terrible memory for these things. 15:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As Farah says, "Now 'conservatives' are twisting scripture." and don't forget Hurlbut's even funnier response.^img --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How did we miss this one?? Chick Publications lambastes the CBP, focussing on the verses Andy removed. --Ψ GremlinTal! 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)::

I didn't realise that Dawkins had covered Schlafly and the Lenksi affair? Do you guys reckon he used RW? We rate very highly on the google searches..^EXTERMINATE 16:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed here when the book was first published. Although we got a namecheck in Lenski's letter to Andy the affair was also written up in New Scientist and Pharyngula, and we know PZ and Dawkins are mates so he didn't need to grace us with his presence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Might be time to collect all of these into a sub-article of CP so it can be seen at a glance just how many of their 'trused' sources think they're a joke. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What I like (and I see that it has been correctly copied above) is that they mis-spell Andy's name as Schalfly instead of Schlafly. Getting someone's name wrong is always a subconscious slap in the face.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which also means he didn't get his Google Alert about the slam. --Leotardo (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Scanners

Hurlbut's latest rant^img is making my head spin. Is this scanner really so bad, or is it just another political ball to kick around for these morons. Seriously, they cheer for the Patriot Act and waterboarding at Gitmo, but damn if somebody's going to see an electronic copy of mah nuts! (Transportation Security Administration employees to fall directly under the sexual-assault and pornography statutes? WTF?????)

Seriously, Yanks - you'd better start doing something - your country is becoming a joke. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the scanners and 'enhanced' pat-downs to be objectionable as well. How did the Brits handle airport security during The Troubles? --Leotardo (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully on board with the scanners myself, but coming from these guys, who were the first to blame Obama when someone almost took down a plane using methods only these scanners/pat-downs can prevent, it's utter hypocrisy. Another thing that if it had been done under GWB would have been an example of his tough stance in terrorism. DickTurpis (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Leontardo, Brits didn't have to deal with suicide bombers (that I know of), so this wasn't an issue. Nor was it as easy to make a small makeshift bomb out of a few liquids and stuff if down your pants. Also, didn't the IRA usually at least pretend to strike military/government targets, or at least limit civilian casualties when attacking other property (as in Canary Wharf)? I could be wrong on those. DickTurpis (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

IRA did attack non-military targets, but AFAIK there was no policy of suicide tactics, so passengers carrying bombs on aircraft wasn't too much of a concern. IIRC hold luggage on flights to/from ROI and NI were given extra security treatment after they were checked in at UK/NI airports, though. -- 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It helped somewhat that you can take a boat from Eire to England. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Japan v. United States

When the United States conducted the invasion of Normandy during World War II they employed "deception" (yes, a notable liberal characteristic, but set that aside for a moment.) Essentially, the United States used diversionary tactics to conduct a sneak attack on Germany. But when the Japanese perform a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor---well, that's just plain cowardly! 64.30.2.130 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's silly: It's not US vs. Japan, it is war vs. peace! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... In World War Two, things had become very bloody and messy in Europe, and nobody could possibly criticise 'deception' or sneak tactics in total war. That's war. If the allies gave notice of D-Day, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers would have died unneccecarily. Using similar deceptive and sneaky tactics outside of total war, to begin hostilities, is far more easy to criticise. ^EXTERMINATE 22:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

True enough; with D-Day, the Allies and the Nazis had been at war for years. With Pearl Harbour, it was the declaration of war. EddyP (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It still seems a bit ridiculous to me. Arguing that one tactic is "deceitful" or "cowardly" when everyone involved is basically seeking to murder as many people of the "other side" as possible is essentially no different to the prisoners morality that creates a hierarchy of criminals from "best" to "worst" (i.e. "victimless" crimes right down to pedophilia). It might make the con feel better about himself, because "at least I didn't rape/eat/mutilate them", but everyone involved is still a criminal. The only differentiation between sides in a war that I can see is whether or not one deliberately targets civilians. "Who starts it" is pointless, because almost every player in the war claims to be reclaiming rights to something taken from them previously, or responding to an aggressive act.

Finally, to take the argument down to Andy's level, his claim of Pearl Harbour as being "cowardly" is a bit rank compared to Hiroshima. Nuking cities with tens of thousands of civilians in them ain't exactly heroes work.-- 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Japan's attack didn't come "out of the blue" and I have a problem with considering it "cowardly." There are sneak attacks, and then there are acts of cowardice. I'd be interested to see the rationale for claiming Japan's attack was "cowardly." Again, it wasn't as if Japan was sitting on the sidelines, minding their own business, and suddenly BAM! sneak attack. Instead, Japan had made moves in Southeast Asia, essentially seizing Indochina, with western governments reacting with a freeze on Japanese assets, and the US setting an embargo on oil (we were a HUGE source of oil for Japan.) In the context of the war that was already going on, Japan's maneuvers in Southeast Asia and the US (and other western govt's) reactions places Pearl Harbor in a different light. While it was still certainly a sneak attack, and an opening military offensive, I would still hardly characterize it as cowardly.64.30.2.130 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Pearl Harbour is one of those things like the Belgrano, where something that's "fair play" in war as far as those prosecuting the war are concerned (ie military officers) is seen as outrageous by civilians distant from the reality of death and mayhem. Politically it makes sense to stir that up even if you're simultaneously taking private briefings that your navy would do the same thing in a heartbeat. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont know the truth of it but I have read often that the Japanese AMbassador in Washington messed up the timezones and delivered the Declaration of war late. It should have been delivered just before Pearl Harbor. Hamster (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter which came first, the "chicken" or the "egg"? Pomegranate (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Pearl Harbour attacks can't be compared to the D-Day Landings, a better comparison would be to the dropping of the bomb. Both were designed to knock the opponent out of a fight in a single blow. Cowardly isn't an adjective that should be used, I don't recall the Americans giving any warning before they vaporised a couple of hundred thousand Japanese non-combatants. The whole purpose of the Japanese attack was to remove US Pacific strength until they'd secured their goals. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The US did not specifically tell Japan we would use the atomic bomb on them, but the Allied Powers did warn Japan, in the Potsdam Declaration, that Japan would face "prompt and utter destruction" unless they surrendered unconditionally. Now, whether or not that was clear enough warning of the power of an atomic bomb is for historians to debate, but Japan was given some degree or warning. MDB (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Japanese attack on the Allies didn't just breach some vague tradition that war should be declared before they start, it specifically breached the Hague Convention of 1907. Broccoli (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to be part of the war at the time to be called an ally, America was sitting on the sidelines again when the Japanese attacked. Also, the irony of America lecturing anyone on breaches of international law. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This conversation got away from the facts pretty quickly, didn't it? D-Day was an invasion of an occupied country, whose population overwhelming supported their 'liberation.' It was an incredibly daring and brave operation which cost a lot of human life, during total war. The fact that it was an occupied country with the support of the population, during total war... that changes a lot. It is HUGELY different to an attack on another nation without a declaration of war. Hugely different. ^EXTERMINATE 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it was hugely different, I still question the use of the descriptor "cowardly." I mistakenly used the comparison to D-Day, in an attempt to note that both were sneak attacks. Obviously, there are differences between the circumstances of the two, but both were sneak attacks. And I just don't believe the attack on Pearl Harbor was "cowardly." Then again, this is CP so not as if this is the first time...18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Obama sells out the left"

Has CP actually now criticised Obama for every single position it's possible for him to take?

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageright&action=historysubmit&diff=831926&oldid=831909^img

While I've been watching, they've said "no compromise" about Obama's plans to talk to the GOP and insulted him for even suggesting it; they routinely criticise him whenever he adopts or opts for a policy they don't like, doing what he said he'd do; and now, coming full circle, they criticise him for making a compromise that gives the Republicans a hell of a lot of what they've been demanding for since he took office. I know Schlafly, TK and the rest are hardly known for consistency (other than consistently DUMB amirite?) but this to me just seems like even they don't know what they want. AlexR4444 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They want NO-Bama. Ace^{word up} 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah. I suppose if it were up to CP there would be President Andy and VP Palin tellin' all those librul folks to get outta thur country. AlexR4444 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Im lovin it. When these compromises prove to NOT FIX THE ECONOMY, we'll have further proof that conservitive ideals do not work.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Thunderstruck, it'l still be Obama's fault!

Or should I say, BARRY SOETORO!!?! AlexR4444 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear, in light of everything we've seen, including this and the recent Wikileaks WIGO, that Schlafly and his nasty cronies will simply criticise Obama for anything they can think of. There's no logic to it, no consistency. If he does something, it's nasty evil socialism, if he doesn't do it, it's an embarassing u-turn and victory for the GOP. The irony, of course, is that they will criticise him over the next two years relentlessly for not working with the GOP in the House, but then anything he concedes/compromises with them, they'll criticise him for that too. ^EXTERMINATE 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly logical, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. CS Miller (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, he was damned before he even fucking started. Ace^{word up} 09:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So Obama has now turned into a Corrupt One-worlder Nazi Communist Egghead Revolutionary Traitor in Name Only. Damn Concertinos, those liberals will at least show their true colours... Röstigraben (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama's presser on the matter was excellent.--^talk 11:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For all the talk on CP of Obama losing his base, there are no hard facts to back it up. CP is beholden to the pundit class' analysis, which is devoid of any basis in reality. Gallup has consistently shown that Obama's approval rating among Democrats has remained a steady 81%. I am guessing that CP thinks the myth that liberals are enraged at Obama is comforting, just not true. --Leotardo (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

== That's an interesting definition of "news" you have there, Ken

==

Ken

breathlessly reportsimg on CMI's stunning revelations about a 17 year old documentary, documenting events that happened 80 years ago. I guess even at creation.com it's a rare find to unearth an article that combines his twin loves of Hitler and evolution that he hasn't already seen, so he got a bit carried away. Oh, and also, Carl Wieland is a fucking cretin. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well...it is in the section for "what the MSM isn't fully covering." Why does the lamestream media continue to keep this hot topic off radar? Why does the lamestream media want to sterilize honor roll children? --Leotardo (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the CMI article yesterday and this bullshit claim jumped out at me - "Hitler..campaigned on a platform of naked evolutionism". Errrr, no. He campaigned on an anti-Marxist, nationalist platform. Ace^{word up} 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I calculated that the age of the documentary is only 1 year old, while the events occurred 2 years ago. Plus, my paster told me so. Open your mind. Jimaginator (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He is trolling for attention again, how else would you explain it? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We would pay attention to his laughable new/old project, but he's done fuck all and it'll have no impact anyway. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We may pay attention again if he came up with something creative and fresh instead of regurgitating the same few old paragraphs in "new" "essays". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Steele, RNC & Dems

Seriously, is Andy losing it? Or did he make a genuine typo; meaning to say the decline of the GOP, but the ghost of St Ronnie prevented him? In what world is 8 people running for the top job in the RNC a bad thing for the Dems? Explain you to this furriner now please, yes? --Ψ GremlinHable! 11:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. I read both Andy's "story" and the source several times and still couldn't understand the connection. Anybody? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Because 8 people running for leader of the GOP means the Democratic party is going to become irrelevant. DUH!! Senator Harrison (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In his mind, the wide interest in the RNC chair means that people are far more excited and supportive of the GOP than the Democrats. It doesn't actually make any sense, though, because the reason so many people are interested in the job is because Chairman Steele has been a ridiculous disaster.--^talk 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I figure it's part of the larger meme common among right bloggers, in which every event is bad news for the Dems/liberals. It doesn't matter what it is, it's always portrayed as good for the GOP, even if it's the GOP losing ground. That's just a sign they're preparing to gain ground, or it does some damage to the people they don't like, or something. But no matter what happens, it's always good news. --Kels (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is classic Andy-thinking. He thinks he's an engineering/politics/mathematics/lawyer genius. He sees patterns that other people can't see; patterns which simply aren't there. He's very much capable of deluding himself, and so he doesn't even question if the pattern makes sense. If he can engineer a list of new words which are (a) dubiously conservative, (b) selected and ignored in order to confirm his theory... then he sees that a doubling of conservative words (during a period when the world and America have become far more progressive and liberal) and knows it means conservatism is on the increase. Wow. Here he sees more people interested in the RNC chair than ever before, and that doesn't mean there're more factions in the GOP than ever before, it doesn't simply mean that people've wanted Steele out for a long time and been planning their stands, it doesn't mean there's simply (for no good reason) a few more people standing than ever. No, it means the Democrats are on the decline. Wow. ^EXTERMINATE 13:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1988, the Democratic field was seven candidates and that didn't work out for them. In 1992 the Democratics had 9 candidates. In 2004 the Democrats again had 9 candidates. There are all sorts of 'bellweathers' pundits use, but this one, having no statistical or historical accuracy, is all Andy's. If you were an actual thinking conservative, you would never join CP because that kind of stuff would drive you nuts. --Leotardo (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On the 'nuts' bit - I would give my eye teeth to have a Coulter or Beck come across CP and write it off as a "liberal smear campaign". --Ψ GremlinPrata! 15:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right - Coulter and Beck would be embarrassed, and when you Google conservative websites' opinions of CP that's exactly what you find. Conservapedia is the Westboro Baptist Church of wingnuts. --Leotardo (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Coulter and Beck have no shame, and thus no capacity to be embarrassed. I'd think what's left of the intellectual wing of conservatism (George Will, for instance) would openly weep if they saw Conservapedia. MDB (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are very few conservative intellectuals that anybody is listening to right now, and beltway establishmentarian George Will is definitely not one of them. Alex Pareene @Salon called his number right: "George Will is a sanctimonious moralist, a pretentious hypocrite, a congenital liar and a boring pundit, to boot. In these days of red-faced screaming weirdos like Glenn Beck and obvious dolts like Sean Hannity, Will can seem like a harmless throwback to a calmer era in political discourse, but don't let his demeanor fool you: The guy's as utterly amoral as the loudest talk radio shouter, and he's a living example of the truth that there's never any punishment for bad behavior in punditland." --Leotardo (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘True, but compared to the rest of the prominent commentators in conservative-land, he is the intellectual leadership. MDB (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And when I really think about the fact that GEORGE WILL is now considered 'one of the smart ones' of the right wing, it makes me quite sad. The goal-posts move ever further. TheDude (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On patterns

I read this yesterday, I think in the print edition of the Washington Post, and I thought it was interesting: In recent history, and I'm not sure how they define recent, though my own mental fact checking goes back to the 1972 election at least, no sitting President who faced a serious primary challenge has won re-election. Further, no sitting President who did not face a serious primary challenge has lost re-election.

Here's my mental record. I'm leaving out the years where the sitting President was ineligible to be re-elected:

• 2004: No serious primary challenge to Bush the Lesser, he won
• 1996: No serious primary challenge to Clinton, he won
• 1992: Bush the Elder faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan, he won the nomination, but lost the election
• 1984: No serious primary challenge to Reagan, he won
• 1980: Carter faced a challenge from Ted Kennedy; Carter won the nomination but lost the election
• 1972: No serious primary challenge to Nixon, he won

Before that, the primary system didn't exist in the state it is now. (Even in 1972, it wasn't as big a deal.) MDB (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a lot easier to conclude, from the details above, that the loss of the election AND the serious challenge were caused by the same thing (unlikely to win the election, leading to the challenge), rather than to conclude any causation between the challenge and the defeat. I see correlation, but no reason to assume causation. ^EXTERMINATE 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

if there's a causation it's probably that a president who can't keep his own party in line (by batting away rivals) suddenly looks weaker and less, well, presidential. Appearances count for a lot, and the appearance of weakness and party division is usually fatal. Ask John Major. 213.1.35.101 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally inclined to call that sampling the dependent variable. --Opcn (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Edwards.

Class act, Andy. Class act. DarkStar (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

to be fair --Opcn (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"A long life you must not look to have, so great are the hatreds grown." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Andy realizes how insensitive it is bringing up a political viewpoint in an obituary, and I'm pro-life. Perhaps Andy thinks that her death matters less because she supported publicly funded abortions? He didn't say that or imply that, though. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At least the Fox News obit is sensitive and gentle and respectful. Pomegranate (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@CPE: Well, for odd reasons most people don't use the term pro-life in the sense of lives of people that are already out of the womb. Just sayin'. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought "What is wrong with him(Andy)!", but then I realize people do this all the time. I can easily imagine many of the folks who would be outraged at Andy for his statements will be happy to dance on the grave of George W. Bush when he dies, and when called on it, will "justify" their actions, often while screaming back in outrage for your questioning of their actions while making comparisons to Hitwin; ditto for when the day comes Obama passes away, except the pissing on grave outraged will be using Karl Marx and Muslim terrorist baddie of the moment for comparison instead. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was "I'm surprised Andy didn't post 'Elizabeth Edwards now burns in Hell for her support of abortion!'" You know damn well he thought it. MDB (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If he had come out and said "I'm glad we're rid of another pro-choice activist", that would be honest and I couldn't really fault him for it. It's the greasy innuendo of placing together two statements that would be fairly value-neutral in isolation that bothers me, as if he's trying to hide and express his pleasure at the same time and hoping anyone likely to care won't notice. 212.219.201.201 (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There's an old rule that you don't say bad things about the recently dead (unless you're talking historic monsters). When Reagan and Nixon passed, only the hard core left really spoke ill of them. Otherwise, liberals just remained respectfully quiet or thought of something nice to say. It's not like Andy was literally dancing about her grave singin' alleluia, but it definitely displayed a lack of tact, especially directed at someone who was not very active as a political spouse.

Though on the subject of the left and Nixon's passing... the DC branch of the ACLU used this as their answering machine message on the day of his funeral: "In honor of the National Day of Mourning for President Richard M. Nixon, the National Capital Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union will be closed... for eighteen and one half minutes." MDB (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What gets me is that Andy stopped by purely to dance on the grave^img. TK's original post^img was just a statement of facts: but Schlafly had to turn it into a point. The comparison to isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk is false. The true comparison would be to somebody posting "Thatcher is dead" on WIGO:World then somebody else adding "She destroyed the unions, promoted greed, and presided over an economic disaster". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not every day that someone makes Terry Koeckritz look like the nice guy. Vulpius (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not anti-dancing on graves, but this is pretty low-class because Elizabeth Edwards was never in a position to set policy nor to influence public debate over these topics. She was the wife of a politician who became known because she was cheated on by the louse when she had cancer. This isn't George W. Bush or Keith Olbermann. But it doesn't surprise me because Andy Schlafly is low class and not very bright. --Leotardo (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy claims that abortions cause breast cancer so here is a woman who supported the right to choose dying of breast cancer, even though she may not have had an abortion herself. Poetic justice, no? - You're a sick bastard Schlafly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To make a fine point, the dancing over GWB occurred in January of 2008, he no longer has any influence or effect. Now, when Falwell died, IIRC he barely got a day of "silent respect" here - I suppose because he was an influential bad person up to the end. Pomegranate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be said for Thatcher too; she resigned in 1990, yet here we are 20 years later and people have websites like the one noted above about her impending passing, talk about a grudge. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

People can be disgusting, nothing will change that. What we need to do is stop letting "our side" pass when they do it and call them on it. Much like the Nazi comparisons, this will only stop when people stop accetping it. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And how do we call them on it? None of us could get an account because of Andys paranoia and our accounts here.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Although there isn't much we can do with Andy except shake our heads (and bitch here of course) we can and should take our own editors to task when they do the same. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What Andy wrote was tactless; it was by no means the worst thing anyone has said on either the left or the right after the passing of a political figure. From what was written, I don't think it was demonstrably malicious, just stupid. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair point about much worse being said about political figures, except Elizabeth Edwards was only barely a political figure. She was the wife of a political figure and will, sad as it is to say, mostly be remembered for her philandering husband, and the dignity she showed facing both that and her illness. MDB (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There are over 11,000,000 Google search results for the search "Obama and weak"

Ok. There are 70,300,000 results for "Obama and strong". Just saying. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that google results mean shit. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

They do when the search is so broad and vague. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It does help. Google Wednesday and waffles. Some 500,000 results. Now google Wednesday and "french toast". What do you think I had for breakfast? Thanks, google. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are over 123,000 entries for "Conservapedia AND idiots" but only 79,200 for "conservapedia AND geniuses." QED. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and over 10K results for "kendoll's use of google is moronic", while there are only 1.5K for "kendoll's use of google is facinating." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

115,000 for "Conservapedia AND bullshit". This is fun! I see why Ken

does it so much. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken is a big bore because he does too much stupid to merit serious discussion. It feels like harshly critiquing a first grader's debate performance. --Leotardo (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Schlafly and idiot gets 146,000. Schlafly and moron get a mere 43,700. But Schlafly and stupid gets right back up with a whopping 193,000. Can anybody beat that?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I type in Schlafly and the first thing is Pumpkin Ale. I hate Pumpkin Ale.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The scary part is that "schlafly AND sexy" gets over 100K hits. And we're number one. The horror. The horror. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE GTac (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I just made the mistake of taking a look at his latest on MPR, and he's added a link to an "amusing" image. Cripes, I've seen more maturity on 4chan. Why does Andy even pretend this is a serious project any more? --Kels (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly and machismo gets about 3,500 - but they all look surprisingly on-topic.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Andy Schlafly" and "Moron" gives 2240, "Andy Schlafly" and "Brilliant" gives 2260. Ergo, "Andy Schlafly", the "Brilliant" "Moron" (That's the closest pair I think I can get, which "Andy Schlafly" "Brilliant" "Moron" gives 590). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AS + 'slope down shoulders' = 2,650 ghits. AS + 'bony little body' = 40,700. AS + 'fisting' = 9,780. AS + 'womb broom' = 637. AS + failure = 118,000. --Leotardo (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So Schlafly is a failure with a bony little body? Maybe Argumentum ad Google ranking is not a logical fallacy after all. - π 09:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

cp:Conservative of the Year 2010

More silly navel-gazing. These retarded essays, rankings and competitions (remember the "Conservamath Medal^img" that was never a medal and never awarded?) are essentially all they can do with the site now (when they aren't cut-n-pasting articles from other sites that nobody else will expand). I couldn't find the "Conservative of the Year 2009": is this the first year? If so, the COTY 2010 was started on December 5th, a few days after Andy whined on MPR that rightwing bloggers didn't include Rand Paul in their "Conservatives of the Year". --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought they gave it to Clarence Thomas last year, though I can't find a link. --MarkGall (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, Clarence Thomas was bigger than 2009. He was Conservative of the DECADE!64.30.2.130 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The most activist judge in SCOTUS history, but it's okay because he's usually on their side. Typical. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I do remember Thomas but as stated above, it was for a different award, so I guess this contest is new; the list though remains unimpressive.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Thomas as CP's Conservative of the Decade is spot-on. Thomas, like CP, has virtually no influence; and, like CP, he is seen as intellectually incurious. The other entries for COTD are fun. Sarah Palin arrived on the national scene in 2008, and by 2009 she was the third COTD. I like the rationales they use, which show the deep contemplation given to each consideration: Michelle Malkin "speaks on college campuses"; Sarah Palin "opposes death panels"; Michelle Bachmann for "exposing the global currency" (something Bachmann's own office said they weren't trying to do). Very entertaining. --Leotardo (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I note one conservative was prominent by his omission. MDB (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz, spell "involved"^img. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Christian thing to do would be to say thank you^img JPatt. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And do you really want to quibble over the "sanity" of tactics? That's a pretty big thing to discuss--whether your tactics are SANE or not. Not really a quibble thing.64.30.2.130 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to laugh

Yes, I know it's just TwistedKnickers showing us he can add any crap to CP with impunity, but I love how students protesting higher tuition in the UK are "spoiled socialist brats" (and no mention of those nasty Lib Dems reneging on the pre-election stance), but Teabaggers protesting against that uppity N in the White House higher taxes are loyal patriots. --Ψ GremlinTal! 12:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how his "solution" is supposed to work out? That's like saying to some entrepreneur, "If you get rid of some of your customers, you'll be able to offer the remaining ones lower prices". Röstigraben (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since TK can't construct a sentence, spell 'involved' or make a logic comparison I'll have to start my own CP meme. You ready? Sarah Palin as The New Iron Lady. I know it makes no sense except in the eyes of fawning conservative sycophants, but it'll be amusing to watch them swarm all over this like the cockroaches they are. You heard it here first folks, on this bastion of conservative thought. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 12:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If that means Sarah Palin leaves the US for Britain, I'm all for it. MDB (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We're exporting the nickname not importing the stupid. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 12:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned that would be tantamount to a declaration of war and, despite being rather a pacifist in general, on this point I'd enlist today to fight to keep the stupid in the US. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You spawned her, you keep her. That said, you could send her down here - she'd be wonderful company for T.I.M. (That Idiot Mugabe). --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that (according to CP anyway) the Iron Bint Palin has moaned about not being able to use the first amendment (that's the free speech one, right?) to slag of wikileaks! "I should have the right to say that they shouldn't have the right" . DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see Sarah Palin in the UK, although I don't see how it could happen: the waves of scorn emanating from here would probably stop her plane from landing. If she ever managed to make it to an auditorium, I'd give it 5 minutes before the first tomato hits. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In 2008, Sarah Palin didn't know who Margaret Thatcher was; by 2010 she was begging for a photo op and styling herself after Thatcher which was a laugh to the Brits. Whether you liked Thatcher or not, she had a formidable intellect and Palin continually fails at 'thinking'. --Leotardo (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point Leo - whilst UK politicians may be far far from perfect, we don't suffer intellectual flyweights of the calibre of Palin an Dubya Bush. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see Palin over here, interviewed by Paxman or the like. They'd eat her aliveAMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin on BBC Hardtalk? That would be awesome. Damo^Hi 18:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Does she only to interviews with softly-softly rightwing interviewers in the US? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Approach such a prospect with caution; Paxo squandered his interview with Ann Coulter making sneering comments about her religion and acting with a rather stereotypical well-to-do incredulity over the more OTP statements in whatever book she was plugging at the time. The uninitiated would probably found Coulter to be quite reasonable in the interview. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) Wow! TWIGO:CP can be used to predict the future! Sarah Palin wants to visit Israel or England. The implications of this are staggering!!! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"The U.K. needs another Margaret Thatcher!" What the fuck do you think David Cameron's doing, TK? SJ ^Debaser 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How many hospitals has Glenn Beck built?

So much funny in that borked news story.^img I wonder how much Beck gave of his own money, seeing as he only raised $1million? He didn't personally donate $1m. How much was skimmed off for "admin expenses?" How much will beck claim back in tax refunds? People want to know. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

His fundraiser was lavish, and it paid for all expenses before passing any money on, rather than doing a set percentage. But it was also as nonpartisan as Beck could probably reasonably manage, and it did maybe raise a lot of money. It's hard to be too harsh to criticize anyone's efforts when they appear to be in good faith. Of course, he still may not merit this accolade...--^talk 13:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I like that suddenly he is now a Christian, even though he is really Mormon; a religion virtually all Christians consider at the least heretical, at worst, a cult. However in CP land, if it promotes their cause, suddenly he is some of the saints. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't one of the CP regulars a Mormon? Or an I just mixing that with Ed Poor being a Moonie?

As an aside, I don't think it's fair to say virtually all Christians consider Mormons heretical. I think it's fair to say virtually all Christians consider Mormons to be somewhat odd, at least. MDB (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone find out how much of his own money Bill Gates gave away this year, not that facts will actually matter to Andy. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC x 2) The only reason it isn't branded a cult on CP is the fact that Andy had to defend his selection of a cultist as a sysop - DeanS was a Mormon. Ditto the Moonies. Hell, even Scientology is only named a cult in passing. Then again, Schlafly isn't Christian - he thinks he is, but he's something very different - so I guess it fits.--Ψ GremlinTal! 13:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the numbers, but Gates isn't alone in pledging to give away huge stacks of money. See this, which reminds me that Zuckerberg already gave away more than Beck, but you only heard pitiable whining about it from CP. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Whenever anyone they can't at least loosely tie to Christianity donates money, it's "throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away" instead of doing the responsible thing and praying. «-Bfa-» 14:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As the Huffington Post makes clear but CP does not, Beck was the top raiser not giver. CP classically flubs this because they know nothing, because the idiots would realize how paltry $1M is. For instance, the liberal Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey, who is consistently ranked in the Top 50, gave away $41.1 million in 2009. I'm not sure what her 2010 giving will be but I doubt she suddenly plummets? Beck raised $1M, but gave how much? BTW, George Soros gave away $150M in 2009. Here are BusinessWeek's rankings, though somewhat more out of date. --Leotardo (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame that SchlaflyTK has to bold-faced lie (" Atheists don't build hospitals, and typically self-absorbed Liberals donate far less to charity than Conservatives."). Atheists build hospitals and anyone who checks out the Slate 60 or the BusinessWeek rankings will realize Liberals are often at the top of the philanthropy heap. --Leotardo (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post the link to where on CharityFolks it shows that Beck raised $1 million? The link from CP's website goes to an article that claims CharityFolks said he was the top raiser. But the link from MediaBistro is just to the press archives for CharityFolks, as opposed to a specific release. 71.169.147.109 (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, BoN, only liberalist atheist elitist socialist evolutionists read the sources posted on MPR. True patriotic christian conservatives who love America simple accept anything the Assfly says. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"BunchOfNumbers" (your insulting name is getting tiresome), we don't fall for the self-serving liberal claptrap here. I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and all you do is talk, talk, talk, so there's a 95% chance you're an agent provocateur. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that childbirth stops rape. Whatever the mainstream media might say, the BBC is liberal and clueless about American politics. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful.--Aschlafly 11:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen a reference somewhere (will hunt around but don't remember where) that showed religious people were more charitable as a group on a per capita basis (than atheists) even after ignoring tithe (which is technically charity, but hardly optional for most believers whose religions practice it). Of course that was keyed off religion, not a political left/right distinction, but CP dogma seems to be Liberal = Atheist = bad / Conservative = Christian = good. And we're not talking like order of magnitude difference, just one that was statistically significant 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What matters with whether religious people are more charitable than non-religious people matters in how you calculate those figures. Let's take hospitals: There are many hospitals built by corporations and the government (both 'atheist'); hence, China builds a lot of hospitals. I do not have a problem paying higher taxes for homeless services (I live in NYC) and other social welfare initiatives. A lot of religious charity is designed to convert people into believers and influence the way they think; depending upon who you are (gay, for instance), they may not want to help you (how many AIDS charities have the religious set up?). A lot of non-religious charity is meant to address problems in people's lives without concerns over whether a person is saved or not, and we support neutral government initiatives as opposed to those designed to proselytize. --Leotardo (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Awww!

I think it's so cute that Karajerk still thinks that by copy/pasting badly written stubs he's building an encyclopaedia. --Ψ GremlinFale! 15:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama tax plan, conservatives and TK

This is probably worth a WIGO: TK on December 7: Obama/Republican tax cut plan a win for conservatives!!!^img TK on December 9: some actual conservatives who say they care about deficits have suddenly realized this plan is going to balloon our deficit^img, including Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and Tom Coburn. Ruh-roh - who should CP takes cues from now?!?! --Leotardo (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, TK just made an account for you on CP so you can post your comments and discuss this topic there. Composure1 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would he do that? Is he trying to get this strapping, comely gay man to notice him? --Leotardo (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so that he can block you for being a member of a vandal site? Life must be getting really boring for him over there now.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Given how strapping Leo is this was just the last thing TK had to get done before it was time to make love. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Screams from the haters got a nice ring to it...mothafuckas, we rollin' --Leotardo (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting page

I found this page at CP to be fascinating. ;}  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of red on there! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some quick analysis of accounts created since September 9, 2010:

*234 total accounts created, of which 84.6% (198) were subsequently blocked.

*22 accounts were created by sysops according to the Zoho Plan, of which 22.7% (6) were subsequently blocked.

Of all 198 accounts created and then blocked since 9/9/10: TK blocked 41% (97) Aschlafly blocked 22.6% (53) Karajou blocked 6.8% (16) Jpatt blocked 6.8% (16) Conservative blocked 2.5% (6) DanielPulido blocked ~1% (3) DouglasA blocked <1% (2) Tzoran blocked <1% (1)

This leaves unblocked 36 new accounts created since 9/9/10, of which: 15 (or 6.4% of accounts created since 9/9/10) made one or more non-revert mainspace edits. Of those 15 contributors, 5 (or ~2% of all accounts created since 9/9/10 or ~23% of accounts created since 9/9/10 according to the Zoho Plan) had their accounts created by sysops.

So about 2% of new accounts made a mainspace edit and survived to tell the tale. I didn't compare the success rate of self-made versus Zoho Plan accounts, but compared to the whole population the Zoho accounts are more than 10 times as likely to make an edit and survive. That superficially looks pretty good until you realize it amounts to 5 people in 3 months. The site is growing rapidly! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fun analysis. Thanks. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Brother Leader

So Andy's up for Conservative of the Year. Good to see there's no cult of personality on CP. --Ψ GremlinTal! 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Brother Leader" reminded me of this clip and then I laughed, so thanks for that. Actually, thinking about it, Cheese is a lot like Andy... X Stickman (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But it's not Andy Schlafly that's up for nomination .....it's Andy Aschlafly^img. (What does it say when your own minions can't even get your name right when they're praising you?) --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It shows Aschlafly's low class and inflated self-importance that he doesn't remove himself. But it's also appropriate for a navel-gazing website that can't see over its own e-walls that conservatives from Erik Erickson at Red State to Christian pastors to the Discovery Institute to World Net Daily have only been derisive in any examination of what CP does. Can anyone find a mainstream conservative source in the last few years that has been laudatory of CP? --Leotardo (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that it's a fairly safe bet that any of the nominated candidates, Andy excluded, would run a mile once they heard just what bunch of nut jobs wanted to give them an award. Seriously, if people like Beck and Coulter are avoiding (or worse - unaware of) CP, it can be said any self-respecting politician - including the teabaggers - would stay far away. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally, which is what makes it so fun to watch and ridicule them. Either they realize and don't care or they are too stupid for it to dawn on them that despite Aschlafly's media whoring (that's what the whole 'but...but...Washington wrote a letter to his nephew!' recall thing is about) nobody wants to be a part of it. They trumpet hits, but they don't realize despite all those hits...nobody is signing up. Encyclopedia Dramatica is known as a haunt for Anonymous, and CP is the perfect format for teabaggers...yet none sign up. CP editors are like fish who don't realize that they are trapped in a small bowl. --Leotardo (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So how will they decide on who gets the award? They don't have our neat voting extension. Will Andy just retreat to his broom closet, ponder the nominations a little, and then emerge to declare himself "Conservative of the Year"? Röstigraben (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion for the illustrious Conservative of the Decade, so I assume these bits of retardation are either decided by fiat or are discussed off-wiki. Nobody cared enough about the ConservaMath Medal to even award it. --Leotardo (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is left on that site to vote?? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Insane rambles of a dirty old man

It looks like TwinKle is taking a leaf from Ken's book and is initiating rambling^img conversations^img with himself. Gee, I wonder who he could be talking about? Guess he's still having "impotent rage" issues.

Could this be the Ides of December? --Ψ GremlinParla! 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hah, it's wonderful that TK is so bored that he's resorted to the red telephone. Go plead with the assfly to let people create accounts again, TeaCake. Then you'll have some people to harass. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just assumed Terry was drunk and "Jester" is the name he gave his penis. --Leotardo (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That takes clown porn to a whole new - and disturbing - level. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 15:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to liberals:

If you're latest scheme to undermine Traditional American Values (tm)(cp)(zomg) has failed, go build a hospital! MDB (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Its amazing. They frequently bash liberals for not obeying the will of the people, yet hear they are, supporting the ban DESPITE the large majority of americans, serviceman, and vetrans saying gays have the right to fight for there country. --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you forget - Magic Man In Sky is on their side, so ergo, they must be right. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Gays are allowed to serve in the military so long as nobody finds out and you are not allowed to question them about it. That is what makes the current compromise position so ridiculous, they are just going to pretend there are no gays unless they are confronted with the truth. It is on par with Iran has no gays. - π 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Except they're not even honest about the enforcement. There's a number of stories about soldiers whose commanders knew they were gay, but were allowed to stay in service, because they had vital skills. MDB (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, is a "Charity Hospital"? Is it a place where the poor can get surgery for free? Where is such a hospital? --Leotardo (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Many hospitals in the States were built by charities, often churches or just a group of concerned citizens. For instance, my home town had Baptist Hospital and Saint Mary's (Catholic), and I think Fort Sanders (which has the dubious distinction of hosting the maternity ward where I was born) was established by the Methodists, though I'm not sure. In fact, I think I heard that it was once the law in the United States that hospitals had to be non-profit, so only charities were running them. That law has since changed, and many of the once non-profit hospitals have been purchased by corporations. MDB (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New Orleans used to have one un by medical students, see Wp for more. Тиранес^complaints 16:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, a third source beyond religious groups and general public-minded citizens would be colleges and universities. MDB (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point about universities. These guys just don't know much. I like their idea that religious = conservative. Quite a few liberals build hospitals, including liberal religious organizations. One example is the Jewish women's organization Hadassah, which "has been at the forefront of advocacy for liberal causes in the United States, ranging from suffrage to abortion legislation to anti-poverty and civil rights legislation and programs." Here's a picture of their awesome medical center, known as "Hadassah on the Hill". --Leotardo (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Life in Space?

Arsenic based life form proves life in space?^img Man, people are gullible. If only they could believe in somthing as concrete and believeable as Intelligent design. I mean, seriously, we are ALL ALONE in this great big universe. --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for live to finally be found on another planet. It's going to happen eventually. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That'd never happen. It would all be a conspiracy played out by librul scientists who create a new form of life and send it to another planet, only for it to be accidentally "discovered". At least, that's the best anti-reality explanation I can think of... ~SuperHamster Talk 02:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/829/ . 'nuff said. Silly Mr. Cat 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Does someone really need to quote XKCD every time something like this happens? That one's not ever particularly clever. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This comic is a reference to the huge development this week in which NASA-funded scientists have discovered life forms that thrive and grow using the toxic chemical arsenic. They found these life-forms in the toxic Mono Lake in California. Titan is a moon of Saturn and has atmosphere made up of nitrogen and hyrdocarbon. So, to make the discovery of "alien" life more exciting, the scientists decide to serve a themed cocktail for the event. Since the event is the discovery of arsenic-based life, they serve arsenic-based drinks. And unlike the life in Mono Lake, reporters will die if they drink arsenic. Since, arsenic is a famous poison for humans. That is the joke. GTac (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Captain obvious (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a joke if you have to explain it. I understood the comic when I wrote it, I still didn't laugh, xkcd has been unfunny for a while now. - π 09:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get it. If they're not liberal arts majors, why would they act so stupidly? It makes no Randall-sense. Vulpius (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Anyone ever notice NASA has a huge breakthrough of life in space whenever their budget comes up for discussion? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 07:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No... what was their breakthrough last time then? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no "huge breakthrough". Some scientists might (their methods were... less than exemplary) have made a pre-existing organism that we knew tolerates arsenic use the arsenic to build some organic chemicals that normally wouldn't have arsenic in. They don't thrive (if your baby is desperately underweight and growing slowly the doctor won't say "at least it's thriving"). IF someone reproduces this with better methods (e.g. actually showing where arsenic was used somewhere it normally isn't, rather than eyeballing some figures and guessing that's what happened) then it still doesn't give you alien life, which is how this was built up to get press coverage. There's a good chance that instead some other bunch of scientists will try this and find that the unusual structures built by the organism are storing all the arsenic, and the numbers were slightly wrong, which makes the story "NASA over-hype poorly conducted science". I like NASA, I think e.g. their work as a no fault, air accident prevention agency is brilliant. This is not so great. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, no one in the scientific community is claiming this shows evidence of alien life, at most what they are saying is this expands the possibilities of potential alien life, as we know now it may be possible on phosphorous poor worlds that otherwise be amicable to life similar to here on Earth. I do agree that the press release was way overblown, and the bacteria isn't part of the hypothesized "shadow biosphere" of completely different terrestrial life, or extraterrestrial, or even favors arsenic, it is still an amazing discovery in itself.

What annoys me is that CP's linked no-name blog claims this is some conspiracy in a sense to promote the "atheistic, evolutionist worldview", what bull. Alien life doesn't need to be found in order to support evolution and it's lack of existence doesn't prove their particular, petty deity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

'The law of the general/overall same-ness of the universe' (which 'seems logical to the casual passer-by') - if life has evolved on one planet in the non-central part of a galaxy, and 'organic compounds being part of actually existing life' can be readily synthesised from precursors by the sentients of the said planet with only some considering of what would be required, it is likely to evolve elsewhere in similar regions in various galaxies (including our own), and possibly in areas nearer to the galactic cores and stars now in intergalactic space. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether the actual science (which is still impressive, of course, not just anyone can publish in Science) justifies what was said in the press release. Although there's evidence to support arsenic inclusion, it's not direct enough to start screaming about arsenic based life in space just yet. I want to wait for Science to get its arse in gear and publish some correspondence on the matter. However, any discovery of extremophiles like this or alternative metabolites is still important with respect to evolution. They are also highly relevant to exobiology because these discoveries change the ideas we have about what chemical playset life can use from being merely hypothetical to being precedented and solid. ^{d hominem} 12:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Stupid greedy atheists

I saw this on the interhighwebnet today. The article talks about three people in particular (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Mark Zuckerberg) giving RIDICULOUS amounts of money to charity, into the billions of dollars. So we have Mark Zuckerberg (who has stated he's an atheist), Warrent Buffet (who describes himself as agnostic), and Bill Gates (who is probably an atheist, although I can't find him saying exactly that, so I don't want to label him; however, he is at least non-religious). So there you go. No atheist is charitable. Ever. Thank God for Glenn Beck's alleged $1million donation, which completely dwarfs these three men's multi-billion dollar donations. Carlaugust (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gates came out as an atheist in the early 80ies but backpedaled shortly afterwards. According to a biography I once read his latest, current-as-of-now position is that he's a protestant who just happens not to have been to church in a while. Hateboy (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny, that's exactly what my mother thinks I am. Carlaugust (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He was still saying fairly agnostic things in the 90s. E.g. wikiquote:Bill Gates "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning." and "In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid." Also see [3]. I belive his wife is a church going catholic however. I suspect Andy doesn't think much of BG's charity since he likely regards him as a babykiller as a small amount has gone to organisations providing all forms of birth control (do a search) though they've generally shied away from it anyway ([4]). Since Warren Buffet has given a large amount to the B&MG foundation I guess he's contaminated too in Andy's eyes... Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note -- Zuckerberg's wealth is very hypothetical. Much of it is based on the assumption of how much his Facebook holdings are worth, but since the company hasn't gone public, it's all assumptions. Now, once Facebook does go public, he's likely to really be fabulously wealthy, but it's "all on paper" right now. (Though I have no doubt he's earned a very large salary as CEO and probably has millions if not billions in more tangible assets.)

His one big philanthropic act so far was his huge ($100M?) to the Newark Public Schools. Certainly very generous, but it's widely suspected he did it to make himself look good before The Social Network opened. (Which in my opinion, didn't make him look that bad anyway.) MDB (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Gates gets it from his father, William Gates Sr, who was already a somewhat famous philanthropist before Bill retired and got into it himself. Some of the early donations are rather self-serving (giving money to poor countries to buy IT systems? While still owning large holdings in one of the world's largest IT companies?) but in the past decade or so there's lots of solid unrewarding third world stuff. Guinea Worm Disease for example. I will raise a toast to Gates when the WHO declares it extinct (probably in the next decade), but most news stories will focus on President Carter, not Gates. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there is the whole issue of WHAT or WHO you give your money to. If you give to your church, where does that money really go to? If you are Catholic, a lot of that money is going to settle pedophilia lawsuits. If you are Evangelical, a lot of that money goes to buying fancy stuff for church leaders. In the case of Gates, it is possible to trace where the money goes, but in the case of money laundering through the Vatican Bank etc., who knows? Jimaginator (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also remeber that christians are REQUIRED by the bible to donate a cirtain amount of there money (i think in the area of 10% but i could be wrong). So if you are REQUIRED to donate, is it acctually a donation? Like forced voulenteering.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ten percent, yes, and generally known as "tithing". The philosophy is that your tithes belong to God; you're just returning them to Him. Anything beyond that is an "offering".

Note that very few Christians actually do give a full ten percent, especially if you figure it before taxes. It's something many of them would honestly like to do, though, and those that do view it as a point of pride, though few would openly brag about it, just because that's a discussion of your personal finances.

Exactly what qualifies as tithing is debated, with questions "is it 10% before or after taxes?", and "do charitable contributions to groups that 'do God's work' outside the church count?"

Very few pastors seriously push it, because they know how many people it would turn off. Most of them will do one or two reminders yearly, often when the church's budget is being set, and will just say something on the order of, "remember, God asks you for ten percent." MDB (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A very TK Christmas

TK is getting into the spirit^img but I far prefer his "selfmade" version from last year. Good times. Ace^{word up} 22:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't really made a proper link to the original website as required by the license, has he?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Does anyone ever look at the bottom of the MainPage?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The link is in the image description and yes, they have that weird "Conservatism" template at the bottom. Ace^{word up} 22:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And a wikitastic "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that merry xmas neon was a right laugh. Terry Koeckritz completely exposed in his thieving dishonesty, then blocks the editors informing him of such, and deletes the talkpage because it contains lies! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got old links to that so that we can remind ourselves of TK's deceifulness?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The one true link. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I just added a section on the Conservapedia:Burning the evidence. Ace^{word up} 23:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have an img of the talkpage call-out?64.30.2.130 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is this.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone ask TK defenders to explain why the image TK took himself of the sign was a byte to byte match of the website one? (I guess they were) Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I even offered Terrence the chance to explain his honest mistake, several times in fact, but he declined. It was good of TK to give top parodist JacobB and top idiotic sycophant Kowardjerk the chance the shine though. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked him about it too and was told I could go and "pound sand" while I waited for an answer. Still, I'm sure all the attention it earned him gave him a boner through to New Years.--Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Orly Taitz. 23:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you could buy Andy Schlafly one book for Christmas, and knew he would read it, which book would it be and why?

...in other words, what challenges to his world view, if he was confronted with them, would make his head explode? DarkStar (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. It wouldn't work. His automatic response would be "liberal deceit". MDB (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This. Let's face it, he wouldn't dare to read anything that may challenge his worldview or ego; he would justify not reading it by claiming liberal deceit or bias as his excuse.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A dictionary. «-Bfa-» 16:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, books that teaches grammar, technical writing and stuff like that. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake 'which has to be read to the end of the last sentence.' 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My pet goat.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The bibul. But he wouldn't REALLY read it. Not REALLY read it. He would simply skim read it, like he does now, and pick out the bits he wants to and discard the ones he doesn't.Oldusgitus (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a futile exercise. Our Andrew Schlafly article is so full of examples where he thinks he knows better than anyone else about everything, that if he read something that conflicted with his beliefs (say, the wp:Sermon on the Mount and its wp:Discourse on judgmentalism) he would just discard it. --Leotardo (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged, just to make him suffer. Beer (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know that Andy doesn't have much of an attention span and is an inveterate skimmer. Do you think that his copy of the BiBull is actually the Readers Digest Condensed Version?

the LOLCATS Bible, in the hopes his head would explode 67.72.98.45 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! I had no idea that there's a LOLCAT Bible! --Leotardo (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Journey to the West, all four volumes of it. That'll keep him busy for a bit. EddyP (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the Illuminatus! trilogy is typically bound as one volume can it be nominated? Aziraphale (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy has not only read but greatly improved on the Sermon on the Mount. See?

But I tell you that any person who is angry with his brother shall be liable for trial, and anyone who says to his brother, "Airhead!" shall be liable to be brought before the council, but whoever says, "Moron!" shall be liable for the fire of hell.

Like poetry! Truly divinely inspired! ("shall be liable for the fire of hell?" What an airhead!) 207.172.209.70 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone Giant Hamburger Sorcerer's Stone (American version obv). SJ ^Debaser 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ze list:

• The Warhammer 40K rulebook/sourcebook, just because.
• Or Small Gods.
• Or Neuromancer.
• Or have him actually read 1984 and not just cherrypick bits.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses (though that may be too cruel). Not 1984. It would only give him ideas. Same reason not to give him The Hanmaid's Tale (although I would love to know what he thinks about the Serena Joy character (most disgusting threesome in literature got even more disgusting)). --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy should read What Is Stephen Harper Reading?, by Yann Martel. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 00:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, this is an easy one. Buy him an eight x ten mirror, tell him it's a "Kindle talking book" go home and wait for the news that "Conservapedia founder found dead of wounds sustained when he tried to argue with a mirror". 01:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I'd never noticed the "airhead!" and "moron" bit of the CBP before. My first thought was that it had to be the work of a parodist. I was right: it was TerryH^img, who has been parodying thoughtful, intelligent humans for some time now.

Books? Has to be Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. That was the book about which Douglas Adams said something like "I thought I understood evolution, then I read that book and realised how wrong I'd been", and which started his friendship with Dawkins. If Andy was forced to read a proper book about evolution instead of simply talking about what he thinks evolution is about, he'd learn something. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take this a face value, and assume that Andy would not only read the book but absorb its lesson(s). So, going for the biggest bang for the buck, I'd propose a comprhensive statistics manual. Think of all the "Insights" that would evaporate if Andy really internalized some statistics:

Hollywood breast cancer

"Counterexamples to ..." where 'if each of these is only 5% likely, etc.'

Lenski statistics objections

Geometric increases in conservative words/insights

Accomplishments of teenagers

Much of the farrago of Conservapedia math articles--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should get the CP Bible printed up and send that his way. That should confuse him. Also, we should make a donation to the American Atheist Society in his name. – Nick Heer 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I remembering this right?

For some reason this just came to me and I seem to recall Andy once saying that it's impossible for a child to be smarter than his/her parents. Am I making this up? Anyone else recall this, and if so, find a link? It is certainly in line with his "people are getting dumber" notion. DickTurpis (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the level of human smartness probably peaked around the '90s, then the twentyfirst century came round and with the widespread use of the internet and Facebook it deteriorated at a frightening rate. This species is dumbening rapidly! SJ ^Debaser 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that, the internet just gives the dumber portions of society a louder mouthpiece to use. Case in point; Conservapedia. If it weren't for the internet, I'm sure they'd still exist but they'd be at home going grumble-grumble rather than out here shouting it from the rooftops. The internet is the mother of all selection biases when it comes to assessing the stupidity of the population. ^{d hominem} 12:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What in the hell is Andy going to do...

...now that Ron Paul has defended Wikileaks and Julian Assange? Damn fine defense, too. Andy is such a Paultard, but he has also been relatively silent on Wikileaks, with Miss TerryKins taking the lead on that story. --Leotardo (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Andy's support for Paul has not been absolute. Paul, for example, has been against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Andy is not (or at least wasn't until Obama became President). Recently he's been on more of a Rand than Ron kick, but on several issues he's quite removed from their stances. DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Andy as an "AquaBuddha" worshiper... MDB (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Rand a member of that quack, fine medical organisation, AAPS, do we know? C®ackeЯ

He is a member. MDB (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

He also made up his own accrediting organization, the National Board of Ophthalmology. If I needed an ophthalmologist, I wouldn't go to him. He seems to feel like he is above recertification. Corry (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this contempt of court?

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=832317^img Conservapedia seem to have assumed he's guilty before the trial, much like their quoted source: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/10/huffington-post-blogger-charged-incest

Whether it's contempt of court I don't know, but I do know that I find it galling the way they seem determined to show everyone how bad liberals are; so desperate to make them look evil they jump to conclusions without evidence. Some of the comments in that newsbusters article make me angry as well. AARRRGH!! AlexR4444 (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not what contempt of court means. Also, implications aside, CP is basically just reporting the fact that this guy was arrested. DickTurpis (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If CP is "basically just reporting the fact" - and when did it ever limit itself to that? - why the incontrovertibly judgemental "another disgusting case of Professor values" tag? Tylersboy (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were in contempt of court if you publish something that could affect the jury/court, such as a conclusion of someone's guilt. I don't really believe that this is the case here, but I disagree that they're "just reporting the fact" - the phrase "another disgusting case of professor values" to me indicates not only that CP has decided his guilt before the trial, but that CP is adding the (unfounded) opinion that his behaviour and actions (if true) are widespread among university professors. AlexR4444 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself - and sadly didn't. Tylersboy (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, CP (and plenty of others) allude to the guilt of people charged with crimes before convicted, and this is hardly any different than hundreds of other times they've done this. Certainly not the sort of thing they can be charged with. I'm sure we've done similar things here. DickTurpis (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Trial by Media is all too common here in America, why should CP be any different? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

C'mon Andy, just think of the poor fathers who just have to fuck their daughters. Please don't judge them. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)