Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive212

This is an archive page, last updated 31 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>, <210>, <211>, <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)

Andy displaying his usual scientific acumen

I missed the post on Andy's talk page about how the lunar eclipse proves atheism wrong. Of course, the size of the moon is nearly irrelevant to a lunar eclipse. It would have to be bigger than the earth for the lunar eclipse set-up not to work. I think you're talking about a solar eclipse, Ediot, and speaking as an atheist, I will say it's just a coincidence. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite right; the Earth's shadow narrows by about a quarter by the time it get to the Moon's distance. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the umbra does; the penumbra keeps growing. I take the point, though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how, to prove he exists, God gets all Da Vinci Code on us - leaving clever little clues like dying leaves turning pretty colours (hell, you should see the pretty colours a dead human turns after he's been out in the sun for a few days) and the Moon being 400x smaller and 400x further away from the sun. You want me to believe God? Appear in my front garden and carve "I am who I am was here" in my chest. Then I'll believe... although I have had acid trips along similar lines... --Ψ GremlinParlez! 10:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what always got me about the fundies: God appears to nobody in this day and age (unless burnt toast counts), yet 'back in the day' there's were all kinds of magic and walking on water and parting oceans, burning bushes, smiting. People being raised from the dead. All of a sudden when humans start understanding the world through science it just stopped? Now we have dead leaves and rainbows for our magic? It's all so silly. No wonder even Mother Teresa started to wonder about her faith, remarking that "the silence and the emptiness is so great". --Leotardo (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate that Creationist canard about the Moon being exactly 400x smaller than the Sun with the latter being exactly 400x further away, making them the exact same apparent size from our vantage point. Well it isn't true. Anyone here, but no one on CP, knows both the Earth's and the Moon's orbits are elliptical, so both the distances and apparent sizes of the Moon and Sun to us vary (the sun can be anywhere between about 370 and 420 times further away than the moon, averaging around 390 times). This is why we have annular and total eclipses! Ugh! Okay, done ranting.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

la, la, la^img. Science, we don't need no librul science around here. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow..... I mean.... Wow. Andy really thinks that science has no explanation for the moon other than "bearded guy said "I like this planet, I'll give it a little brother here?" How does he even manage to function? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 10:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just face it - Andy has one of the finest minds of the 13^th Century. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 10:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I like that line :)

It's typical Andy argument though. Andy: "Atheists can't explain this!" Science: "Err... yes we can." Andy: "I think that's wrong so I win! Hurrah!" –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Andy editing for our amusement? "Best eclipse since we hanged a bunch of innocent women, based on superstition, lies and ignorance!"^img Yes, Andy, that's the way to remember an event. --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You know I've just read the first 'sentence' paragraph of that Salem Witch Trials article. Dear goat, do these people morons seriously think that crap is encyclopedic? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wasn't the moon supposed to blow up in 1999 anyway? MDB (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason Andy even gave a damn about the lunar eclipse is because he could use it as some sort of curmudgeon against those baby eatin' atheists. Although his statement (for our benefit because we are his only audience) is Young Earth Creationist thought in a nutshell; questions abound still in regards to the origin of the Moon, so because the naturalistic explanation isn't 100% ironclad absolute, then it has to be magic! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That, Mr McP, is the thought process of all religionists. If something can't be completely and demonstrably explained then it's proof of their God's existence. (And if something can be completely and demonstrably explained, such as the origin of man, they simply refused to accept it) - it's an unbeatable strategy! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And of course, if any questions surround their god, he suddenly "moves in mysterious ways". It's the coppest outest cop-out the world has ever seen. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's god for ya. Strangely non-specific about exactly how he went about creating the universe, but when it comes to what you can and can't do with your cock, well he's practically written a book about it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My favorites are the guys who, when pointed out contradictions or aspects of God that cannot be explained, suddenly take the approach that God is ineffable and beyond our understanding and we can't look at God in human terms. You know, there's a word for trying to explain God in such a way: religion. DickTurpis (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

By gods... Dick has discovered a Best New Conservative Word! ^{ONE / TALK} 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for them, science has to explain how it happened right done to the tiniest detail, otherwise the theory is an atheist plot (and even if explained completely, it is still an atheist plot), but their holy book only need to say it "just happened by magic", and it's TEH TRUTH.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One would think that a Harvard lawyer would know how to write, but the sentence "Meanwhile, atheistic scientists are still unable to explain the origin of the Moon, other than God's creation" reads that atheist scientists themselves explain the origin of the Moon as God's creation because they have no other explanations. This man needs to learn to write. --Leotardo (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus it was created by Carl Sagan; the one and only true God! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If Carl Sagan exists then why do bad things happen? ^{ONE / TALK} 16:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Because you touched yourself while watching Cosmos. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy decides not to have a front page opinion on the Moon^img; someone must have given him a memo about this talk page.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Whew. So glad the front page no longer demands that atheist sciency types provide an explanation for how the moon came into being in our sad little godless world. Even happier that I don't have to read CP on a daily basis to keep in good odor with my local theocratic cadre. In other news, I snuggle with grammar on a nightly basis, which is consistent with me being a curmudgeon. Don't make me use the dictionary as a cudgel to bludgeon you with. Carry on... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder about all the fuss over this eclipse, just because it sort-of coincided with the solstice. I really liked the radio DJ accidentally referring to both as "meteorological" events. Surely 2004 was the best 'clipse ever? September Storm (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Where's it going?

DMorris asked Jpatt to upload a few images for him. We've got PCHS FB and PCHS NJ ROTC. Now, they've got a ROTC article, but how a picture of a high school football team will fit, I have no idea. Any guesses where these pictures are going to end up? 12.16.112.2 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition of a girl's high school cheerleading squad. Very EdPoor.12.16.112.2 (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is particularly bad copyright infringement, particularly since they are stealing the images of children who are just posing for their high school sports teams, who might object to having them propagated on an ideological and controversial site like Conservapedia. --Leotardo (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

PCHS NJ Cheerleader is "one of us". Why do you hate cheerleaders? ħuman 03:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think she's in the picture. I wonder if it's her playing games? I do kinda miss her. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

She's a he. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, remind me never to have D. Morris photograph any of my events. You may get a discount on your team photos, but you'll also end up on Conservapedia!12.16.112.2 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservative political correctness

From cp:Politically correct: "Politically correct restrictions on what we can say and how we say it have been imposed by leftists on the American public to restrict debate and silence opposition."

From leftist Andy Schlafly on MPR: 'You better call it Christmas and not holiday, you stinkin' liberal!' --Leotardo (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What Andy doesn't, of course, tell you - though it's obvious enough from the clip on the very link he gives - is that the offending reporter was being ironic: "And I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas party at the Department of Justice . . ." Tylersboy (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the 19th century

Seems to me, with all this talk of "1776" and the founding fathers, that the GOP is actually trying to move the country back into the 18th century. And they seem pretty proud of it. DickTurpis (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediamatters has been saying since Sept that Fox is trying to repeal the 20th century. Wonder where they get that idea?--Thanatos (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the post right now, but our old friend Ames once blogged about the tea-parties constitutionalism and the rhetoric about "returning to the founding principals" as a wish to repeal and overturn all legislation and precedents since the first congress. Basically they are unhappy not with America but the America they got. - π 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase a leftie sign: "The tea party wants their country back. I want my country forward." MDB (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Broken for everybody or just me?

“”Forbidden You don't have permission to access /Special:RecentChanges on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Is this for everybody? Or did somebody there blacklist my current IP to prevent me from even viewing CP?

Due to my ISP's behavior, I get a new IP every 24 hours anyway. So it's possible that they just blacklisted one IP from my block at some point and I just happened to get it now. Never ran into this error before, I think. --Sid (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, Sid, check above dude! Still down for me. I haven't bothered trying to counter the problem. SJ ^Debaser 23:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I just looked at the last few sections and figured that it was a new issue since people were discussing CP like nothing had happened. --Sid (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How long does it take to grade multiple choice?

Over a three hour time span Andy only graded 7 papers^img? Is it really this time-consuming to grade multiple choice exams that probably don't exist...? --Leotardo (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The DADT repeal has probably left Andy so devastated he's unable to concentrate on grading papers.

Wait a minute, though... was he grading those yesterday? On the Sabbath? Tsk tsk tsk, Andy. You've violated a Commandment. What kind of example are you setting for those innocent home schoolers? MDB (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So he's 'grading' 42 exams papers from the 'biggest class in the world'. That don't seem that big to me....? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By my count, he should have 51 exams to grade (11 done at 18:38, plus one and 38 remaining at 19:06, plus TeacherEd's). So he should have done 22 by now. I find it strange that in a super-easy exam like that, the highest score would be 35, while apparently half of his students failed to reach at least 30 points...if they exist, they must be idiots. Röstigraben (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And is it 26 or 28 that are left to grade? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He has to be making the whole thing up. For who's benefit is he even keeping this running total? Ours? Seems like he's trying to keep up appearances that his homskolling really does exist, and he isn't just the great pretender despite every appearance to the contrary. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The course material was taken off-line, there were no on-line students this time round, there's no on-line answers. So this little tally is either for our benefit, to make us think the World's Largest Class Taught By A Moron © exists, or Andy doesn't have an A4 pad handy to scribble on. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he has a bible he can further deface. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Which would also explain the super-easy questions. Reading them it was difficult to understand what, exactly, the curriculum entailed for this course. Even the 2008 exam had better questions. It's also hard to justify multiple choice exams for a class of 38 when you have no other classes to grade, unlike other teachers. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Andy wouldn't be caught dead with an A4 pad. Hateboy (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Last night Andy said he would grade the rest of the papers this morning. It's now 4:45 p.m. in New Jersey, and no grades because each time he checks the multiple choice answers, he has to re-learn the alphabet, or something. --Leotardo (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He's still liveblogging his snail-pace grading. And what do you know, he's prescient! Röstigraben (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The best liveblogging since Wonkette's election coverage. The amount of time it takes to post his updates he could grade another exam. Andy keeps calling them "papers" but they are multiple choice exams, or tests, if you will. A 'paper' is something more substantive for both the student and teacher, something that, like article creation, shouldn't take five minutes and therefore Andy can't be bothered. --Leotardo (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If Andy is done grading (and it seems to me he's saying he is) it looks like he's graded 26 "papers". A far cry from his 50+. I do give him the benefit of the doubt that these are real and he did teach a class this semester. Using "teach" in the loosest sense of the word. DickTurpis (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He's only posting the high scores, not all of them. If we add up the numbers from his various edit comments, we get to 51. I also note that after the improbably low scores in the first batch of exams were pointed out, he suddenly started posting one high score after another. And he's now claiming that there never were any physical answer sheets, but students rather handed in their responses via e-mail. Now, I don't think that even a total moron who didn't even attend the course would manage to score below 30 points if he had to take this exam in a real classroom. But if they're sitting at home and can conveniently look up all the answers on the net, such an "exam" would obviously be completely pointless and I wonder how anyone would get anything wrong. The only conclusion is that Andy indeed made the whole thing up. This is easily the most ridiculous behaviour I've ever seen from him - at any given point, he could've simply admitted that he had cancelled the course due to lack of interest, or he could've plausibly said that it had been moved completely off-wiki. But for some reason, he just had to cling to CP's continuing relevance in education and managed to expose his dishonesty for all the world to see. Röstigraben (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed that the grading was so dramatic - there were no 39s until the last 6 papers, when suddenly there were four (five? His edit comments and edits don't add up) and with one paper left would anyone get the maximum score? But wait - yes - YES - YESSSS- it's 40! 40! Top score on the final paper! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It beggars the question, "For whose benefit is Andy carrying out this charade?" For us, to stop us from saying the course was cancelled? For his sysops, so they continue to believe CP has a purpose? For MamaS, so the funds keep rolling in? For the parents who dished out $250 for a course that lasted 2 weeks, if at all? It's sad and a little scary watching him stoop to these depths to justify his existence. Will the be the last "course" offered by CP? --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 10:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My personal belief is that this is mostly for the sysop's benefit. None of the lectures or homeworks are up, and there's no sign of any homeschoolers on CP, but Andy still feels the need to put the test up and liveblog the extremely dramatic and exciting grading of (yet another) world's largest class. I'm curious as to how he teaches the course, if it exists - are all 50-something students crammed into one room? Personally the lack of homeschoolers is what I find so suspicious. Andy pimps CP whenever he can, so it's curious that he doesn't appear to have mentioned it to his class. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of Andy's "class" on CP is probably the most telling blow to his credibility. They've hardly been present since the early days of CP; in fact you could argue that the arrival of people like 'Bad touch' Poor, Karajerk and TwinKle spelled the demise of the students on CP. Certainly, it's become an environment that does not lend itself towards nurturing youngsters on there. Even when they were posting answers online - as in the World History course, they weren't contributing anything else to the blog. The only 2 I can think of are the 2 sysops - AddisionB and DuncanB - both of whom are virtually dead now anyway. --Ψ GremlinParla! 11:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he had decided from the beginning that this would be the largest, best, most conservative class ever. Andy being Andy, he would rather throw up this ridiculous deception than admit that he had promised way too much and couldn't make good on his bombastic announcements. He could've still taken the easy way out by simply saying that he could no longer offer the materials for free, but I guess it's due to his stupidity that he decided on deception instead. Which predictably failed because of his total incompetence. Röstigraben (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy's actually lucky that he's managed to surround himself with such fawning lickspittals, whose need for affirmation far outweighs their judgement, else awkward questions might be asked in the FabFive. --Ψ GremlinHable! 11:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another damning fact is the way former active homskollars suck as BethanyS and SharonS have chosen to have nothing to do with the project since they left Andy's clutches. Last edits: June 2009 and October 2009 respectively. If he can't even persuade the only other 'crat to stick around then he can't expect much from anyone else. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Worse than that, it seems that due to Andy's random use of Christmastime to pardon his tardy students, "it's time to add another 1-2-4-8 layer to Best New Conservative Words!" September Storm (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should also add Ken to the list of kiddie-scarers. Remember when the Student Council (or some such) had control of the Evolution article? Since Ken made it another of his pet articles we haven't heard a word from them. Personally I think the Student Council was just another of Andy's personas.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Peanut butter

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that R Dawkins Esq had never had any peanut butter -smooth or crunchy, given his age and the comparatively low sales in the UK (compared with the US). I don't think it was introduced into Britain much before the 80s or even the 90s. Him (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There was definitely peanut butter in the eighties, 'cos I remember a) eating it and b) thinking that even though the Sun-Pat stuff came in the same shaped jar as their cheese spread, you couldn't confuse the two, even from a distance of a hundred yards, 'cos that cheese spread was a radioactive day-glo orange, man, and like nothing that has ever been seen in nature before.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there you go, US Peanut Butter was sold in the UK from the 1930s on, but wasn't produced in any big way here until the '60s, and solely as a result of a "by-product of a nut-packing operation in Hadfield". Cool.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was eating peanut butter in the 60's down in rural Gloucestershire. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am an "evolutionist" who likes super-chunky peanut butter; does this mean I have prodigious amounts of MA-CHEESE-MO? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally give peanuts a few quick trips round the coffee grinder before mixing them in to my peanut butter to make it even more chunky, I must be the most manly man ever ... Whopsiedaiseys I made a typo, glad I caught it. --Opcn (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to sign up at the agency after that experience. --Kels (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Pfft, the only people who lack machismo are the people who need their peanuts buttered at all. Real manly machismo-laden men such as I just snort peanuts whole. We don't even break open the shell. X Stickman (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lemme guess, you snort them through your nose? Only a woman would use an open, available orifice to ingest peanuts. I snort them directly through my manly, hair-adorned chest. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just get a shelled peanut, pop it on the table, and smash my face into it. That's how real men roll. SJ ^Debaser 13:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just can't respect a man who shells his peanuts first. --Kels (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Shelling is a good way to soften up the enemy before the invasion. Elevens are better (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Classic Andy

McChrystal was forced out by the dirty liberal Obama because "he didn't say what the boss wanted." Apparently Obama's employee code includes a "Do not go on record personally insulting your direct superiors" clause. Who would have guessed that the military doesn't allow people to say whatever the hell they want. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 03:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole episode was hilarious, especially watching them try to write off the relevant parts of the US Code. Had someone in the military said anything vaguely bad about Bush, they'd want instant dismissal and treason charges. No cognitive dissonance whatsoever. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not even just the military or just the government. If I gave an interview to a local business journal and said, "our CEO is an effin' idiot who couldn't run a Little League team, much less a multi-million dollar company", I'd be fired. And that's true of pretty much anyone in any job. Probably the only exception I could envision is a superstar athlete questioning his team's management and getting away with it because of his superstar status, but even then, he'd be in no little bit of trouble.

Disclaimer: I do not think my company's CEO is an "effin' idiot". He's actually a very good guy to work for. MDB (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the brightest star of Italian football (soccer) was put out of the team for some bad words said face-to-face to his team's owner. The national football federation compromised by ordering him back to the team, but with half pay. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And of course the wonderful Roy Keane incident with McCarthy [1] Oldusgitus (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, they think that the military should be allowed to say what they want - but if it's related to their homosexuality then they should damned well keep quiet about it. I guess we should never expect consistency.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it something I've done?

I've been getting this all day when trying to look at CP.

403 Forbidden "Forbidden You don't have permission to access /Main_Page on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. "

What I know about the interwebnettythingy you can put on the back of a very small postage stamp and still have room for the bibble and the complete works of Terry Pratchett so I'm confused...is it them or me? Mick McT (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's you. However, all you're missing is Andypants casting his jaundiced eye on Broadway. He's finished marking his imaginary class' imaginary exam.--Ψ GremlinParla! 16:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uuumm... no, Andy. No. The source for the Spider-Man musical is not the movie. They're both based on the same original source, the Spider-Man comic books. MDB (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't access Conservapedia either, it's not just you Mick. Jammy (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it's nice to know it's not just me they're angry with...though I don't know what I did this time; last time I got banned it was for correcting one of Uncle Ed's more stupid misconceptions about European culture. Mick McT (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't get on it either. Last time this happened I went out and got a life. Never again. SJ ^Debaser 16:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have happened after either the second or third WIGO was posted. But not to worry, a handy change of IP address seems to solve the problem. Service resumes as normal.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been working perfectly all day here. Lucky me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I too can't access Conservapedia, starting getting the 403 page maybe 24-48 hours ago. Could somebody have been access-banning old blocked IPs? I haven't been active there in months. ^EXTERMINATE 17:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It does seem likely. I can't see them trying to work out IP addresses visiting certain pages based on timings given by WIGOs getting posted here, so I'm guessing that they're trying to stop the outside world, or the bits of it which are too liberal for them (which is the outside world), from viewing the site, and are doing it based on blocked IP addresses.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been having the same 403 message today. We always knew they couldn't take criticism, but now it seems they're too embarrassed by the rubbish they write to even let people read it. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK...on the assumption that it's too cold to go out and get a life...how do I get a new IP address? Bear in mind I know f***all about interwebnettycomputerthingy speak Mick McT (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

TOR might be your best bet. Google the site, see what you make of it, see if it's for you. Best advice I can offer really.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe they've blocked all of Zen Internet from viewing their site, which is more than 75,000 people, and a significant proportion of the Virgin Media users in the UK from editing, possibly viewing. Meh. ^EXTERMINATE 18:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Zen and Virgin, my BT connection won't get through either. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

just to add my experiences ... CP appears as a 403/404 error if I smurf the web through my employer's UK connection, but works just fine if I switch to our US connection. Steve Kay (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a response to a certain operation some users had going on? It appears to have ground to a halt now. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What happens if y'all use hidemyass or another anomizer? I can use it to log on, so it'll be interesting to see if it works for you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that works fine. I'm also blocked from reading CP, as is most of the UK it seems. I guess, atheist Britain is too liberal to benefit from conservawisdom. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised this isn't getting more comment. If they really have blocked the UK from viewing and it isn't just a screw up (It's happened before) then this is a fairly significant milestone in the decline and fall of CP yet it doesn't get a mention on WIGO even. Should we not put some kind of statement up? I can view it fine through a proxy and of course the capturebot screen shots are fine - other than that I'm blanked. Quite suprised by this as it goes against what I thought about TK's trollary, ie only being worth anything if people are watching and taking notice. StarFish (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The poll is sueful. I would favor a comment about this at the top of the main WIGO page along with the poll itself. Not sure what others think. StarFish (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the UK (although not with my usual ISP because I'm visiting my parents) and don't have a problem viewing it. I'm more inclined to think this is a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll to get an idea: ^EXTERMINATE 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll (please take a second to complete!!)

UK user, able to view CP	12	Vote
UK user, unable to view CP	47	Vote
Non-UK user, able to view CP	46	Vote
Non-UK user, unable to view CP	19	Vote

Has anyone thought to email Andy or the Zoho address to see if they can get a comment out of CP? Afterall, how can Ken's little projects gain support if most of a country is blocked? Wasn't there supposed to be 'support' for CP from UK anti-choice groups according to Ken? Can't help the good Christian soldiers if they can't view the site. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

By now I tried three IPs from my ISP (one of Germany's largest, in a major city) and all were blocked. Looks like TK Andy banned a /16 block or something just below that (third number in my IP had been 82, 61 and 57, so it's not just a /24 block... unless I miraculously managed to run into three single-IP bans, but what are the odds for that?), preventing a crapton of people from ever viewing CP. Maybe that's Andy's Christmas present for me? The present of not having to fight the temptation to read his idiocy anymore? --Sid (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

↑what he said (Germany, though not such a big city, major ISP) - no wonder that TK has problems to distinguish between us two... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in Spain and it's blocked for - works US proxy.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

time	address	sld.tld	country	works?
16:40	85.187.128.0/24	bglan.net	Bulgaria	no
16:42	88.198.105.154	foertel.com	Germany	yes
16:53	204.8.156.142	bu.edu	USA! USA!	yes
17:04	66.96.16.32	eicat.ca	Canada	yes
17:08	109.170.46.74	prov.ru	Russia	yes
17:16	212.78.238.39	-	Ireland	yes
17:38	78.111.125.36	cbcnet.cz	Beerland	yes
17:50	173.193.221.28	softlayer.com	USA! USA!	yes

From where I'm sitting, it looks as though they're blocking Durmstrang but not much else. mb 17:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion, I should say any problems anyone has are probably due to targeted range blocks. No IP address not connected to some specific user seems to have any problems. Hateboy (talk) Hateboy (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

UK, works fine for me. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Germany, works as usual. Röstigraben (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Still can't get through from here in the UK. That's what I call Virgin on the very silly. Mick McT (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, although it's another wonderful sign of their raging paranoia and laager mentality over there. TwinKle really stepped up his efforts to shut CP down for good. How long until US IPs are blocked? --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 09:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was easier to convince Andy to simply blacklist entire regions of Evil Liberal Countries than to get him to blacklist The Best Of The Public (a.k.a. the US, which is of course mostly conservative - a fact that is censored by the left-leaning Lamestream Media!). --Sid (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Now it works again in Spain.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think they've realised this move was a little too suicidal even for them. CP limps on doggedly for another year. Maybe next year they'll finally put the bullet in it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, works here again, too. Anybody know behind-the-scene details about this little episode? --Sid (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Spider-Man

Yeah Andy, Spidey's real conservative, what with that whole disrespect of authority, public-schooling, masked vigilantism he takes part in. Oh, and the fact that he's also a scientist and an atheist (let's face it, when was the last time you saw the web-slinger credit g0D with anything?). Add that all up Andy and let's face it, you can say with 95% certainty what his views are on prayer in public school, gun control (especially as he never uses them himself), gay marriage (he's from New York, remember?), evolution, voting tendencies and complete lack of attendance in church.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a comic book fan, Spider-Man is not an atheist. He's quite literally met the devil, and knowing that there is a devil kind of precludes atheism. And here's an article on the times Spidey has prayed. MDB (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, was talking about Andy sticking the films, not the comics, into the conservative category. Comic-book wise Spidey would have to be Polytheist, at best, and would probably be classed as a Pagan and Animist (he knows the Norse Gods exist for instance having met Thor and all, and has his own totem-slash-god).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Marvel Comics' unofficial explanation is that Thor and the other gods in their universe may be gods, but there is a God beyond them, and it's generally assumed to be the Judeo-Christian version. (The Fantastic Four met him. He was Jack Kirby.)

For what it's, DC Comics' God is much more of an active player in their universe. There are at least two characters (one version of Supergirl and a one-time JLA member whose name escapes me) that were explicitly said to be angels, and the Spectre is pretty much God's vengeance given human form. MDB (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you see I've never been happy with Marvel's cop-out. If they wanted an over-arching god in whole mythos thing, fair enough, but allowing an assumption of Judeo-Christian Archgod is the worst kind of pandering to the religiously intolerant and, at the same time, really fucks up their own canon, what with that whole Judeo-Christian 'fuck you, there are no other gods' thing that they've got going on there. Marvel would rise one hell of a lot more in my opinion if they just said that somewhere at the top of their mythos heap is a Pratchett type Creator, and then leave it go at that.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much what they did by having Jack Kirby be God? MDB (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, eeeh, aaah, ummm. Hang on, need to find a way to express that in English. You see, the problem is what exactly Marvel meant canon-wise with having the Fantastic Four meet God who is Jack Kirby. Jack Kirby as a Creator, fair enough, 'cause he was. Jack Kirby as a god, same thing. But, as you said, the unspoken assumption out of Marvel is that the guy at the top is the Judeo-Christian God, in which case it's the Fantastic Four meets God who has taken the form of Jack Kirby, which, if the rest of the Marvel universe then followed the same sort of Judeo-Christian mythology would make sense. But Marvel hasn't done that, which means that sticking a Judeo-Christian God at the top of the heap really sticks in the craw in a 'sci-fi, I'm a pedant for the canon' kind of way. Hence, oooh, eeeh, aaah, ummm. Funnily enough, I had the same problem with one of the episodes of Season 5 - Supernatural.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing your point. Maybe it's just different comics we've read, but as an example, I remember an Avengers issue where Thor (and teammates) were in some Catholic building, a convent I think. Thor was uncomfortable, and acknowledges that even though he may be the god Thor, the god of that building probably "outranks" him. And I think there have been at least some stories that imply that the Asgardians (the most prevalent Marvel gods) aren't really gods in the strictest sense, just a race of super-beings that interacted with humans and were worshiped by them.

Of course, part of the problem is that Marvel's God is a lot more of a New Testament, non-interventionist one. DC's God is more of an Old Testament, smite the wicked type. DC also does not have classic myths as heavily intertwined in their universe, either, so it's a lot easier for them to take a monotheistic approach. (Kirby's "New Gods" were definitely just a race of super-beings.)

By Crom, I'm geeking here. Just don't ask me to explain "Hawkman" or "Legion of Super-Heroes" continuity. MDB (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mostly I'm just bitching about Marvel being wishy-washy on the whole issue of God/Gods. I'm of the position that if you allow Gods to exist within the storyline, and Marvel have, then you shouldn't then be trying to shoe-horn a straight out of the New Testament God as you are then left in the position of trying to explain the discontinuity of the existence of a One True God™ amongst a host of other Gods. All too often you end up with this compromise of One True God™ and all the rest of the 'gods' are just fakers or subservient. It is, frankly, both lazy and insulting to the readers and stinks far too much of an attitude of 'if we try and make a fictional Judeo-Christian God equal to all our other fictional Gods we're going to piss off the Bible-bashers, and we don't have the balls to do that, but we've got know problem giving insult to say, Hindus, by broadcasting the propoganda that your Gods and Goddesses might exist, but are subservient to our God.' It's a mealy-mouthed way of doing it, and I don't like that. And it's not like there isn't an easy get-out available anyway. Just follow the Pratchett idea (and, funnily enough, the 3.5 Forsaken Realms idea) that a God is only as powerful as the number of followers they have. That way, to take your example above about Thor, it could just have easily been written that Thor felt uncomfortable and then explained it away as the God associated with the building having more followers than he does, and therefore being much more powerful. That way you get to keep a fairly consistent canon going, you're not going to piss the bible-thumpers off more than you already have, and you're not going to come across as a proproganda mouth-piece for Abrahamic religions. And to think, this all started off with Andy thinking that the Spidermen films were Conservativism's Greatest Films, or whatever bollocks he had described them as.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to Andy

The man is a moron. He really changed the spellings because he thinks that only the English spell it "theatre." How stupid do you have to be before someone else can have you locked away? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh. He's made it clear that CP uses standard American spelling, which makes sense, as it's an American site and there's nothing wrong with consistency. No problem with that. The typo was very slightly amusing. I voted it down. DickTurpis (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem Dick... In American english, theatre the artform is typically spelled with the re ending. Theater refers to the building itself as in: "I didn't want to go to the movie theater." SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

SirChuck is 100% correct; even if you Google "New York Theater" the first page of hits shows most professional sites spelling it theatre. --Leotardo (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Somehow I hadn't noticed that, but it makes sense. Well, I noticed the "re" ending used quite a bit, but wasn't aware of the distinct uses of the two. DickTurpis (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly people, "theatre" is the gay spelling. "Theater" is for real men. Elevens are better (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, checking merriam-webster.com "theatre" redirects to "coup de théâtre", while it seems all definitions of the word are covered at "theater" so I guess these rules are not hard and fast. Not a good WiGO either way, say I. DickTurpis (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Celente

I haven't heard much about his predictions on CP recently, and perhaps this is the reason. In this article^img, CP mentions that Celente predicts Obamageddon to occur in 2010. (I thought at first that it might mean he coined the term in 2010, but the article clearly states that his prediction is for depression in 2010, and that he coined the term in 2009. Considering that we're only days away from 2011 and no depression has happened... What will CP do? Will they simply update their article to state a different year? That seems pretty common for those people predicting a various apocalyptic event. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 17:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Gerald Celente only exists to remind us what it would be like if kendoll could leverage his crazy in to a career. Keep on striving, Ken. The basement ceiling's the limit! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they will redefine the current crisis as a depression so he is still correct. - π 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Celente is a crackpot. Srsly. --Leotardo (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the term "obamageddon" at some point stop referring to economic depression and start referring to the november elections? They'll probably go with that, even despite the redundancy of predicting the 2010 elections to occur in 2010. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, conservative clearly read the page and fixed it^img. I like how Celente simply revised his prediction and tried to add a caveat to his original prediction (in essence, "we knew that we were going to be wrong so we changed our prediction, so we were still right" ... except that he's doing this after the fact of course). Also, his revised prediction of bordering between crisis and disaster seems so much more tame, doesn't it? ghazi alizm, ^comments? 02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Obamageddon happened #but nobody noticed#

Back to Meggidio then. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

However, CP never knew what Obamageddon was. In the run up to the elections Obamageddon was Barry getting his ass kicked by the Teabaggers rather than some great financial meltdown and the imposition of statist policies. I don't think they even really cared, it was just one of those stupid right-wing buzz-words which they toss around to frighten people.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Bible test

*Facepalm*^img Andy, how can you not realize that this man is making fun of you?

In fact: Aschlafly, I have a test for you. It's only one question long, so I know you have time:

1. What lesson do we learn from Jeremiah 5:21 about willful ignorance?

--Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do 4 and 7 not have any correct answer? Hateboy (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ParodistEd can't spell 'Israel' nor does he know the correct name for the last book of the Bible. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite odd - he spells "Israel" correctly four times, but spells it as "Isreal" three times. Either he has butter fingers, or he thought, "Hmm. Since I don't know how to spell 'Israel', I'll just spell half one way and the other half another." Or perhaps it's all part of his master parodist plan. ~SuperHamster Talk 06:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Number 8 and 9 are just superb. Whoever is running teachered this week has surpassed themselves. Absolutely brilliant stuff. And my isp, not saying which one because they'll just range block another 10 % of the UK if I do, can see CP fine. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Really TeacherEd is 2010's parodist of the year; can't wait to see who takes the quiz there. Also check out questions 13 through 16, also classics! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For number four, the traditional view is that yes, it is a reference to the Trinity. For number seven, "Hebrew and Greek" is the simple answer. We know the books of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek. Some researchers however argue that some books of the New Testament (the Gospel of Matthew as a particular example) were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Don't expect anyone on CP to think that hard about the Bible though. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... no. For number four, the traditional view is that referring to God as "lords" (or "powers", or "sovereigns", or whatever) is merely shorthand for "lord of lords" etc. A slightly less traditional view is that it's just a kind of majestatis pluralis, the surrounding text treats the word as functionally singular anyway and you really shouldn't be thinking too hard about it. The Trinity explanation was invented at least two hundred years later by some dudes who for the most part really sucked at Hebrew. For number seven, significant portions of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic, so "Hebrew and Greek" is not just simple, it's simply wrong. Hateboy (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was under the understanding that the Aramaic versions of the OT were themselves translations of the original Hebrew, but I could be wrong in this. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they were written in Aramaic to begin with. Remember that by the time they were done compiling and redacting the whole thing Biblical Hebrew was already an archaic liturgical language nobody actually spoke any more. Some people in Judea would still have spoken a post-classical dialect of Hebrew colloquially. Educated urbanites and the upper crust in general would have spoken Greek. Most Jews spoke Aramaic however. You would expect some Aramaic to seep into the later portions of their favorite literary clusterfuck. Hateboy (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

For number four, it takes a certain kind of mind to think that a bunch of ancient Jewish writers would be thinking about concepts devised by Roman-era theologians, but I guess if you believe the entire thing was dictated word for word by God to his secretaries, then it's possible to think that. Bluefish (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Hateboy (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well I am sure that is the correct answer as far as the quiz goes, I guess I didn't attend theology classes or paid enough attention in Sunday school as a kid. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, question four was given on one of the homework assignments^img. We already know TeacherEd and Andy think the answer is the trinity. --MarkGall (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NKeaton, who seems actually know what he's talking about, posted answers^img, objecting to about eight of the questions. Thought it was an interesting read, though hopefully it won't dissuade Andy from responding... --MarkGall (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I read that and assumed it was somebody here. It'll be interesting to see how ParodistEd and Assfly respond to it though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the most interesting event on CP currently, as sad as that is. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that TeacherEd is a parodist? And 95% certain to be someone from this site? I'm sure theories abound on who it is, but regardless, they are doing a great job. DickTurpis (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Awwww TeacherEd was blocked and unpersoned by someone else it's difficult to distinguish from a parodist. I was looking forward to seeing how the Bible test played out, but considering 4/7 of the participants in the bible class, including the instructor, are blocked, this was never meant to happen. Whoever was running TeacherEd gets my thanks for a good show! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a Bible test; it's a Conservapedia values test.

• 7. What languages is the original Bible written in?—Actually, Hebrew, Greek, and a tiny bit of Aramaic.
• 8. What is the best way to achieve an accurate Biblical translation?—Um, maybe ask a group of Bible scholars who actually know ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, rather than just trying to rewrite an existing (and flawed) translation?
• 23. Based on a literal Biblical analysis of genealogies, the creation of the world took place approximately when?—Well, no scientist that I know of would date the creation of the world "13 billion years ago". (Perhaps TeacherEd meant "universe".) However, if one actually takes the Bible wholly literally—without reading one's "conservative" values into it—it's quite reasonable to accept the creation of the universe 13 billion years ago.

I find it very telling that Andrew Schlafly would not debate me. These people know how weak their positions are. Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy will never debate anyone. Despite being a lawyer, he likely knows how bad he is at it. He once stated on CP that he would debate anyone, and when several people took him up on it he insisted they put down a substantial cash deposit first. The man is a worthless shitsack. DickTurpis (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking people to put down a cash deposit before you'll debate them? That's actually funny. Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read this somewhere on here before but never seen evidence. I believe it was either Trent or Ace that made the offer and was rebuffed (or were there more?) In any case, a) this should be documented more clearly, and b) now there's a RW foundation, perhaps it would consider "sponsoring" a debate? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It was Ames, quite some time ago. He even offered to do it at the Conservapedia Gala, when the venue would already be available. There might still be diffs, but it was probably on Andy's talkpage, which has been nuked multiple times. DickTurpis (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, didn't we save that bit somewhere? It was one of my favorite examples of extreme moving the goalpost. At first Andy went "Evolutionists never want to debate cause they know they always lose!", to which Ames replied he would be more than happy to debate Andy. So then Andy insisted that Ames would arrange a location, because it suddenly couldn't be done online. And then Andy insisted Ames would arrange an audience, since that's "the way formal debates work". And THEN he started to insist Ames put down a fat cash deposit.. because.. fair debates are decided by money? It was obvious from the start that Andy was way too scared to do the debate, the scrambling to put up hurdles was so pathetic it was funny. GTac (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy's "debate"

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I found the incident^img on Andy's talk page on Conservapedia. It is utterly hilarious. "I'd be happy to debate any evolutionist and/or atheist and/or liberal, including PZ Myers"—is that an example of deceit? Thomas Larsen (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's more an example of Andy being a gutless weasel when faced with reality. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 11:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for finding that, Thomas! I love it, Ames went along with Andy's ridiculous requests and suggested even coming to Andy's Conservapedia's Conference and debate in front of a hostile crowd and Andy's response is that Ames should somehow gather 150 verified people and idiotically questions why a student can't afford a down payment if he has a student loan, while his goons ban Ames. GTac (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclicals to Conservative

I don't see much of Ken's stuff anymore, thanks to the filter, but I see he's deleting things called "hoji to conservative" in typical cowardly style. Is this our old Hoji and has anybody managed to screencap these encyclicals? --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not missing much; I will say lately he has been desperately trying to get our attention again. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pot/Kettle WIGO

I don't understand how CP is the "pot calling the kettle black". The only thing they called anyone was "radicals, communists, and those with ties to terrorists", which CP isn't. And CP didn't call anyone Hitler, they merely pointed out that some attendee at this conference compared the Tea Party to Hitler. Can someone explain this one to me? Am I missing out on hilarity? --Benod (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It was my first WIGO, and kinda sucked. Sorry. What I was trying to say was that CP was being hypocritical when they wrote "among the group were those who compared the Tea Party movement to Hitler" as if to say "How could anyone compare someone to Hitler?! That totally crosses a line!!" Because, really, who here hasn't been compared to Hitler by CP at some point (i.e., liberals, atheists, people who believe in science, etc..)? Anyways, sorry for the terrible WIGO. I'll sleep on the driveway tonight in penance.Carlaugust (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

On the existence of the Government class

This is interesting. We have two plausible scenarios here: the course exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, and these students and exams exist only in Andy's head, then he's even more unhinged than I thought. And that's pretty fucking unhinged. I think these hypotheses should be examined.

• Sceanrio #1: The class exists: We know he's taught classes without CP before (prior to its existence), so he could easily have returned to that model. It would make some sense; students weren't using CP for anything except submitting homeworks anyway, and that could be done just as easily without CP. Possibly a parent complained about the public posting of work (who knows, maybe even pointing out mockery on this very site), or maybe Andy came to the conclusion on his own that CP gained nothing from association with his class and vice versa (this is giving him too much credit). Andy, who has probably never written down lectures before, just ranting about whatever came to his mind (and when you're teaching material at the level of Schoolhouse Rock it isn't hard), saw no reason to take the time to write them out for posting on CP when there were no students outside of class anyway. The course, after 2 lectures, therefore disappears from CP. The final exam comes along, and since Andy had to write it out anyway, he posts it on CP, giving him an outlet to brag about how great his students are and again trumpet his huge class. Posting only the scores, without showing names or answers, preserves any privacy issues.

• Scenario #2: The class doesn't exist: we've known for a long time that a bunch of Andy's students have been online only, often consisting of numerous parodists. He announces his class ("Biggest in the World!") based on apparent enrollment, including these online parodists. The class fizzles. Either his actual, in-class students drop quickly, or he never had many to begin with. It could be he lost interest, but it seems that hasn't happened before, and that would presumably mean returning enrollment fees for those students who did actually sign up, which I can't see him doing. Final exam time comes along, and, his ego being unable to handle this miserable failure of his world's largest class, has to put up some window dressing. A Weekend at Bernie's-like scenario ensues, Andy pretends his dead class is still alive, making up scores (which suspiciously get progressively higher).

I think the first scenario is more likely. The exact reason why the class would disappear from CP is uncertain, but not entirely relevant. If he even had 5 students, I think he'd keep the class going. It's very little work on his part, and that still over $1000. Hell, he'd probably suddenly start touting the benefits of small classes. If there is no class, he wrote an exam for no one to take (extra work I can't see him doing), and made up 50 students. Complete fabrication of this sort seems out of character for Andy. His lies are weird delusional twists of facts and logic on their heads, not making up fictitious people out of the blue. And for the benefit of whom? Not us. I don't think he ever looks at this site (and it's doubtful his ego could handle doing so). For the sysops? We know they don't care about anything other than their pet projects and the little power they have. For parents of his students: If this scenario is true, there aren't any. For future potential students? No one reads CP, though he probably doesn't realize this entirely. For himself? If so his neuroses are turning into psychoses.

Additionally, completely made up scores I would expect to be higher. More 40s and high 30s, and little to nothing below. The progression of a slew of high scores at the tail end could be explained by Andy knowing who his best students are and grading them last (trying to build us suspense for his tell-tale audience, to get the less-advanced ones out of the way early, or for some other reason) or because those are ones e-mailed in (he never says they all are, some were possibly done in class) and they had the advantage of being able to look up answers. That there are 51 sets of parents in this one area of NJ who are naive enough to send their children to Andy Schlafly expecting an education seems far fetched, but no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. I'd wager there is a class, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it. DickTurpis (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's likely the class exists. Andy may have a lot of character flaws, but he does not strike me as the type to create an elaborate deception to create the illusion that the class exists (unless he's finally cracked up.) MDB (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there probably is a class, but I think he's overstating it on CP. The exam results in particular seem fabricated. It's possible that he's grading them in order based on his judgement of their ability, but there would still be some variation and anomalies - what if an average student tried hard, or a great student didn't study a few things? It's an easy 40 question multiple choice test - it's not like one needs lashings of talent to get a top score. It seems like he's given up on CP as a resource with which to teach homeschoolers. I find it suspicious that, despite the "world's largest class", not one of them has signed up to CP. I can't see Andy neglecting to mention his pet project of four years to the very people it was made for, unless he made a conscious decision not to. What we really need is for Phyllis, TimS or even Kettleticket(?) to give us an update. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Even I have to admit his class probably does exist, as fun as it is to speculate otherwise. But you do have to wonder at the sort of people he is signing up. Families who homskoll tend to be in some sense weird, but it seems little short of a miracle to find 50 families who want their kids to learn Andy's particular brand of crazy, all within a reasonable distance from the Assfly's pad.

Combine the sheer horror of the course material with the the fact that his last couple of courses have petered out online after the first couple of lectures, and it certainly does leave room to speculate. How hard is it really to copy and paste the course material in to the wiki? He seems to be writing it online, does he just get bored at some point and decide to do it only offline? You'd expect after a few years doing this, you'd have a more systematic approach to preparing your lectures. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ketklekiktkt has an uncanny ability to pop in when someone mentions his name. Let's wait and see. Occasionaluse (talk)

I'm sure Andy does mention his pet project to his students, but that doesn't mean they're signing up, particularly now that they've thrown up so many barriers. A bunch probably use it irregularly for homework assignments or whatever but don't register accounts, a bunch probably don't care and/or are smart enough to see what unadulterated shit the site is, some probably tried and got banned by the usual crew. I'm sure a good portion of the class is only there because their parents force them to go. I think the only reason many signed up on CP in the first place was because he made contributions part of the homework. He's probably stopped that. Also, CP's freshman class would have seen it as their own thing of their creation, greatly increasing the likelihood of their participation. That can't be said of a group 3 years on. As for copy/pasting lectures, I bet Andy doesn't write them out. The stuff he teaches is generally so basic he can just drone on in his monotonous Bert voice without much planning. I bet he gets discussions going, getting his students to go off on what they hate the most about liberals and whatnot, next thing you know the hour's up and the students have a basic idea of what the Senate is. Writing out lectures ahead of time takes time and effort. Why would Andy bother? He gets paid the same either way. DickTurpis (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and let's try something: kettleticketkettleticketkettleticket!

Any sign of him? DickTurpis (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I also used to think that Andy making all of this up would be too weird even by his standards. But then I grew suspicious when the strange delays started - from the second lecture onwards, they were never posted on schedule, first he claimed that there was a one-week break, then a two-week break, deadlines were ignored, then he eventually posted a copy-and-paste job of an existing version. The third lecture remains a stub, and nothing was posted ever since. At any point, he could've said that he had to stop putting the materials up on CP because parents complained, it was too much of hassle or whatever, and I would've believed him. But he never made any distiction between the on- and alleged offline parts of this course, and he insisted that it was continuing. But he never posted any additional material, so I was convinced that the course had simply died due to lack of interest and we would hear no more of it. Then, he suddenly announces the final exam and begins to draw up a list of "key concepts" that remains 80% unfinished on the eve of this supposed exam. He claims that "we're" developing the list and engages in transparent sockpuppetry to make it seem like students are helping out. He posts a ridiculous exam (that, admittedly, must've taken at least him some effort) and starts his strange liveblogging of his grading. The results are extremely unevenly distributed, and I refuse to believe that any sentient being could've scored below thirty on that joke of a test, especially with access to all relevant information at home. So, that's my take, that's the story how I remember it - and apologies for not posting the relevant difflinks, I might include them tomorrow. But I think all of the evidence points to a grand deception on Andy's part. I guess he ran out of homeschoolers because, come on, we're not the only ones who think he's crazy. RW has been pointing out his idiocy for years, and anybody googling this prospective teacher would've stumbled upon our articles. Even diehard conservative/religious wingnuts have parted company with him over his idiosyncratic "conservatism" and forays into theology, especially the CBP. They might care more about indoctrination than real education, but even they would've chosen a teacher who's not such a transparent egomaniac. Röstigraben (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Agree with Rösti. Andy's class does not exist. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder why Andy's marriage does. He's not intelligent. He's not successful. He's not respected, neither by his professional peers nor by the public at large, nor even any longer by his fellow cranks. He's not creative. He's not physically attractive. He's not charismatic. He's almost certainly not a respectful partner, judging by his seventeenth-century opinions on women and their intellect, or lack thereof. He's not organized or practical or dependable, what with his where-are-my-meds-again attention span. Why would a woman smart enough to be a doctor put up with a clown like that? Is it mommy's money, or what? Hateboy (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can attribute the "breaks" to the transition from an in-person/online course to a solely in-person one. I don't know if the first break was a break in the class or him being lazy about posting. Doesn't much matter. After that he's merely replying to the one and only CPer who expressed any interest in his course, assuring him lectures were forthcoming (he might even suspect he's dealing with a parodist here). This is classic Andy refusing to admit anything might be amiss. He's not going to say that the class is no longer being offered to online students, because that would be admitting some sort of defeat. He just does a "yeah I'll get back to you on that" and lets the matter rest. Doesn't mean there isn't still a class of slightly dim homeschoolers meeting once a week. Not sure why he made the User:Class account, but I wouldn't really call it sockpuppetry; it's not like he's making first name/last initial accounts for fictitious students. The abandonment of "key terms" is hardly surprising, given that there are no online students. The only question is why he bothered bringing any part of the class back to CP at all in the end. Likewise I wouldn't make much of uneven distribution of scores. Grades don't need to form a bell curve. Of course, I could be wrong, and the class could be completely made up, but I don't see anything that suggesting anything other than an attempt at a stealthy retreat from the online aspect. He wouldn't come out and say "I'm taking this class offline because the only students CP attracts are parodists" or "...because I had complaints from a parent." No, he'd just say "Oh yeah, still the world's biggest class! I'm sure I'll get more stuff posted online before long!" Anyone who pressed him too much about the lack of online material would certainly be banned by TK or Karajou for being argumentative.

Also, Andy has been doing this for quite a few years apparently, and has probably built up a reputation among certain types of people as a good teacher ("good" as in "completely reinforces our core beliefs and doesn't bring in any of that liberal claptrap"). Such people, even if they found our article on Andy (which most wouldn't look for, I'd wager), wouldn't pay any mind to it. Remember, these are people who dismiss anything that contradicts their preconceived notions, no matter what the evidence, as liberal propaganda. RW will not sway them.

As for Andy's marriage, well, I doubt Mrs. Schlafly is exactly a great catch. I don't see how anyone who'd marry Andy would be. Think about all the unpleasant, unintelligent, unattractive people there are in this country, and yet the vast majority are married by a certain age. It's hardly remarkable that Andy found a partner. He apparently brings home to bacon, and has two rather impressive degrees. The wife being a doctor doesn't mean much. Terry Hurlbut is a doctor for chrissakes. DickTurpis (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Andy's personal life, I really don't think you can extrapolate from his CP persona to his real life persona. I know, for example, that I am utterly different in real life than I am on the internet (for one, on the internet I'm incessantly talkative whereas in real life I can go for days without saying a word). For all we know, outside of CP, outside of "the public", he could be a nice guy. He's got some extremist views on many things but, seriously, how often would that come up in day to day conversation compared to how much they come up on CP? I'm fully aware that, again for example, my grandparents have some fairly racist views (as is their wont, I guess, for their age bracket) that don't really surface much in real life, but if they had their own CP? Probably. Anyway basically what I'm saying is I'm not at all fond of making assumptions about Andy's personal life, especially his marriage and children, based on his actions on CP. X Stickman (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. However, in Andy's case, it really seems that he cannot separate the personal from the political, but I guess I could be wrong, and maybe in day-to-day life he's a much different person unless you bring up politics. I only mention his private life because it was brought up by someone else, but I stand by my point that even the people with no discernible positive traits seems to have no trouble getting married (at least once) so it's not exactly a shocker that Andy has. Hell, I bet if I had made it a high priority even I could be married by now. Well, that might be a bit over the top. DickTurpis (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of interest in the course from CP editors was the reason for the delays and eventual abandoning of the online lectures - it would've been way too much effort for something that doesn't earn Andy money and that no one cares about. But then I still wonder why he didn't say that the RL class was on schedule, while the online portion would be stopped - by insisting that the two would continue in tandem, he set himself up for a situation where he would either have to put in a substantial effort online or risk raising questions about the state of the offline class. OK, stupidity and stubbornness could explain that one as well, but the sheer number of strange occurences and claims that just don't fit the usual model of his classes made the whole thing look extremely suspicious. We'll probably never know what actually happened, but the fact that this class has provoked essay-length analyses about its existence doesn't make the future of Schlafly Homeschooling look very bright. Röstigraben (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying the online portion of the class would be suspended would be admitting it failed, and Andy Schlafly is never wrong and never fails. That's why Conservapedia has almost overtaken Wikipedia as the go-to source for online information, why the Supreme Court is about to overturn the New Jersey recall ruling, and why liberalism in the USA is gasping its dying breath. As for the future, well, his classes existed before CP and they will probably go on without the affiliation, I'm sad to say. I don't know where these people come from but it seems he gets a pretty decent turn out for the classes that actually get off the ground (still waiting for Critical Thinking in Math, and I guess the writing course did fizzle out). The Conservapedia on the Hour youtube video shows a lot of kids, and though someone (Nutty?) pointed out how easy it is to manipulate crowd sizes by bringing in non-affiliated people to stand in the background, if even half of them are students of some sort he's got a class of kids. I guess the question is can he keep it up once the current group of students and their siblings and whatnot are out of high school, or has he shot his proverbial wad and taught all the wingnuts in New Jersey by now? Without the CP connection we may never know. DickTurpis (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is it for the online courses, at least, which is a great pity. The World History Course was the source of much amusement, if I remember correctly. What really surprises me about this online Government Course debacle is that the cover-up was so half-arsed. From what I can tell, there are full lectures from two previous Government courses on the site, so why didn't he just copy and paste those up? It's really erratic - he makes a few lectures, then can't be arsed to even copy-paste the rest, then goes silent for a few weeks, then adds a few key terms via a 'class' account, then a completely new test! What we really need is someone on the ground to tell us WTF is going on; ideally TimS, because although his relationship with Andy might not be so great anymore, he probably knows some of the kids in the class. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy is a lot nicer in a social setting, especially with like-minded people. His online character has changed over the period I've been following CP and I think that being challenged about his views has made him more recalcitrant. His daughter is apparently quite pretty so I would guess that his wife was also when they first met. As a Harvard law student and being the son of a prominent wealthy Republican activist he might have seemed like a reasonable catch for her at the time. I don't know what to make of his American Government course - it all seems quite bizarre. I think that he may have given up on CP as an "educational" resource but finds it useful for blogging his political views, so he's not worried about the closure to new editors and having the goon squad around gives the veneer of CP being an active site. By maintaining the "educational" facade he can probably write the site costs against tax.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Lily's probably right... as a Harvard law student and heir to a decent fortune he must have seemed like a reasonable proposition, come to think of it. I just wonder how she feels about her decision with the benefit of hindsight. Hateboy (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

with child, pregnant, abortion , jesus , what ?

Help out a poor old rodent , and explain this to me please ?

Unreported by the media, the new NIV translation quietly replaced "with child" by "pregnant" in Matthew 1:18, perhaps to appease supporters of abortion. The unborn child was Jesus.

does someone think people dont know what pregnant means ? Hamster (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Best I could figure, Andy thinks that the changing of "with child" to "pregnant" is a pro-abortion thing because the phrase with child indicates that there is a child inside you, rather than pregnant, which is a much more sterile, medical term. Apparently in Andy-world, the phrase with child indicates acknowledgment that a fetus is exactly the same a three year old. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 10:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What I found interesting is Andy's idea that the media should remotely care, or possibly worse still, they're conducting a conspiracy of silence for the sake of abortion, (which with his Christian persecution complex is more likely what he believes). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I'm never keen to agree with Andy, I do think that "with child" is a far better phrase; it makes clear the duality of the state in a few, elegant words. "Pregnant", by contrast, is ugly and overly technical. Why Count Sevens? (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand "with child" is archaic and obsolete - when I go shopping with my son I'm "with child" but I'm not pregnant. Furthermore the ugliness of "pregnant" is in the eye of the beholder and is in no way technical. So, sorry, I completely disagree. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the real joke was that the CBP translation also used 'pregnant' rather than 'with child'. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"With child" is archaic, but so it the Bible, so it fits. One could argue it's more poetic than "pregnant", but considering the CBP destroyed the prose an all other occasions Andy can't complain about that. I like how he thinks this should be some major news story that the liberal media is engaging in a conspiracy of silence over. Is the man that delusional? (Yes. He is.) DickTurpis (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm speaking from ignorance here, but I wonder if "with child" is in any way a Greek idiom originally. The very literal NASB and ESV both use the archaic sounding phrase. The word "pregnant" is to me the most neutral, and I think the fact that people consider it rude or ugly has more to do with our society's dim view of intimate female things, than with the word itself. That's why we've got so many euphemisms for it - "preggers" and so forth. Bluefish (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When one is so paranoid, it is easy to see conspiracy where none exists. Regardless of the attractiveness and poetry of the two terms, surely nobody would argue that the bible saying, "a pregnant woman" instead of, "a woman with child," would change a single person's view of abortion? Doesn't even seem like a slight change in meaning. ^EXTERMINATE 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know, I can see where Andy's coming from. The word "pregnant" makes me want to rip fetuses out of women with my teeth, while "with child" makes me want to bomb an abortion clinic.

On a more technical note, the original Greek word in question is ἐγκύῳ, which I think I could see the argument for each side. However, I've always thought that in the case of a Greek-translation tie, the tiebreaker should be the Vulgate, which uses the word "praegnate". Now, I've seen some (non-Biblican) works that use "with child" for "praegnate", which is functionally correct (because, let's be honest, "pregnant" and "with child" mean the same damn thing in this context), but I feel it is more appropriate to use "pregnant", as it is the modern English word closest to the Vulgate Latin. Just my two cents. Carlaugust (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

EddyP above points out the most hysterical thing about this, which is that Conservapedia changed 'with child' to pregnant in their Bible translations. I really do find public buffoonery to be entertaining, and here we have our CP tards complaining about a translation that they themselves did for the ConservaBible. --Leotardo (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It’s all part of Andy’s bizarre obsession with that bastard child of improperly assertive womanhood and professorial values, the “Feminist Bible”, and a new addition to his list of NIV renderings which “kow-tow to feminist ideology, and promote acceptance of abortion.” His selection is, of course, characteristically clueless, self-defeating and, to put it mildly, lacking in candour. Abortion is not remotely an issue in any of the instances he cites: indeed, two (Ruth 1:11 and Psalm 78:6) refer to children who are not so much unborn as unconceived – and probably inconceivable in the first of these cases. He appears to think that the phrase “fruit of your womb” in Luke 1:42, potentially puzzling for a modern audience, is a more explicit reference to the unborn Jesus than “the child you will bear”, and disingenuously fails to mention that the modern NIV follows this up two verses later with an unabashed, “As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” Tylersboy (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I find "pregnant" ugly has nothing to do with "disliking things female"; it's because its a harsh, Latinate word with lots of hard sounds and it makes no mention of the child, likening it to a simple state of the woman. "She is pregnant" is akin to "She is cold" or "he is angry". "With child", by contrast, is poetic, pleasant and encapsulates the duality of the state in only two words. Why Count Sevens? (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with much of that. The only trouble is that nobody nowadays would say "I am with child" and expect to be taken seriously. Sadly, therefore, if you're going to produce a modern, "relevant" translation you're going to have to opt for a more prosaic alternative - something Andy either cannot or will not see. Tylersboy (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, the better question is: Why is God so damned lazy that he can't help out of the translation of his ONLY communication to us? What God should have done is have his prophets translate a copy to English, and then said "Now, I know this is all gibberish to you, but trust me; in 2000 years, this is going to blow peoples minds off."Carlaugust (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's us, not the Lord, that wants to preserve the Bible? The Lord is quite capable of communicating with his people on his own; he doesn't need the Bible (which is 90% history and only about 10% teaching anyway), to do so.Why Count Sevens? (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters, the whole reason the thing ended up as 'with child' is because even as little as 60 years ago it was considered extremely crude, at least in the UK, to refer to a woman as being pregnant. Animals got pregnant, women were 'with child'. It's also why the word 'git' or 'get' (both the same word, just pronounced differently in different dialects) is considered an insult, albeit a gentle one these days. Get/git was the word used for the offspring of an animal, so referring to someone as a git means that you're referring to them as an animal, not a human. Following on from that, it's why Anne McCaffrey's anthology of short stories is called 'Get off the Unicorn'. The publisher didn't understand the term 'Get of the Unicorn' and corrected what he thought was a mistake.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I stand by "with child" as a far better way of expressing the idea. (But since Latin is supposed to be cold, precise and technical, and Greek flowery and poetic, that's no surprise.) Why Count Sevens? (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely more poetic, but technically inaccurate. "Pregnancy" is unambiguous, and therefore much better at expressing the idea. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is, in fact, very bad at expressing the idea, because it reduces it to a state of one being which it is not. It is, in fact, a state of two beings (and you don't need to be pro-life to see that). The elegance of the phrase is an added bonus. Why Count Sevens? (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm sorry to have immediately embroiled myself in an argument of my own making within about thirty seconds of arriving on-site. I'm not usually this...argumentative. Why Count Sevens? (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is, in fact, unequivocal in it's superiority. "With child" can mean many things due in part to its poetic nature. "Pregnant" means only one thing, which happens to be exactly what we're talking about. Don't worry about the arguing, it's a great time-killer. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To go back to ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom}'s post: I'm not a philologist and don't have access to a complete OED just now, but I do (respectfully) wonder about it. I would have thought that the phrase "with child" dropped out of everyday usage a lot longer than sixty years ago, and the translators of the KJV, who used it a good deal, seem to have been plain speakers by and large. "Pregnant" has, certainly, been thought distressingly indelicate by some. But haven't they tended to replace it with coy euphemisms like "expecting" or "in the family way" rather than anything so direct as "with child"? Tylersboy (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing: "Pregnant" can be used in a number of situations: pregnant pauses, pregnant with promise and so on. Saying "[x] was with child" seems at least as unambiguous to me. If the phrase was meant to indicate the presence of a toddler, one would say "[x] was with a child" or "her" child. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be a stickler, "pregnant with child" would be the most unambiguous. Technically, "with child" would be the most ambiguous because the article isn't really necessary, is it? EDIT: apparently, it is. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, sorry, confusion between two points. The writers of KJV would have used the euphemism 'with child' because referring to someone as pregnant would have been both crude, insulting and, in the context, blasphemous, and then there was a separate but related point that that state of affairs carried on even as close as 50/60 years ago where, yes, euphemisms existed such as 'expecting a child' which became shortened to 'expecting'. 'In the family way', however, was also considered quite a crude way to refer to it, but was quite common as an expression amongst working-class men, and men of any class of that time, and previously, certainly wouldn't have used the term pregnant as it would have been seen as a female issue (much in the same way that the very small number of men who knew about periods would certainly have never referred to it, even by euphemism).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the context of now of course it doesn't really matter if the new translations of the bibble use the term 'pregnent', 'with child', 'expecting', 'knocked up', or 'up the duff'. It really does mean all the same thing, and none of them carry any connotations beyond the fact that during the nine months your baby is going to be using your body in the same way that the xenomorph did to John Hurt.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

. . . . though emerging somewhat less catastrophically, one hopes. But thanks for the clarification/exposition. Tylersboy (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is like xkcd for wingnuts

AiG has a comic on this. - π 09:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. They forgot a few, though... "parasite", "infection", "alien from outer space", and the more obvious "pussy". Convertible (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to laugh. At the top of the AiG website, they have a bar for yearly donations to 'help support their apologetics-based curriculum'. It currently stands at $88,846. What was their target for the year? $500,000. Any bets as to whether they're gonna make it? 86.161.47.217 (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Teacher Ed blocked

Ken finally blocked him, deleted his user page and his bible test. What is a bit weird is that just half an hour before Andy marked his government test, and congratulated him for his high mark. It would be interesting if Andy unblock him and restore his contributions. --Tlaloc (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No doubt because Kenny reads this talk page; TeacherEd is the most interesting story on CP right now. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Andy's removed Ed from the scoring - there's an edit headed "account was blocked" but it's been oversighted. TeacherEd is officially an unperson now. --Ψ GremlinTala! 09:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Blog about it! Blog about it! - π 09:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn shame. Anyway, if TeacherEd was someone from here, stand up and take a bow, that was some brilliant parody. Röstigraben (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth TeacherEd appealing - Andy was quite taken with him. After all, blocking someone on the say-so of RW isn't very sensible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We've been pointing out his parody for months, and nothing happened until now. I guess someone got Andy to sign off on a block in PM, as he immediately retracted his offer to grade Ed's answers. And Ken lacks the stature to unilaterally block someone who's still in Andy's good graces. Röstigraben (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would, but my brain blog is on holiday until the New Year. Tomorrow I'm off scuba diving along the Mozambique coast for a week. CP will just have to reserve its insanity until I get back. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 10:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozambique is a great song. PS, fuck you for enjoying life!Convertible (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong?

When I try to access Conservapedia, I receive the following message:

"Forbidden You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. "

Maybe some of you brainy guys can explain? I've never had problems before. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. -- Nx / talk 11:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh.... but they are brainless pigs! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be posted everytime someone cant get in? I never seem to have a problem, but when I do I just play Playstation for an hour or two untill it works again.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of "wait a few minutes/hours" anymore, at least not for some of us. CP is blacklisting entire IP ranges, potentially aiming for RW members. --Sid (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, they are blocking entire IP ranges from simply viewing the site instead of blocking account creation from those areas? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. For example, I tried five IPs from my ISP now (each from a different /24 block, so that only the first two numbers of the IP remained the same) and they were all 403-blocked (which makes me believe that my entire /16 block is down for the count). --Sid (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually - it is the Internet itself blocking access to Conservapedia, having achieved sufficient sentience to recognise CP and AS for what they are. (Much as the glitches on the Hadron Large Collider were attributed to futureHLC attempting to alter history to prevent itself going live). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, not only was that the funniest comment on this page, it was then the second funniest as well. You win seven internets, um, "82" person. Convertible (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I like theories involving time travel! =O --Sid (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. How long before Schwarzenegger shows up in his birthday suit trying to kill me? --Thunderstruck (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

403 blockade…

seems to have been lifted. Either that or I've found the one Virgin IP address that hasn't been blocked yet.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Merry Christmas (war is over.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been lifted, I got a static IP and I can access Andy's blog again. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, lifted. I emailed the Zoho account, and got a snarky reply from Karajou, and it was lifted a couple of hours later. ^EXTERMINATE 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Can read Conservapedia from my unproxified home IP address again. Hateboy (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ur... Not me though. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken reaching new levels

Glad to see him pushing the envelope. Obese gay atheist syndrome, anyone? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Link sorta blank now. Use diff next time? Convertible (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Atheism does what to my bowels now? I hope it doesn't involve the loss of sphincter control at awkward moments. I'd have to believe in Quetzalcoatl then. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I just feel sorry for JPatt; imagine having this crap dumped on you on Christmas Eve. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. It's like a kid painting an ugly picture on the wall in shit and calling you into the room for approval. Or some weirdo showing you his dick. Ugh. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, that sounds like your talk page!Convertible (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it was, it's gone now. I take it Ken was crapping on someone's page again? Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 01:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Some weird stuff about how atheists were obese and had bowel problems, so yes, literally about shit. It has been since deleted, memory-holed, and replaced by the usual inanity^img, which was itself later removed. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy going large on the Solstice Cheer

I know we're not WIGOing spelling errors, but when His Schlafliness manages to type "wolofu" instead of "wikify"^img, you have to assume that the season's celebrations have started early in New Jersey. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Aww, I wish you wouldn't have pointed it out so that I could have come across his spelling error on my own and ponder for hours what in the world Andy meant by saying "wolofu". ~SuperHamster Talk 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe this is the latest Conservative Word? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Or that he just shifted his fingers right 1 key. just a typo

And doesn't read what he's typing. This is obvious, of course, because otherwise he'd never post anything. Vulpius (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

From now on I shall never wikify another article. From here on out it's all wolofu. DickTurpis (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It still facinates me why people look at neither the keyboard nor the screen when they type. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's cold again!

And another edition of "It's cold, so climate change is wrong". Slowly, it's getting boring. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Very boring indeed. It's not even about record-low temperatures anymore. It's gone from "Look at the record-low temperatures!" to just "Look! It's cold!" ~SuperHamster Talk 02:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Exploiting the suffering and misfortune of others to make a cheap political point? On Christmas? Classy, Andy. --Sid (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that article Andy linked have nothing to do with the European flight chaos? Vulpius (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just you. AS is clueless, I guess?Convertible (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey, in July 2010, recorded a mean temperature of 78.6 degrees F. The normal for July is 74.1, and is the highest mean temperature recorded since 1895. Perhaps he forgets. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 03:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk&feature=youtube_gdata_player Matt 04:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

His quips about global warming being wrong because during some week in some geographical location on the globe it was particularly cold had become boring quite a while before this winter. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I love how shocked Andy is that it's cold in Scandinavia in December. He's the sort of person who, if they worked as the lead programming director for CNN, would devote an entire day's programming to discussing that story. This could be the champagne talking though. – Nick Heer 07:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I picture it being sherry in the Schlafly household.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Drunk off his ass on three cans of near-beer. --Kels (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy^img and Karajou^img wish us a merry Christmas with more of the same. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

After Karajou doesn't understand a pun - he follows the dear leader. Wake me up when they got something new. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

News

Hi. My humble honest opinion: WIGO should show only true examples of idiocy, hypocrisy, bigotry and ignorance. Counting typographical errors (everyone makes them) will only reduce seriousness of this page and will make you look just slightly better than ordinary internet trolls. -- A Wikipedia sysop 212.200.166.39 (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if it was just a typo, but it wasn't. The man who said "I do teaching writing" and claims to be intelligent enough to teach the language to children consciously made a decision to change the spelling from English to something made up out of pure ignorant hubris. He's now in the same league as his favourite enemy of intelligence and English, Sarah Palin. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO typos are only notable in the context of him criticizing someone else for typos. I can't understand how that WIGO got so many votes. Examples of him mangling grammar, on the other hand, are always notable. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that could happened to you if you are careless enough. I was worried what would you like in eyes of those who still didn't choose whom they will believe. Shaflay and his fellow zealots will entertain enlighten us with more sophisticate examples of stupidity. --212.200.166.39 (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is only relevant in the fact Andy often and repetitively uses criticism of the other person's minor grammar mistakes as a reason to dismiss their arguments completely in a debate. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but newcomers don't know that Andy does such lame things and You might look like a jobless punks that are happy to see that someone made even smallest mistake. --212.200.166.39 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with BON on this point and as it applies to TK and Ken. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Schlalfy's grammar manglings and typos are a bit passé now. They might be added to the relevant section on our Andy Schlafly page to reinforce his hypocrisy but are not really WIGO material unless part of a longer entry where he is using poor English as a reason to dismiss another editor.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that almost everything is getting passé. TK and Ken are already off-limits for WIGOs. Andy's spelling and grammar look like going the same way. Many of his regular idiocies will be next ("I feel a bit chilly therefore global warming is wrong"; "I, a conservative, used a word, therefore it's a conservative word", and so on). It's getting more and more difficult to find anything genuinely worth WIGOing. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Until Schlafly pulls the plug there will always be things worth WIGOing, just not this pedestrian shit and not at the frequency we're used to. He's a really strange guy who can't help himself from having insights but it seems clear he's losing interest in using CP the way he used to. In proper form Andy will continue to be a lot more interesting than the ramblings of an obviously insane fundie, copypasta from an angry nobody, angry jibbering from whatever JPatt is, and the excruciating trolling of a sickeningly hypocritical performance artist. But we're going to just have to get used to the fact that the crazy is a lot more diffuse these days. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the short lifespans of Andy's various pet projects, it's a miracle that he still keeps CP going TBH. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

These days Andy seems to use CP as little more then a glorified feed aggregator and he is possibly the most interesting of the glorious five, the rest are simply boring. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If the swabbie keeps up the BattleWiki, he's about to earn himself a spot on my CP filter. I miss TK :( Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think TK is working behind the scenes to destroy CP these days. I'm sure this whole 403 blocking ranges of IPs from even viewing was his idea. The sheer stupidity of trying to counter us by not letting us view while we have proxies boggles the mind. All this does is make it so casual visitors think their site it broken. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:212.200.166.39 is right. RW doesn't want to be among the "ordinary internet trolls", RW is among the elite. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You sure your little buddy Terry gave you permission to say that? He's the best. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeebus. You feeling okay there Rob? That post was actually on topic. As fucking inaccurate as ever, but on topic.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But is Obama a commie, Rob? You didn't mention it and now I don't know! Vulpius (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, where do you think conservapedia is? Senator Harrison (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no no no no no, Conservapedia is different, its free from Liberal Bias. As well as non sysop editors, facts, references, correct spelling, and correct grammar. But hey, at least they have that translated bible. --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And viewers. You forgot to mention that they are free of those pesky viewers as well.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we are watching them. Always watching. Hey, rob, why not tell andy that his precious page views come from us laughing at you. --Thunderstruck (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

the great thing about Rob is that if you speak in his language, you'll get a straight answer. Evidence here..... I respond with a complete not sequitar, pure and unadultered verbal garbage but to Rob it makes perfect sense, he doesn't even comment on my gibberish, it all makes sense to the master of vomit words. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 06:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

kiss my ace, Ass. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Deceit?

Off mission but interesting? Him (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Link deleted -- Nx / talk 07:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You should read the bit about private affairs on your user page. It's neat. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, stalking is not interesting or commendable. Anyone want to oversight this? --Kels (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

FFS, if you want to oversight it, you have to delete the link immediately, not 50 revisions later. Now I have to oversight all your comments. -- Nx / talk 07:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never done it and am not terribly sure about the method, sorry. --Kels (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - That's what I thought but I was fascinated. Him (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say exactly stalking if we only put the summary of it in the article though. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong disagree. It's sticking your nose into someone's personal life where it REALLY doesn't belong. On the same level as looking up Andy's marriage certificate, it's actually pretty creepy. --Kels (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of like If we put "Andy is married" on the article -- what do you put as reference? I believe it is somewhat important to show he is NOT a confirmed bachelor. In Roger's case perhaps we can simplify to "He lost money in a civil case with his former wife", although that sounds a bit like gossip. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it important? Was it a burning question before this was dug up? Who the hell cares if he had an ex, is it somehow relevant to his views on physics or the Trail of Tears? --Kels (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The hide revisions extension is too hard to use and requires quick fingers. Can we install something more like oversight that lets you nuke a single diff? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's been discussed before (somewhere) and rejected. The problem with oversight is that it's very difficult to get things back if anybody makes a mistake. The two methods we have are fine as long as people realise what needs to be done to use them successfully. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, oversight similarly requires you to delete the link quickly. You can't nuke a single diff because mediawiki does not store diffs. It stores revisions, and diffs are generated on the fly. The solution is LiquidThreads (yeah, I know, I'm getting boring with that) -- Nx / talk 19:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was TeacherEd

Hi folks. It's me, "Father Joseph" (remember me from CP last year?). I was also the TeacherEd account on CP. Was a little dismayed to find myself blocked on there this morning. I guess they finally convinced Andy that I must be a parodist. I am guessing the posts on RW contributed to that, but I certainly don't mind. I will hopefully manage to weasel my way back onto CP with another account in the future somehow. Anyway, if you have any specific questions about my CP activities, feel free to ask and I'll answer. --FatherJoseph (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy shave, trim, or go full bush? It's really the only remaining question, everything else is just ass-hair.Convertible (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you're giving up on the account a little early. Do you have inside info that TeacherEd had already been irrevocably permabanned? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

TeacherEd just unblocked^img by DouglasA, saying no reason given. --MarkGall (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Parodists gotta look out for each other. Though I fear that Douglas is giving himself away a bit too much on this one. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So I was apparently unblocked, and ASchlafly was fine with it (he graded my homework), so I am back on CP, at least for now. As soon as someone on there reads this on RW though, they'll permablock me (I tried suppressing this section, but since that got reverted, I guess you want to keep it out in the open - that's your prerogative.) --FatherJoseph (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love Andy's reaction. "Ken blocked him? No point in marking his homework then. What, he's been unblocked? Best get marking." It's the way that he doesn't decide for himself. One sysop blocked Ed, and one unblocked him, and Andy didn't seem to care either way. Andy doesn't take a side, and lets himself be controlled by the situation. When Ken blocked Ed, Andy scrubbed his answers, indicating acceptance of the block. When Douglas unblocked Ed, Andy marked the answers, indicating acceptance of the unblock. WTF Andy? Grow some balls, make a decision (block or unblock?) and show some leadership. Don't just bend over and let your sysops do whatever they want. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So if FatherJoseph is really TeacherEd (rather than one of us yanking the CP goons' todgers) perhaps he can he tell us if he was also Myk who has been blocked despite not having made an edit since April 2007. I can only assume that Ken was indulging in a spot of checkusering. P.S. Ken. Be careful my love, you'll end up just like TK if you carry on like that, and we all know what that implies.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Naa, there aren't any marines on the west side of Buffalo. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought fucktard lived on the east side of buffalo. --Opcn (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In regard to jump; how high?

Can we really make Ken block whoever we want? On an unrelated topic, did I ever mention how I'm TK, and I really love destroying CP from the inside. It gives me a good feeling in my special place. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We are the only people who discuss them with any degree of seriousness. They can't help but read and dance, dance, dance for us, or otherwise the vacuum in which they work will choke them. --Leotardo (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ken, you piece of shit

Before you go around saying bullshit like this,^img you should fucking find out why I was thrown out. I was thrown out because I had a bad back. I have scoliosis, which was not picked up at MEPS like it should have. I threw out my sciatic nerve the first day of PT, which is when they discovered it. It took about a week for them to make the decision to send me home and then another three weeks to finish the paper work. It's called an EPTS discharge. It was 100% against my will. I have the paperwork to prove this. I got an 89 on the ASVAB, then I joined the military police. I SERVED MY FUCKING COUNTRY A THOUSAND TIMES MORE IN ONE MONTH THAN YOU HAVE YOUR ENTIRE PATHETIC LIFE and I am an atheist (my dogtags say this, and I wore them with pride) socialist liberal. I am extremely proud to have made it that far.

So go prance back to your stupid fucking website, fuckhead, and stay there. Write your retarded essays on gays or whatever. Write your childish "satire" articles. Continue your 30 hour marathons editing the train-wreck that is Conservapedia. The longer you stay inside the better off society is. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't figure out the coding to get the link and the imagecap to work right. If it's fixed by someone better at this, I'd appreciate it.Senator Harrison (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You got trolled by Ken. Not your finest moment..here, come have a whisky. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 06:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ken. You are a piece of shit. A dried out, tasteless piece of OLE-less shit. Now kindly go fuck yourself in a quiet corner and leave those who put their life on the line alone. Convertible (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You also got trolled by Ken. Shame on you. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 06:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As a public service please stop calling people fuckheads unless you intend to include inferences that they are capable of actually fucking. Suggestion for replacement include <genital>head or <masturbation>head. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Worse, trolled by a dude who never attempted to serve his country. I wonder why JPatt is the one always hassled by Kenny? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Harrison, at least you, unlike Karajou, didn't have to make up a career of service. DickTurpis (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't let some pigeon chested basement dweller get your goat. There's plenty of goat to go around.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How rude you all are. I shall teach you some good behavior. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Punishment must be administered. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 10:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Stupid pig. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, you physically aren't marine corps material. I'd much rather be physically not marine corps material than mentally not marine corps material like some certain gentlemen I might mention. --Opcn (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It always puzzles me when people use 'not Marine Corps material' or 'not Army material', or other similar such things as insults. Some people simply aren't, but this is not automatically a negative thing. Being a soldier requires a mind-set (not to mention level of physical fitness) that not everyone has. So I dare say there would be, for exmaple, many scientists who wouldn't make good soldiers, but might be capable of, say, coming up with a design for a functioning personal rail gun, that would then be used by snipers in the army to take down targets of all types at extreme distances. 86.161.47.217 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Progressive, ethical and constructive discussion. Pigs. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I freely admit to not being any military material. I have certain issues with authority and would likely be a significant frag risk. DickTurpis (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, I think us librull baby-eaters have more representatives of the military (and higher ranks) than CP - I can think of two at least - Foxhole and myself. And we've seen active service, as opposed to swabbing submarine decks. Now that I think of it, isn't TwinKle of an age that would qualify him as 'Nam vet? I wonder how he dodged the draft? Maybe that explains his fetish for Marines... he was given a special pair of puttees for services rendered to the regiment. (obscure Python ref warning)- Psy (too full of Xmas pud and too lazy to log in. *burp*)

The people I was in basic training with were, for the most part, liberal. When the Army made the decision to send me home, some of the drill sergeants treated me like a human-being instead of a recruit and I had some good discussions with them while cleaning weapons and whatnot (I was barred from doing anything physical). I can tell you, as a matter of fact, DADT was not a popular policy. As one DS put it, "People just need to get a grip".

And yeah, I let Ken get the better of me. Kind of embarrassing, but that's what wine and being up at 1am will do to you. Thanks to whoever fixed my link! Senator Harrison (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No harm done! Giving Ken some special attention on christmas day was probably the best present he got, anyway, with the "ignore him" attitude that's been going around recently. X Stickman (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a slam on your character made in a place where you would be either unable to answer, or have your answer promptly removed and censored. You have every right to be angry, as that is borderline slanderous. Unfortunately, Conservative gets away with it by only saying "a certain person on a certain website" - thus he could well mean anyone he likes if challenged. It's so hypocritical and cowardly it hardly needs a rebuke here, in fact. If CP was a reputable organisation, I would consider complaining to the manager (Schlafly) via email. It's not, however, so I wouldn't bother. Simply take what solace you can in the fact that no one takes that website seriously and all their hits and press are due to people laughing at them, rather than agreeing with them.

It may also be worth pointing out that Ken has since noticed and has started spinning faster than... well, fill in your own analogy. Suffice to say, he doesn't blame himself for leaping to conclusions, that's for sure. ^postate 04:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how I love Ken logic...I love how he uses "a certain person on a certain website"...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 09:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, a certain owner of a certain website whose name beings with "c" and ends in "onservapedia" has never denied putting gerbils in his ass as a means of sexual arousal. Why the silence on this? DickTurpis (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's Christmas morning

And just like a good Christian and family man Karajou spends it with a Civil War battle copy/paste fest. Way to go, swabbie.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Peace on Earth, indeed. Vulpius (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, You know what, today I am in a waaay too fine of a mood to do anything but snicker. I love Christmas, it is my favorite holiday by far, so you all have a Merry one, and you guys on CP who I know are reading this, you have a Merry one too! Enough cheer for everybody! :D --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce --TinOl (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor Karajou :-( You'd think he could at least get a warm meal at his church, or have Christmas dinner via webcam with Ken DeMyer. Ken took a moment on Christmas to spread good will to men and slam someone's military service. Only the "God Hates Fags" god would smile on that sort of behavior on His birthday. He reps his god well. --Leotardo (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How to murder an anecdote

Gosh Uncle Ed, that's incredibly interesting^img. Do go on. Oh. You're finished? Never mind. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems appropriate that Ed's reference is only from page 8 of HTWFAIP, because his interpersonal skills show that he has learned nothing from the remainder of the book.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Given that his recounting of events stops where it does, do you reckon he even read to the end of the page? I've never read the book, but I'm wondering if that's from the first paragraph of the introduction. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Ed: (I love a good debate: it's such an excellent opportunity for liberals to show off their ignorance.)^img. No Comment! Him (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

am I parsing it right? It reads "I guess they forgot that the strength of America's democracy is that is prevents the tyranny of the majority over minorities." (emphasis mine). Is the bolded "is" correct though? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia gives me hope

One of the most blaring things to all of us is that every feature on CP Mainpage is so overtly negative that we know how far-flung is the conservative base from any hopeful 'morning in America' vision. The Economist had an interesting article about how "hope" is more prevalent in the developing world than in the western, and in it was this aside that stood out:

The West’s growing pessimism is reshaping political life. Two years after Barack Obama’s hope-filled inauguration the mood in Washington is as glum as it has been since Jimmy Carter argued that America was suffering from “malaise”. The Democrats’ dream that the country was on the verge of a 1960s-style liberal renaissance foundered in the mid-terms. But the Republicans are hardly hopeful: their creed leans towards anger and resentment rather than Reaganite optimism.

Rarely do you see anything on CP that without an angry, resentful spin to it. A Christmas message from a British religious person includes a slam against the British^img, one of the country's closest allies; a random story about Obama reaching out to politicians is a slam with name-calling^img; positive news about the religious [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=834016&oldid=834007^img is really a slam about the nonreligious]. Slam, name-calling, gloating...the message only appeals to the worst in people, which is never a way to be attractive with your ideology. I find hope in CP that peopel will realize what mean-spirited and arrogant people form its base. Thank you Andy, for such a well-documented, unappealing display. User:Leotardo

Why so glum and dumb, holiday cheer no more? 8 years of mouth-foaming liberal hate filled the American airwaves and you were where? CP criticizes the left constantly while you practice your hate of all things conservative here. The base of Rationalwili consists of no-name, loud-mouthed, useless mind-numbing bullcrap. You are so much better than they. User:193.200.150.152

Above you find an IP who gives the only defense, which is no defense at all. It's "liberals did it too" or "liberals did it first". It's a tacit admission that "yes, it's nothing but anger and resentment, and whether liberals did it first, or often, is true or not, that we think it's true excuses that we mimic the behavior that we purport to revile." How unappealing, to say 'we can't be any better than those whom we revile. it only matters what they do, not what we think should be done.' User:Leotardo

Beautifully expressed. In fact, of course, it's even worse than that. The comments made by BON above would be deleted and oversighted if they were made on, and about, CP. It's not the same at all. CP is a petty dictatorship where only sanctioned group-think is allowed to exist. All other thought is forbidden. It's pretty rich for BON to come here and suggest that we are no better than they. Could we go there and make a similar suggestion? Obviously not. Accordingly, we are markedly and demonstrably superior in that we tolerate them. They, on the other hand, do not, and will not, tolerate us. That is the huge gulf between us. And frankly, BON is just wrong in saying that all things conservative are hated here. My experience has been that this site tolerates discussion of a wide range of views. Given such a clear and obvious difference between the two sites, one is moved to ask: What is going on in BON's head that he/she can say something so obviously wrong? Is he so blinded by loyalty to CP or hatred of RW that he cannot see? It is a worry that people can be so extraordinarily stupid (or have I just been trolled?). --Horace (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the (other) BON's mistake is that they are mistaking this talk page, and the associated WIGO page, along with the various pages about or connected with CP, with the whole of RW. Of course, on those pages, there is a strong anti-conservative theme, because of the fact those pages deal with a batshit-insane website that is so strongly conservative, they are only slightly to the left of Hitler (though the website in question claims Hitler was, in fact, a left-wing socialist). What they miss is that there are other parts of RW that deal with all sorts of insanity from all over the net (though, to be fair, there is a strong CP focus on RW, but that might have something to do with how RW started). JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The nutty insane right have been trying to play the 'hitler was a left winger' for decades now. I first recall it during the late 70's/early 80's in the UK when the neo-facist monday club and the federation of conservative students (who were so right wing even Norman Tebbit disowned them) used to spout it. This is at the same time they used to put up posters saying hang Nelson Mandela. With razor blades underneath the posters so when we ripped them down we would slit our fingers open. That was when my complete despite towards the right really started. Incidentally, why has the auto-sign using the 4 tildes stopped working? User:Oldusgitus

I'm 23 now - and never in my whole life I have met a Conservative who was an optimist (and I grew up in a conserative area of Germany), which kind of makes sense: If everything should stay the way it is, of course what would come is (bescause it should stay the way it is) worse if it should change. The funny thing about it is that most Conservatives I've met also were full of hatred for something, blaming the new - sometimes that new is so old, that the Conservative has actually become simply a Reactionarian: Anti-Feminists, Anti-Social Security, Anti-"Everything that the Bible says is bad" (Still wondering they always forget the shrimp) - and that is what CP actually is: Reactionary. Conservatives at least can argument with reasonable - well - reasons why what to come could be bad, but Reactionarians (using it know I'm asking myself if that's even a word - please forgive me on that one) really can't deliver any better reason than "I think it was better back then." and "My Holy Book says so." - and too the general answer "But it feels better for all of us now, and many are freer now." the answer remains "You don't count, you're sinfull/evil/ill (because my holy book says so), you will be enlightend when you have the same opinion as I do." - which is just circular reasoning: "You are sinfull/evil/ill, beacsuse my holy book says so - and my holy book is right because you are (obviously) sinfull/evil/ill - beacuse I don't like what you do, because it is forbidden by my holy book." - Anybody else out there who wants to scream at that? I'll stop ranting now... -- User:85.182.145.82 27. December 15:51 (GMT+1)

Erm. So I fixed it....

I fixed the parser breakage due to someone's unclosed capture tag... but as a side effect everyone's comments are now signed by me... doh! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No one cares.68.56.231.28 (talk)

Scientific Paper Retractions.

Feel free to reword the WIGO, I couldn't get it quite right. It amused me, given that the article was saying that retraction rates are very LOW, but looking into why it involves Americans so much. Assfly goes right ahead, uses it to imply the opposite (that they're high) and drops the whole point of the article. ^EXTERMINATE 17:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My favorite line in the article cited by CP: "In conversations with Politics Daily, however, Steen expressed concerns about the negative spin placed on coverage of his research." Oh, the irony. Carlaugust (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm. There doesn't seem to be any commentary at all. Surprising from the Assfly, I know, it's rare he manages to post broken news without a "clueless liberal" and then some non sequitur italic gloss. I think you might be reading a little too deep in to the subtext. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly the original article doesn't state what the total amount of submitted or accepted papers were in that decade, but I am willing to wager it is in the tens of thousands at least. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You can back out the number published: "For every one paper that was retracted, 6,109 were published. That is a .0164 retraction rate" Now, when they say 0.0164, it's actually 0.0164%. So, Retracted / Retraction rate = Total Published = 788 / 0.000164 = 4,804,878. So, at least according to this article, tens of thousands is a bit of an understatement. Really, 788 articles retracted is a fantastically good. Hell, I wish there was ANYTHING that I did with a 99.9836% success rate. Carlaugust (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Down?

Is it just me, or is Conservapedia down? Conservapedia.com just yields a blank page for me. Thomas Larsen (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm... works for me. Maybe it was a fluke? --Sid (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Still not working for me. Oh well, it doesn't matter. Thomas Larsen (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Oh well, it doesn't matter." <-- We could replace our entire article on CP with just that sentence... ;) --Sid (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point! :-) Thomas Larsen (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

TK

Not sure if this has been covered, but TK has been inactive since December 16th... highly uncharacteristic. What is going on? [2] 68.56.231.28 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No one cares. SJ ^Debaser 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's finally found a nice bridge to settle under. No need to disturb him further.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

could be the result of blowback from the 403 blocking he did. maybe he's finally gone? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pffffffffffft. TK got away with copypasting en masse, being the prime role model for parodists like Bugler, being the main force behind driving away people like PJR, banhammering hundreds of thousands of IPs from editing, and leaking the entire SDG. You think that preventing "a few" non-Americans from viewing the site will have any sort of effect on his status? --Sid (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't limited to non-Americans. All it would take is 403 blocking one person Andy has an interest in to set him off. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We'll know TK is gone when Andy removes his rights and someone blocks him. Most likely TK is either bored with CP or gone somewhere for Christmas. I'd go for bored, because TK strikes me as the type to keep the internet with him wherever he goes, though it's suspicious he didn't at least drop in for a 'Merry Christmas Mr Schlafly! <Insert shameless toadying here>' EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the first answer; who cares, I mean why waste the holidays thinking about him? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I care. TK's vitriol has become a staple in my life. My fucking Christmas was ruined because of him (more specifically "lack of him"). I made my kids wait almost the entire day to open presents while I clicked refresh. My wife eventually took them to her mother's and I haven't seen them since. I'm almost out of vacation days at work. I don't know how much more (more specifically "less") I can take. TK, if you're reading this, please help. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My kids still believe in TK, so you can probably imagine their disappointment when he didn't show up all Christmas. They even left milk and IP ranges by the fireplace, but those too were still unblocked in the morning. Vulpius (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume by "milk" you mean Harvey Milk? DickTurpis (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pffffffffffft. TK got away with copypasting en masse, being the prime role model for parodists like Bugler He wasn't. I wasn't really aware of TK when I started Bugler, though I suppose he may have blocked some of my previous incarnations. FretfulPorpentine.

Interesting. How were you familiar enough CP to pull off Bugler so flawlessly but have been unaware of TK? Did Bugler appear during TK's months in the wilderness? DickTurpis (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC TK did return after Bugler had entrenched himself there. I'm not sure what Bugler's interactions with TK were, but TK was very quick to latch on to Bugler's wagon and backed Bugler (and RodWeathers) to the hilt (excuse the pun). In fact, he carried on defending them, even after both had come out as parodists. He certainly took Bugler's side in my battles with Bugler. Psy (tltli)--Ψ GremlinSprich! 09:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)