Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive216

This is an archive page, last updated 22 January 2011. 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>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <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)

Bloomberg, Winter = Global Warming

We know that for the rest of his life, Andy will point to winter weather to say "What Global Warming?" over and over. But he does it in such stupid ways^img. The more Andy speaks, the more I remember that you can buy your way into Princeton and Harvard. --Leotardo (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy always reminds me of the noisy, drunk guy in the corner. He has an opinion about everything, especially those things he knows nothing about, and insists of yelling them to you, with an arm around your shoulder, breathing cheap booze (like Karajou's fave Thunderbird wine) into your face. Luckily for Andy, he had a rich mummy to sponsor his rants, which a) creates the illusion that people are taking him seriously, but only because he can't hear the laughter and b) saves him form having the shit kicked out of him in the parking lot. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget TK's fave cheap booze - Night Train.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. He's the kind of person who people at the bar don't want to hear his uninformed bigot opinions but he's going to give them anyway. Andy always reminds of someone who could have benefited from a punch in the nose or two, instead of the ceaseless childhood mocking he undoubtedly endured. --Leotardo (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 has tied 2005 as the warmest year on record. --Leotardo (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy seems to think that if Global Warming is real, then it should never snow anywhere in the United States anytime during the winter, anything less prove the theory false. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

According to that article, 2010 was the 34th consecutive year that global temperatures were above average; Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since 2001 and all 12 of the warmest have occurred since 1997; and the global average surface temperature has risen more than 1 degree since the Industrial Revolution. --Leotardo (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right there - he's opinionated on everything. I've been thinking about some sort of maxim recently that says something along the lines of "people with strong opinions most likely have wrong opinions". Because the more you know about something, the more you know about its subtleties, its caveats, its evidence and so on. This would undoubtedly dilute your rhetoric somewhat. You'll change from "THIS IS WHAT IT IS!!" to something more like "evidence suggests that..." Climate change denialists: "Global warming is a hoax, a scam, a con!" Global warming "believers": "Current temperature data along with predictive modelling suggests an increase in temperature between 1-2 degrees on average world wide with numerous weather effects and feedback mechanisms... yadda yadda" You'll seem less opinionated and less passionate, but by virtue of this you're far more informed (this is pretty much the Dunning-Kruger effect). So, if you hear someone shouting their opinions far and wide and with complete certainty - they're almost definitely wrong. ^moral 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Without TK

Without TK the site seems a little more tolerant (I'm speaking relatively). Parodist DanielG is laying it on waaay too thick to be an Amanda Bunting,[1]^img[2]^img but I think Andy is exhibiting some patience with him[3]^img[4]^img. --Leotardo (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, Jpatt seems to be stepping into TK's vandal-hunting shoes. Still it seems he hasn't quite mastered TK's creepy use of check-user yet. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 15:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebus! Is JPatt such a prat that he doesn't know that "Groupe" is French for "Group" not "Grope", as befits a Quebecois company? CS Miller (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Going back to those first two links above, I just enjoy the fact they actually have an article called "Liberal Creep". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The examples of liberal creep are better as examples of creepy CP logic:

• Ronald Reagan left the White House with the best approval ratings of any president, up to that time, at the end of his term, yet the media and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.
• Reverse to the above example, Bill Clinton [2] left office with crimes of perjury and adultery yet liberal creep ensures that this is downplayed and distorted.

Reality: Bill Clinton's highs and lows were always better or equal to Reagan's. That's all beside the point that popularity at a certain point has little to do with lasting achievement (just ask Harry Truman). --Leotardo (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire historical comparison section of the WP article is quite interesting actually. We learn two things: each President is loved at some point and loathed at some point, and it's very rare for the highest approval to come after the lowest, with only Reagan, Roosevelt and Clinton managing it from the looks of things. ^moral 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also interesting to look at GWB with his sudden spike in popularity - hey, I wonder where that came from? - while with Clinton Lewinsky's ass is nowhere to be seen on that graph. Liberal deceit surely! ^moral 20:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly and having either high or low approval ratings doesn't translate into one being a great or lousy president, just how popular they were at the time.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Why Why Must Conservatives Always Be Victimized?

Jpatt links on MPR decrying the idea that every one is ignoring the first Republican Latina governor^img, yet you find hundreds of news stories about her. Why let facts interrupt your martyr meme? --Leotardo (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Why Why must the liberal media relentlessly target conservatives?--76.205.122.170 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know! The lamestream media makes it practically impossible for conservatives to win elections! Even when the victim meme isn't true, as is the case here. --Leotardo (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure she got as much media attention as Gov. Bill Richardson... I mean seriously, when was the last time the federal media really cared about the New Mexico governorship? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I love how they just don't see that.... Maybe there's a bigger story floating around lately like, I don't know, The representative who got shot in the fucking head. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 22:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

burn a sock

and show this to andy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy will be happy...

...now someone's whitewashed^img CP's BNP page he can go back to openly supporting the policies of a neo-Nazi party. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or at least their policy on education...^img ListenerX^TalkerX 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Bunting

She went too far^img, the silly sausage^img. Much applause for an overall excellent career though. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

She really was a star amongst stars, but that last edit indeed went too far only because it was on the Gaby Giffords article. Had it been on Jared Loughner^img it would have stayed and been expanded on. Giffords is where they keep their noses clean while diving for trash on the Loughner article. --Leotardo (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

She did some good work on Elvis Presley^img. Heh - "influenced by the Negro gospel music"; "Presley then embraced 'rock 'n' roll', a Negro euphemism for immoral sexual activity"; "the paranoid Presley finally died on August 16". Are we sure Amanda wasn't a sock of Karajou? --Leotardo (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tsk. Parodists these days have no patience for the long con. You can't go full on crazy until you've been a sysop for a while, then you're excused anything. Good material though, 7 / 10. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

May as well show her thoughts on the word Negro^img since it has already been reverted (can't hurt now) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, I think you are being harsh. Our Amanda brought back to life for all of us Dragons^img, Sasquatch^img, Unicorns^img, and Fairies^img. She's Double Rainbow 8 if she's a day. --Leotardo (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

She got Andy to accept that inane formula for calculating censorability^img. See Talk^img. Auld Nick (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Labels, Labels, Labels

As regards the Wikileaks "nihilistic atheist", I can't help but remember pointing out (when I still had edit "rights" on CP), how much CP liked labels and more labels. Isaac Asimov: Atheist! and so on. I also pointed out how labels seemed to be dropped or rearranged for people like Andru's brother (Homosexual!) because that is just not "relevant". Since what a label means is constantly in flux, and people don't understand what labels mean anyway, it is important to use labels very wisely. What was Isaac Asimov most known for? Being a writer or being an atheist? The order of the labels is critical to writing a good article. Of course, for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the first label of atheist makes a lot of sense. Hm, that's how WP does it. Andru, you are such an un-encyclopedic turd. Do you still breastfeed? Jimaginator (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh thank you! Where's the brain-bleach? CS Miller (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Evocative, eh? Jimaginator (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You forget, according to Andy, the fact Asimov was an atheist negates any achievements he made or anything else about him (unless it is negative); because any atheist given any positive light goes against what CP is all about.. giving the finger to reality. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget, it's just that the Godsize hypocrisy gets to me sometimes. I like "giving the finger to reality". Evocative. Jimaginator (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's interesting how few labels CP needs for its ideological purposes. They've only got

• "conservative" (good)
• "liberal" (bad, used interchangeably with "socialist","communist" and "fascist")
• "Christian" (used sparingly because it should obviously be the default religion)
• "anti-Christian", which most often means "atheist" and "secular", but also "Muslim"

And that's it, they just start out with the two traits they value the most, construct an artificial dichotomy, and then lump everyone who deviates even slightly from their standard together in the opposing camp. Since they have no need for shades of gray and the subtleties of ideological and philosophical flavours, those four will do fine almost all of the time - for example, I've never seen them use "nihilistic" before, and it can be taken as a synonym for "atheist". It's just important that they slap one of these labels on anyone and anything you encounter ASAP, because otherwise they couldn't make sense of it. Röstigraben (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Labels protect their brains the way antibodies protect their bodies. When a new idea enters their system, it must be immediately classified and tagged, to decide whether it should be accepted unconditionally or rejected without any further consideration. This frees up many valuable hours to worry about homosexuals taking over. --Gulik (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Irony

I love how a site that uses such terms as "despicable Harry Reid" and uses "liberal" as a snarl word, not to mention trying to discredit and libel everybody they disagree with, can't see the irony of having a "Liberal vitriol"^img page. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 08:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooooooh a new one for the matrix! So who wants to start on Atheist Vitriol? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

They capitalize pronouns referring to Obama? WTF? Röstigraben (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Get in Their Faces!" Im so glad they posted legitamate examples of vitriol and left out the B.S. ones like “If ballots don’t work, bullets will.” --Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

But that's not cp:Liberal vitriol, that's cp:conservative vitriol. I'm sure JPatt will get around to that article in good time. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama has a mercenary army? --Gulik (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Imposible. Mercenary's need to be payd for. A capitalist concept. Keep in mind Obama is a dirty commie from Kenya.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

Wikipedia isn't politicizing Jared Loughner killing spree, therefore biased

Because Wikipedia isn't yelling how Jared Loughner is a nihilist and therefore an evil, baby eatin' atheist^img, well that just shows their liberal bias. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ALso, the sky is blue. Another example of liberal bias.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

Ah, Jpatt gives one of my favorite predictable responses from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. "Hitler was a National Socialist and socialism is a left-wing ideology, therefore Hitler was a LIBERAL!!!!!!!1111!!!" Of course, by that logic, the wp:German Democratic Republic was a democratic nation. Come on, Jpatt, let's hear praise for East Germany. DickTurpis (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This Nazis were Socialist because it says so in there name has been going on for about two years now and it is starting piss even anti-socialist me off. There is not even a nuanced difference between Nazi policies and socialism, they have almost nothing in common (although Germany did have a command economy of sorts). The socialist were, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of Germany through the 1930s, purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Sorry of the rant but this argument has been getting on my tits lately. - π 00:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, to dipshits like Schlafly, communism=socialism, socialism=national socialism, therefore communism=national socialism, when, in fact, the entire overriding principal of Nazism was violent opposition to communism. That, more than anything else, including anti-semitism, was the driving force behind Nazi ideology. But that's too much to grasp, so for the conservapedians of the world it's much easier and more convenient to equate the two, rahter than, you know, try to actually understand them. DickTurpis (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole idea of third position is beyond the small minds of Schlalfy and his ilk. "People that are neither left or right, but a mixture of both? That can't happen. We don't like them so we will pluck out the parts of their ideology that is left-wing and call them socialists." That is about the extent of there thinking on this. They are black and white thinkers, so if it is not perfectly white, it must be black. - π 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't be more correct. One can call himself a conservative, but Andy will not consider him or her one if he or she does not fully agree with Andy and Conservapedia. There is no room for compromise in beliefs and political leaning with Andy. Are you an all-around conservative, except you support abortions for people who were raped? Liberal. Are you conservative, but don't like how Conservapedia's article on Obama diverts a huge percentage of its content to labeling Obama as a Muslim? Liberal. I might be slightly exaggerating, but it basically comes down to the fact that if you don't fully agree with Andy and his views, you're not a conservative. And if you're not a conservative...you're a liberal. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The winner if the dumb award has to go to Karajou^img. Liberalism has its roots in Fascism and National Socialism? Kind of hard when Fascism and National Socialism came about in the 1930s and Liberalism came about in the later part of the nineteenth century. Again any one with even a cursory reading of political history would know that Fascism and National Socialism came about as a result of the failing of classical liberalism (the Great Depression) and rejection of Communism. I am going to go beat my head against a wall for a while. - π 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel for you there, Pi; it's been annoying me more and more lately how they conflate socialism with liberalism. Is it really that difficult? One is an economic stance, the other a societal/moral stance. Yeah, people with liberal societal views may also hold socialist economic views, but the two don't automatically go hand in hand. You can be liberal with very rightwing economic views (aka modern Libertarianism) or be extremely illiberal but a socialist (aka communism), but one doesn't mean the other!. On a lighter note, the Arsefly is so deluded he thinks that people are actually taking note of his drivel. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair here (yes, I know, Andy doesn't deserve fair), we have to say Andy's working with a different definition of socialism then most people do. For him, socialism seems to be every idea saying that the economy should be regulated and as Hitler followed keynesian ideas he was socialist (also the Democrats, Scoialists, Communists, Goerge W. Bush and fully thought through every religion that doesn't allow you to work one day a.k.a. christianity, islam, judaism - but I'm pretty sure Andy can't think that far). Of course defining this publicly as such, is political suicide and so they go for the name thing - which is even more dumb.

Also, nazism and communism share collectivism - but different kinds. In nazism it's the race (or races, expanding to others as well), in communism its the class. Also both are highly fascist (if fascism, which is hard to define, is defined as violent supression of the opposition and ignoring of (human) rights) - of course communists will never admit that, because for them fascism and supression is what the bourgeoisie does to the proletariat, and therefore it is just if the revolution (state of socialism in marxism) toward the state of communism is violent). They are also both teleologic ideologies - just as Chrstianity is a teleogical relegion. But there are inherently different in many things. Nationalism (it's even in the fucking name!) is key of nazism - in communism nations don't really exist. Some communists favor intellectuals (and others like Pol Pot clrearly didn't), while in nazism (the real one) "intellectual" is a smear word. Through the use of "socialism" as a state of the teleology of communism the hole name has become distorted around the world, making people dumbend down that don't see difference (I myself needed about a year until I convinced my mother that the two aren't the same). I think the nazis probably chose "national socialism" because the name had the two things people wanted at that time. Also Juche seems to have borrowed alot from nazism, although it's on the other "end" (I'd actually say it's a circle) of the spectrum. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from CP, the right politicizes these things far more than the left. This is how it has gone down: Democratic Arizona Congresswoman who supported healthcare and federal judge shot. People immediately wonder if this was a rightwinger because of the right's violent rhetoric. Right freaks out b/c of jumping to conclusions. Comes out he's a lunatic with an incoherent political ideology. Left calms down but right double-downs, re-loads, and finds any angle to say he's a leftist long after the left has stopped saying he's a rightwinger. All the while, the right gets to say, "You blamed X first! You can't complain we are politicizing a lunatic!" even though many on the left (and on the right) found the jumping to conclusions inappropriate. Bottom-dwellers like Conservapedians prefer to go the route that fosters a climate where political violence is likely. Everyone expected this to happen sooner-or-later; the surprise, I bet even to tea partiers, was that he wasn't a tea partier. --Leotardo (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I want to know their reasoning is for Ayn Rand being liberal. I think that might be even more absurd than Hitler being liberal. Actually that would make an interesting debate - who's more liberal? Ayn Rand or Hitler? (it would be like which is more triangular - a square or a circle) ^{ONE / TALK} 09:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I thought they were holding Ayn up as a paragon of conservatism not so long ago. Or was that just TerryH? And just in relation to Atlas Shrugged? --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 09:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That was my thought, too. Without doublechecking, I vaguely remember TerryH writing a whole series of articles on that book on CP. --Sid (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Their article on Ayn Rand herself is ambivalent, but TerryH's gushing praise about the book, and the way he dismisses criticism of the book tell a different story. It seems the black and white CP worldview has led different sysops to use different colours. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember "Going Galt"? I assumed CP was including the Ayn Rand book for "balance", but since it was the only seemingly conservative thing they would report about Loughner, they must have thought it liberal? They purposefully leave out any of the views Loughner shares with the Tea Party, such as the gold standard or anti-federalism. --Leotardo (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy's attempts to dismiss Ayn Rand as liberal contradict his enormous hard-on for Rand Paul, who shares not just a name but an overall philosophy. Of course, eventually Andy will have to wake up to the fact that Ron and Rand aren't his type of conservative. I'm looking forward to that day. DickTurpis (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

She fails to be a conservative, and therefore a liberal, on two grounds; she is an atheist and supports abortion^img. - π 04:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought Ron had already lost credibility with Andy for supporting some or other policy Andy didn't agree with? --Ψ GremlinSermā! 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy has cautious support for Ron, and is gung-ho with Rand b/c he doesn't really know how much he is like Ron, and hopes he sheds the principled libertarianism for red meat conservatism. There's more Andy-Paul links we discussed here. --Leotardo (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how long this^img will stay there. Jammy (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing! Has Chip Peterson not read that site's Jared Loughner article?! --Leotardo (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As Andy once said, "All things are political". Therefore, not making something political is biased. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And to what side (Ok, I know it was bad so for Andy he was liberal)? But that's kinda like saying you peed in the wrong direction when you didn't even pee. --Ullhateme (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That "everything is politics" things has been gnawing away at me for some time. Various thinkers and writers have said similar things over the years but not in the way Aschlafly thinks they mean them. Obviously the saying is not original to him. He doesn't do original. He's one of the most unimaginative people I have ever come across. But his understanding of the saying shows just how unimaginative he is. It's like watching film of the pigeons pecking or turning in the box to get the food - almost a Pavlovian response. He sees the word politics, equates that with partisan American liberal/Democrat vs conservative/Republican politics, and draws a desperately feeble and shallow conclusion, labels it an "insight", and blinds himself to all the rich connotations that the saying actually implies. Essentially that collective human interaction, (even it can be argued the deeply personal such as courting and marriage), involves dialogue, negotiation, compromise, and finally agreement. This, in his black and white world of good and evil, left and right, them and us, completely escapes him rendering his misunderstanding of the term absolute. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Creationist Hall of Fame

Promoted on the mainpage of CP is the upcoming Creationist Hall of ShameFame^img, not that worthy in itself other then our own CP contributor TerryH is on the Board of Directors.

"Currently, it takes the form of a website..." lol - but of course! This is interesting. Hurlbutt's on the board, and Ken is spamming it as a tie-in with the Noah's Ark and Jesus dinosaur museum since they just had a bunch of press. Those CP grifters and this hair-brained scheme. I bet every young earth idiot is coming out of the woodwork petitioning Kentucky for some project to turn that town into a Branson-Disneyland of Christian mythology. --Leotardo (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they really going to try and open a physical museum where you can go and honour the great "achievers" of creationism? Will there be waxworks? I predict maximum shirt loss if so. Still, if it does happen, maybe one of our yankee correspondents could go check out Terrykins' folly before it shutters ignominiously, and take photos. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite the bad spelling and stuff (Decease? Don't these guys check anything?) it's hardly off to a promising start with the Gish Gallop as the only living inductee. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 11:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It will be made of bricks costing 100$ each? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Who else would be in the Creationist Hall of Fame? Obviously wp:William Jennings Bryan. I tried to Google it, and turns out there are others. My favorite is the Creation Museum and Taxidermy Hall of Fame of North Carolina (and Antique Tool Museum). I recommend the slideshow; it's a real Noah's Ark of dead stuffed animal. --Leotardo (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Even Ken "The Abomination" Ham hasn't collected a million so far for his ark. It's a fucking cheek that these jokers want to get 4 million for their little shop of horrors. At 100 dollars a brick, I'll donate a mote of dust. They can name it after me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

When I get this month's update I bet that Terry "Svengali eyes" Hurlbutt has mentioned his CHoF in the ZB and Ken decided to run with it on the main page. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Willie E. Dye

I got curious as to Willie's credentials, so I did a little digging (read: I clicked the first second Google result). According to his CV (PDF alert), he has not one Ph.D, but THREE. Two of those were completed within a year of one another. All are from unaccredited universities and colleges, most with "Theology" in their names. Unrelated to CP, just amusing. – Nick Heer 05:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I also was curious about him because he sounds so fake. What's with the black gold miner photo? The name also sounds like "Will he die?" I'm not surprised his degrees are manufactured. --Leotardo (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's Willie Dye, Ph.D., Ph.D., Ph.D, Th.D., D.M., D.D. to you (that's actually how he lists his name on his site!). --MarkGall (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"2005 to present, Co-Director, survey of Haydrian’s Wall, England, Director: Dr. Richard Fales". He can't spell Hadrian and what survey can he possibly be part of? I doubt that it's any of the official British archaeological investigations. Also the link to "Dr." Richard Fales also has a page on Willie. We should have our own as well. This Creationist Hall of Shame actually gives us a ready-made list of who to write up, so thanks to Ken for pointing us in that direction. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Soy

Apparently Soybeans are "a favored food of liberals and radical environmentalists^img", and (according to WND) have "nutrients" that can cause homosexuality.--ElvisHairDude420 (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical vegetarians, more like; of course the Conservapedians are unable to tell the difference. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the Chinese. A prominent source of nutrition for more than a billion heathen communists is hardly suitable for America. Röstigraben (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so suddenly that explains the billion and a bit effeminate Chinese & Japanese running around. Unless, of course, the nutrients only work on Westerners. "Ha! You round-eye gaijin drop bomb on us? We have velly seclet pran to turn you all into girly-boys." --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 08:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Even Ken

felt that was a step too farimg. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ye gads. Ken's comment on the talk page^img actually sounds sane and reasonable. Another sign the End Times are upon us?

You have to love that WND article. It even manages to start with "I like health foods. I have nothing against health foods. In fact some of my favourite food is healthy". I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but not much. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well as for Ken and being reasonable, even a broken clock is right twice a day. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is very anti-soy, and they combined that issue with their anti-homosexuality with, "Soy is making kids gay". --Leotardo (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If Soy is making kids gay, then I guess homosexuality isn't a choice afterall? Someone ought to point this out to them so we can watch the furious backpedalling. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

is livestock gay too? Rrose selavy (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The politicizing of food is something wholly unique to the right, more evidence that they have led the way in America's polarization. --Leotardo (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a whoosh? The Left does plenty of politicizing of food, too. Anti-GMO/Anti-BGH/localvores/vegans/permaculture/unionizing pickers, etc. etc. etc. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those examples are ones of the left politicizing food. "We don't like soy because it's liberal and/or it makes kids gay" and "Buy food locally to cut down on emissions and to support local farmers" or pointing out negative health benefits of pesticides on food are miles apart. Granted, the left tends to advocate healthy food and the right tends to deride it because the left advocate it; but people on the left don't argue "Genetically modified food is only for right wing nutters." --Leotardo (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What Kind of clock is Andy?

I love how that phrase is so often trotted out with regard to Ken, but never with regard to Andy. Andy is a clock so broken it is never right. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is a digital clock. Which is weird, since as far as I can tell he has two hands. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's a sundial that's fallen over. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd go for sundial upside down into the ground. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He's one of those wax candles with the metal pins in to mark each hour. In Andy's case however, his candle burnt out a long time ago.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So he's a wax candle with hands. And feet. No wonder he is weird. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe no one has thought of this yet. What kind of clock is Andy? Cuckoo. MDB (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A vile slur on Andy and his Swiss heritage. Rrose selavy (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be a vile slur on the Swiss, except for the fact that it wasn't them who invented the cuckoo clock. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the phrase is that a "stopped clock" is still right twice a day. A clock could be broken in many ways which would destroy the analogy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood Libel

At the moment, CP's article on cp:blood libel is pretty readable, in fact, it is informative. So, how long will it take for Sarah Palin's apologists to change that? Dance, monkeys, dance...larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Every time I think Palin can't be more moronic, nor stoop lower, she proves me wrong. Seriously, does that bitch even know what the term means and how offensive it is? I hope her recent statements come back to haunt her, should she run in 2012. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 09:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It really does cast a very nasty light on her. I don't think that she knew what it meant at all, which shows that she really is ignorant. What is almost as bad is that her entire statement seemed to be whiny and petulant and all about herself. Good grief, 6 people are dead. Does everything have to be centred around her? Oh wait... she's Sarah Palin. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose next thing, she'll be wanting to attend the funeral. Actually I hope she tries to and the families tell her to fuck off. She's the kind of media whore who'll attend a letter opening if she thinks it'll help her. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 11:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As the graphic I saw yesterday says, "Hey Sarah! I can see the end of your political career from my house!" MDB (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course she and CP don't understand how offensive the term is, that would require learning and understanding a non-Christian culture, and that isn't ever going to happen.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that that self-styled “lifelong liberal Democrat” Alan Dershowitz has rallied to Sarah Palin’s defence in a Guardian article, maintaining that “the term blood libel has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse”, by which he appears to mean that he’s used it that way himself. Reminds me a bit of Captain Rum in Blackadder, asserting that maritime opinion is divided on the question of whether a ship needs a crew because although all the other captains say that it does, he says that it doesn’t.Tylersboy (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the misappropriated term terribly offensive itself, I'm just stunned that even Palin can't see how ridiculous it is to respond to overstating a perceived wrong by , er, overstating a perceived wrong. It's like trying to censor an obscene poser my smearing feces and puppy-guts all over it. 81.137.227.129 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wired WIGO

It's things like that that make CP worth watching. Some of Ken's wonderful satirical works on atheism get the piss taken out of them and he jumps for joy over it. Andy pops by later and deletes it under the guise of moving it to the "other column." It must be that column that no one else but Andy can see which contains all the other shit Ken's posted on main page over the years. SJ ^Debaser 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I eat my words as my liberal shortsightedness sees he actually has moved it to the other column. My position as n00b #1 is ratified. Although this is even better, as the Leader has seen it, approves of it, and adds to it, pimping his March for Life, saying atheists could walk there and lose a few pounds. Apparently Andy doesn't need the exercise, he's taking a record 3 buses. SJ ^Debaser 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, Ken just needs help. I know its been said 1*10^10000 times but why the hell do we give that lunatic attention? The man is clearly an attention whoring whackjob. He's doing a great job of killing CP all on his own, and giving him attention just feeds his insanely huge ego. If Andy won't reign him in after all his recent shenanigans I'm almost forced to believe Andy's giving up on hoping his blog will become a popular information source. EternalCritic (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It only matters that they receive notice and hits. They ignore conservative criticism (of which there is a good deal), and revel in liberal criticism, so to them the Wired piece is a sign that they are hitting liberals where it hurts. --Leotardo (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm kind of grateful to him: Back when he was on Wikipedia, he tried to use an article in a Victorian issue of the Illustrated London News as evidence that dinosaurs existed. I had access to a major library, which had the newspaper in question, so I looked it up, and it turned out to be a skeptical comment on a bizarre tall tale from France in which a dinosaur climbed out of the rock it was buried in.

But the Illustrated London News had the most amazing engravings in its other articles, and since then, I've fallen in love with Victorian mass-produced artwork prints, and it's been a very rewarding and wonderful hobby. So, thanks, Kdbuffalo! You're an idiot, but I'm glad I checked your sources! Aconite (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The creationism article that CP are so proud of having mentioned was substantially edited by Amanda. Auld Nick (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Kenny scaled back the crazy^img, and then added a little bit of his own "expert" legal opinion^img.

Andy's endorsement of Ken's "essay" insanity is the icing on the crazy cake that is Conservapedia. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Andy has endorsed it means that it's now Gospel and Ken can continue his outpourings unhindered. Given that all the sysops see it as "Andy's project" and are therefore too craven to contradict him, Ken can now run rampant around CP. This has finally reoved any semblance of credibility CP might have had, following the departure of RJJ. --Ψ GremlinTal! 10:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't say that Psy, remember all the other times we thought there was nothing left for them to do to further be a detriment to their own cause? We said similar things about RJJ and PJR leaving, the liberal word ratio formula, the TK/DeanS comment incident, the leaking of the Zeuglodon Blues and the SDG, the "email to request account" and "first name, last initial" rules, and of course there's Andy's ongoing ignorance of parodists - although if the thread below is to be believed he may be pricking up his ears a little bit. Rest assured, there'll be more to come. SJ ^Debaser 11:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Every time I think CP can't possibly be more idiotic, somebody over there proves me wrong. That said, it's going to take some serious crazy to out-do Ken. Maybe Andy should write to Obama, demanding that the Pres present himself, with birth certificate, but sans teleprompter, before Andy's homeschool class. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The essential problem is that we base our projections on what has happened in the past. I think that any long-time serious student of CP knows that we are watching a very different Andrew Schlalfy from the one we knew in early 2007. I wouldn't go so far as to as to ascribe mental illness but he has certainly become more delusional and convinced of his own infallibility induced both by his own supporters and by parodists - a classic case of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. Paradoxically, because of his siege mentality Andy becomes ever more possessed by the characteristics which he rails against. If you are rational then it is difficult to imagine even greater gullibility or stupidity but I think that the lesson of history is that things often go to undreamed of extremes. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Behind the scenes of TeacherEd's demise

Hey Folks - it's me again, FatherJoseph\TeacherEd. Just want to give you some additional info about the demise of my account on CP (and how I likely could have gotten unblocked if I really wanted to!) So first off, when around Christmas Ken blocked me, and I subsequently revealed myself here on this talk page, I was amazed that DouglasA was allowed to unblock (at least temporarily) without any repercussions. After the subsequent, more permanent re-block, I contacted numerous sysops, and DouglasA was the only one to write back. I was really pressing not to get unblocked, but to find out the specific reason why I was blocked, since no reason was ever given publicly on CP. DouglasA was the only one to write back, saying he couldn't unblock me because "Andy was against" me. He later expanded that to say that Andy thought I was a parodist (so Andy does acknowledge the existence of parodists, even if not publicly!). I kept posting on Andy's talk page as well (under my new username EJones), and Ed Poor eventually replied with his "writing plan" idea. I had actually emailed Ed Poor earlier (after first getting blocked) and he never wrote back at the time. I then emailed him a "writing plan" (basically explaining how I want to work on translating Ezekiel, continue my Bible classes, and some other random stuff). Ed never wrote back to me. After my next post to Andy's talk page (which Andy very promptly removed with no comment), I got an email from JPatt, which read in part:

"I am stepping into the debate about you. How do we prove that you are legitimate? Do you have a Wikipedia account, Facebook account, Linkin account or a Twitter account?"

He never explained why I was blocked in the first place, and in my response to him I kept insisting they explain the reason. Here is my response in full:

Thanks for responding to me. I am really trying to understand why it is that all of a sudden I am not deemed "legitimate". Which of my edits have prompted this? I still have not been given an explanation as to what I did, and my understanding is that normally Conservapedia editors are not put under all this scrutiny. All I want to do is continue to positively contribute to Conservapedia, and the admins seems to assume me "guilty until proven innocent" (and guilty of what, exactly?)

As for your questions, I can honestly say I do not have any of the accounts you ask for. I find Wikipedia biased, which is precisely why I signed up on Conservapedia - why would I bother to have a Wikipedia account? As for Facebook, as I understand it, it's a social network primarily for young people, so I have no need for it - and as I've read on Conservapedia, Facebook apparently contributes to high divorce rates, so as a Christian and religious man, why would I want to participate in an organization that does that? As for Twitter, I don't have anything against that site, but I have no use for it. The life of a retired carpenter and Sunday school teacher would not provide for many interesting "tweets."

I can offer you other personal information if you need it, but how exactly would you use my personal details in determining whether my activity on Conservapedia is "legitimate" or not. An evaluation of my edits should be based on their content, so again I ask - which of my edits have suddenly sparked this witch hunt against me? I am simply trying to understand which of Conservapedia's rules I have violated.

Thanks for your time, and let me know what else I can do to aide in your investigation.

JPatt promptly wrote back that since I am Christian he will investigate, but because "there has been a number of infiltrators coming from NY" he needs something "to present the senior administrators and Andy" to prove that I am not "fictitious" (by the way, who is a more "senior administrator" than JPatt? Ed Poor??) However, surprisingly JPatt also promised to look into the "answers you request" (presumably the reason why I was blocked). Nearly a week later, I hadn't heard from him, so I sent him a followup. He promptly replied that "I was told there was reasons to suspect you, such as our enemy calling you a parodist, but no specifics were given, sorry." (so apparently the specifics behind suspecting TeacherEd are top secret, even from JPatt). He added "I'll need some proof (i don't know) that you are who you say you are". I wrote back and asked him about this great "enemy" of theirs, and he readily replied that "Rationalwiki is our enemy." I offered to send him a copy of my driver's license, which apparently got him very excited, and he promised more than just an unblock! Quoth the JPatt: "That would get you not only back in but protected from being blocked in the future." At that point I was very tempted to just send him some photoshopped New York license (which I have little doubt he would accept, although I assume Andy and other "senior administrators" would be more skeptical). But I think I've accomplished enough with TeacherEd, and don't really want to get involved with fake ids (call the FBI!)

So after reading this, I am sure they will be more paranoid than ever, and verifying one's identity will likely be nearly impossible for legitimate editors in the future (although it's highly unlikely there will be many legitimate editors over there in the future anyway). And so ends the saga of TeacherEd, the world's best Sunday school teacher. I wonder how long my "insightful" Bible lectures (and CBP translations.... and "best conservative words" I added) will stay on CP. --FatherJoseph (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Do you have a Wikipedia account, Facebook account, Linkin account or a Twitter account" So CP has finally reached the point where they need to engaged in some serious webstalking before they decide you're bona fide or not. All of that is quite ironic, given that they have no idea themselves that Conservative is Ken Demyer or not. Still it was only a matter of time, before the paranoia and persecution complex took control and they closed ranks. I don't know why they just don't don't go the CZ route - full names only (you listening, Karajou?) and not allowed to use an online mail server. That'll shut down new editors for good.

To answer your questions, the "senior" admins are that in name only, and it would appear to be a self-appointed title. IIRC our ever-modest friend TK first started throwing the term around, especially when bullying the newer sysops (handily forgetting his year-long absence and the fact that he'd only just been re-promoted himself.) AFAIK the only other sysop to refer to himself as senior is Smeg Ed. I'm sure there were some ZB discussions about calling people senior sysops. let me see if I can dig them up. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 10:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We should demand a birth certificate for all of these cases. --Ullhateme (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to give some feedback on your e-mailing. You were lucky to get a reply at all. Karajou doesn't have his mail enabled, Ed Poor never responds to e-mails, despite his bogus claims about being fair, other than to occasionally post to the ZB saying "look, this idiot mailed me, but I'm keeoing him blocked." Andy certainly doesn't. In fact, it's been suggested that his CP mail account, is different from the one he normally uses and the former never gets read. Ken is too much of an intellectual coward to reply to an e-mail questioning him - trust me, I've tried. You're probably lucky TK is AWOL, otherwise you would have had some very creepy mails in your inbox. From experience, Douglas and Jpatt are the two willing to reach out across the great divide, but you were lucky to be unblocked, as TK has virtually made it policy that it is illegal for one sysop to undo another's block. Officially, this is so that CP's sysops offer a united front, but in reality, it's so TK doesn't have to explain away his blocking of the planet.

The fact "Andy was against you" was probably a death knell - all the sysops to a man, see Andy as the Divine Bringer of Providence and Meaning to their Little Lives, and He Who Shall Not Be Questioned. If Andy says you're no good, who are they, mere mortals, to question His Word?

Still, it's funny that they're closing ranks now, when there's still 3 parodist sysops operating. Well, 2 without TK. --Ψ Gremlin講話 11:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, it seems as if the sysops who are in the special discussion group see themselves as "senior" to the other sysops (yes, some sysops are more equal than others). However, given the discovery of the Fab Five discussion space, one can assume that these are the "senior" sysops - Andy, Ed, TK, TerryH, Karajou. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 11:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor TeacherEd, I did what I could to save you, but alas. Good proof that there's no rhyme, reason, or sanity to the blocks. 13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shhh! I told you it's too soon to come as Jpatt! There is still much to do! --Ψ GremlinHable! 13:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a final message from JPatt (which he himself asked that I post, as you can read for yourself):

"Why stop now, waste some more time with us. You win, in your head only. A geek with a computer, oohh soo scary. Conservapedia is finished for sure wha wha wha! In between your masturbating sessions, please post this follow-up thread."

--FatherJoseph (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Typical CP reaction - taunt the user, whilst ignoring the bigger problem. --Ψ GremlinTal! 14:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Their anger often overwhelms their flimsy Christian drag. This is why there is logic to Wikipedia's 'focus on the edits, not the editors' rule; they waste so much time trying to figure out if someone is a parodist, when they just look at what the editors write and whether they agree or not. --Leotardo (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

CP sysops just want two things: (1) Power and the thrill of using it. (2) A safe haven where they can push their individual agendas. The desire to have a power gap and to rule over lesser beings is what drove most of the rules that go beyond the most basic "Don't vandalize, cite references, etc." set. So stalking potential editors and requesting more and more evidence just to grant the privilege of not being banned randomly because of a hunch perfectly fits into this. --Sid (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is one of the things I enjoy about it. I've never done parody on CP (not that I'm above it), but it's that it's a big farcical game for both them and us. People say that about Wikipedia, but for all its shortcomings the end result with WP is a relatively decent compendium of information; whereas CP it's all power politics and junk extremist articles that are embarrassing rather than persuasive. --Leotardo (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Geek with a computer and masturbating sessions, did he just describe Ken

? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"You win in your head only" - Priceless projection.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I always love how we can fall back on JPratt and his Christian charity: If a man asks you for your shirt: accuse him of masterbating and call him a geek. This is the word of the lord. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Charity to fundamentalists like those who run CP is to tell some poor person that they are a sinner.. You know, out of love! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of monomaniacs...

596 days after his first edit there, FOIA's still updating his mangum ofpus, Alger Hiss. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Going by pure bytecount, it's currently the longest article they have on the site. The only longer mainspace item is "Previous Conservapedia Breaking News":

1. (hist) ‎Main Page/Previous Conservapedia Breaking News ‎[826,211 bytes]
2. (hist) ‎Alger Hiss ‎[288,561 bytes]
3. (hist) ‎Atheism ‎[200,135 bytes]
4. (hist) ‎Homosexuality ‎[189,732 bytes]

Impressive. I might have to repeat my old side-by-side comparison of rendered article lengths again these days... --Sid (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait... has it not crossed those rocket scientists' minds that an archive can consist of more than 1 page? And they have the deputy (or something) webmaster of CreationWiki. AND User188. Can these people do nothing right? --Ψ GremlinSprich! 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Without DeanS, Jpatt kinda took over.^img Meaning that he did one epic archiving binge in August 2010 (down to 187,862 bytes)... and that the page has filled up to its current state in the few months since then. The largest version I could find was 1,179,687 bytes large. That's what you get when a bunch of people focus most of your attention on plastering the main page with "news" instead of building an encyclopedia. --Sid (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy fails science again.

Our resident engineer^img can't tell the difference between god and the "god particle." Sure, why spend all that money on scientific research, when you can read a Bronze-age mythology. --Ψ Gremlin講話 15:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Engineer, not physicist... although that's not really an excuse. Though it always makes me laugh when people conflate "God" and the "god particle" because the guy who coined that term has said that he only called it the "god particle" because "goddamn particle" (in reference to how difficult it would be to fine) just wasn't acceptable practice. ^moral 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would he want to fine the particle? Was it speeding? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If I had $1 for every sub-atomic particle that exceeded the speed-limit... Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the media that coined it "the god particle", not Higgs, and that came as a result of publication of the book "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?"; scientists hate that name by the way. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was Leon Lederman who wanted to call it Goddamned, apparently. Though I am impressed by their naming criteria:

He has three simple rules:

1. Names should be serious and accurate
2. It is good to name things after people, but only if you can resist the pressure to hyphenate with two or three extra names
3. Names should be evocative and inspiring.

The Higgs boson scores well on 1 and 2, but in my view fails miserably on 3. Equally, God particle fails spectacularly on 1 and 2, but does rather better on 3.

Any suggestions? If you want to name things after people (no.2), though, how exactly do you expect no.3 to be satisfied? You can't name everything after Einstein and it's fairly customary for people to name things after people - although so long as you don't name it after yourself. That's just bad form. ^moral 22:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

National Socialist!

Noting that Jpratt mentions Nazis must be liberal because they're the National Socialist Party, it might be worth pointing out the North Korea article where they're very much against them being called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea because they're not democratic. ^moral 15:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No guessing the genius behind that edit.^img Clearly, Rev Moon does not approve. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Korea thing was WIGO'd back then and we had a fair discussion on it, which is why I suddenly remembered it. It's interesting that one thing can have a misleading name but another cannot... it's barely worth pointing out the double standard. ^moral 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that it was a given that any country that needs to put "democratic", "people's", or "socialist" in their name is obviously none of those things. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As was pointed out to^img and ignored by Smeg Ed. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 15:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it's just stupid name-calling. "Liberals are anti-life!" "No, they're nerds!" "No! They're fat!" "No, they're Nazis! I win! Na-na-nana-na!" If they're so scared of liberals that they need to demonise the term, liberals must be doing something right. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 15:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But aren't we nerds? Personally, it's a badge that gets worn with pride, especially when I snigger at the words 'POKE' and 'PEEK'.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If being a nerd means using the legal name of a country for an encyclopedia article, I will happily accept the label. That edit by Ed is more evidence they are a blog and not an encyclopedia. ("She's doesn't act like a lady, so we're just going to call her "Gaga") --Leotardo (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Us nerds are cool now. It helps that we run the world. Heck, we arguably have our first nerd president now (though Carter was a nuclear engineer in the Navy, so he comes close.) MDB (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Carter - Nuclear engineer, Homer - Nuclear Technician, Schlafly - Engineer. Not sure what point I'm trying to make there, but I do like the juxtaposition.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, Schlafly is an electrical engineer. I always remember that, because that's what my degree is in, too. (Though I've drifted into software engineering.) MDB (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

'Schlafly is an electrical engineer ' but his batteries are flat. Ba dum tsh,-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Remind you of anyone?

Bizarre late night postings, weird pseudonyms^img... doesn't someone we know and, er, know just leap to mind? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, couldnt be. EternalCritic (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it took me a minute to think of someone who didn't fit that description. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 05:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why Andy describes the shooting spree as "alleged". I thought it had been pretty well verified that the shooting spree did, in fact, happen. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy's using his leet lawyer skills. Prefixing things with the word "alleged" and addressing his wife as "the supposed wife of Andrew Schlafly" are the highlights of his alleged legal career. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 13:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Feds taking away religious liberty

Jpatt on MPR laments that the Feds told Catholic Manhattan College they can't prevent teachers from unionizing^img, which the college (and Jpatt) see as infringing upon their religious liberty. Apparently the Feds told MC “that the purpose of the College is secular and not the ‘propagation of a religious faith’.” They have no religious studies program for either undergrad or grad school. But what is MC arguing here? How are unions against Catholic religious practice? Would it infringe their "religious liberty" if the Feds said they can't employ child labor? I get why they shouldn't have to adhere to gay rights laws, but their conflating that issue with anti-unionism is a bullshit argument. --Leotardo (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Curious, does Catholic Manhattan College accept federal funds? Either directly or through the use of student loans or grants? If they do, they have to follow the federal regulations if they want to use federal dollars to get people enrolled. Want the feds to not interfere? Refuse to take any of their cash, even indirectly. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be extremely difficult to argue that trade unions are against Catholic practice, considering two of the key forces that worked together to overturn communism in Poland were the Catholic Church and the Solidarity trade union. MDB (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You see MDB, here's your problem: when have you seen anything on CP that could be classified as an "argument"? Sure, a normal, sentient person would say to themselves "That's ridiculous - unionizing isn't counter to Catholic doctorine." But for CP-like people (read, idiots), it's enough to scream "RELIGION CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! BLARGH!!"

A fun experiment would be for someone to claim that God told them to sacrifice their son, which I think is much more of a Catholic belief than anti-unionism. Carlaugust (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The American Catholic Church can't tolerate unions, but they can tolerate child rape. --Leotardo (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the broader question might be why the fuck is there an exemption in the labour laws in the first place that allows the religious to deny workers their rights? It's one thing to allow them to discriminate in hiring, though if it were me I'd tell them where to stick their discriminatory practices, but once they've hired their straight white male staff why shouldn't they follow the law like everyone else? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To hark back to the Polish case, one might reasonably infer from the CP article on Solidarity that Andy and Co. have more time for a Communist military dictatorship than they do for a democratically-inclined trade union: “During the 1981-1989 period when the Solidarity party was outlawed, the communist government tended to see its local Roman Catholic church as a far more conservative and reasonable social force than the Solidarity party.” I also love the way that the hopeless style suggests a preference for a specific building round the corner from the Council of State rather than the Polish RC Church as a whole.Tylersboy (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Jeeves asked the key question. If allowing religious groups exemptions from law for reasons of "religious conscience" then why can't a racist organisation in a similar line of business be allowed to opt out of labour laws that'd prevent them employing a "no darkies" policy in their hiring. Aryan Nations also "has deeply held religious convictions and moral principles", and is arguably more conciliatory towards Africa. Aryan Nations would probably be happy to just deport blacks back to Africa. The Catholic Church wants to follow them home and kill them with pointless dogma. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Non Prophets on CP

This is a link to The Non Prophets podcast which has quite a long part on CP. Laughing about the fat athiests and other stuff, nothing new to us I think but if you're looking for something to listen to.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, something interesting to listen to while I'm working on my PC. Thanks. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to step up and take credit for tipping Matt off to Ken's fattyfattybooboo name-calling. You're welcome. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done! Though in the end I've got to say that I don't really think that it was one of their most interesting episodes.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

More people think liberal rather than conservative political rhetoric incites violence

The numbers in the survey linked from MPR dont seem to add up to me. I get 33% liberal, 38% con, 29% DK. Is there some statistical adjustment im not getting here?

Don't see the issue. The add up to 100%, so that's fine. Of course, polls of this sort don't mean much. It's like the polls Ken likes to cite that say more people believe in creation than evolution, as if that makes it true. DickTurpis (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The text says what CP alleges but you're right, BON 131, the numbers don't add up THEIR way so they just assert and hope no-one notices. Good catch. 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I think you're assuming that there were the same number of liberals, moderates, and conservatives responding, but there weren't. From my calculations, the actual numerical result is around this:

	Total	Liberal	Moderate	Conservative
Liberals	205	5	109	95
Conservatives	186	44	127	15
DK/NA	186	13	116	57

So there were a lot more conservatives responding, somewhat disproportionate to actual demographics. Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Before people wonder, I guess this is the item you guys are talking about?^img --Sid (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah, but Tkz lost four people somewheres as the page tol' us that "A total of 581 voters were questioned about the shooting..." C®ackeЯ

It wouldn't be good statistics if there weren't rounding errors :) Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And by rounding errors I mean I can't add. Upper left should read 209, not 205. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What I can't believe is how many moderates they claim to have. Keep in mind far-right nutters like O'Reilly and Farah claim they are moderates. - π 00:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was assuming equal numbers of liberals and conservatives yes - It wouldnt make any sense otherwise would it? I found this interesting: "Overall, slightly more respondents said that liberals were to blame for the vitriol rather than conservatives (36 percent to 32 percent). But that result was driven mostly by those who did not think that rhetoric was a major factor. Of the 52 percent who said rhetoric does contribute to violence, a substantial plurality (45 percent to 27 percent) blamed conservatives over liberals. The two questions have a 4.1 percent margin of error." http://nationaljournal.com/politics/poll-says-rhetoric-may-fuel-violence-left-and-right-to-blame-20110114

Apparently, being a liberal means you can do simultaneous equations and know when you're being lied to with statistics. Iy was exactly my thought to reverse engineer this and get the absolute numbers from each group. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What gives man?

Please help, or I may never laugh again.‎

Its been long two days now. The tears of laughter are fast drying on my cheeks. Why is this happening to me? --Horace (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Why did SuspectedReplicant delete the above question stating that it was trolling? --Horace (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Because this is about the fourth fucking time this has been brought up and it's getting boring. Yes, they've used .htaccess files to prevent access from many (but not all) UK IP addresses. Yes, you can get around it using a proxy. Yes, we have a fucking search function for archives. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had that message for 2 weeks now. I don't know why I'm blocked, I'm just a reader on there, never edited. CB-Soul (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This week I visited a technology research park in Surrey and couldn't get onto CP either. Still no problems at home. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For Horace

That is weird, I just got that for the first time ever. Maybe it is an error that is taking a while to propagate. I don't think they are blocking like people as is commonly claimed, I think they are having routing problems. - π 10:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My home PC (the only one I trolled CP from) is blocked but my clean work IP isnt. Just saying... Ace McAwesome 10:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

New modem, new IP address clean as a whistle, never touched the place with it. - π 10:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My ISP gives me IPs in three different ranges. One range is 403-blocked, the other two are clear. Two of the ranges, including the 403 one, are wiki blocked. Routing problems wouldn't give a 403 error. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It could happen if the server has been moved and the router is pointing you to the old server instead of the new, that should have cleared up in a couple of days though. I am only thinking routing because of the geographical nature of it mostly being from the UK. They are probably blocking the IPs that come from here the most often in the hope of getting capturebot. - π 11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here ya go Horace - interesting to see Ken deleting and recreating Aschlafly's talkpage. Now we know who's In Charge. Ace McAwesome 10:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

He trying to hide his shit again? Honestly he is worse than a cat. - π 10:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes it worse is that Ken's had oversight since Feb 2007 and the dumb fuck still hasn't figured out how to use it. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 10:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Every time I remember he has been an admin at CP longer than I have been using wikis I shake my head. - π 10:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Psy, the dates on that page are misleading. Those aren't the dates they were granted oversight, but (I guess) the registration dates. Ken got Oversight in November '09 --Sid (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe we missed this one

According to Kowardjerk, Hitler was a lesbian^img. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I think it's some kind of weak sauce play on Hitler's real nickname, "carpet chewer." Not sure if it's an urban legend or not, but it's said that the allies took his nickname at face value and tried to assassinate him with a poisoned carpet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Koward's an angry little man, isn't he? --Kels (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lesbians do not have a monopoly on munching carpets, and if I recall correctly, Hitler was known to munch a few. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To use Schlafly logic: Hitler munched at least 2 carpets. Both had an end result of the carpets' owners committing suicide. Ergo, munching carpets leads to suicide. Deny this and lose all credibility. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 06:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are Atheists actually fat?

Since Ken (and Andy, by his promotion of the item) clearly think Atheists are fat, I wonder what the average weight of the RW community is? Post shamelessly and let's see if Kenny is onto something here! Maybe he's right?! Add your name, gender and weight below:

• DogP (M) - 5'8"/161lbs / 73Kg
• EddyP - 130lbs/60kg
• Nutty - 5'11"/1.8 m 175 lbs/79 kg of hot as fuck beefcake
• One - 75kg
• ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} - 6'1"~ / 1.86m / 17st 5lbs / 243lbs / 110kgs. Mind you, about 3st of that is quetiapine.
• StarFishUK - 6'00"/1.83 M - 168 lbs / 76 Kg
• Ace - 6'3" and 75 kilos (165 lbs). Tall, slim, sexy. Woman like me and I am filled with machismo.
• Leotardo - 6'3" and 190 lbs, relatively muscular and no problem getting a date.
• Real first name and last initial (talk) 6'1", 14 stone. 1001011101011101001010101101100110010010111011 in metric or whatever that French stuff is. Slightly overweight and I'm not even an atheist.
• DickTurpis: >6'2", <170. Until about 2 years ago I was very underweight, now I'm only regular underweight. (Atheist, too, if we're keeping score there. I know not all of us are.)
• Thunderkatz 5'10", 150lbs, 68 kg, all man. And half thunder. (Damn, we might not be fat, but we're tall as hell).
• AMassiveGay: 6'4. My weight has been a constant 12 1/2 stone since my teens. I am in the process of trying up my weight.
• Norseman: 5'10, 177 lbs, about 8% bodyfat. Feels good man.
• Junggai: 5'11 (1.78 m), 171 lb. (78 kg), relatively muscular, agnostic
• SuperJosh: 5'11, 155lb (roughly)-been a while since I weighed myself. I maintain my machismo and arm strength by masturbating regularly as our machismo article suggests.
• Oldusgitus. 49, 5'10 about 200 lbs and struggling to lose some. Firmly atheist and have been since I can remember.
• NickHeer: 6'1", 130 lbs or ~60 kg. Remind me again, Ken: I'm supposed to be obese, right?
• ScientificRigor: 5'9", 135 lbs. Far from obese. Metabolism is such that I struggle to add any mass at all, fat or muscle.
• Pi: 178cm, 95kg. I have a lady-like figure of 112-99-107cm, wouldn't mind losing a little off the waist.
• Psy: 5'9, 71kg, 65kg without the hair.
• Yossarian: 5'11", somewhere between 163 and 165 lbs (some of it even muscle!). As a matter of fact, I've lost weight, Kenny.
• Lily: 5'4" now back at 118 lbs
• Concernedresident (all man): 5'11" and 182 lbs (82 kilograms). Medium build and slightly famine resistant, but certainly not fat.
• Worm 6'2", 300 lbs. Pretty well very, very overweight. But couldn't care less. I play football, walk marathons. I look great ina kilt :)
• DeltaStar - 5'9", 14st. The fattest I've ever been. Not a typical rotund fat bastard, rather an 'athletic build' with a beer belly. About to attempt to try to begin an attempted health kick.
• Bondurant: 185cm, about 70kg. As for other atheist characteristics, I'm married, but can't stand chunky peanut butter (or any other type of peanut butter).

If we need to bump this up to a BMI thing, we could try that too! DogP (I buggered up my sig) (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No idea what my actual weight is... but my wrist is the size of a cocktail stick if that helps. ^moral 17:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would claim that BMI is inaccurate because some of us might be muscley... but if that were true, then it would defeat Ken's other hypothesis anyway: the hypothesis that we lack MA-CHEEEEEESE-MO. So I guess that about wraps it up. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

BMI is a proxy that works on a population level. If you use it for a range of people, rather than individuals, it is fine. The idea that BMI is useless is a myth, it's only useless when it's misapplied to individuals. ^moral 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an atheist, and I'm... plump. (I used to weight more than twice what I do now. That means I have a lot of excess skin.) MDB (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a template

22.8	This user's body mass index is 22.8

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to use a special stick to type because my fingers hit like 3 keys at once. X Stickman (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well I'm so fat my body heat originates entirely from the collapsing cloud of dust and gas that formed me. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the font suddenly bigger? ^{ONE / TALK} 18:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh god it's getting worse ^{ONE / TALK} 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

HELP ^{ONE / TALK} 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Something apparently broke when the userbox was indented. --Sid (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll leval with you. I'm a fat Atheist. But I take pride in the fact that I'm STILL not as fat as Rush Limbaugh.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

Atheists are known to be liars anyway. Probably took a trailing zero off your weights or something. Or added one to the height. Or both. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this thread just prep for the soon-to-be created Forum:RationalWiki Dating Service? --Leotardo (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A dearth of females makes it a bit untenable for us heterosexual guys. DickTurpis (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus, you'd have to split it off into various subsections to cater for…individual tastes. Hey, some of us have our fetishes you know! *cough* Star Wars *cough*-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Beggars can't be choosers Dick. We gotta take what we can get, that's why Dawkins has no luck with Asian ladies. We can't all by super-manly, machismo Factor 5, Christian, conservative ladies men. SJ ^Debaser 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record (and I know you're reading Ken), as a former atheist (now agnostic) I can attest that atheism puts no damper on attractiveness to Asian ladies. Junggai (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Have we sunk so far as to have to beg for sex now? DickTurpis (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's only after marriage to the liberal gal who loved you for your atheism. Junggai (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought SJ's dating advice was for the prison terms we'll all get once Karajou gets his way. --Leotardo (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not above begging for sex. Just sayin'. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell, I'm so hard up, when I go out, I put Rohypnol in my own drinks. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 05:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I should have added that despite being what most people would definitely classify as a fat atheist, I'm also a geek (BSc in Computing), but to buck the trend I've been married for 15 years. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless people are engaging in cp:deceit, it would appear that RW is full of lanky-ass motherfuckers. DickTurpis (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:AceinNZ.jpg

Proof and evidence.

No deceit here - I have photographic evidence. Ace McAwesome 21:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this so-called "evidence" of yours. You could easily have an extra 50kg tucked away on your right hand side, behind that obstruction. --Kels (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you manage to bag that hobbit? Please tell me you've got him mounted on a wall somewhere.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No deceit here either. Pant size is 29-30/34. Otherwise known as the hardest size to find. – Nick Heer 22:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

32"/34" ain't all that much better. Glad I don't live in the midwest or deep south or I'd never find pants that fit. DickTurpis (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

34"/34" isn't the easiest to encounter, either. --Leotardo (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I often wear 30"/30", but I'm always happy to find 29"/30", which is closer to my size but quite difficult (although not impossible) to find. ScientificRigor (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Being black, I always get a couple of sizes bigger than I need for sagging purposes. I usually get my pants in a 40/32, but if I really want some bagginess, I'll rock a 42/34. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have my trousers made to measure or the leg length will only reach above the ankle. Store bought trousers that have the length all seem to be tailor for a much more substantial girth. No good for the slim fit I favour. H&M's jeans fit fine though.AMassiveGay (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I could always stick the most recent picture of me up showing I'm 11 stone. Andy might not approve though, I was at a fancy dress party at the time, as Jesus... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember a party a couple of years ago where a friend of mine went dressed up as Jesus. The guy's a metalhead and normally has long hair and an epic beard, and he looked uncannily like a Jesus, albeit a heavy one as the guy weighs about 15st. Oh, and he's a Christian. So... yeah. SJ ^Debaser 11:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I like my metal, have the hair and I can plait my beard... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus allegedly (after he was allegedly making an honest living as an alleged carpenter) relied on strangers' generosity for food and shelter during his ministry. I can't imagine a bedraggled stranger turning up to these guys' homes, humbly seeking food and shelter with much success. Nor would it have happened in ancient Palestine very often. That's why Jesus was skinny and everybody else is fat by comparison~QED. Ken wins.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talking of a fat Jesus.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... Karajou

Look Popeye, I know you have anger management issues, and that when some somebody dares defile your holy of holies (where is TK, by the way?), you get all hot and bothered and can't see the woods for the red mist and the voices urging you to clean your guns. Well done on blocking that evil vandal, Thenewconservative. I'm sure the FBI are knocking on his door as we speak. Good of you to revert that evil vandal's blight upon Conservapedia.^img

However, you really should take a deep breath and count to 10, before running amok. Otherwise you leave behind fuck ups like this.^img

You're welcome. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 12:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have pointed it out - it would have been a good test of how many good-faith users actually read their articles. My money was on it staying for at least a month before someone noticed. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I hemmed and hawed about it, but then decided that seeing as we've been proof-reading CP since 2007, why stop now. I also thought I'd bask in the glow of Karajou's effusive thanks. --Ψ GremlinFale! 13:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't anybody spell on this wiki? It's W-H-O-R-E-D!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I demand evidence - the best way to prove it would be pictures. --Ullhateme (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the parodist MartYP has made more changes. Quick Karajerk, block him! CS Miller (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent work. He knows that the parody has been exposed and will be reverted so he preempts the reversion by a sysop to gain brownie points for himself.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FOIA

Is this guy blocked or not?? Jpatt definitely blocked him for vandalism but he is still editing his Userpage. I am so confused.. 67.241.191.198 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cut from saloon bar. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same. JPatt's block shows up in the general block log but not in FOIA's specific log. Something very strange is afoot. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 00:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Hint: An "l" looks a lot like an "I" in some fonts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The user who has been blocked is Foxtrot-Oscar-lima-Alpha, whereas the better-known Alger Hiss enthusiast is Foxtrot-Oscar-India-Alpha. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, that explains a lot. One less riddle to keep my mind busy. --Sid (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

They're all such computer illiterates over there that our wandal friend really wasted an opportunity. He should have redirected his talk page to the real FOIA's page, then started making increasingly bizarre edits to the Alger Hiss article. It would have driven the real FOIA insane. Well, insaner. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to mention how insanely clever that move was. Wish I had made it. --Opcn (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't even study it, just believe in God

Not that it's news, but Andy's recent MPR item^img on the closing of America's particle collider stuck out for this sentence: "Folks, you don't have to waste billions of dollars looking for God. Do yourself a favor and open a Bible." It's always surprising to me when someone argues against even attempting to understand the universe outside of the Bible. "Why even bother to look for testable answers when we have our book of myths that explains everything?" --Leotardo (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That is just sola scriptura taken to an extreme. Which is strange, given that Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But you have to remember, above all other things, Mr. Schlafly is what classical scholars and people with an elementary school education would refer to as a moron Saladin (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

idiot is closer. Real first name and last initial (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the best answer to that is a slap in the face - and I'm a pacifist. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A better answer is Matthew 7:21-27. Given that it's part of the bible that's supposed to be taken literally... --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Shockofgod category, and Ed Poor

What an odd thing to have as a category... http://conservapedia.com/Category:Shockofgod^img Pegasus (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know about this^img. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the endless supply of Atheists who answer the question but find themseleves censored so SOG can keep going "Yay, I win." --Thunderstruck (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With that I'm more concerned that they claim the definition of atheism has changed. It's always been a position of belief - it's agnosticism that is a position based on knowledge and evidence. ^moral 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That whole turd pile is mainly Ken's creation but I love it that Ed has to come along and roll in it^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is what we call a Circle Jerk. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thunderstruck, the reason why there is no mention of the numerous atheists who answer the question is that any answer he has been given so far is invalid, according to SoG. Why are they invalid? Because he says so, basically. 86.164.12.60 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, I may be wrong, but I think Ed used to edit Wikipedia and I knew him slightly there. If it's the same guy, he's really nosedived into crazy, as the fellow I knew was - so far as I remember - Mormon and a bit unskeptical, but not that bad. Aconite (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Unproductive and unhelpful from the start, doctrinaire Moonie, and a cretin. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Either I didn't know him that well, or it was a different person. Aconite (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He has two modes: the friendly Uncle Ed, helpful to all editors and supportive; and Ed the idiot with an inferiority complex, bullies around the lesser peons and forces his views into things that are at times unrelated. Both Eds can't write an article for shit and poses no research skills. - π 02:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the way it looks, but a closer examination of the universe of his edits reveals that he's a highly contentious editor who from the very beginning pushed a bizarroworld right wing and anti-science POV under the guise of "going along to get along." He's a liar, a shrew, a turd, and a moron. Take for granted, for example, that he's a "math teacher" for the sake of argument and then compare that assumption against the full range of his contributions on that subject to either WP or CP and reevaluate. He can't even do basic algebra let alone accurately report what he learned from Reader's Digest. His "pedagogy" is atrocious. His tone is shrill and patronizing. He's no teacher nor is he much of a scholar. Once again I'll say I'm glad he's no longer an admin at WP. Being the 188'th user and having the perseverance to stick around in the face of sharp rebukes is more a sign of his pathology than his merit. In other words... User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, certainly it's clear that whatever vague impression I had of whoever it was in the past, Ed Poor is a complete nutter now and for, at the least, several years standing. Aconite (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Call Me Uncle" Ed's comments about teaching (math teacher, music teacher, dealing with tattletales, etc.) lead me to believe that he's occasionally filled in at some Moonie-run indoctrination centre school for elementary students. Which would make most of his math about basic functions like multiplication, not algebra or geometry, let alone calculus and up which he clearly doesn't understand. --Kels (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aconite - If you research Ed Poor's history at Wikipedia you'll find that he was made an admin but was later demoted because of abuse of his power. Also his contributions at WP seem to be mainly of the "make a stub and let other people do the work" variety with some wingnut POV edits made under the guise of putting both sides' views. He has continued in that vein at CP but the wingnut POV is CP's default and nobody will revert him. He is also very passive-aggressive and will pick on "junior" editors after he has been humiliated elsewhere.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He also has a strange habit of adding unseemly content to CP - to whit, his entry on rimming (which was redlinked, waiting for an article) to the Gay Bowel Syndrome clusterfuck; creating an article on Bestiality,^img having originally referred to it as "Sex with animals,"^img creating a redirect for "hard-core pornography,"^img whilst at the same time protesting about prostitutes being called prostitutes, because it's "too lurid" and "he has children."^img He's also a two-faced, lying, back-stabbing piece of shit, who hides behind CP instead of answering for his actions. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We should make sure that those porn-related links are 'capped. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how caturebot works on those pages.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now where do we put them? --Ψ GremlinPrata! 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add some comments about Ed and his scientific and mathematical erudition. I probably got to see it up close in more detail than anyone else. Ed is a complete charlatan, faker, and fraud in these areas. Most of us have known people who are fakers in one area or another. One thing they have in common is a good skill at changing the subject and otherwise deflecting questions that get too close to exposing them—you have be skillful in this area if you are going to maintain the fakery. Ed is very good at it.

After looking at an enormous number of Ed's math/science edits both at WP and CP, it has become clear that he never made a single edit with any intellectual or conceptual content. The closest I could find at Wikipedia was a stub that he wrote on gravitational gradient. He copied something from NASA, clearly not understanding what the NASA page was saying, it got a "speedy delete candidate" flag because of this, he added a few words, and it finally got turned into a redirect.

Another example (at CP) of writing quasi-scientific material without understanding the subject was the article titled Hollerith. He saw a page on the University of Rochester site and copied one sentence from it. That page didn't say what his first name was (Herman) or what the invention really was (punch-card tabulating machines, the forerunner of the computer), so Ed didn't say either. Ed mentioned nothing that wasn't in the original Rochester page. He couldn't be bothered to Google the person who played a pioneering role in computers. I chided him for that on his talk page, and his reply was just to tell me what an expert he is, and that he "studied [computer] history quite a bit". Really? And he didn't know who Herman Hollerith was?

On the math front, I attempted to engage him, in repeated attempts over a couple of years, on issues of math writing. The questions got simpler and simpler, hoping eventually to get him to say something or to write something with actual content. Completely unsuccessful. In the last attempt, I laid out four very simple articles needing work, asking which ones he should work on and which ones I should work on. No luck. He wanted me to do all four, and never said anything about the content issues that I had raised. Like a true charlatan, he avoided danger when talking to an educated person.

A typical example of his "writing" was the quadratic formula. If he had any idea how the formula was derived (which he could have gotten from reading the article itself) he would not have made his content-less "it doesn't simplify anything" edit. I straightened him out in the next edit.

And his not knowing that V=IR is equivalent to I=V/R has been chronicled elsewhere here at RW.

Ed of course made many (stupid) edits on what might be called "science policy" or "philosophy of science" issues. Often in the area of global warming denial. He could safely engage in this kind of "soft science" blather without letting on that he was completely ignorant about the actual subject matter. Done like a true faker.

Reading the ZB section (210) where all the other sysops fall over each other with praise for his erudition was quite amusing. He also claims to be a "Substitute Math Teacher, PYE Education Center, Queens, New York." In 580, he says "I've taught SAT prep and I get advanced placement in calculus (not to mention a 760 on the Math SAT). I can tell when the concepts are being explained right." Yeah, right. Gauss (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This "PYE Education Center" seems to have almost no presence online, other than the address. Which is odd, given they've got an experienced computer expert like User #188 on staff. The fact that some Google hits are in Korean suggests that it's Moonie-related, though, which makes my scenario above more likely. After all, who else would hire him? --Kels (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, he's a faker who likes to pretend to intellectualism, while hiding behind a cloak of getting others to do the work for him, and using his supposed good work elsewhere to promote Moonieism? ...Eh, still better than Dana Ullman, but only just. Aconite (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You got it - apart from the creepy sex angle.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's an obession

Andy: "Look! Look! It snowed. Therefore there is no global warming. I win!"^img It used to be funny, but no it's just getting sad..... SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 20:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

He's going bonkers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Going"? Him (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy has been a grade A nutter for a long time. Auld Nick (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And there's snow at the equator. Here's snow on Hawai'i. CS Miller (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he not notice the other headline Global warming waning? Hardly. 2010 was tied as warmest year on record? CS Miller (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andy, I'm going to use your logic now: In Hamburg, Germany it's about 10°C right now. Normal is 3.5°C at this time of the year. Therefore: Global warming is true. And now I'm using actual science: Average, you idiot! --Ullhateme (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here in London. Average high here in January tends to be about 6 degrees C. This weekend it was 12 degrees C. Explain that Andy! Oh, wait... he's an idiot. Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Temperature has a liberal bias. Expect cp:Temperature retranslation project soon. «-Bfa-» 18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken news: Homskolling makes you pretty!

So implieth the Assfly^img. You too can be miss America if your parents teach you that Jesus had a pet dinosaur. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't flaunting your body a liberal trait? Good conservatives should be modest in deed, thought, and dress. CS Miller (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what my buddy Timothy says about Miss America: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." So...there's that. Oh, incidentally, a bit further down, Tim says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Not really relevant, but I take an opportunity to point out what a horrible book the Bible is. Carlaugust (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Most biblical scholars are skeptical that Timothy was written by Paul at all. --Damo^Hi 01:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how long before her lesbian sex tapes with Carrie Prejean get uncovered?--69.155.225.201 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt & freedoms

That's interesting. When Jpatt added the bit about liberals impeding the freedoms of others, he also removed the bit about "Opposition to prayer in schools."^img Andy's head is going to explode... --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 06:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn’t Jpatt’s “impeding the freedom of others” shtick simply an amalgamation of those tired old conservative clichés about the nanny state, political correctness gone mad, interfering social workers, etc. rather than a truly original piece of CP wingnuttery? Tylersboy (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Along those same lines, quoth the JPatt "We don't punish the child for the sins of the father." 'Wait...I mean that's one of the founding principles of our faith.' Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Another chuckle, Jpatt says he doesn't punish the child for the sins of the father, but he will block you and your closest 65,000 IP addresses. Let's hope nobodies kids are using them. Come to think of it, CP's range blocking policy is implemented very much like original sin.. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Original Parody. Bugler ate from the tree of bullshit and was kicked out of the Garden of Conservapedia by Andy, and everyone ever since joins as a parodist and must redeem themselves by submitting a writing plan to Creepy Ed. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Why's the internet so boring? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

^^ User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives want smaller government because smaller government fits much better into bedroom doorways. 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Golden Globes

Since there wasn't a chance of seeing Nancy Reagan's "golden globes", it's funny watching Assfly and Co. try to figure out whether or not they approved of Gervais. On the one hand, he's a vulgar atheist and therefore the scum of the earth. On the other hand, he's poking fun at Hollywood Values™. Luckily Karajou can sum it up for us as "fuck them all." – Nick Heer 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Might this be why Andy hates relativity?

ABC Relativity-Bertrand Russell might be it. --Opcn (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyson WiGO

The "well researched" article was a copy/paste from Wikipedia, which is against CP commandments, so it's hardly surprising the guy was blocked. Admittedly the "liberal trolling" excuse seemed a bit of a stretch, but block reasons are irrelevant over there; they all might as well be "because an admin thinks you should be blocked". DickTurpis (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too, and withdrew the WIGO. Sorry. Gauss (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another counterexample to an Old Earth

If fish and birds keep dying in massive numbers^img, how come there are any still around today? Answer: the world is 6000 years old. Though I'd be interested to see how he would reconcile his view of constant population decline among birds with his belief in the great flood, which demands that all birds except those on Noah's ark die. How would the population of birds increase so that these mass deaths could happen if bird populations were always dying? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In what universe does that make sense? It doesn't matter if lots of birds die after they've reproduced OR if many are born. Surely millions of fish die each year, but they have huge litters. Andy fails biology forever. Pegasus (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When I read EddyP's post I assumed that he was exposing some parodist but to see that it was added by Andy almost made me reach for a Tena Lady. Surely mass extinctions have occurred many times throughout the Earth's history; that's why we don't have trilobites or velociraptors. But there's also been massive drops in human populations because of plague or the black death and now humans are more numerous than ever. You could also make the point that the mass deaths can show evolution at work where the minority who are able to survive a catastrophe become the dominant strain.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's typical Andy logic - it snowed somewhere, ergo global warming is false. Some animals died somewhere, therefore the earth is young, because we still have animals. (Ignoring the fact that something like 90% of all species have become extinct over time.) Then again, given that Terry Hurlbut wants to finance dinosaur hunts when he becomes Pres, Andy's in great company. Ψ GremlinSiarad! 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

My mind refuses to accept that he's serious, despite years of evidence that he just is that stupid. Maybe he's just drunk. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And we are talking here of events that don't even pale in comparison to species extinction, let alone mass extinctions (or that 99% of all lifeforms are now extinct). Thousands of birds and fish are dying in a population of many millions; far greater numbers of these same species of birds and fish are killed through predation, disease, and environmental conditions every year. Millions of members who lay tens of millions of eggs of which millions are lost before birth but still bring forth millions of new offspring, and he thinks losing mere thousands in a couple unusual (but my no means unique) events says that if the Earth was more then 6000 (well really 4400 according to his flood killing all multi-cellular life) year old, all life would be gone?? That doesn't work in any credible manner no matter how you attempt to put those pieces together. It just shows the insane delusion of the fundamentalist mind; never mind it doesn't make any sense, attempt to shoehorn whatever fact into the YEC model no matter how little understanding you have, and claim it not only validates your cosmological model, but invalidates all others.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think creationists really claim the Earth is 4400 years old, but that it was created in about 4000 BC. Of course not all of them are any good at basic maths and can add the additional 2000 years.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be imagining this, but didn't he once argue that because of exponential population growth, the world can't be more than 6,000 years old -- otherwise there would be far more than six billion people! Anyone remember this? I could be making it up. --MarkGall (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a fairly standard argument from the creationist playbook. Of course, anyone with even the most basic knowledge of how and why populations change in size know how utterly flawed this argument is. 86.164.12.60 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I was reading an article last week where some creationist made a "reasonable" assumption that of an exponent of 0.85 for rate of population growth which gave 3 billion people after 4000 years. However, if the rate was 0.75 then we get only 250m or 0.95 would give 250 36 billion (these figures are purely from the dregs of my memory) so the 0.85 reasonable assumption just happened to give an answer which agreed with the data. (I'll have a look for the link.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes here it is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm* Exponential grows is just a mathematical model of population growth, and the crudest one at that. Then there's the logistic model, etc, etc.Psyduck (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll for president.

I think the USA needs Ken

as its head of state. With great economic plans like shutting down UC Berkleyimg, in only four years the average American citizen will be squatting in a cave boiling rocks for dinner. Sure, Ken, everyone can learn a whole lot about science from the delusional ramblings of a madman. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At least we could be sure he'd work his ass off... --Ullhateme (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What is Berkeley, the eighth best uni in the world according to Times? He is pissed that after Wikipedia Berkeley's website tops Google's ranking for evolution and quite frankly takes huge shits on his "article". - π 00:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So Conservative censorship, then? --Kels (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The only acceptable kind. - π 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, what does the liberal lamestream media know? Andy's (really existent, not at all made up) homskolling classes trump anything you'd learn at Berkley. There should be a ConservaPhD programme. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sock-up and suggest it. Andy'd love it. I want my ConservaPHD in Schlafly Insights. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 01:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I know most people go with the "Ken

is mentally ill" meme, but has anyone ever conclusively disproved the "Ken

is a deep, deep, deep-cover parodist" meme? I mean, this post rivals his "I'll only charge Dawkins $500 to debate me" in terms of coffee being nasally displaced onto keyboards. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point, even if the guy is the deepest of deep cover parodists, either he's a committee, or he's still mentally ill. Devoting that much time and love to such a pursuit seems to me at least obsessive-compulsive no matter what the motive is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Several years on CP already, his adventures on WP and various forums before that, all with a consistent signature style...I doubt it's faked. And that's not even covering the marathon sessions, which I can't see anyone sane doing, parodist or otherwise. --Kels (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When I reached the "Chuck Norris and Powergym"-part in his "Atheism and Obesity"-puke, I found myself leaning on the theory that he's either a group of really consistent parodists, or a single parodist who has managed to create a very convincing bot. It all seems like way too much effort though. On another note, I keep getting giggly over the thought of Ken

having access to The Red Telephone. Vulpius (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy should contact Chuck and demand royalties for promoting his gym thingy. Oh btw Ken, there is no evolution - there's just a list of animals that Chuck allowed to live. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 06:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If there really is a parodist, committee/bot, or mentally ill debate, I'd have to make mentally ill at least the 20 to 1 favorite. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're putting the favourite at 20-1 then I'll have £100 on it! I assume you're not a professional bookmaker! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The dearly departed

It's been over a month now since TK last bestrode CP clutching the mighty banhammer in his meaty fists, so I think we can roll out the template now:

Of course I'll have to eat crow if he turns up tomorrow with a suntan and a set of photos to show us, but it really does seem like the fab five is looking for a new fifth Beatle. And in the mean time, CP is really going to hell in a handcart. I want the behind the scenes info though, I wonder why TK decided just to go quietly in to the good night rather than make a mess like last time? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say he is either a) on holiday b) dealing with family issues (I believe he had ill mother some time ago) c) been arrested for lewd behavior down at the local barracks. Ace McAwesome 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not rational but I'd rather not tempt fate on this. It would be much better if it was all just quietly forgotten, after all he might be dead/seriously injured himself. Not that I'd grieve but it's unseemly to dance on people's graves.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries - he's alive and well. FJF (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mayhaps he's gots himself a job over to wikileaks? (That'd doom 'em.) C®ackeЯ

Nope, I'm going with gobbling balls at the local barracks. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a really bad picture of TK swinging a real hammer against "liberal parodists" trying to "ban them for life" in my head right now - wait a second - no, that's a movie plot. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Andy secretly gave him the boot. I noticed that around the time he departed, Andy undid the "closed editing". Maybe Andy thought he was driving too many editors away.--69.155.225.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User rights are unchanged, so that doesn't appear to be the case. Nor can I imagine Andy doing this unless something very big happened, in which case we'd probably hear something. DickTurpis (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm betting one of those 403 errors showed up over Reno. --Shagie (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't seem like the type who'd leave quietly no matter whether it was of his own accord or if someone shuffled him towards the exit. My guess is that he'll eventually come back, provided Andy and Ken don't manage to wreck the wiki even faster in his absence. Röstigraben (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Video games are teh Devil

Here's CP's hilarious take on video games:

"Though a popular form of entertainment in America, video games (especially in modern years) tend to promote a liberal worldview, and can cause sexual immorality, atheism, obesity, and violence. Many video games (such as Dungeons and Dragons) feature nudity and Satanic imagery.[1] Several prominent murderers in recent years were inspired by video games, for example[2], while the popular online video game World of Warcraft has been shown to be as addictive as drugs, and has destroyed marriages and lead to obesity and and bad health (due to physical inactivity).[3]"--69.155.225.201 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"No... thats just the standard "High and mighty morality" take on entertainment in general. I still don't see how it's video games fault kids are more "screwed up"; given movies have even less "moral stuffs" and tend to get to the kids before games do.--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Solitaire turned me in to a liberal. Liberal Microsoft removed the robot deck design (Progress! Conservative!) so now I have to make do with the frog (Nature! Liberal!) After that I stopped shaving and started making my own granola. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I played Tetris and within minutes found myself sodomizing the corpse of some homeless guy I beat to death with an L-shaped block. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's never an I block when you need to sodomise someone. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberals don't like anything that's straight. I wonder if they've explored marriage as a cause of murder and obesity? With around 15k murders annually in America, and only "several" cases linked to video games, I'm certain that marriage will have a stronger correlation with murder. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, course not, they're spot on with this one. After I started playing WoW I found myself regularly scoring heroin and shooting it up while I was on a PvP dungeon with 150 other people online. No one could understand why I kept running off in the dungeon simultaneously laughing and crying, and everyone kept saying, "fuccinn wairor wtf u doin???!!" SJ ^Debaser 11:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to CP, that section was added by a person who is almost certainly a parodist. There's a lot of parody in their video game articles, actually - I had a sock that was cleaning them up, but Uncle Ed put a stop to that. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the double 'and' in the quoted section. It gives it an appropriate tone: It destroys marriages and leads to aboesity and, and, and is unhealthy!!!!!! Take that! ^{ONE / TALK} 09:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Football (American)

So for the World Series, CP tried to politicize the teams (not to their advantage, liberal San Francisco took Conservative Texas to the cleaners), so will they try to do the same with football? I'm trying to think of the remaining teams (NYC, Green Bay, Chicago, and Pittsburgh) who Andy could try to co-opt. Can't be liberal NYC or Chicago (Obama's home). Green Bay? Interestingly, they're the only publicly owned franchise, which smacks of socialism, though is really no different from most corporations. As for teams he would like, I'd bet on the two Texas teams, and maybe Atlanta. Would he like the Patriots, based on their name? Then again, as they play in New Jersey, the Jets and Giants are about as close a thing as Andy has to a home team. I hope he posts something about it; I'd be very disappointed to find there was something he couldn't politicize. He must watch football, right? Not to do so would stink of low machismo levels. DickTurpis (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When you said "football" I immediately assumed English football... because that would be awesome. Conservative Manchester United take on Liberal Arsenal. I can already hear the howls of laughter in the pub... ^moral 23:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he can't support Greenbay, you're right when you say they are far too Socialist (not only are they owned by their fans, they also have the highest proportion of drafted players on their team, thereby showing that they don't fully embrace the Capitalist Free Agency system). He can't be tipping the Bears for the Superbowl 'cause they're from Illinois and therefore associated with you-know-who. He can't support the Steelers because they have their roots in the grubby, unionised, working class, and I can't see him holding the Jets up as a paragon of conservatism for roughly the same reason.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't where Andy lives Jets fan territory? Although his special bonus questions for the boys usually involve the Giants, so I suspect he might be a bandwagonner. - π 01:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing more American than going out to the gridiron and rootin' for "the home team", irrespective of whether they're from some liberal city full of queers, jews, and furriners. So maybe the Jets will be "the conservative team" this year. I'm still rootin' for the Bears. DickTurpis (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still rootin' for the Bears. I'll buy you a beer now, sir. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude probubly dosn't even like football. I'll bet he's one of those guys who thinks "Sunday is for church, not football". Irony of which is football is manly, and hating football risks his MACHESSEMO. --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't have the physique to have been a football player. Although he likes to make use of American football to promote his agenda (especially team prayers) he doesn't have the attention span to sit in front of the TV and watch a whole game when he could be reading the bible or going on an anti-abortion march. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it'll be another night with a cheese-wedge on my head. I reckon we're going to win this one.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed on Crack

A surprisingly calm collected and honest edit from Ed here.^img Must have been hitting the pipe again. Ace McAwesome 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Or one of his "house guests" slipped out of their manacles and did some editing while Ed was at the store picking-up some astroglide? seriously though, that edit of his is seriously odd. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, Film Critic

Apparently^img The Governator makes senseless movies... including numbers 48 and 55^img. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The dark knights a christian allegory? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. And that conniving, self-centred, part-time alcoholic and would-be adulteress Scarlett O'Hara is supposedly an excellent, anti-feminist role model for good conservative women.Tylersboy (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many of these films CPers have actually seenAMassiveGay (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My word. I thought I was pretty immunised against CP's crap now, but the wording of this^img just got my goat. Bad boy, Roger. Bad boy. X Stickman (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh he's awful. Damned if you do, damned if you don't with these wingers. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it any wonder that the Schlafly boys have problems relating to women with that lizard for a mother?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, I actually have some respect for the lizard after reading the 'source' Rodge put there. At least she went and sat through a movie before she criticises it (assuming she doesn't lie about doing stuff in the same way her least favourite son does about his class sizes) unlike young Andykins who thinks he can speak intelligently about the content of a film without viewing it. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang WIGO

I am confused by this. The WIGO mentions Andy gushing over Lemaitre but the link is to the Big Bang page. While I understand what its about shouldn't it direct to Andy's actual edits? Ace McAwesome 06:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The last edit on the Big Bang page was a reversion by Roger last month. Crap wigo.82.23.210.230 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link to the actual edits. It's still not A-grade material, but at least there is now a bit of context. --Sid (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Fry just discovered Conservapedia

Oh dear! I wonder what his 2 mil.+ followers will think of it. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think he'd make of the essay "Do Liberal teachings cause mental illness" wherein, under anecdotal evidence, it states - Actor Stephen Fry is the author of the book "The Liar" and was an active supporter of the liberal British Labour Party, though he did not vote for it in a recent election because it was not leftist enough on the Iraq War. The 49-year-old actor has been tormented by mental illness for much of his life. Specifically he is a sufferer of bipolar disorder, a largely hereditary disease. Ace McAwesome 07:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is going to be down a lot today. - π 08:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Fry has one of the biggest followings on Twitter I expect a large spike in page views and a new influx of editors - if they're not all 403ed already. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Linked from WP's ./ effect article, Fry's posts have been known to take down web servers [5]. I wonder if Andy will react with glee at all the new readers, or circle the wagons even more tightly? CS Miller (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect timing. CP's getting another major exposure just after TK goes AWOL. The anticipation of lulz is almost palpable. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Except account creation is turned off, and by the time it's back on again the twits will... ooh, shiny! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So for CP it will be deemed a mighty victory as they will certainly revel in the all important page view surge while avoiding a new wave of trolling.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WIGO:CP / WIGO:World crossover

It doesn't quite merit a place on either, but on the one hand we have New Jersey Governor Chris Christie saying "I am not arrogant enough to believe that after one year as governor of New Jersey and seven years as the United States Attorney that I am ready to be President of the United States, so I'm not gonna run." (spot the dig at a well-known half-term governor there). OTOH, we have CP saying putting him 4th in their list. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, how much does a "definite no" statement mean when it comes from a politician? Andy's list is idiotic and purely based on his own opinions, but he may have a point in believing that some "Me? Absolutely not!" candidates are still more likely to run and succeed than some other people further down the list. --Sid (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That also strikes me as a dig at Obama, too. One of the better issues McCain had was a far more impressive resume of gov't service than Obama. Now, I'd argue that, while there's a certain threshold you need to pass to have the experience to be President, I think the Presidency is really a job you can only learn by doing it. The ideal resume, to me, would be Governor of a large state (for adminitrative experience), followed by a top Cabinet position (Defense, State, or Justice), but anyone with a resume like that is likely to be thinking retirement.

As far as a "definite no", the only one I really believe when he says that is Dick Cheney, and I only believe that because of his health. Running for President would kill him. MDB (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I also suspect Cheney realizes that victory for him would be nigh on impossible. I think he knows there are only about 17 people on Earth who don't hate him. DickTurpis (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"You don't know the power of the Dark Side." D. CheneyVaderMDB (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Being President would kill him more surely. It seems to typically put 10 years on a man. We've yet to see what it would do to a woman. Every hapless soul in a country of hundreds of millions is looking to you. Everything you do will displease millions, probably even kill some people. There is no overriding authority behind you, no-one to fix your mistakes except you, no-one in the world can offer you disinterested advice. Truly "the buck stops here". Without any doubt you will do (or authorise to be done) things that would leave most people unable to sleep. You are not allowed to be sick, or to have an "off day". You are public property, and so are your family to some extent. You will never ever again be anonymous. It's a tribute to hubris that anyone at all volunteers for this position.

In England, once upon a time there were these positions called the "Great Offices of State". They essentially no longer exist because they were too powerful. Some were divided into commissions (ie split between several people) others were abolished or their powers returned to "the Crown" (ie the government as a whole). To give some idea, the newly invented job of Prime Minister is the holder of the residual of one commission in the third most important of these Great Offices. Power tends to gravitate, and we must go to some effort to disperse it, or we shall all die at the hands of a fool some day.

As far as "no-one in the world can offer you disinterested advice", I've heard that, for at least some Presidents, that's the role of the chief of staff -- to be the person who can say anything to the President. (And if you were a fan of The West Wing, President Bartlet had two people who could say anything to him -- Leo McGarry, his Chief of Staff, and his personal secretary, Mrs. Landingham, who damn well could and would tell him exactly what she thought of him. It helped that she was a meternal figure to him for most of his life.) MDB (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A parody... of liberals?

~SuperHamster Talk 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Had to WIGO it, as I'm still laughing at it and my sides are beginning to hurt. Hands down the most nonsensical thing I've ever seen Andy say to deflect any kind of criticism. Four words in the response, and one of them was "liberal". How soon before someone says something he doesn't like and he just replies with "liberal?" SJ ^Debaser 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

liberal? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, that's awesome. Pretty soon "liberal" = "*glare* you son-of-a-bitch..." Carlaugust (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not that nonsensical really -- some of the article in question is basically a parody ... of liberals. But Andy apparently thinks parody in main space is just dandy as long as it's parody of the other side. --Benod (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on people, it's obvious! Andykins was asking whether one liberal or many had created the article. He was creating a brand new conservative term, the word for a grouping of liberals is a 'parody', like a flock of goats, a murder of crows or a deficiency of creationists. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy might be referring to the fact that Uncle Ed originally wrote it as some sort of joke on gullibility, but for some reason only the gullibility of liberals. See this edit comment, for example. Actually, see all his edit comments in the article history and see how much he looks like a blathering idiot repeating the same goddamn thing 100 times: "It's water!", "Yuk-yuk, that's water!!!!!" Also, he calls water "organic" not once but twice. Damn that man is an idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird Ed Moon wrote it, and it's more than a sentence long. This alone leads me to suspect it's a copy and paste job from some internet circular he found hysterical, because he's just the sort of person who finds spam funny. But since it's by a sysop, it's sacrosanct in the mainspace of what in former times had ambitions of being an encyclopaedia. I suppose this response from El Assfly beats his usual "blah-blah productive edits, blah-blah godspeed" response. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Maniac Mansion reference? Nice. Vulpius (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the nearest we will Andy ever see getting to "I don't know what you are talking about, please explain." --Ullhateme (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That article is one of Tweedle Dum's pro-DDT articles, with his masterpiece the DDT ban article^img. To Ed, DHMO hysteria = DDT hysteria. The DDT ban really sticks in Ed's craw. It's not that all those awful things about how it destroys wildlife--famously, one of the reasons the Bald Eagle, symbol of America, was endangered. It's just that, like DHMO, the good of DDT outweighs the bad, and the bad, like DHMO, ain't that bad so don't be hysterical. Who needs birds of prey? This is actually the reason that they keep the DHMO article. --Leotardo (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way, looking at that article history saps my will to live. The way "All the little girls call me Uncle" Ed sucks the fun out of what was originally an amusing if dated joke is amazing. --Kels (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, and Ken

just has to add the icing on the cakeimg of a whole stupid affair. Do you suppose he thought it was a serious article, or that it wasn't up to the quality standards of his own hilarious essays? Considering Ken, I'd suspect the former, but if even Kendoll looks down on Ed as a mental midget, he might as well top himself. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! that's awesome. Either reason is cause for gales of laughter! --Leotardo (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that Ed got his "jokes" from http://www.dhmo.org/ which seems to cover most of what he has posted. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Random fork

If a group of liberals is a parody, what's a group of conservatives? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Coven? Murder? Plague? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk

In present-day America? A "church". MDB (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A regression?Tylersboy (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

An outrage? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A clusterfuck--Brendiggg (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So far I like "regression" he best. DickTurpis (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A narrow-mindedness, or an asylum? CS Miller (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I was going to suggest a Klan, but I like a regression too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A group of conservatives is an hypocrisy. A parody of liberals, an hypocrisy of conservatives, a deficiency of creationists and an irrelevance of evangelicals. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Elect," I should think. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A haggis of SNP members? (It being Burns Night a few days hence). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I like "Klan of conservatives" best. --Leotardo (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote church. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That implies only conservatives go to church, when there is a very long and honorable liberal tradition amongst many religious to actually follow Jesus' teachings and not distort them. --Leotardo (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In my own Schlaflyesque way, I label anyone who goes to church as 'conservative'. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a megachurch of conservatives be a million churches of conservatives? ^{ONE / TALK} 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How about conventicle rather than church? It has superior alliteration and an appropriate whiff of would-be exclusivity combined with paranoia. Oh, and I'd like to second Leotardo's last comment. Tylersboy (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)