Information icon.svg

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

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive22

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

39 years[edit]

well, the story being covered was about Kopechne's mother's recent death. Except the link to newsbusters is just pure talking point memo. Funny, no mention of the person Laura Bush killed in an auto accident...

Oh, and it wasn't "a pond", it was a freezing tidal creek thing. Not that Kennedy didn't wait a few too many hours to report it to the police. Like, um, when Cheney shot his friend.

Man, it doesn't sound like being friends with politicos is good for ya! humanUser talk:Human 16:56, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Human, that was just a really cheap/sick shot at the accident Laura Bush was involved with in her youth. And it was a tragic accident. I don't think it is on par with Teddy swimming half a mile, going home, showering, changing clothes and then notifying the authorities, eh? I'm not overly fond of people taking shots at spouses and kids (e.g.: Amy Carter, Julie/Tricia Nixon, the Bush twins), no matter which idiot politician they are related to, as you might discern. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 17:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)
His point was that people have to dig up something 39 years ago in order to smear, while the comments on that "article" suggest people branding him a murderer without ever considering Laura Bush's "accident". I didn't know running a stop sign was an accident though, that's good to know. (That's what I read, anyway) :P NorsemanWassail! 17:37, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry Norseman, but you do know a cheap shot isn't cured by another, right? Running a red because you are distracted, drunk, upset, is still an accident, as there wasn't a pre-mediated intent. Surely you can see that? Insofar as Ted Kennedy, he has admitted, ad infinitum, that his post-accident behavior gave good cause to suspect his actions and the facts surrounding Kopechne's death by drowning. Now, if Laura Bush had fled the scene, went home to refresh herself, and then reported the traffic accident, or denied even driving the car, then there would be some room to compare the two. In my post above, I was in no way giving credence to the idiots at NewsBusters, or being mean-spirited enough to drag down others. There is a substantial difference, wouldn't you agree? The adding in of others, this tit-for-tat comparisons in the political discourse is responsible for our meaner, nastier society at large, IMO. In other words, the snarkiness of it all is cheapening rational discourse. --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 18:23, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Laura was what we call a "debutante" - one with connections. TK, you're freakin' out, did you really accuse Norseman of being drunk? Lighten up and get some perspective. Siblings and chillen are off the political target, yes, but we all know that political marriages are made in calculation and, well, wifies and husbandos are along for the ride. Whether it proves fatal or not. And, by the way, Chappaquidick was just as much of an accident as Laura's. The waiting to report it was as calculatingly ugly as Cheney's delay. Get it??? humanUser talk:Human 19:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Whoa... he didn't call me drunk, even though I don't find that offensive. I think he met Laura Bush instead, but in my opinion (and in the case of a relative), a death caused by a driver is usually manslaughter or gross negligence. As for the other part or details therein, not worth going into methinks. :P NorsemanWassail! 21:51, 14 January 2008 (EST)

More GWB related hate, Human? Is there spittle coming out of the edges of your mouth as you post? I was agreeing about Ted's deal being an accident, and merely pointed out he recognized his own actions casted suspicion, is all! Get a grip! --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 20:31, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, TK, what is your problem? Why do you always fly off the handle like that? Every time somebody questions your point of view, you go off on some only slightly-related rant. I agree with Norsemen, try practising some common civility in online discourses before freaking out. 99.236.54.6 22:18, 14 January 2008 (EST)
To be fair, I'm sure that TK is rather shell-shocked. If people would just calm down… please, no one escalate this. --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (EST)

On Planet Conservative, the only important thing about Gwen Kopechne's existence was that HER DAUGHTER DIED DUE TO A LIBERAL'S ACTIONS. Apparently, failure to put this front-and-center of her obituary is Bad and Wrong and Liberally Deceitful. --SockOfGulik 22:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

This is becoming like the Bizzaro World! I posted that it was wrong about MaryJo, my only disagreement was in dragging spouses and kids into the discussion! What in the hell is wrong with that? Human snarked at me, totally not acknowledging my point, and pretending I was excusing Kennedy's treatment, which I certainly was not. And now you two snarking...fair much, gentlemen? --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 22:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
These are my misstatements, and I'm sticking to them. I'd rather state right up front what my biases are (pro-science, anti-corporation, anti-organized religion, pro-environmentalism, pro-peace, pro-free-speech, pro-equality, pro-sex, anti-the-gang-of-insane-crooks-running-our-country-into-the-ground) and then respond from an obviously biased viewpoint, than claim to be 'unbiased' and state an obviously biased viewpoint with an unconvincing veneer of 'objectivity'. If you want "fair and balanced", go watch Fox News.
Anyway, I wasn't even replying to you, just getting in a spare dig at the CP & Newsbusters bozos. It is not always about you, ya know. --Gulik 23:26, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Oh yeah, so says you and your sock! So says all of your personally insulting posts for which Admin here turns their heads from. I don't mind, because it only shows those dropping in what this place is really like, and that's nothing like the pious articles and protestations of freedom of speech, etc. As witness the close to zero growth of users, aside from socks of existing ones, perhaps it is time to at least paint on a veneer of tolerance and understanding so this place won't be mistaken for CP? --TK/MyTalk"Lowly" editor 08:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Look at him go! TK you are going to have a stroke if you keep this up. Why don't you go back to CP where you can rail away at like-minded bozos? Can't you take a joke?PoorEd 09:59, 15 January 2008 (EST)

NO kidding, TK, that's a very strange reaction to a few people pointing out that media tends to view certain incidents completely differently. Was Sen. Kennedy wrong? of course he was, he should have reported the at once and maybe she'd have lived, his conduct is inexcusable. But Should Dick Cheney have reported his accident? Yes. As for your last rant, I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that RatWiki is Growing Rapidly (maybe in jest) and we don't hold that delusion.... If it's so bad here, you can always stop logging on and start your own wiki (may I suggest Tkipedia.com) SirChuckBCall the FBI 10:18, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Not all snark is serious, but not all jokes are that funny guys. If you think it's going to cause less laughter than hurt feelings, I'd suggest reconsidering its vitality to your post. Or just add a gosh-darned smiley if it's not clear - after all, that always works for Andy. No more escalation or the stop-template drops, plzthnx. UchihaKATON! 11:20, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Good suggestion, SirChuckB. Call it PermanentlyTicKedOffPedia. Godbless PoorEd 11:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Thank you EdRich, I'm glad to see my contributions are meaningful to someone.... ::sniff sniff tear:: SirChuckBCall the FBI 13:51, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Hey. Guyz. Stop. Now. UchihaKATON! 14:22, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Stop what exactly? SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Shaken baby redux[edit]

I'm getting more disturbed by Andy's little obsession, and his slap down of Sgt Shultz on the talk page (followed by his lap dog's little pish-on-the-leg). This is also a big issue at AAPS. I think this needs some serious wiki-abuse. Probably, I'll have to research an article of our own, but I may end up publicizing it on the blog as well. It really makes me wanna puke-----------OK, I puked. --PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 19:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Us first, us first, blog second!!!! Pleez. humanUser talk:Human 19:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Same research for both, so I'll work on both simultaneously.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I put up a quickie on the blog, but to do justice to this, i need more MedLine time to document our article well. It's coming. Damn that assfly freak.--PalMD-Mmmm...Brains! 23:34, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I think there is some sort of dispute between those who rush to judgement with a Shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, and then turn in the hapless parent or babysitter to the government for prosecution - and those who are unsure that babies are really all that vulnerable to their heads flopping around.
What is the best way to characterize the dispute? Do we RWians really know enough about the medical and legal issues to comment? Can we write about it in a trustworthy way at CP or WP? --Uncle Ed bug me 19:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Shut the fuck up, you ignorant tool.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 23:07, 15 January 2008 (EST)
C'mon, Doc, tell us how you really feel! humanUser talk:Human 20:36, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I got tired of pulling my punches.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 20:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

What did Britain learn?[edit]

They learned to prevent bombings, that's what. Beats hell out of vigilante justice, Karajou-style. --Kels 06:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Bah, liberal deceit. Everyone knows that carrying a gun is the best way to protect yourself from being blown to smithereens in a terrorist attack, because... well, that's just how it is! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:10, 15 January 2008 (EST)
If all the passengers on the 9/11 flights had been armed with AK-47s, the goddamn rag-heads wouldn't have got as far as the flight deck. You gun-controlling liberals must ultimately accept the shame and blame for those atrocities. Ajkgordon 07:13, 15 January 2008 (EST)
The idea that you present here is flawed... because the terrorists would have had AK-47s as well. No one was anticipating the events, and thus the FAA didn't see it necessary to arm every single person on the plane. At best, you can get a fire marshal in there with a pistol or otherwise, but the stop and go traffic kills me personally. I'm also far too tired to debate and significant issue... however, The death rates in Germany have nearly vanished, while they still remain quite typical for whites in America. It is also shown that black defendants are given harsher punishments, and more likely to be convicted, even if their attack was against a person of their same heritage. Blacks overall are more likely to receive the death penalty. You should understand, that it's not individualistic bias, but rather it is a systematic bias against black people. If this were not a systemic bias, then you would fail to account for the increased rate among blacks of conviction, incarceration, and death sentences for the same/similar convictions. The most likely solution to this problem, is that since the greatest indicator of how much money a child will make in adulthood.... is how much money their parents make. It's sad, but definitely true. So, even if it WAS independent people, it would be no difference where the line aligns up. *passes out tired*--Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 08:37, 19 January 2008 (EST)

For me the biggest difference between the UK and USA response to post 9/11 events is that we've seen it all before. We Brits lived through 30 years of religious secretarian violence and it was quite clear that adding more guns to the problem was never going to be the solution. Silver Sloth 07:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)

True, but this business in the States isn't really a sectarian issue. Sure, there are other brands of televangelists out there espousing different values, but for the moment they tolerate each other. It seems to me that what's wrong with America is the age-old fear of, well, pretty much everything, and the knee-jerk response that creates enemies for them to focus their fear on. With 9/11 and the whole possibility of TURRISTS, the fear-mongers are absolutely stoked, and the only logical thing to do (of course) is to give a frightened man a gun. As many guns as he wants. With hollow-point rounds... for duck hunting. 99.236.54.6 08:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)
How Andy continues to try to argue his points about gun control in the UK is bewildering. So now he thinks that an armed populace could have prevented 7/7? Exactly how does someone stop a potential suicide bomber with a gun? Maybe all the white commuters in London should just shoot all the brown people wearing puffa jackets, innocent or not, just like the police.
And the country has swung to the left because of gun control? Purhleez!
As a Brit, I don't know anyone who opposes gun control. I don't know anyone who feels less safe as a result of gun control. I don't feel at threat of totalitarian government taking over. I don't feel at threat from terrorism, and certainly less so than when the IRA were busy blowing up Manchester and London. Those of us with not so long memories will know that the IRA were allowed to advertise in the American press for their terrorism funding... Bondurant 09:23, 15 January 2008 (EST)
While I agree that gun control is desirable, it might be hard for a Brit to understand that one of the first things ya'll did to keep the colonists down back in 1776 was to forbid them to form gun-carrying militias. That right was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for that very reason. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the wording has made it unclear as to whether it applies to individuals or trained militias. PoorEd 10:10, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Right, but that was in 17..whatever (maybe homeschooling is a good idea) but today, America is the land of tradition... We stick to our traditions, whether or not they're needed and helpful or not... For example, daylight savings time, the electoral college, and gun control. As Dennis Miller said before he lost his mind. "Yes, the Constitution gave us the right to own guns, it also gave us the right to own other human beings. Thankfully, we've moved on from the latter and now it's time to start taking the white-out to other parts." SirChuckBCall the FBI 10:22, 15 January 2008 (EST)
So just take out the comma and we're done! PoorEd 11:36, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, and let us not forget that the IRA are Christians, and therefore are not terrorist and never killed anyone. -DickTurpis 12:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Oh yeah. It wasn't the IRA who killed anyone. They just planted the bombs and set the timers. It was the bombs that had the temerity to blow up and kill and maim people Bondurant 12:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)
But if you had guns then, you could just have shot the bomb timers. Ed @but not the Poor one! 12:59, 15 January 2008 (EST)

The conversation just got too funny. Assfly is now insisting that all conservatives come to identical conclusions independently on the basis of logic and faith - and therefore, if you don't agree with everything he says, you are not a conservative. LOL! PoorEd 13:25, 15 January 2008 (EST)

But, seeing as there is only one Truth, and that is the Absolute Truth as revealed to the True Believers, there can only be one True Opinion.Silver Sloth 13:34, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I love the world he lives in, not only is anything he disagrees with immediatelly rendered nonconservative, but when you make up your statistics and rules, no one can ever back you into a corner SirChuckBCall the FBI 13:51, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Great comeback by KeithJoseph pointing out that Aschafly is now on record that the death of 16 children is "an insignificant statistic." There's a good Christian for you. Guess he won't be able to put that one on the chart proving school massacres are due to public school education, I mean, if it's not significant. PoorEd 13:59, 15 January 2008 (EST)
For interest: Sir Keith Joseph was a Thatcherite British politician. SusanPurrrrrrr 14:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Fun fact: According to Google, this is the first time ever that the phrase "a statistically insignificant massacre" has been used online. Schlafly continues to set new standards! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:50, 15 January 2008 (EST)
With this new bit of Cosmic Wisdom, CP has become Objectivism, only with Andy Schlafly instead of Ayn Rand. --SockOfGulik 17:22, 15 January 2008 (EST) (oops--forgot to log in.)

I have had a serious sense of humour failure over this which will no doubt get me a block or outright ban. Aschlafly's comments are simply beyond reason, beyond compassion and beyond decency. Ajkgordon 16:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)

...as usual. No doubt folks like Rob and Conservative flock to CP for just this reason--Andy's brain puke makes crazies like them seem almost mainstream by comparison.--WJThomas 16:27, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, it seems to me that what all the guys, like Assfly, who advocate total gun freedom 'in order to protect ourselves from terrorists' seem to forget is...well, people like John Smeaton. He didn't need a gun to foil an attempted bombing of Glasgow Airport. Zmidponk 17:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Okay a pointed stick then. Or a banana? CЯacke® 17:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, I believe John Smeaton is Scottish, so I think it would most likely be 'his forehead'. ;) Zmidponk 19:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
He could use the traditional weapon of Scotland, oatmeal! --Kels 12:10, 19 January 2008 (EST)

On that same note, the passengers and crew that thwarted Richard Reed (sp?) the shoe bomber (in case you don't know, tried to blow up a plane with C4 hidden in his shoe, was restrained by crew after a passenger noticed him trying to light a match, that's why lighters are banned and shoes have to be X-Rayed) was caught by vigilence and common sense from the people around him. According to Andy, planes should be blowing up all over the place because no one can defend themselves from the crazy terrorists...... SirChuckBCall the FBI 18:37, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Every time I have to take my shoes off before entering the terminal, I do whisper a word of thanks that at least that idiot didn't try to hide the bomb in his shorts.  :-P --SockOfGulik 19:26, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Intelligence knows no bounds[edit]

"2 of more eyes"

Until it reaches CP.162.82.215.199 15:46, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Gawd, I write better stubs drunk. And they often at least include some funny. OK, well, CP is an "encyclopoodia", they don't do funny. Or do they...? Hahahahaahaha... humanUser talk:Human 21:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Silly joke, not the greatest caption, but I had fun making it. --Sid 22:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Submitted for Inclusion[edit]

Just thought this might be fitting to include in this page. On the 'Homosexuality and Scotland' page at CP (yes, they really do have one), I saw several...erm...questionable entries. I stuck this on the talk page and did the editing concerned. This was reverted, due to, as far as I can see, a made up rule, so I reverted the reversion, and explained why, but this was then reverted again and I got blocked temporarily. At that point, I decided to post this and call it a day at that site. Zmidponk 17:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)

You said, "Eleventhly"! SNORT CЯacke® 17:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I did consider following some of their maths by putting 'Thirteenthly' instead, but I thought it would look better if I got it right when correcting their mistakes and general insanity. Zmidponk 19:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
That is my fave parody page. It started out at cp:Scotland: It started here and eventually got promoted to own article status. I've been having fun ever since, don't mess! Auld Nick 20:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Iduan is actually one of the overall Good Guys, and those three hours most likely prevented you from getting hammered for longer. I don't approve of his action itself, but it likely saved you from harsher punishment. The sock might be frowned upon, though... --Sid 17:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Meh, I don't really care about getting blocked anyway - I am not going to participate in that place any more (except maybe in a completely non-serious way when I'm bored). I did see (thanks to this site) that Iduan had finally gotten fed up and left, so, yeah, he can't be that bad. Zmidponk 19:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
And the revert reason actually falls under Andy's "Liberal removal of conservative facts - we do not censor conservative information here" master rule, which basically exists so people don't get funny ideas... like removing his bullshit claims about whatever point he wants to make. Sysops have used this rule to protect ANY idiocy simply by slapping some reference onto it, no matter if that source actually supports the claim. --Sid 17:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)
...or is totally irrelevant to the subject of the page, it seems. Zmidponk 19:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Andy once cited a paper with the title "Tests of the Giant Impact Hypothesis" to cite his claim that said hypothesis is untestable:

This new theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper. Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."[1]

So yeah, he has a habit of choosing the weirdest sources to back his wild claims. --Sid 20:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)
On the flipside, any "liberal propaganda" (read: "Anything Andy doesn't agree with") will instantly get reverted, regardless of being supported by references or not. --Sid 17:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, I did notice that the folk over at CP, by and large, seem to have this aversion to things like 'facts', 'evidence' and 'proof', especially when it suggests they're wrong. Zmidponk 19:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)
When you're dealing with a group who accepts Andy referencing a dinner conversation that he had with a dead guy a decade ago, proper citation is not always important SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Or Jack Chick tracts. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:59, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It's gone now and I'm too busy to search through the history, but there used to be a bit in the Scotland article that claimed that Scottish men were trannies because they wore skirts. When it was pointed out that the kilt is not really a skirt the 'if it looks like a duck...' argument was trotted out. It seems that once Pat Robertson has spoken his word has papal authority.Silver Sloth 05:28, 16 January 2008 (EST)

"Jesus Himself called on Christians to carry swords"[edit]

Okay could somebody tell me if that is true (source), and if so, what the context was? I mostly remember Jesus for being the relaxed guy who preached how we should be nice to our fellow people. I must've skipped over the passages where he was all like "Arm yourself! Defend your freedom with guns swords!".

After googling a bit, could it be that Andy means "But to bring a sword"? Man, I can't believe that some people seriously claim that Jesus advocated violence... *rubs temples* --Sid 22:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)

He said people could carry swords, but explicitly for self-defense, and he said, explicitly, only one, indicating that more than one was too akin to violent aggression. It's not really particularly friendly towards assault weapons and the like, to tell you the truth. And Andy's apparent interpretation of the "to bring a sword" thing is… well, IMO, just wrong, simply wrong. --Linus(plot evil tech) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Jesus was indeed in favour of the right to bear swords, sadly. See Luke 22. In an astonishing piece of muppetry, he advises his disciples to sell their clothes to buy weapons. A country of naked swordsmen, just what the world needs. --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 23:29, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, to be fair, I suppose I ought to add that it's almost certain Jesus never said this. Luke is a complete bullshit artist. Large parts of this book are just concocted out of the whole cloth. It's from Luke that we get the whole bullshit nativity story, which is so obviously false it's laughable that we base an entire holiday around it. --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 23:52, 15 January 2008 (EST)
That's right, Luke showed up on the scene after everything had already gone down and made a bunch of stuff up. But it's in the BIBLE, so it's gotta be true. PoorEd 08:38, 16 January 2008 (EST)

And, simply on a pragmatic level, without theorization as to the validity of Luke, the instructive was to sell their cloaks to purchase swords, but only if they were carrying about valuables which would endanger them. And, as I said before, he explicitly stated that only one sword was permissible, which is almost less than the equivalent of a handgun. --12:53, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Well, at the time a sword was the equivalent of a handgun. My view is that the sword Christ refers to is the spiritual sword of a "Christian soldier" and that he was suggesting that they arm themselves for spiritual battle. Obviously, the Christians of the time understood it that way, as they never took up arms against the Roman Empire. On the contrary, they allowed themselves to be martyred for the entertainment of the Roman public.
That's true. I think that the idea was that people shouldn't have to let themselves be murdered while being robbed, not that they should engage in violence if it wasn't thoroughly unavoidable. There's nothing to suggest that Jesus wouldn't have approved of, say, the assault weapons ban. --Linus(plot evil tech) 13:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)
You guys are all wrong, Jesus was advocating sword usage to wipe out the darkies, homosexuals, non-Christians and the ACLU..... Jeez, this is all so simple, why don't you get it SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:50, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Christianity and Slavery[edit]

Assfly is kinda, sorta, almost but not really right on this one. In fact Christianity was instrumental in ending slavery... in the Norse lands. I think this was one of those Christianity vs. Pagan things, the Thrall class was so deeply embedded in the Norse religions that Christians couldn't help but oppose it. There's an amusing anecdote in the notes of my copy of the Poetic Edda, that early Christian missionaries to Denmark would give new sets of clothes to people being baptised as a symbol, so that many Danes would get baptised for the new clothes, then immediately turn round and enslave the missionaries and sell them. An academic said it, so it must be true :D

In other places, Christians were quite content to own slaves for years and years. The fact that most people in Abolitionist movements were Christian is mostly to do with _the whole fucking population_ being Christian. Dinesh D'Souza is a complete moron. --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 23:37, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Props should go to the Quakers for their role in ending Great Britain's slave trade. But nobody seems wiling to credit the first people who ended slavery in the Atlantic system - the slaves themselves, in the case of Saint Domingue (Modern-day Haiti.) Read CLR James's The Black Jacobins and see how slaves took charge and ended slavery for themselves.PFoster 23:43, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Did they have the right to bare arms? CЯacke®
Only if they put lots of sunscreen on. :) Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I GOL'd (Groaned Out Loud) Bondurant 04:23, 16 January 2008 (EST)
What annoys me is, yes, they ended it-- after the originally started it again to begin with.--142.68.54.19 07:18, 16 January 2008 (EST)
As with all things Christian, those who owned slaves used the Bible to defend it as God's will, and those who opposed it did the same. The parallel with the war against homosexuality is striking. PoorEd 08:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)
It all depends on how the bible is interpreted, but of course often it will be selectively "interpreted" to fit one's needs. Fortunately for us, we know that Schlafly's interpretation is the only correct one because, well, he said so. After all, why would he lie? He doesn't stand to gain anything. Oh wait, nevermind.--BillOhannitygodvelocity. 09:17, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Someone ought to remind Andy what the dominant religion in the antebellum South was. Or maybe what the dominant religion of the guys who wrote and interpreted the Constitution to allow slavery (you know, the same guys who, according to Andy, intended for America to be explicitly and overtly a Christian nation).--Bayesupdate 15:32, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Andy Defends Rapists.[edit]

What was it Elvis Costello sang? "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just amused...." After he stood up for the baby-shakers and the bunny-stompers, I finally understood there is no end to the depths to how far Schlafly's moral depravity will sink in the name of defending his ideology.PFoster 10:22, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I was amazed when I read that..... I'm been reading CP for entertainment sense last June.... but this just floored me... To use one sad, twisted individual to make a point that I thought we were long past is inexcusable.... But then, his mommy freaked out about unisex toilets, so I guess she would teach him to fear the opposite sex as well...... SirChuckBCall the FBI 11:47, 16 January 2008 (EST)SirChuckBCall the FBI 10:32, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Don't get too bent out of shape. After all, rape is just a theory of prosecution and most rape convictions occur after stunned suspects admit that they had sex with the accuser, but we all know that just because people have sex that doesn't make it rape. For all the cases where rape is the accusation, it quite telling that there are rarely any credible witnessess. It's just another ploy by the government to demonize decent Christians. The whole issue smacks of liberal deceit. Stile4aly 10:46, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Darn straight! Remember, it's not 'rape' - it's an 'Unplanned Sexual Encounter'! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:49, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Remember, Phyllis said there's "no such thing as marital rape." Consequentially, there may not be such a thing as rape in general; if you believe that there is, you're 95% likely to hate school prayer.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Besides that, she was probably asking for it, right? Like by wearing a short set of fatigues and having the guy buy her an MRE and all...PFoster 11:23, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Five points for the Carlin reference, and I'm gonna go one better.... The correct term for a rape victim is unwilling sperm recepient. But in all seriousness, it's sad that Schafly would be willing to disgrace the name of a Marine like that... I guess we should only support the troops with phallus SirChuckBKeepin it clean 11:46, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Can you guys give a link so that I can begin my regimen of vomiting for the day?--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 11:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
No problem, it right here It's the lower of the two posts and then it continues from there.... It's also on the WIGO main page as an update.... SirChuckBCall the FBI 12:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Between this and the ranting about how gun control "emasculates" a country, we're getting an interesting look into the pathologies of the conserative hivemind. --SockOfGulik 14:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)

No. We're getting a look at a certain type of mind. All of the conservatives I personally know (granted that they're Brits and other Euros but a few septics too) would ever agree with these things. Ajkgordon 14:59, 16 January 2008 (EST)
It's a bit like having a balcony seat above the stage where Andy Assfly's unconsious mind acts out its twisted little dramas. The others play some interesting bit parts. PoorEd 15:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)
"Others"? He's schizophrenic? ...That would certainly explain a lot. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:07, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Well, you can sure tell why they aren't big fans of Freud, can't you? Here's some wonderful, 1940's thinking from Ian Fleming on the subject. The 1940's is pretty much where all these guys live anyway:

I have comment, [wrote C.C.] to make on this man's alleged sexual potency when seen in relation to his profession. It is a Freudian thesis, with which I am inclined to agree, that the pistol, whether in the hands of an amateur or of a professional gunman, has significance for the owner as a symbol of virility—an extension of the male organ—and that excessive interests in guns (e.g., gun collections and gun clubs) is a form of fetishism. The partiality of Scaramanga for a particularly showy variation of weapon and his use of silver and gold bullets clearly point, I think, to his being a slave to this fetish—and, if I am right, I have doubts about his alleged sexual prowess, for the lack of which his gun fetish would be either a substitute or a compensation. I have also noted, from a "profile" of this man in Time magazine, one fact which supports my thesis that Scaramanga may be sexually abnormal. In listing his accomplishments, Time notes, but does not comment upon, the fact that this man cannot whistle. Now it may only be myth, and it is certainly not medical science, but there is a popular theory that a man who cannot whistle has homosexual tendencies. (At this point, the reader may care to experiment and, from his self-knowledge, help to prove or disprove this item of folklore!—C.C.)

I wonder if Andy can whistle :D --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 22:14, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Deceit[edit]

A couple of excellent examples for Andy's beloved deceit article in the news today. Not betting they'll show up on CP, though...--WJThomas 20:49, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Harvard Law Review[edit]

Someone's "cruisin' for a bruisin' " - deleting affirmative action - how dare he! As an aside - is thatt a fact: circulation only 8000? How many law firms are there in the US? The impression is that there's probably more than that in NY alone. Or does everyone subscribe on line? SusanPurrrrrrr 10:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, the editor who put that in in the first place got a teeny-tiny ban by Fox, so I guess it ruffled a feather or two.PFoster 10:35, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Let's see.... Affirmative action, or Nepotism? Decisions, decisions.... --Gulik 12:25, 17 January 2008 (EST)

So, here's a question: Was Mister Schlafly really an editor at Harvard Law Review? And if so, is said position something where one would actually have to be, you know, smart, or is it akin to being "assistant manager" at a McDonald's, where you're mostly just the burger flipper who has to work the late shift? I'm having a hard time equating the Andy we know and love with anything smacking of intelligence...--WJThomas 15:58, 17 January 2008 (EST)

See, this is the paradox of Andy. he's a smart guy! You do NOT get onto an LRev by nepotism; similarly, it takes real smarts to get onto a federal appellate clerkship... although nepotism would help... so he's CERTAINLY a smart guy. Yet he's done next to nothing with it. I wouldn't call running a crappy website into the ground a success by any means, at least.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Not necessarily: Money makes the world go round. SusanPurrrrrrr 16:08, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I don't doubt that he is very intelligent - in a very limited sense of the word. It may take that kind of intelligence to twist the truth so perversely on a daily basis. PoorEd 16:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah - but once you're talking about people in Harvard law, there's money and then there's money. The Schlaflys ain't poor white folk, but they probably ain't Rockefellers, either. If Assfly was editor of HLV - he earned it, keeping in mind that his family's wealth, race, class and social connections gave him an opportunity to earn it that someone equally smart who came from the projects would be far less likely to have. Ames - whether you like it or not - is right - Harvard law does not graduate idiots - the willfully ignorant, however, that's another story.PFoster 16:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)

If you look at the respective career trajectories, you can see why Assfly gets so irritated by Obama. Remember they both graduated from Harvard with their JDs in '91 and both with equal honours. One's now a presidential hopeful after a reasonably distinguished academic/legal/political career, and the other's writing a mean-spirited fundamentalist blog whilst getting piecemeal legal work from whatever "conservative" crank doctors the AAPS shovel his way. Couldn't happen to a nicer person, it really couldn't :) --Robledo 17:56, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Wow. You really put things in perspective there, Robledo. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:09, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Image cattttttting[edit]

Saw that but didn't connect the catting spree. Good catch! SusanPurrrrrrr 17:58, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Only caught it because I noticed that talk page post before the catting spree started. My first reaction was actually "Good point, I wonder what they'll do now..." - and when I checked back a few minutes later, I saw the catting in action... and laughed. Kudos to the sysops for actually tackling such a crazy project, though. Editing, what, 5000 or so images? Damn. --Sid 20:21, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Hardly a clusterfuck when its something that's got to be done anyway. Twat. — Unsigned, by: 89.241.175.151 / talk / contribs

Oh, there's lovely, how inciteful and reasoned.
WTF is language like that for, wazzock. SusanPurrrrrrr 21:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Our li'l guy[edit]

So glad Kenny's back; we just don't get as many quality lulz without him. His atheists in foxholes article is so much fun. Is it true that Ken is actually not 12 years old? I have an article for him: There is no free lunch: Milton Friedman said "there is no free lunch." But my business card was randomly drawn out of the fishbowl at Arnold's Deli the other day and I got a free sandwich out of it. I turned out I had that sandwich for lunch. Ain't that weird? I think that might be what's called a paradox or something. I had to pay for the root beer I had with it, so I guess the whole lunch wasn't free. Maybe that's what Friedman meant. -DickTurpis 19:47, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Friedman's a piker. Heinlein coined TANSTAAFL ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch") a long ways before Friedman came along. And he probably stole it from "Doc" Smith. --Kels 20:10, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Beat me to it Kels, I was looking it up when you posted. (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) SusanPurrrrrrr 20:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
More often used as an explanation/caution of thermodynamics: increasing entropy -> TANSTAAFL. SusanPurrrrrrr 20:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)
So... you're saying I have to pay to get my sandwich heated? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:45, 17 January 2008 (EST)
you guys must remember, even though you may or may not pay for the food.... The food is not the lunch.... SirChuckBCall the FBI 09:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe not mainspace worthy....[edit]

But articles like this one make me wonder what it must be like to live your life with a heart full of contempt and hatred for your fellow human while trying to practice a religion that claims to espouse values of peace, love and toleration.PFoster 20:53, 17 January 2008 (EST)

That is one ugly article. Seriously bent. I think the author succumbed to Sudden Moron Syndrome. I sense the need for an article... So I redlinked it. humanUser talk:Human 21:13, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I've made a start - but it could do with much improvement Silver Sloth 09:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
It must be a gas to have a world view that is confirmed to be true by everything that happens. PoorEd 21:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
By everything he notices, you mean. --Gulik 02:51, 18 January 2008 (EST)
It only happened if teh assfly noticed it. If a liberal engages in deceit in a forest and Andy isn't there to document it... humanUser talk:Human 09:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Incidentally, check the Daniel Pipes page linked from that article. Now that's one scary face.... DogP 13:01, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Republican article[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that conservapedia's article describes the party as "moderate centre right"? Not that I'd be surprised if they're bending the truth a bit, but aren't they quite a bit to the right?-Shangrala 22:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)

The Democratic party's policies would be considered further to the right than "moderate centre right" in Canada and Western Europe: That would put the Republicans firmly on the extreme right on my political scale.PFoster 23:02, 17 January 2008 (EST)
It was noted a while ago (when the article became Featured). And I think somebody came up with a very fitting and hilarious comparison that basically ended with "The center is apparently just a bit to the right of Emperor Palpatine".
And yeah, it's quite obvious when you look at things like the gun control thing, where Andy and some others say that the UK Conservative Party is liberal. Compared to the Republicans (and especially Schlafly-Conservatives), most other parties in many countries suddenly become far left-wing.
Still, Andy insists that US Conservatives are the absolute baseline when it comes to defining what "conservative" means. --Sid 23:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)
The Emperor Palpatine thing was me. Thanks.  :) --Edgerunner76 10:10, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Well, you have to have some baseline. From an American perspective, why wouldn't you make the Republican Party the conservative baseline? We do it in the UK with the Conservatives, the French do it with the UMP, the Germans with the Christian Democrats, etc.
This is all part of the point I have unsuccessfully been trying to make with Aschlafly about using UK experiences of gun-control to make points about gun control in the US. It just doesn't work - the backgrounds are too different. Or, if not different, then the "norms" are off-set enough to make direct comparison impossible. Ajkgordon 04:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)
What's even better about it is that the republican article reads like a 13 year old writing fan mail to his favorite singer and the demorcartic party article sounds like an FBI brief.... Not really surprising, but really funny. SirChuckBCall the FBI 09:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
You're of course correct, Ajkgordon. What I meant (it had been past 5am, so clarity had not been my strong point, I admit) was that there is a difference between simply having a baseline for comparison and keeping an absolute baseline which all others have to live up to in order to count.
There is no problem with seeing the Republicans as a conservative baseline (even though it's not overly useful, since almost everybody will be left of it), but you shouldn't say "Since they don't agree with all our points, they're liberals in denial."
Like you said, Andy doesn't accept different backgrounds. The German or UK conservative parties are conservative in their respective political spectrums. They have the right to call themselves "conservative" just as much as the Republicans. And so it happens that conservative parties suggest gun control. There is only a problem if you claim that a party is only conservative when it's exactly US conservative - which is exactly what Andy does.
And with such an US-centric view, it's not really surprising how he sees "liberal bias" everywhere. --Sid 09:57, 18 January 2008 (EST)
True. But it doesn't matter how many times you tell him.
Still, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong is creating a US Christian conservative blog/wiki and using the Republican Party as your conservative political baseline. And, of course, dismissing say the UK Conservative Party as not US conservative. Which they're not. Ajkgordon 10:03, 18 January 2008 (EST)
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with creating such a thing and using something as a baseline. But selling the result as objective truth and pretending that the rest of the world should naturally fall in line with the their view makes me frown ;)
And you pointed out the important difference between what's okay and not okay to say: Of course, UK conservatism is different from US conservatism, and it's correct to say so. But Andy and others go the way of:
  • US conservative = conservative
  • UK conservative != US conservative
  • --> UK conservative != conservative
Of course, these things will be dismissed as soon as "conservatives" in some country do something good. Then it's a victory for The Conservatives. --Sid 17:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)

As a UK conservative with accounts on both Conservapedia and Wikipedia, I have to concur that there are profound differences between American and British conservatism, which I have noticed in my time editing Conservapedia. Most British conservatives would probably be regarded more as libertarians in the US; although we share the same economic principles as our US counterparts (ie free market libertarianism), British conservatism tends to be less tied to religion, and things like abortion and gay marriage aren't really political issues in the same way. As regards gun control, I personally think the level of gun control over here is too strict, but many UK conservatives disagree.

The real problem is that the term "conservatism" doesn't refer to a fixed ideology; it's relative. The political and philosophical standpoints labelled as "conservative" vary massively from country to country and from era to era. I personally am a free market conservative; for me, economic issues are the most important political consideration.

I don't have a strong view on religion or on creationism vs evolution, and I sometimes get frustrated with the Conservapedians' insistence on presenting a view which is overwhelmingly biased towards creationist views and which treats science as a political tool (although sadly, such articles on Wikipedia tend to be biased in the opposite direction). I tend to avoid editing such articles altogether. 163.1.231.46 13:17, 18 January 2008 (EST) (User:Walton One)

Sudden Jihad Syndrome[edit]

Two things 1, Isn't it funny that if you follow the Wikipedia links, you get a detailed discussion with several editors commenting on the article and the eventual decision to delete, not because some random editor didn't like it, or because of the so called liberal bias, but because it's a term invented by some crazy neo-conservative that almost nobobdy ever uses.... That's how a Wiki should be run. 2, and I wouldn't post this if it was anything important, but anyone else wonder what the hell a can driver is? SirChuckBCall the FBI 09:48, 18 January 2008 (EST)

(Yeah, I only end up here when I'm blocked - you tide me over until the pain goes away and eventually is replaced by the regular headache I get from CP)
Does anybody here have an explanation for my recent block? It's apparently related to my (now reverted) edit to "Talk:Sudden Jihad Syndrome", where I pointed out how Pipes is basically just a racist ("Each Islamist who enters the United States, whether as a visitor or an immigrant, is one more enemy on the home front"). But I got blocked for "talking about the people here" - which would imply that I got a 2 hour block for pointing out that Andy ignored my other posts. It can't be about Pipes because that guy isn't a CP member. Yo, Karajou, or whatever other sysop is currently on monitor duty, could you explain that? I accept explanations on CP, too! --Jenkins 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)
The "offending passage (I'm guessing)"Quoting our dear, "neoconservative academic" himself:" I'm guessing that with the " 's you actually meant "dumbass", but there's no telling, maybe it was a "Word of Knowledge" that Mister The email doesn't work and I'm not putting myemailadressATgmailDOTcom on my user page for fear of all that spam Karajou seems to get when he's missed lunch. Warren Terra 17:33, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, I did mean "dumbass" (I rarely use "our dear" unless I'm being sarcastic), just not in reference to Skip (who wrote "neoconservative academic"), but in reference to said "neoconservative academic". Just love it how blocks are apparently used faster than a warning or a query. That really emphasizes how much CP sysops value communication. --Jenkins 22:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Hehe, using wigo talk to try to communicate with a CP sysop. Probably very efficient... humanUser talk:Human 16:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Well, at times, it does appear as if CP sysops monitor WIGO more closely than even their own Recent Changes, so this is most likely the best "Yooohoooo Mister Sysooooop!" platform, especially with Kara-"Most likely still hasn't enabled his mail"-jou. Then again, trying to reason or discuss with Karajou about a block is about as likely to succeed as trying to stop a speeding truck by throwing cotton balls at it. --Sid 16:37, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Oh oh, you din't!!!! You're in trooouuubble now, Sid!!! humanUser talk:Human 16:57, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Me? I stopped trying to reason with the guy back when he banned me during the whole Bible Typo Ban Orgy. --Sid 17:29, 18 January 2008 (EST)

"Can driver" sounds like a trucker who hauls containers. I drove for two weeks with an ex who was a trucker doing the "can run" between the ports in Montreal and Toronto. Quite the adventure. --Kels 17:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe Bethany isn't as dumb as we make her out to be?[edit]

The "first black scientist" entry on WIGO isn't correct. Bethany says Banneker was the first African-American scientist, which is not the same thing at all. Any black people practicing science in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, or wherever would not be African American. This reminds me of a course I saw on a high school syllabus about African-Americans in ancient cultures, which struck me as funny. Now, whether this guy really was the first African American scientist is certainly questionable, and relies on how exactly one defines "scientist". -DickTurpis 12:14, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I never believed Beth is dumb. I'm sure she is a nice kid who has just got in with the wrong crowd. I agree with DIck, this Banhammer chap may indeed be the first "African-American" (professional) scientist, it's not racist so maybe it should be struck out. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I thought the same thing.... The edit may be incredibly stupid and just slightly racist, but she basically copied her source word for word. If you look at the source, it uses the phrase "first african-american scientist." By the way, isn't african-american an example of political correctness? SirChuckBCall the FBI 12:29, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I vote for speedy deletion of that entry, since it's just plain wrong. In fact, over at CP:WIGO-RW, they'd be justified in reaming us for it. Let its number stay "retired" though, or it will raise hell with the voting program. humanUser talk:Human 12:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I've commented it out. SusanPurrrrrrr 13:25, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Stupid pictures[edit]

Why is it always Karajou that contributes stupid pictures for the main page breaking news? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Which pic do you consider "stupid"--the one of the three fresh-faced anti-abortion gals, or the one of Andy's mother?--WJThomas 14:32, 18 January 2008 (EST)
ROTFL! humanUser talk:Human 14:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Hahaha awesome. Good work Dubya-Jay. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 21:09, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Isn't it also amazing how he indiscriminately slaps a "fair use" label on pretty much every image, whether or not that's actually the case? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:59, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Bizarrely enough, the lead pic in the Margaret Thatcher article is copyrighted and claims fair use - even though there's a perfectly good public domain picture of her further down the page. On Wikipedia, this would be a flagrant violation of fair use policy. I'm a little concerned that Conservapedia may get itself into legal trouble. 163.1.231.46 07:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Only if the owners paid any attention to Andy's little Blog of Hate. --Sid 07:22, 19 January 2008 (EST)
It's a pity they don't. Wouldn't that be a fitting end for Conservapedia? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

FBI lulz[edit]

Am I mis-remembering or did we agree that FBI lulz were just likely to encourage silly spammers/wandals & wouldn't be commented on? I think I'll comment it out. SusanPurrrrrrr 17:44, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Commented out but left so that it can be re-instated if thought otherwise. SusanPurrrrrrr 17:55, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, these pop up in my regular research for accounts to "harvest" for the "express line" of cp:Banwatch. According to my notes, the following express line candidates have FBI next to their name: Sdemek, Vferen, and Genwall, as well as this new guy. We do have a policy on the FBI incident page that we aren't taking any more people desiring their 15 minutes of fame. I sometimes wonder whether there might be a similar thing going on in the express line, and that the express line has outlived its usefulness. That (along with my laziness, of course) is why I haven't been putting in new people; my backlog is now 10 people. Or maybe express line people should get a little asterisk next to their name if the FBI is involved. You know, their achievement counts less because they used the steroid of mentioning the FBI. It's hard to say whether reinstating FBI counting in the express line will create a new flurry of activity. FBI activity seems to be continuing anyway.
And I had been hoping that mathematics or CollegeRepublican would start a new conflagration, but it hasn't, darn it.
Gauss 22:36, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Essay: Conservatism Essential to Religion[edit]

Just wanted to point out another of Andy's verbal crapping essay. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 20:18, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Link? SusanPurrrrrrr 20:21, 20 January 2008 (EST)
(I'm lazy)(very lazy)(very, very lazy) SusanPurrrrrrr

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. --Linus(plot evil tech) 20:38, 20 January 2008 (EST)

(ec) Thanxfor t e link: That is truly ahh .... Gobsmacking! SusanPurrrrrrr 20:42, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Talk about disjointed ramblings. No mention of vaccination, guns or breast cancer? SusanPurrrrrrr
Yeah, this guy must be an imposter, not Andy. Maybe we should expose him by asking whether he supports school prayer. Gauss 22:38, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. Jesus must be turning over in his grave. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:56, 20 January 2008 (EST)

I think it's worthy of WIGO, here's a permalink: All his own work for you to put in Night Flare. (to the finder goes the honour of inserting it) SusanPurrrrrrr 21:32, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I would've already put it there but I can't think of a proper comment to insert it with. Feel free to add it if you come up with something. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 21:35, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I enjoyed the oxymoron of 'a fast moving Conservatism'. --142.68.54.147 22:16, 20 January 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow had a good comment on the talk page, which I'm 95% certain will get him 90/10'ed pretty soon: Now you're insinuating that conservatism substitutes for religion?
I'd argue that for at least SOME people, politics and religion serve exactly the same purposes:
  1. providing a community of people who agree with you,
  2. creating a structure, however fraudulent, that FORCES the Universe to make sense, and (most importantly)
  3. provides someone else to blame.
--Gulik 03:59, 21 January 2008 (EST)

These essays get funnier by the moment. Oh, by the way Mr Schlafly, I know spelling it differently each time means one of them's gonna be right, but just get the dictionary out - it'd complement your prose and then we'd be able to compliment you. SusanPurrrrrrr 22:44, 20 January 2008 (EST)

"less domestic violence due to very different physical strengths..." Wait, what? --Kels 22:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)
The weak woman won't be able to beat up the strong man - potential violence halved! SusanPurrrrrrr 23:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Anyone else get the feeling when they read stuff like this that Andy's a chick magnet when he goes out to the bar? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 01:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)

We should make an article that is a central repository for links to all teh assfly's "essays". Perhaps with some commentary, or perhaps also add links to separate commentary articles on them. I think I see now why we never wean ourselves off CP - it's an easy target that doesn't think it is, that just keeps on adding new things to fall off our chairs over. humanUser talk:Human 09:59, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Schlafly essays

PJR just keeps on giving...[edit]

I've come to the conclusion the man has no sense of irony. Particularly after posting a comment like this on the same page as a conversation about Christianity's shifting position on slavery. Amazing. --Kels 20:27, 20 January 2008 (EST)

...head

Sorry, I couldn't resist the urge the fifth time it occurred to me. humanUser talk:Human 11:53, 21 January 2008 (EST)

YOUR rules & YOUR style guide Mr. Schlafly[edit]

That's telling him. Countdown begins: 10 ...9 ...8 ... SusanPurrrrrrr 21:41, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Everyone knows that for Conservatives rules are not meant to be followed, they are there to keep the riff-raff in their place. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:12, 21 January 2008 (EST)


Rewriting History - More Fox news[edit]

It looks like cp:User:Fox didn't like the liberal bias in the cp:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article. Gone is the map of Israeli bombings, gone is the picture declarig Hezbolla won the war. Whilst I'm no expert I'm sure cp:User:fox will have a NPOV. Silver Sloth 10:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I'd call his blocking of TK a conflict of interest, though. Maybe making that a different point? --Kels 11:13, 21 January 2008 (EST)
I agree, totally different point. Apparently TK managed to sweet talk Ed Poor? humanUser talk:Human 11:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Say what you will about Ed Poor - the thinly veiled sexism, racism, and rampant egotism - but he's loyal to a fault. I once forwarded to him one of the more egregious "you'll pay for that" e-mails that TK often sent me, just to prove to Ed how crazy TK was. The response? "Wow, you must have made him really mad. I've never seen him snap like that!" Over the head.-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 11:43, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Also, I find it interesting that CP is having the same dilemma as us: since there are two categories of TK victims (those who are aware that they've been manipulated, and those who haven't figured it out yet), CP is having the same sort of fight we did, between the two groups, over his bannination. Who will win!-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 11:50, 21 January 2008 (EST)
The TK 1-year ban already is its own point - just do a fulltext search for "brimstone" on the list. It also contains the explanation behind it - Fox wrote a full essay, even. --Sid 14:46, 21 January 2008 (EST)
The second point isn't the block, it's the back-and-forth between Ed and Fox over the block. --Kels 14:47, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Where'd that happen? The last back-and-forth between them seemed to be about a personal remark to some other user... --Sid 14:52, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Follow the link - Poor Ed unblocked TK; Fox reblocked him. Pretty sure it was fresh, but I didn't check yet. humanUser talk:Human 14:55, 21 January 2008 (EST)
It was fresh, I posted it just after Ed did his unblocking. --Kels 14:57, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, now I get it. Sorry, I had been slightly distracted when I first clicked the log link (I saw that the last line was "1 year" and thought that it was still the old one). My bad! --Sid 15:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)

The fact is, Ed's proven himself over and over to be a deeply dishonest man, intellectually and otherwise, so it's hardly a surprise that he's lying to himself as well as everyone else. --Kels 12:13, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Back to the point (?). The TK unblock/block seems to have no relationship to the second section, where Fox "edited" the Israel/Lebanon thing for purity. If there is no rational connection (and I don't see one except that Fox is involved), can we please split them up? humanUser talk:Human 14:59, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Fox blocking TK was a clear conflict of interest, for which he should have asked another sysop to intervene. Likewise, Fox's editing of the Israeli conflict was also a conflict of interest, for which he should have asked the community's opinion. The only thing wrong with the connection is that sysops don't have to ask anybody anything or follow any rules, but that's not rationality's fault, that's Andy's fault. Lurker 23:33, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Weird. When I blocked TK for insulting Human not too long ago, I got criticized because people felt Human should have done the blocking, as the aggrieved party. Maybe I'm just confused. --Kels 23:48, 21 January 2008 (EST)
That probably explains why I thought the line made sense but everyone else thinks it's tangential :) (Though technically the two cases are different, but no matter.) Lurker 01:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)
I hear from behind the screen that TK is gone from CP for good, and a quorum rallied to support that decision; let's hope we can reach the same conclusion, in 53 days...-αmεσ (mission accomplished!) 01:06, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Alexa traffic report[edit]

Does anyone remember when it was a huge deal on CP that they had surpassed Rush Limbaugh? Well that lasted for a couple of days. Oh, and here's wikipedia's rapid decline. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:53, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Competition mania[edit]

Is it

  • a) Andrew Schlafly;
  • b) American Conservatives;
  • c) Americans or
  • d) Men

who have competition mania? SusanPurrrrrrr 14:21, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I was going to say "idiots", but you already have that covered with a and b. --Kels 14:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)
What I love is that the perhaps soon-coming C5 is a new twist - a rematch between the previous teams from C4. So teh assfly can try to win one for once. As the header says, competition mania. At least Andy says he learned a lot making his edits in C4. Once again, I think it's time they let RW field a team to show them how it's done. humanUser talk:Human 14:46, 21 January 2008 (EST)
What I love is that they think they can fully tweak the rules and organize the thing in ONE WEEK or so. Besides, I think Andy's already breaking the existing rules: Some of his last-day entries about blood diseases appeared to be completely copy-pasted, but he didn't list one 1-point copy-paste entry on his Day 8 scorecard. However, there are a good number of 4-point entries on that list... of course without links so nobody can easily verify those claims! --Sid 14:50, 21 January 2008 (EST)
That wouldn't be an example of conservative dec... no, no, what was I thinking. Ajkgordon 16:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)
What I love is than Ben wants another competition, but doesn't want to be on Andy's team. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, nice slap in the ole assfly mouth, eh? But check out Ben's user page, he's obviously a deep cover parody editor. humanUser talk:Human 17:55, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Or one of Andy's homskolar sysops. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:51, 21 January 2008 (EST)
How can you tell he's a parodist? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:04, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Backlash begins[edit]

[2]