Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive224

This is an archive page, last updated 4 March 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>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <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)

Recent Wigo Concerning My Edits (My defense of myself)

I would like to point out that I stand by my edits - which were recently added to this list. In the process of removing from the mainspace an out-dated template, I, depending on the specific articles, either replaced the template with one that I created (like here), removed the template because the article it was listed on was not needed because it was cited ( like here) or removed the template because the article was otherwise in accordance with the Conservapedia manual of style.

First of all, unlike at Wikipedia, it is not Conservapedia policy to cite every statement. I believe I have amassed a good record of using citations (I even transferred some citation templates from Wikipedia to Conservapedia), but I still recognize that this makes sense. Recently, I've worked on adding a template to articles on Supreme Court justices. This template involves that I list predecessors, successors, and terms. I do not bother citing all of these, - because franky I believe in these cases it would be trivial and slow. This is in accordance with CP:Style. The only statements that are required to have citations, at least how I read Conservapedia's guidelines (which I admit has changed over the years), are controversial statements. I and my fellow Conservapedia editors have enough faith in eachother to record correct information on the wiki. However, if one does come across a questionable statement - they're are two appropriate methods of action: a fact tag - which is small and informative in that it lets future editors know which facts are being questioned, or research the statement yourself to determine whether it is correct. The only instance in which a giant template is appropriate is if when the article has multiple questionable statements. Short articles, by definition, don't even have multiple statements, let alone enough ones to be challenged to warrant such a template. So, for these articles, I looked at the edit history, and if a trusted editor had created the articles, due to policy previously mentioned, I deleted the templates.--Iduan (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, not only are you a "member of a site supporting vandalism", you've also admitted to copying from Wikipedia. Oh dear oh dear. So before you get blocked at CP (lest they be hypocritical and selectively apply their own rules), why not try adding some fact tags or removing unsupported statements. Let's see how that goes eh? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, why are you defending yourself here, is this the place where CP is managed? Do you take all this liberal guff seriously? Are you worried about what the liberals might think? Worse, do you value their opinion? Auld Nick (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, Expressing an opinion on CP is not a good idea and is highly discouraged, perhaps you thought expressing one here would be possible and useful? Jimaginator (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I agree... who the fuck are we to question your edits on CP? Sure we can but by what reason should you or any other editor at CP care? The argument is still valid, sure you removed the template and there is some merit to that, but you didn't dignify any of the statements with a {{fact}} tag while removing the template. And then lastly, you don't need to cite noncontroversial statements? So what exactly is a noncontroversial statement? "The earth is 6,000 years old"? "Christianity is the true religion"? What gets this magical free pass because it is not controversial? Oh... you're using special pleading... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Those HUGE templates on those tiny articles...that made me chuckle. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a middle ground between "cite every single statement" and "article has absolutely no sources at all". The latter can have at least three reasons:

1. Sources exist, but whoever made the article couldn't be arsed to look up even a single one of them and either wrote the entire thing from memory (bad) or by "looking closely" at for example Wikipedia (potentially worse for several reasons).
2. There are no sources because the entire thing is just another Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus.
3. There are no sources because it's just something a sysop made up and turned into a wiki article to give it fake authority ("it has a CP encyclopedia article, so it's obviously true").

Number 1 would have to be fixed to obey the CP Commandments, number 2 would have to be fixed by nuking it, and number 3 is a problem of its own. Removing the template is nothing but saying "Lalala, no problems!", just like that time some sysop (Geo? Jpatt?) got rid of the fact-template because he didn't like it.

You decided to follow the way the CP Commandments are followed by the sysops, not the way they are written. That makes you a valid target of mockery because WIGO isn't just about mocking idiots, it's about mocking idiocy, and the way the Commandments are left to die in favor of "insights", "truisms" and "it doesn't look pretty" is a severe case of idiocy.

However, it's mostly a moot point since (1) pretty much nobody on CP does things like source-checking anyway and (2) nobody who is concerned about verifiable correctness in articles uses CP as a resource, anyway. So... yeah, keep up the good work, it's fun to see people distilling CP to maximize its idiocy potential. Just don't expect us to do anything but laugh. --Sid (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, whatever you do, just don't stop deleting those templates. It's amusing, not irking. And we like to be amused. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all if my edits warrant questioning I'm absolutely open to being criticized here. I don't mean to come off as some megalomaniac, "who the f are [you] to question me?" - certainly I have made edits in the past that are worth being questioned. And I do take citations relatively seriously, so I felt like the entry was a potentially valid point that I felt I could respond to. I've been a member of this site since 2007, I believe, and I have occasionally responded to criticism. But I don't think that's the point, and I don't see what you gain by questioning why I care if my edits are called into question here. I think it's common knowledge what is and isn't controversial - pretending like everything could be considered controversial is just as productive as asking "why?" over an over again - if I say "Steve Nash plays for the Phoenix Suns" - I don't feel a need to cite that. No, I did not add fact tags - in part because there were certain articles where I felt they weren't necessary - including CP:Steve Nash. And again - there were pages where I felt the Template was used correctly, on those pages I replaced it with the newer template CP:Template:CPCN.

I've been at Conservapedia since 2007 - while it's impossible to stand by every article on a wiki, I do stand by every article I have written. You can see them here. If you have qualms with my editing history or articles, I'd be glad to discuss them and fix the problems.--Iduan (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the dearly departed...truisms don't need citations. "What's a truism?", you ask.. You're fucking banned, that's a truism. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Best example straight from the WIGO: Liberal labels.^img Quick, Iduan, tell us why this article doesn't need any citations... --Sid (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And a godwin for good measure. Classy. -- 21:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out that it is Wikipedia policy that common knowledge need not be cited. You seem to have no problems with that. Conservapedia policy is non-controversial statements need not be cited. In the same way that you can generally determine what is or isn't common knowledge, you can also generally determine what is or isn't a controversial statement. The article you referred to, by what I outlined, wouldn't need fact tags because it would fall under the category of an article written by a trusted editor. In this case, written by Ed Poor, though also edited by ASchlafly. To be honest, if you want to talk about what needs or doesn't need citing, I'd be happy to do that on-site (Conservapedia); I only came here to say that I do stand by my edits.--Iduan (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So if Ed or Andy write an article, it's fine without citations? And sure, I'd be happy to discuss this on Conserva-OH WAIT, WE'RE ALL BANNED THERE FOR BEING RW MEMBERS. --Sid (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the whole intellectual laziness that makes the place so great. I'm not criticizing you, I think it's quite entertaining. Articles at CP are like nigger babies to republicans. You want to save them, but god be damned if you're going to actually look out for them. It's only for "controversy" (read: batshit political points), like you said. More articles, more nigger babies, less time to babysit, so it's a good thing you weren't going to anyway. That's why we get unchecked, unreferenced parody. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The "X wrote it, so it's probably fine without sources" strongly reminded of this TZB discussion where this basic question also came up: Does CP reflect Andy's personal opinion or the truth? The answer: Both, because Andy's personal opinion is the truth. --Sid (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That was an awesome thread. The cultism really is terrifying. Andy could probably molest half those guys priest-style. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Conservapedia policy is non-controversial statements need not be cited." Ok, fair enough. So Conservapedia sees "Part of this is the motive to smear modern conservatism with connotations of Nazi Fascism" as non-controversial? Also, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a religious tract. Just because something is written by Andy or (God forbid) Ed Poor, doesn't mean that it's Gospel truth. However, you've been there long enough that to question Andy's Truth, is to commit wiki-suicide, which makes your actions even more indefensible - as you are caving in and doing what every other sysop on CP does - looking the other way. And you can't be happy about doing that, because otherwise you wouldn't be here defending yourself. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to that TZB thread - Terry Chuckarse comes across as seriously creepy sometimes, especially in his toadying up to Andy. Good to see Geoff being a little "Andy is King" drone, as always. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm impressed by Temlakos' fire-and-brimstone how DARE you suggest Andy has said something that isn't TRUE, you HERETIC!!!!un!!! defense. Although it probably would have been more effective if Tim had brought Andy's more obviously opinion articles (not that the Obama article isn't a clear smear job) like Liberal Style and stayed away from the Obama thing that most of them are personally invested in staying as it was. --Kels (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Psy in that I found that thread seriously creepy. It makes me wonder what the a class of Andy's homeskollers is like... -- 01:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC - thanks to yer fucking edit button!) That is a superb thread, thanks to Iduan for causing it to be posted! I'm not sure whether Chuckarse is sincere in that he can't understand the difference between saying someone is mistaken or incorrect rather than lying, and also the difference between an opinion or view ("socialism is the best system") and a fact (steel is an alloy of iron) - or he is fully aware of these differences and is just sucking Andy's cock and being a prick to Timbo. I'm also not sure what's worse.... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me that's fake? --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, it is actually nice of you to come here and talk to us. I still can't understand why did you go back there after the treatment meted out to you.Buscombe (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Handy* edit button #1 (relocated for added handiness)

Handy* edit button #1 discussion

^{*Not everyone may find the edit button to be handy. It is also debateable amongst those who think it is handy whether or not it is very handy or just a little handy. Chances are, however, that nobody will find this disclaimer to be handy in any way, shape, or form.}

This edit button seems be lacking in handiness somewhat. Ace McAntisocial (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I've added a disclaimer. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We now return to your regularly sheduled debate argument

Re:Buscombe: I'm always happy for a little debate, although I'll admit the hostility is a little surprising; to be frank, me taking citation templates off of stub articles is not the most controversial thing to have happened. I do suppose that I created a decision by commenting at all, although in past when I have come here (granted, this was years ago - with different users, notably such as Ames, Radioactive afikomen, AKjeldsen and others) it's been a friendly environment despite major or minor disagreements.

As to your second point, look, if I were to start a Wiki, I would have different rules than Conservapedia's - not entirely, but certainly some. I have no problem admitting that. And I do disagree with Conservapedia views on certain subjects - most notably, religion - I am an atheist (though I'll certainly admit that I see the value of religion. Short story: I attended a Kansan funeral for a friend of mine who died in a Megabus accident on September 11th of this past year, and during my stay in Kansas I spent a lot of time with his family, who were amazingly strong and poised - and I have no doubt that this came from their intense spiritual belief in God.) But I believe Conservapedia is a great project - and in the same sense that I disagreed with some of my high school's rules (I attended a public school, by the way - a very good one, if I do say so myself) but managed to respect the institution on the whole, I can happily edit at Conservapedia.--Iduan (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, first of all I'd like to thank you for jumping into the "enemy's lair" to have an honest discussion. I for one appreciate it. Secondly, I honestly do not understand how you can believe Conservapedia is a great project. I mean, I can see how Andy would think that, but you seem to be a much saner and smart person than he is. You said you're an atheist, so can you clarify why you'd defend a wiki which would bully and ban you for that mere fact? Or any reason why Conservapedia is a good thing? Cause all I see are a bunch of ignorami who makes up their own articles to confirm to the reality they desire, and bully and ban anyone who goes against the party line. GTac (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you also explain, please, why you say the 'hostility is a little surprising'? I've not really seen much out and out hostility. Certainly far FAR less than is displayed by the lunatics over at CP. Question them, get insulted and blocked. Try to improve one of their insane screeds, get insulted and blocked. Have a gay son, get some disgusting homophiobic abuse aimed at you and get blocked. Be an atheist, get insulted and blocked.

Come here. Get met with what is in general an open reception and get debated with. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between "I disagreed with some of the rules but respected the institution" and "I am happy to respect and support an project based on lies, smear jobs, baseless opinion presented as fact, and has no consistently applied rules". I'm sorry, but your justification for (re-)participation at CP is weak at best. --Kels (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add: even if you think Conservapedia is a great project, surely you must know it is completely dead in the water. Fellow conservatives won't touch it, it has about 10 editors, and statistics show it to be in rapid decline. Do you not feel you're just wasting your time contributing there? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oof - a lot of points - a lot of which I'm honestly not going to touch, because there are certain arguments that even before you start them you know that they're agree/disagree args. GTac: in the same sense that a gay man or woman can vote Republican, I, an atheist, can work at Conservapedia. I agree with the conservative stand point on the vast majority of issues. Oldusgitus - I think if you read the thread there's clearly some hostility or mean-spiritidness, but perhaps I'm misreading. And One: Conservapedia is a political website. I expect its activity will follow the political cycle. More interest = more activity, i.e. you can expect 2012 to be a big year.--Iduan (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"I, an atheist, can work at Conservapedia." Oh come on. Yes, you have every right to sign up and work on CP. But how many people have lasted there once they mention they're an atheist? Or look at you - they're happy for you to do all their templates for them, but promotion? In Andy's "meritocracy"? For an atheist? Forget it. --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, more directly, how do you feel about this "great project" knowing that Karajou is on the new SDG telling Andy about "an atheist editor who's telling the rats that he disagrees with some of our rules"?--Willfully Wrong (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

CP sysops will always look at you from a cost/benefit POV: You do tons of hard work, and you demonstrated that you do exactly the kind of hard work they like (removing calls for sources to make it appear as if there are no problems). That is a benefit, but watch what happens if you ever feel like questioning, say, Atheism-related pages, cp:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?, Liberal [noun], or one of the Counterexample pages. I'm not sure if you had been around at the time, but you do know that PJR, a YEC, Bible-believing Christian conservative was driven out of CP because he disagreed with Andy about gun control and because he wanted users like you to be treated fairly, right?

Now, we at RW, we look at you from a "WTF is he thinking?" POV. It's less about you and more about what you do. If this was 2007, I'd be right next to you, believing that a conservative-view encyclopedia might work and that there's no problem in helping out even if you don't agree with most of the premises. But this is 2011. CP is nothing but a hate site that blindly lashes out against everything it views as liberal - and this includes atheism. It is impossible to edit there as an atheist unless you completely and utterly keep your mouth shut each and every time Andy and his minions blame liberalism/atheism/homosexuality for the latest shooting spree or for Catholic priests molesting children. I think that's why most people here are shaking their heads: An atheist editing on a project that basically says "FUCK ATHEISTS!" every couple of days.

And even that would get little more than a "Huh?" out of us, but you then come here to make a big stand to defend an editing stance that basically says "Andy said it, so I accept it as trustworthy." I'm not sure what your goal is, but so far, I'm more confused than impressed. You'll always be welcome for chit-chat and stuff (we love our chit-chat, oh yes we do), but don't expect special treatment after straight-faced edits like this. --Sid (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew Philip, and I was also on Conservapedia in 2007. How would I edit those articles? From the conservative perspective. I should also point out that that I lack faith isn't something I'm proud of; I'm mostly undecided when it comes to religion, but I certainly think that a belief in God is a positive attribute, so inversely a lack of belief is a negative one. Look, I don't know why specific users were blocked - I don't care to hash through old block logs and debate the past. But the vast majority of you are vandals - you might not consider inserting liberal beliefs in a site dedicated to the conservative perspective to be vandalism, but it is. Those of you who aren't vandals? You still participate on a site that encourages vandalism - and applauds the efforts of "parodists". This site, which, really, is predominantly nothing more than a site to attack Conservapedia, is almost entirely destructive in nature. And it's failing. So you can ask "Huh?" all you want - and yeah, maybe myself or some other user will come along every now and then and be up for a little debate -but for the most part we'll be at Conservapedia - creating new articles and improving old ones.--Iduan (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of that crazy aside, let's focus on "you might not consider inserting liberal beliefs in a site dedicated to the conservative perspective to be vandalism, but it is". Ignoring argument from assertion, I'd just like to point out that the bar for "vandalism" on CP is so much lower than you have graciously put it. Questioning Andy? Vandalism. Using liberal fact tags? Vandalism. What do you think about news story X? Vandalism. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"This site, which, really, is predominantly nothing more than a site to attack Conservapedia, is almost entirely destructive in nature." Have you looked at ANY of our fine mainspace articles? Or the broad variety of issues that we talk about at the saloon bar? "And it's failing." At what? By whose measure? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? P-Foster (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, I commend you for coming on here and pay no attention to strident remarks; keep in mind we aren't all of one opinion and everyone just represents their own interests. "I certainly think that a belief in God is a positive attribute, so inversely a lack of belief is a negative one" - why do you believe this? Why can't there be a "neutral" in your views on this? --Leotardo (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, allow me to quote from your most recent Parthian shot. After discovering an MPR which misrepresented its source, you wrote the following:

So why would Conservapedia post this? It is because Conservapedia is fundamentally disingenuous. That is critical to understand, because it explains all of their actions. They question the patriotism of a man who has probably done more work for America than Andrew Schlafly ever will. They suggest that Obama is only doing well because he is black (ironic given that Andrew Schlafly is only doing well because he is a legacy). They attempt to use every attack possible against Obama; it seems the only prerequisite is that the attacks can't have substance, but it is not as though Conservapedia wouldn't rather have substance; it is just that in the absence of substance they have panicked. As a result, Conservapedia's positions on Obama are based not on policy, but, rather, on rumor. Until last night I did not support Barack Obama, but now I am left with a question: do I agree with a man who wants to remove the dirt from Washington - or do I agree with a group that enjoys bathing in the dirt.

What, exactly, has changed since you wrote that? 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Quickly, Re:Leotardo: I suppose I consider the absence of a positive attribute to be a negative, and not neutral, attribute. Re: Colonel: What has changed ... well for one, I'm old enough now to see the uselessness of parthian shots - I wrote that in 2008? So I was either still in high school, or it was the summer after. And I do think Conservapedia has changed since that time, but more to the point I think that the way I view it has also changed. Conservapedia is obviously larger than one article or one position. And just because I might lose one debate - as I have many times on Conservapedia, that much certainly is documented - that doesn't mean that I should stubbornly make assumptions about the project as a whole - as I did then.--Iduan (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

But there are plenty of positive attributes that, if people possess them, then they are positive, but if they don't, it's simply neutral. Perhaps a sense of humor, or someone who is an 'excellent' worker (as opposed to being merely adequate - getting the job done, but not exceptionally). I think this is the general problem with conservatism today: very little gray area. If you don't have what is considered a positive attribute, then it's a mark against you. It's a very harsh view of humanity. --Leotardo (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So, I take it you now feel that Conservapedians lying to smear people they don't like is okay? They certainly haven't stopped doing it. That much has not changed - this I know for a fact. A while back, I created an account with the intention of engaging with CP. I followed all their rules, even removing vandalism and parody to stay within the bounds of 90/10. I was upfront about my beliefs - the ones you insist don't matter to them. As a result, Ed Poor and TK greeted me with personal attacks.

In the course of vandal-fighting, I removed a statement from their article on George Soros - an argument that was not only borderline defamatory, but not supported by the references offered. It was immediately undone, and I was told that I should discuss such changes with the sysops. So I did - anytime I found something I thought should be changed, I brought it up on the talk page of the article. I was subsequently blocked - no reason was ever given. That account later turned up among the leaked discussion group pages. Here, you can see Karajou acknowledge that I was right about a comment I left, but criticize me for not correcting the mistake myself - something I was told not to do. The hostility towards non-sysops, the anti-intellectualism, the devotion to authority - these are features, not bugs. If anything, this has grown worse since 2008. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan, you are right. CP has changed since you wrote your Parthian - it is now even more crazy and there are fewer educational articles and more wing-nut rhetoric.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Intermediate edit button 1.5 (handiness to be decided)

-8

Is this intermediate edit button handy?

StarDelta (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this to be an inadequate method of determining edit button handiness. Who's with me?

30

Is voting an inadequate method of determining edit button handiness?

^{ONE / TALK} 10:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, think that the whole voting system is vulgar and disgusting when applied to determining the adequacy of the voting system in regards to edit button handiness.

5

In regards to voting to determine the adequacy of the voting system concerning a certain "handy" "edit" "button" on the top of a certain vandal thread, do you think that the voting system is misapplied to determining the adequacy of the voting system???

CowHammer (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

-12

This thread is deviating from What Is Going On at CP. Move it to debate space?

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

9

Fill it with more voteys instead?

^{ONE / TALK} 12:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Handy edit button #2

This one is far, far handier. P-Foster (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(NEC) No edit conflicts here thanks to this damn handy edit button! Thank you! StarDelta (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right wing crazies ate my homework

In a shocking new revelation, I must admit I really hate The Trusworthy Encyclapaedophilia Encyclopaedia Encyclopedia.

Several years ago I had jotted down some interesting points about the Great Egyptian Revolt of the mid-Ptolemaic era, as it was something I had only recently discovered even existed after reading through some lecture notes of Willy Clarisse published online. I pulled them together into a fairly good (IMHO, and definitely bloody good by CP standards) article and put it on CP, and thought little more of it. It was so far of the assfly's radar it escaped the molestations of Ed Poor or t3h crazy of Kendoll for ages.

Then my old laptop was stolen. Most of my stuff I had copies of on my partners one for safekeeping, so I didn't worry. So, a few days ago, I was mulling over a mid-semester essay I need to summon up, and decided to dig up the old article and use it (and the Bibliography) as the rough core to build an assignment around. Not backed up. No worries! I can pull up the old CP article, as that had most of the material in it, and it's only fact checking and biblio anyway. [CP:Great_Egyptian_Revolt Nada. Nothing. Dust in the west.]

Am I surprised? No. Am I pissed off? Yes, because now I have no damn copies of that paper. Although it's my fault for not making a proper backup, you would think that an encyclopaedia would be a safe place to for facts and bibliographies.

Also, because although I know this kind of shit is typical CP, I put a lot of effort into putting together that article. There was a lot of high quality work in there, and I did genuinely put it on CP in good faith as an attempt to give the encyclopaedia some high grade content. I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that, on this topic, CP actually had a significantly better article than WP.

Sorry, I know this is a rant, but I am really annoyed about it, as having that rough paper would have saved me hours of having to look up bibliographic refs, checking translations and wading through a load of fact checking I had already done before. *headdesk*

PS: Long shot I know but if anyone knows a way I could recover a copy of the page, I'd really appreciate it. -- 21:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Drop them an email, don't mention RW, just say you need it for an essay and wondered if they could dig it out? Do it quick, before they see this. ^EXTERMINATE 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You're fucked. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mountain_Blue/Great_Egyptian_Revolt. Version dated 2008-12-18 09:02. Mountain Blue 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

^Why I love RW^ EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy……that my friend was damned impressive work. And rather highlights a difference in attitude between CP and RW, if you're still reading Iduan.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mountain! Your a sanity saver :) -- 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that conservapedia got rid of something productive and worthwhile while they held on to a load of carp? --Opcn (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Out Toot-'n-come-in friend is going to be really hacked off when he finds out just how his article managed to get deleted. /insert Cheshire Cat grin. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The nearest CP has to Carp is an article on goldfish - a baraminology of carp.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It contains the observation that “[c]ontrary to popular belief” – I thought it was very widely known – “goldfish bowls are extremely unhealthful [sic] for goldfish.” I’m surprised that the opportunity to slam those filthy liberals on The West Wing for keeping poor Gail in one was missed. Tylersboy (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing they used the list of stuff I did on CP that's on my RW userpage, and just trashed the lot. I'm guessing that as only the stuff on there got trashed, whereas the parody/satire - which isn't listed - was left alone. -- 17:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Shortest 90 days

Guess we have to re-start that 90 day clock again^img. Any bets on how long he will stay away this time? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he stays on Conservapedia even when he isn't editing. He'll just sit there drooling with the edit window open while an internal battle takes place between the side of him that wants to prove the evil liberal vandals wrong about his obsession and the side of him that feels the world desperately needs to know what Asian women want (not atheists). «-Bfa-» 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that Michelle Malkin's bedroom is wallpapered in Richard Dawkins posters, and she has all his albums. Also, don't you just love how incestuous all these blogs are? JPratt, having never had an original thought in his life, doubtless copied that list from some other blog, or at best from whirled nut daily. Now Malkin cites it as if CP was some kind of authority on the matter. Maybe we could have a trophy made up for them inscribed "You Fail Journalism Forever." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least he's trying to tear himself away from CP for protracted periods of time. For the last week, he hasn't indulged in one of his patented 10+ hour editing sprees, he's just been dumping tons of edits in short timeframes. I guess when you're in the "fighting atheism on the internet" business, there's no such thing as true time off the job, and the never-ending stream of exciting new developments will always demand immediate responses. Röstigraben (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Conservative on the Other Site: You know that little encyclopaedia project that was the inspiration for Conservapedia? It gets cited on famous blogs too. So many times that people stopped counting years ago. How did they do it? Quality. They focus on quality. Not self-promotion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Um...

I know I'm trying to look for logic in stuff that Andy's done, but "self-moving rocks" prove a young Earth?^img Really? Also, in the point above "The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes." Now I'm no geologist, but I thought it had more to do with pressure, causing the liquid iron core and heat radiating out from that. I've been 2km down a gold mine, and boy is it hot down there. Is this radioactivity thing a fundie thing (like Chuckarse's the floods turned Earth into a giant reactor) or if it a product of my atheistic public school education? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 07:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy the phrase "Old Earth magazines", especially when referring to mainstream news publications. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a good weasel word, so nobody can pin him down and say, 'A-ha, but in this edition of National Geographic..." Also, to shoot a hole in Andy's point 11 under geology deep saline groundwaters in South Africa's Witwatersrand Basin may be millions of years old. --PsyGremlinTala! 07:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is actually one of my favorite articles, and one of the first that let me know that the guys over there are not completely sane. Even when I knew nothing about science, I still could figure out that it was absolute nonsense all the way. I still have a hard time figuring out how can anyone believe this. Danoso (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The interior of the Earth is heated by a few things, but mostly radioactive decay. Where CP gets it wrong is in stating that said radioactvie elements couldn't possibly still be around after 5 billion years, but the elements thought to be responsible - Uranium 238, 235, Thorium 232 and Potassium 40 - all have half-lives around that magnitude. That's why CP has a fact-tag on it (but for how long?) ^{ONE / TALK} 09:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be interesting - it was added^img by a parodist (not outing - that's his ban reason), but the contrib was regarded as proper and never reverted - TK and Andy edited it several times since then, and a talk page section^img questioning this point was completely ignored by the admins. --Sid (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that looking at the talkpage, the last 6 or so questions have gone unanswered. I guess it's Andy plan of "If I didn't see it, it didn't happen." Also TK's comment is weird, under "Observations on some deceitful points in this article" - "Administrators, RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear?" No. Since when has there been a difference between "editors" and "users"? Ah TK, I miss him. Who's going to make up rules on the fly now? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

mmm...I love this type of blatant dishonesty. It baffled old earth scientists for years! until they figured it out. Two other things: I love (love!) how the tracks have become "fresh" and how "Old Earth" is now a proper noun. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody needs to ask Andy how a young Earth explains these moving rocks. The only thing I can think of is that God directly intervenes and nudges them about (guess he's got nothing better to do) but even that's unrelated to the age of the Earth... ^{ONE / TALK} 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, wasn't the "users" vs. "editors" an Ed Poor thing? --Kels (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Until Andy approves, you're not either...you're a "visitor". visitor -> user -> editor -> sysop lite -> sysop -> administrator -> senior administrator -> Andy.. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Kels, you're right that Ed's had his hands in that: Unless I'm severely mistaken, he is the one who renamed "editor" into "contributor", letting him recycle editor as something of higher rank (forgot if it was sysops, edit right people, or something else). --Sid (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is hilarious because it's a complete 180 from the old arguments against the (very) old earth. Back in the 19th century, Lord Kelvin claimed the earth could be no more than tens or maybe hundreds of million of years old because it must be cooling over time (and had begun molten-hot). The discovery of radioactivity proved billions of years were possible with roughly stable temperature. Andy is, as ever, ass backwards. 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly Andy. THIS is what causes "self moving rocks" ("Sailing Stones" is such a nicer name). X Stickman (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of YEC arguments seem to be that "our calculations show that the Earth is only several hundred thousand or a few millions of years old rather than the billions that secular geologists say. Ergo it is only 6000 years old." Генгис^mutating 17:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stones seem to have a habit of moving on their own - ask any gardener and you will find that new stones seem to work their way up to the surface, no matter how much you keep removing them. Of course what the article doesn't say is what direction the stones move. I presume it gets pretty cold in those desert valleys and you might get some creep effect caused by unequal heating and cooling of either the rock or the surface.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Another Poor

Related to the above, I searched for Edmund Ward Poor on Wikipedia. The article was redirected to Grumman, but the history of the original EW Poor article says he is the son of this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor. So perhaps Poor's gloating might have some grounds to it, although he probably wrote the article there too FairyCupcake (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, there seem to be a few notable Poor's of Ed's clan. Although that just brings his failures into the fore even more FairyCupcake (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You should check out the article's history. At one time it said : Professor Poor's son, Edmund Ward Poor, was one of ten co-founders of Grumman Aircraft on Long Island. Edmund Ward Poor's son E. Ward Poor II was for a long time a maintainer of the Boston Computer Society's public domain software collection and lives in Lexington, Massachusetts. Ward Poor's son, the professor's great-grandson, is Edmund Ward Poor III of Wikipedia. (Uncle Ed added the 'of Wikipedia' bit.) If I remember rightly there are other bits of self promotion in older versions of his grandpappy's page.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Man it must sting to be such a complete loser in a family of pretty darn decent achievers. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But at CP he'd fit right in, seeing as it's run by a master of wasted potential. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And wasted opportunity. Ivy league undergrad school, Harvard educated lawyer who was on the board of the Harvard Law Review. A guy like that could be president by now... - π 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to secularized words

Perversion = Diversity.^img

I love hanging around Fetlife, because there's such diverse people there, and afterwards I go to my deli, where they have such a perverse selection of snacks. Too lazy to check who added it. The facts that it's still there speak volumes. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A distant sodomite of mine was once found guilty of diverting the course of justice. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It brings a whole new meaning to this CNN headline. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Even ministers like to liven up their sermons with perverting anecdotes. Fawlty (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a huge abomination not to contracept that page. The parodists are having a field day with it, it's miraculous what they're getting away with. Röstigraben (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its very abiogenesis was a lifestyle choice. Tylersboy (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

. . . and a higher power alone knows what my late old man – a minister of spirituality who frequently perverted his parishioners – and his significant other, my parent, would have made of it. Being less well-behaved than they were, I am sorely tempted (what’s that in secular?) to tell Andy to relate off to the afterlife. Tylersboy (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Temptation -> Consumerism? Conservatives usually love them some consumerism, but Andy sees consumerism and materialism as two sides of the same coin, and we all know what he makes of materialism. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He tries to differentiate capitalism and consumerism. To Andy, the former is God's gift to America and the latter is trying to kill Santa Claus Jesus's birthday. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"I am heavily influenced, materialistically speaking, to tell Andy . . . ." etc.? Tylersboy (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The notion that diversity is perversity is so right wing crazy brilliant. I really can't explain how I feel about idiocy like this. It's like I want to have sex with it. Doggy style sex where I don't have to look it in the eye. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Only Ed has the power to elevate the bat-shit crazy to skin-tingling weird.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Moar!!

I've curious, but since when is 'govern' religious and 'rule' secular?^img I thought God ruled over everything from Heaven. I didn't think he governed. Is Andypants getting confused? Also, I know DavidE is a parodist, but heathen = multicultural?^img Nothing like adding a bit of good old fashioned jingoism to the mix. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Government" is a liberal secularised word, but "govern" isn't. Makes perfect sense. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and "pro-choice" = "anti-life"? WTF? Has anybody ever, outside the realms of CP ever referred to themselves as being anti-life? --PsyGremlinParla! 16:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Their "reasoning" is that if they call themselves "pro-life", then of course the other side must call itself "anti-life" - otherwise they're guilty of deceit. Of course, the opposite direction (one side calls itself "pro-choice", so why doesn't the other side call itself "anti-choice"?) is quickly dismissed. --Sid (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Given how the RW fundies are all pro death penalty, I think I'm going to start calling them anti-life from now on. --PsyGremlinTala! 16:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed

this guy's got it in for Ed. He appears to be a YEC birther anti-abortion conservative (he is a " Midwestern Conservative Christian", CP's target market) who got booted off CP by Ed. Fascinating! 16:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Of the myriad reasons to criticize Ed he picks Ed's constant self-aggrandizement? It'd be fun to see if the guy comes up with better reasons not to like Ed. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment on his post. Maybe we can compare notes sometime. Hopefully he'll come across some of Ed's wonderful stubs. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment on the post, too. A respectful one that said that the real problem with CP is not Ed, but Andy's warped world view (St. Washington, CBP) and the need to have everyone toe that line. and dude vaped it. He'll fit right in over there. P-Foster (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Must've just done it - it was there when I posted. I see he's left the second bit, with the links, there. But yeah, what's up with that - you can rip Ed a new one, but not CP? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Best comment yet (from his own comment at the bottom)

“”We know what they really are. We know they are imposters, wolfs in sheeps' clothing out to humiliate God's People in order to further the gay agenda and lackadaisical morality. We should continue to spread knowledge of this infiltration and begin anew with a more trustworthy point of reference for those issues of matter.

Hell, if your target market thinks that of you... --PsyGremlinParla! 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This post shows what he was banned for. I also left a link to our Ed Poop article on his request for people who had been banned by Uncle Creepy. And finally a big thanks to Susan for finding this, my only misgiving is that she seems to be finding out a lot about CP sysops recently. ;)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Giving my seekrit tekneeks away! That's all, Lily 17:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dang, I see Genghis beat me to it. Now it looks like I'm link-spamming. :(  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) OMG! I remember this fruitcake now. Ed took exception to him adding fundie claptrap to the Totoro article (a fave of Ed's given how it stars young girls). He claimed Totoro was not some cuddly wood spirit, but a demon, and the scene with the father bathing with his daughters was borderline paedophilia. I think Ed actually removed somebody who's crazier than CP. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is more proof that Conservapedia is just seen as the Westboro Baptist Church of the conservative movement (the same reason I like to watch them). It really must suck for them that they are reduced to gimmicks (Theory of Relativity is liberal; Washington's Birthday has been "secularized"; Myers is a fat pig) to garner attention, when their target market just finds their website embarrassing and untoward. --Leotardo (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

His brother posted (about Ed) "It is clear to me that deep cover liberals have infiltrated Conservapedia. Unless this vile cancer can be excised it will be time for a new offshot to form, one where real conservatives can actually promote God's word and Christian Morality without having deep cover liberals cut off people for failing to tow [sic] the line." So yes, probably just as mad as Andy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Susan's stalking Icerocket thing, I lol'd at the 23d entry. Probably wildly out of context, but so fitting. "ED Poor unhappy little girl." (yes, I left out a full-stop after ED, to add to the funny.) --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually found it first here & only went for Ed later. 19:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. First I read the objections of this guy about Ed Poor's vanity projects and I thought "hey, a conservative who I can agree with!". I've never wanted to generalize all conservatives, so it's nice to finally see someone who isn't a retard but just has some different opinions than me.. And then I saw his post on Clinton is a satanist cause he wears a bracelet and the stuff he wanted to add about radiation poisoning and pedophilia to the "obscure" Japanese movie Totoro.. *sigh* GTac (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, going quickly through his other posts it really says something about Conservapedia that they would ban someone who fit so perfectly in their retarded hateful mindset. Some examples: "Atheists" ban South African church from advertising (advertising faith healing that is), Homeopathy is awesome, OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHERE IS IT, Harry Potter is witchcraft!, Pokemon is evil, and the one which tops even Conservapedia's insane breastcancer-abortion article: Aids is fake!, where he explains how the people are actually dying due to the drugs which are promoted by the United Nations in the third world as part of a moneymaking scheme... So yeh, even if he's right on Ed Poor in his latest article, I'm in no way going to side with him.. GTac (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Cornswalled

So the guy who runs the blog in question seems to have a tiny reputation on teh internets. P-Foster (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More on the blog

(ec) The man is a complete wingnut. Besides the usual labels, I see we have 'Kenyan president' used 31 times, Gay agenda 76 times, heathens 29 times, then down the bottom, we get HAARP, Divine Universal Matrix and most bizarrely, Pokemon. More disturbingly, he harps on about how "South African Atheists ban Churches from advertising" [1]. Given that the church in question was claiming to cure AIDS via your TV screen, I'm damn glad they were banned. They should have been shot, for promoting such an unsafe message, especially given our rate of infection. Anybody supporting such charlatans is either a moron, insane, or both.

Oh dear, had a look at the Pokemon article. [2] Forget what you've been told about the name being a corruption of Pocket Monsters. Oh no, it's from the Latin Pokus and Mono, and has something to do with a northern Italian deity and it goes downhill from there. Crafty folks those Japs. Ed, oh Ed? Why did you block him? He could have been a sysop to rival Ken by now! --PsyGremlinSermā! 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Pokos itself is one of the older, and more obscure words in Latin. As far as can be determined, it originated in Northern Italy as the name for a local deity, also known as Pikat-shoo." I call Poe. Röstigraben (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking Poe too, but he's been at it for a really long time, so either he's really committed to parody, or he's just out of his damn mind. His earliest post on his old blog was in 2005 [3], so I'm going with the latter.CowHammer (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm, he's been going at it too long for it to be fake. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I really had to laugh at his reasoning concerning Pokemon referring to Pokos. Just the idea that marketers would first come up with a name that referenced something and then cover this up is hilarious.

Marketer A: I'VE GOT AN EXCELLENT IDEA FOR A NAME FOR OUR PRODUCT: CHEETAH, AFTER THE FAST ANIMAL

Marketer B: OH SO WE'RE GONNA USE THE IMAGE OF A SLICK FAST ANIMAL?

Marketer A: NO! WE'RE GONNA HIDE THE TRUE SOURCE OF THE NAME, INSTEAD IMPLYING THAT IT'S BASED ON CHEATERS

Marketer B: BRILLIANT!

And of course, anyone who denies his reasoning is just being misled by their anti-Christian PR department, while he gets his fact from... well, he just KNOWS it, somehow! GTac (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He gets his info from (100% Real™) Sooper Seekrit Anchent Manooscrips!

I will post my sources at a later date. Most of the materials I drew from are 300 plus year old illuminated manuscripts. I'm afraid you can't just go to your local library and check out a copy, but I have contacted the owners asking if there are any slides, reproductions or translations available for web publication.

CowHammer (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, guys? Mono is Greek, not Latin. Mountain Blue 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WTF? "[T]here is incidental evidence that most of the Emperors from Nero on worshiped Pokos?" I'll see your Poe and raise you two Buglers. Mountain Blue 00:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate explanation is a wingnut who believed a Poegular and repeated it without thinking too hard about it. Certainly we can look at CP and see them repeat all kinds of insane shit without knowing the first thing about what they're saying. I dunno, maybe a long shot but possible. --Kels (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No sense of irony

as Apathetic Andy writes, "Apathetic - term critical of the those who are deliberately inactive and disengaged mentally"^img If anybody's disengaged mentally around here... --PsyGremlin講話 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

While never diagnosed with ADHD or anything of that nature, I've always prided myself on being mentally disengaged, having a very short attention span and such. SJ ^Debaser 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Sorry, wasn't listening. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

About 20 past 11.AlexR4444 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less, Psy..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? WTF? DogP (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering Andy's level of education, isn't he being deliberately inactive? CP is his pride and joy and it's a shithole. Anyone else in the world would be embarrassed to have that as their main acomplishment. X Stickman (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

He is one of many siblings, have any of them done anything with their lives? --Opcn (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger took second place in a beauty hotdog-eating contest. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be funny as a joke, but as a reality it's even funnier. 86.175.139.39 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger in a beauty-eating contest, on the other hand, doesn't bear thinking of. Tylersboy (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Pell Grant WIGO

For those who didn't see it: Andy was celebrating over the possibility of $5.6 billion in Pell Grants being cut, since he seemed to think that this would hurt "liberal professors" rather than severely disadvantaging poor students. What I find funny is this: even though Andy probably is so fucking stupid that he doesn't know what a Pell Grant is, the article he linked to even explains it. Seriously, Andy, learn to read articles before you link to them. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy's anti-education bias once again comes shining through. Teachers bad, school bad, university bad, professors bad. Only good education to be taught Bible, at home, by unqualified parent. That way in 30 years' time the US will be the Taliban of the world. And Andy can see no problem with that at all. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The only class of people who should be able to educate their children without thinking about the cost are the ones who should be ruling the other classes of people not wealthy enough to not have to think about the massive costs involved in higher education...that's why it's called higher education...because it costs so much more. God blesses "good" people; if you don't need to worry about where the funds to keep your crappy website in servers then you're just the sort of person God is looking for to bless with even more server funds. It will be an awakening when the future ex-Mrs. Schlafly boots Andy out of the door and he finds him self outta werk, since the good ol' AAPS won't even think of having a divorced lawyer as their mouthpiece, and all the senators that can be recalled will be. This is why he's (barely) civil to Roger, so's he can crash in CA with Bro Rog for a few months, until he can

17:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Helping Andy with his MPR column again

Andy, you're in luck! Grab this headline and make sure to paste it up there on MPR with a banner headline about "liberal conspiracy" and "global warming nonsense" - but the exciting news is that you can also work in "Hollywood Values". There's a good lad now. Thanks. DogP (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And he delivers^img "Record cold temperatures -- 20 degrees below normal -- strike California just in time for Hollywood values to be pushed by liberals at the Oscars. Global warming as liberals claimed??" Awesomesauce. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Liberals? check.
• Global warming hoax? check.
• Hollywood fucking values? check.

Well done Dog, well done! Surely the Assfly is now so predictable that one of our coding experts could knock up a script that finds headlines/news stories and automatically generates an Assfly MPRism? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It'd fare better than this piece of crap. «-Bfa-» 16:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

DANCE LITTLE SCHLAFLY, DANCE! MWUAHAHHAHAHHA!!! DogP (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that proves it ASchlafly=DogP!! 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have always withheld the identity of my most senior socks. DogP (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hurry up and mark your homework, Assfly.

Even by the Assfly's homskolling standards, there's some glistening gems of bullshit lurking in this week's crop of homework. I can't wait to find out what marks they get. I'd really love to be a fly on the walls of these affairs. Either the teaching is really, really shoddy or this kids are to a person total retards. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither. His students don't care enough to put any effort into this - you can see it in their answers. Would you try your hardest if Andy were your teacher, or half-ass it and wait for the end? 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that the answers are half arsed, it's that often they are 180 degrees opposed to reality in matters of fact. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be the single greatest turn-around ever by a student in the space of 2 weeks from this^img to this^img. Unless of course the ass is lying about the homework again and these 'tracts' are not by the same person. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they're done by completely different kids, DevonJ did the first and History (specifically "Paul R") did the second. DevonJ appears to have given up on the class after receiving zero points for answering a question that asked his opinion...Opinion is wrong! zero points! 07:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Heh, that's brilliant! How can an answer to Which time period or periods in American History do you expect to enjoy studying the most? be wrong? Andy is such an arrogant twat. How on earth can even wingnut parents think he is an educator? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you get PaulR from that cracker? Previously when one of his 'students' has refused to participate any further in the wing-nuttery they leave the student - x blank, not replace it with another 'student'. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You forget that in Andy's class "having an opinion" means "agreeing with everything I say." Reading the answer, it seems like he did mess up a few historical facts within the area he'd most like to study, but wouldn't that be the reason why he'd want to study it? --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Seems straightforward."

No, wait, actually, what's the opposite? Oh yeah -- "Makes no sense at all."^img I've actually read this aloud three times. It makes NO SENSE, Andy. P-Foster (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish i was as stupid as he was. I wonder if i'd be more stress free. Ignorance is bliss right? Rationalize (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Classic Andy, really. The answer makes no sense on its own, and even less when you consider what the actual question was. --Sid (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's an Andyism for the ages. All I can think is, "All hail high priest Obama!" Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The great educator fails English once again by jumbling impersonal and personal pronouns in the same sentence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This coming from the man who would drink St Ronnie's bathwater, if he could. --PsyGremlinParlez! 08:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can make some sense out of this is if atheists are generally opposed to church and mistake every authority for the church - authority for the sake of pure authority without any further sense for, well, anything. Therefore they mistake that the rulers rules to rule over you, not for you. But there are to problems with that: (1) It reminds me very much on the critique Orwell made in 1984 (that power for the sake of power is dangerous) and (2) Andy makes himself openly authoritorian, because if he is so religious he has to be so pro-power. Although there is one much bigger problem: Andy has no fucking clue about atheism, socialism, anti-authorianism or basically anything else that is not a theological waste of time. --Ullhateme (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don’t have much difficulty understanding what Andy’s getting at, though it is, as usual, pretty fatuous, with a familiar side order of self-contradiction. Atheists, who can be automatically assumed to be liberal, make a fetish of state power, which they see as something which should be exercised by people like themselves as a means of imposing their godless ideas upon the people – in other words, ruling them. I think he gets in a tangle by calling state power “government” because he wants to identify it with the present administration, which he detests. I suspect that if the GOP were ruling the roost, he’d have less of a problem with “government” and would instead be banging on about the need to curtail the power of the state. I think he’s right to imply that there is a distinction to be made between government as a form of service exercised by consent and sovereign, unquestionable rule. Unfortunately, there’s rather more of the latter than the former both in the Bible and at Conservapedia. Then again, perhaps he really doesn’t know the difference between (a) the nation state, (b) its system of government and (c) transient political administrations. Tylersboy (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if the GOP were ruling the roost, he’d have less of a problem with “government” - when Bush was president all the conservatives kept on saying "he's the president, you have to obey him!" and "Dissent is treason!" Now they say the opposite just because someone they didn't pay vote for won. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that having the user temp 'I think it's patriotic to question authority' which had Bush's face on, was grounds to be targeted for "polite removal." Of course, now that there's that uppity negro Democrat in the WH, they can jump and down and whine all they like. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Insignificant, nerdy observation: in the KJV, according to a University of Michigan online resource there are 325 instances of words beginning “rule”, plus 4 of the word “ruling”; 161 instances of words beginning “govern”; and just 23 of the word “state”, only five or six of which seem to be in the sense of a political entity. Oh, and even less seriously, “labour” appears 201 times, “liberal” 14, and “conservative” not once. Tylersboy (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Something slightly interesting: Andy used State of Rhode Island to illustrate his pseudo-religious use of the word State. Usually, Andy has really got it in for Rhode Island; he claims this is because R.I. wasn't founded by religious maniacs, unlike e.g. Pennsylvania, but I strongly suspect some chick from R.I. refused to let him get his rocks off at some point in his distant, inglorious past. Does the softening of his ultra-hostile stance towards Rhode Island indicate a change in Andy's chick-related fortunes?

Andy always slams RI for its supposed record on the slave trade. Генгис^mutating 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And for being tardy in ratifying the God-given Constitution. I wonder how he deals with commonwealths? 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Sinkarse

The algorithm update against content farms Google has just rolled out has made examiner.com lose 80% of its googlejuice. Let's hope Flingcheeks has a second source of regular income; linkspamming on Conservapedia isn't going to cut it much longer. Mountain Blue 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Flingcheeks? --Kels (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hurlbut, get it? Actually, that was kind of weak, Blue... 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 05:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's not dramatically unfunnier than Chuckarse, you insensitive clods. Mountain Blue 18:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My schadenfreude would be greatly enhanced if you could supply some refs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Google's announcement, stats from SISTRIX. --ZooGuard (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How long until "Liberal Google uses underhanded, deceitful measures to direct surfers away from sites with conservative content"? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I am royally chuffed. The next question is can we expect to see Ken having to change his articles to meet the revised criteria?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still convinced that when Ken talked about writing for pay, he was talking about blogging at examiner.com or someplace similar. Watch for another series of devastating blows against evoathexuality on the internets to soothe his wounded feelings. --Kels (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"... so-called content farms that pay non-expert freelancers literally pennies per post or nothing at all as they pollute Google searches with worthless content ..." [4]. 16:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken writes for "Investigator Magazine" as "Anonymous," though he previously used his real name (Ken Demyer), even on articles he later took credit for as "Conservative" or "Anonymous." This is a hilarious dressing down of Ken emailing the journal to crow about him citing himself. Take a moment and reward yourself with yet more evidence that even the people Ken "works" with despise him. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So Ken cited himself in his pet article? Jeez. --Sid (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

At least he hasn't cited a conversation he had with himself over dinner, although I'm sure it's only a matter of time. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is what he was getting at when he talked about writing for money, it's a bit baffling where the money comes from. There seems to be no charge for the "magazine", nor anywhere to order it anyway, and it doesn't even seem to be separated into issues in any way. New articles are apparently just tossed onto the pile, and good luck finding anything. --Kels (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a paid subscription page there somewhere. I think what you've independently discovered is that the site is a piece of shit. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I reckon Ken was kicked out the army for failing the camouflage test, he's just so obvious. Генгис^mutating 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I must say that Investigator site does have some gems. I particularly like Ken's article here that attempts to show, in his trademark style, how geological literature was becoming more creationist? How does he do this? With one intro sentence followed by seven mostly mined quotes from books no less than 23 years old at the time of writing. Well done Ken, it's nice to see you're still following that tradition of crappy writing and even crappier arguments, with a side order of lies. --Kels (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, This is A Good One.

Shotgun Wedding^img. This has a generally negative stigma attached to it. And it always follows pre-marital sex so its amazing they add this to they're list of conservative words.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I can sort of see Andy's point tho - even tho p.m. nookie is a bad thing©, once you knocked the chick up (because contraception and/or abstinence education didn't work) it's your duty to marry the girl, even if it is at the end of Daddy's shot-gun. Of course then, by the same Andy standards, her body belongs to you, so you can take your resentment out on her by engaging in a "communication problem" every night. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Largely matrimonial weapon of gun?" --Phentari (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Hoji still lurking around these parts?

...'Cause Ken

is fucking with himimg. UPDATE Andy has a moment of clarityimgAlso, it hasn't been 90 days yet, you lying liar. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," right? P-Foster (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's not the first time. This^img reads like a soap opera, with Ken and Karaturd playing the repeat roles of the whiny little bitches. "Last-wordism" is discouraged on "conservative" "encyclopedias, boys. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't give up your day job, Popeye.

Karajerk's latest toon^img represents the very zenith of his "put your own angry opinion in the mouth of one of the actors" editorial style. I wonder exactly how he thinks that making sure teachers are at once badly paid, have terrible benefits and no rights to try and change these things is going to make education any better? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Guessing it goes to the Public vs. Homskollar debate. Public teachers don't get the results that Andy parents do, thus shouldn't get paid well. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 18:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That, plus the whole "Government should stay out of everything! Let's privatize education, and all problems will automatically solve themselves in the best possible way!" mentality. Also explains why Andy brags how conservative school X doesn't want those government funds. --Sid (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a case of "won't take" or, more likely, "isn't eligible for." I suspect that being a qualifying organisation comes with caveats like having non-discriminatory enrolment. Excluding poor people is a small price to pay for keeping those damn non-Christians out. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's "won't take". If we're talking about wp:Grove City College here. GCC decided rather than abide by the law of the land and make Title IX gender neutral, they'd opt out of federal funds. The upshot was they opted out of ALL federal funds, even federal funds that came by way of federal student loans. Only people well off enough to attend GCC can go to GCC. There's probably all sorts of scholarships available too, I'd have to ax my nephew sincew he's an alumnus from there. 19:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I dunno. Bruce Tinsley gets paid for using the exact same style of writing. Vulpius (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate Mallard Fillmore so much I researched Tinsley's alleged "asterisk" in depth. ħuman 08:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New "cartoon"

Not even wrong. The cognitive dissonance with Karajerk is astounding. Essentially it should be "When liberals reject science, common sense and every social reform since the 15th century, they turn conservative." Once again, Popeye gives us a fascinating insight into his bitter, twisted worldview. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives and Humor

There are funny conservatives. The comic strip Prickly City is one that springs to mind. (And I'll admit, begrudgingly, Rush Limbaugh was at one time somewhat funny, until he went batshit insane into Obama-hatred). I may not agree withe basis of their jokes, and I may appreciate the fact my beliefs are the ones being skewered, but I can still appreciate comic talent.

But then, you have Mallard Fillmore and Karajou, which are basically nothing more that "ha-ha, liberals are stupid, ha-ha look at the stupid liberals". That's not humor; that's a rant. MDB (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I used to follow Day By Day which wants to be the right wing Doonesbury but I got bored with the knee jerk anti Obamaisms. Perhaps Republicans see Doonesbury the same way. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Doonesbury has become less political and more about the lives of the cast over the years. And Trudeau's stories about wounded vets has drawn praise across the board. (I remember well being shocked at the strip where BD lost his leg.) MDB (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

History homework answers

Andy's on a grading spree. So far my favorite is his response to question #2 here.^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I like this one^img. Student: "I don't know." Andy: "Good answer!" And Andy seems to think that if a student doesn't even attempt to answer a question, it doesn't figure into the score - 50/50 points for answering five out of eight questions. No wonder most of them aren't even trying. Röstigraben (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Or this one^img, again from question 2: "Note to self, don't mention Franklin any more." Röstigraben (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Smells like a minor Andy Insight (how fitting - it's Sunday, the traditional Andy Insight day): "The more Christian X was, the more influential he was as a Founding Father." How long until he gets the idea to rank the Founding Fathers by degree of Christianity. Speaking of which, I find it odd how Mr. Black-and-White suddenly accepts that somebody could be less Christian than somebody else. Whatever happened to "Either you agree with every single thing I say or you're a liberal/atheist!"? --Sid (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I know Andy has long had it in for Thomas Jefferson, but is this the first time he's acknowledged ol' Ben was anything less than a paragon of Christian fundamentalism? MDB (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

An animation...

... on occasion of the 83rd_Academy Awards :-)

Take a look!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It just sits there. What's it supposed to do? 21:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking it should be a different file type... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It helps to have a compatible browser and I had to click the link to the actual file on that page to get it to load properly. --Sid (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I switched the link so it werks now. C®ackeЯ

What you should see are the range blocks at Conservapedia Mar 2007 - Feb 2011. Blocks of single IPs are just red pixels, while /16 blocks are red dots, /24 blocks yellow, and the rest in between.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Like the northern hemisphere has measles, but BAD? yeah, I see it. C®ackeЯ

Cool presentation. Wow. It also looks like I've had a personal yellow dot since early 2007.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm... it doesn't seem to do anything - just a map of the world (firefox & Chrome). Also, if it's animated, shouldn't it be a .gif and not a .png? (last spoken in ignorance). --PsyGremlinParla! 10:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For those that it isn't working for, click on Larron's link 'take a look'. Good work, this makes me proud to be British FairyCupcake (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I love the way obscure cities (Mendoza? Krasnoyarsk?), tiny african islands and what appears to be Woomera missile testing station get blocks... so who here is from Krasnoyarsk then? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of those are me on my travels - certainly Krasnoyarsk and some African islands. This week I shall be editing CP from ... I'll tell you when I get back from Yemen. Генгис^mutating 12:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm trying to edit from an airport lounge but find that CP has 403ed it and I'm nowhere near Nottingham! Генгис^mutating 13:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are animated PNGs now but apparently only Opera and Firefox properly support them, and Firefox only in its Windows versions. I'm on Debian Linux and I can't see shit either. Not even the Gimp will run the animation unless I install a special plugin first. Mountain Blue 11:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And I thought I was using a hopelessly old and useless browser :-D (Opera). Nice to see one's own move from one country to another in that map. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 11:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu and Firefox works... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that some of the blocks are in China. That's hilarious at so many levels.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me now. Just took a while to load. Once again, Huzzah for Larron! --PsyGremlinHable! 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Hats off to Larron! Real first name and last initial (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So.. france isnt Liberal? --205.202.243.5 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Something Old

Andy is quite comfortable with scientific dating techniques, provided they can only accurately date an object to around 5300 years^img. Subtle. – Nick Heer 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, "around the Great Flood".Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 03:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Has Eddie Haskell got a CP sock?

"Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW"

If it's Ötzi_the_Iceman they're talking about, that body was pretty well looted and contaminated before scientists got hold of it. Still, I'm curious about the ice cores way way waaaay below the horizon where he came to rest. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That WP article uses "BC" to denote negative dates. Can't be correct... ħuman 06:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, I thought that for young-earth creationists, every scientifically-determined age older than 6000 years could be explained by the Great Flood. Tree rings dating back 12,000 years? Great Flood -- trees grew crazy fast for a time. Unambiguous fossil record dating back millions of years? Great Flood -- obviously all those fossils got dispersed while the earth was underwater. Canyons, caverns, continental drift which couldn't have taken less than hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Great Flood, obviously.

If Andy's going to throw his lot in with the young-earthers, he's gotta get with the program. There's no way that the whole surface of the earth could be submerged while leaving something untouched. That means anything dating from before 3000 years ago is suspect. Junggai (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy stopped getting with the YEC program a long time ago. Now CP is a leader, not a follower. So if his insight disagrees with the entire YEC canon, then the latter must be liberally biased mistaken. --Sid (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy is promulgating neo-young-Earth-creationism. Генгис^mutating 13:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Helping with MPR again

How long until we go from "Liberals stunned as conservative King's Speech trounces liberal Social Network" to "Liberal Hollywood values as work, as classic American conservative movie, snubbed in favour of film from socialist, atheistic England"? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch!

Going back Cornobbled's blog, have to love this comment from the "Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality", who describe themselves as "We are concerned American Christians who want to restore our great nation to its roots in the Old Testament's unchanging morality. We cannot remain God’s favorite nation for very long until we as a nation scrupulously observe the literal meaning of every word in the Bible (King James only, please). We believe that the entire Bible – Genesis to Revelation – sets forth God’s perfect plan for every aspect of our lives, and we don’t believe that God has changed His mind."[5]

Now if anybody is Andy's target market, it's these guys. However:

“”We have long since stopped bothering with Conservapedia. It is run by a bunch of cafeteria Christians who censor any Bible verses that they don't like.

Of course, we've known all along that - at the kindest - Andy & Co can be called cafeteria Christians, but to hear it from their so-called target market? Ouch! --PsyGremlin講話 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that the CBP was the death sentence for CP, but... no. The CBP was merely the execution - the actual death sentence was the day they decided to forget all about the "true, verifiable, and cite sources" Commandments and allowed "insights" and "truisms". People always bitch and moan about the OR/RS rules on Wikipedia, but CP is the perfect example why those rules are in place. --Sid (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with that last statement. The rules on WP are burdensome and sometimes lead to not the best result, but they keep the place far more sane as evidenced by CP. I used to work for one of the founding families of New York and my boss in the small office was a real horror. Cursing, screaming, "I beat *fucking* CANCER and I DAMN well want that report today and it BETTER be as good as your sugar ethanol memo!"; that was an actual quote - he made me miserable. When I started the job I thought it would be a nice family environment; instead it was a personality run amok with a staff that would throw each other under the bus to escape his wrath. The guy who managed the families numerous properties had lost his daughter to Leukemia when she was 15 and would tell me that he used the fortitude of surviving that to realize he could deal with our boss. I started wishing there was an HR department. WP v. CP kind of reminds of that scenario. Worst job I ever had--I lasted 9 months--and CP looks like the worst volunteer website environment I've seen. --Leotardo (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering what Bible verse(s) the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality would cite for their claim that the US is God's favourite nation, and in doing so it occurred to me that their acronym would be SCROTM. Suspicious? Tylersboy (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

. . . and this looks too good to be true. Tylersboy (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm Biblically correct fashion tips. You may be on to something... --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

“God-fearing popes like Alexander VI” and “God Hates Rape Victims” clinched it for me. Tylersboy (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I alone in converting long names into initials? "Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality" - SCROTM? Couldn't they fit a 'U' in there somehow? Генгис^mutating 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not even Poe. It's just simple parody. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that Psy thought it was genuine, it is exactly Poe. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so it's my fault now is it? I just read their blog post, before visiting the site. Anyway, my Poe-fu is weak. And you're all ugly. I hate you! hate you! HATE YOU! /runs to room /slams door. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it you've spotted that your heads-up on Ed Poor's Moonieism has now resulted in a blog post on the matter of Moonies running CP. DogP (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as I dislike pretty much everything about this blogger's perspective, it's a delight to watch him discover just how truly insane the Conservapedia experience is, where an apostate Catholic who can't even get his YEC consistent with that of other fundies because his own insights, no matter how inane, are superior to those of the experts, lets a Moonie who calls himself a conservative "christian" gets to run roughshod over any and every editor who crosses his path and he has the least disagreement with. I'll watch with pleasure as Cornholio discovers Ed Poor's sordid history as WP next. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

“”Back then, people believed in the literal truth of the Bible and of The Fundamentals, and nothing bad ever happened, except to people who deserved it by not being exactly like the majority.

Poor parody is poor. -- 18:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancer saving drugs denied UK cancer patients

Andy highlights a Socialist UK medicine scandal^img over some cancer patients who didn't get drugs they were promised. Capitalist US medicine: Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon as insurance company rejects request; Firefighter Denied Life-Saving Treatment after rejection by insurance company; or GOP Rep. Admits That Health Insurance Companies Control The Market And Dictate Medical Decisions.

What's the difference between the UK and the US medical systems? At least in the UK denying these drugs is a "scandal" and the government, elected by the people, will have to answer for it. In the US those headlines aren't a scandal--it's just the way things are--because it's capitalism at its finest as healthcare is a series of profit-motivated decisions dictated by corporations. --Leotardo (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DevilAndy's advocate: under a capitalist health care system, an insurance company that regularly denies necessary care would lose business to those that provide necessary care. Under a government-run health care system, there's no competition, so you're stuck with the care-denying organization.

And I know there's a lot of flaws in that argument. Like I said, "DevilAndy's advocate". MDB (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"insurance company that regularly denies necessary care would lose business to those that provide necessary care" - that assumes a choice that is non-existent (you don't get to pick any insurance company you want, just the ones your employer offers you), and it assumes that if one company won't provide a money-losing service, that others will. That's wishful thinking. With a government system, if you aren't receiving treatment you can take it out at the ballot box; you can't take it out on a company's shareholders because they don't think you're life is worth the drugs. --Leotardo (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, the competition fairy will make everything work just fine. As long as there are competitors on an open and free market, nothing could possibly go wrong. Which is why we need to privatize polar bears to save the environment! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a tragically amusing idea that few question a society collectively maintaining defense and security to protect its way of life; but the question is wide open with how whether that society allows people to die from illness just b/c they can't afford the treatment. --Leotardo (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Except of course that some of the wing nuts, particularly some of the teabaggers, are starting to oppose defense spending as well as I understand things. The US defence budget is obscene due to years of lobbying and bribery by the contractors but that's not the wing nutters main motivitation is it? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it pisses me off that he completely ignores the reality of the situation. In the US, people don't get life extending drugs because their insurance won't pay for it, they can't afford the co-pays, their insurance company dropped them when they got sick, or they just plain didn't have insurance in the first place. In the UK the government has a plan to deal with the problem, but maybe it isn't working too well. In Andyland, the solution to the same problem seems to be just to pretend it doesn't exist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the free market thing in health insurance is bullshit. There is no sane way the punter can figure out what the insurance they pay for will actually cover until they get sick, and at that point it's too late to shop around. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not even really a "free" market. Insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws under the McCarran-Ferguson Act and they've gotten a lot of protectionist bullshit passed for their generous campaign donations like Medicare Part D and banning the reimportation of drugs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't start me about US medical insurance. It's the greatest scam known to mankind. This morning I got a letter from them telling me my premium is going up another 17%. Last year it went up 25%. The year before that about 15%. Since 2006, it's almost doubled, a period in which I have quit smoking.. Fuck them. DogP (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some much needed background: The British NHS has a group named NICE whose job was to figure out which treatments were worth using. One (not the only) criterion for this was cost-effectiveness. Since resources are finite there must be a limit to how much you'll spend on a treatment, and the most common way of looking at this was QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years). NICE was intended to fix a previous problem where local NHS chiefs decided what to fund. These chiefs were less equipped to sift evidence, and it led to confusing geographic variation in what was covered nicknamed the "postcode lottery".

Pharmaceutical companies didn't like NICE. It did annoying things like actually reading their clinical studies and asking awkward questions. Assessing prices against QALYs routinely rejected mediocre drugs and forced them to offer the NHS discounts when a new drug wasn't as much improved as hoped. It was largely immune to the whims of uninformed Joe Public, unlike a commercial insurer or an elected representative.

So they had a clever plan. The pharmaceutical companies created the appearance of public dissent. For various diseases including cancers they created "Patient advocacy" groups, funded by pharmaceutical companies. These would offer various useful services to patients with a particular disease, at some cost to the company, but they would also place newspaper PR pieces demanding (in the name of the patients) to know why this or that drug wasn't funded. The usual structure is "Person X could live Z years longer but the NHS denies them drug D" without a mention that drug D costs a ridiculous amount of money per dose, that it's made by a company which effectively paid for the news coverage, or that Z is the maximum and the more typical life extension for a patient like X is far less.

Politicians, ever keen to appease the mob, fell for this completely. The incoming new government essentially promised that it would fund practically any treatment for cancer. The popular but economically non-viable "Spare no expense" option. But given the economy of course there's no money to do that. So the plan became dismantling NICE, and somehow save money from that to spend on cancer treatment. This doesn't work either. It's a shambles, the best thing to do with no spare money was ring fence the NHS and cross your fingers it didn't blow up. Meddling however is always more popular even though it doesn't work. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said, BoN (pats BoN on head & tickles ears "Who's a good BoN then?") 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

<pedantic>Strictly speaking NICE is only in England (& possibly Wales), there are equivalent bodies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. NICE only evaluates drugs & informs the local NHS trust which drugs they must offer; the local trust can offer non-recommend drugs if they so wish. However, with the tabloids going on about postcode-lottery care, trusts are getting reluctant to prescribe non-recommended drugs. </pedantic> CS Miller (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We have the same bullshit "patient advocacy" groups here, most notably the Hands Off My Healthcare...thing, run by Koch toadies at Americans for Prosperity. The ironic thing is that most of the 'baggers going to these events to fight the soshulizmz of Obamacare are wheeling around on Medicare-funded jazzies.Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Denying people treatment because of their wealth is a cuntish move, whichever side of the pond you are on FairyCupcake (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

wtf is so conservative about king's speech?

Why does Andy keep plugging it? I've not seen it, but cmon, does everything have to be partisan?--Brxbrx (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that there can be nothing more conservative than royalty. 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's got a King so it must be conservative. On the other hand it's also got an Australian - which sort of evens things up doesn't it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't King's Speech simply "that movie that won some award even though most people expected that movie about LIBERAL Facebook to win"? If so, then this isn't about That Conservative Movie, but about That Not-Liberal Movie. Because Andy-Land politics is a zero-sum game: If something liberal loses, then something conservative must have triumphed. --Sid (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wonder why you're hearing so little about the Oscar winners?" - he asks these rhetorical questions that are rarely ever true. I didn't watch the Oscars (forgot they are on and I don't watch programs I can't stream) but I've heard *plenty* about them in my liberal New York office (my office is right by the kitchen - lots of yapping about it). The beauty in this rhetorical questions is that they ring hollow--who would answer, "You're right, I haven't heard much about the Academy Awards"--they are an indication of how unhinged the site is. --Leotardo (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't actually seen it, but isn't it supposed to be grossly historically inaccurate? If so, it'll probably be included in the Andyland historical curriculum for its' "accuracy". Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The King depicted was something of a Nazi sympathiser. Andy supports the BNP. 'Nuff said.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was about Geo VI: NOT a sympathiser. His bro, who jacked it in WAS. 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Geo VI was a sympathiser. Not as rabidly so as his brother, but he did have leanings that way. Hence, 'something of' .-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the “George VI was a Nazi sympathiser” rumour would appear to be this 2002 Guardian article. It’s hardly to George’s credit – especially the bit about the Jewish refugees – but it doesn’t really indicate that he would have been combining goose-stepping and book-burning lessons with his speech therapy. And he was certainly a safer bet on the throne in 1940 than his creep of an older brother would have been. Tylersboy (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Safer bet, yes, but idealogically, along with the rest of government, closer to Nazism than the modern view would have it. It got rapidly whitewashed out of the history getting taught at school but the pre-'39 British government was notoriously racist and anti-semitic. Hell, even during the war they weren't exactly a bunch of guys to like, Churchill himself held aborrhent views about non-whites.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that’s true up to a point, but it’s a bit like saying – as Churchill notoriously implied in his 1945 election campaign – that Attlee’s Labour Party was ideologically close to Stalinism. Most Britons of the period would quite rightly be adjudged racists by modern standards, and anti-Semitism was also widespread, but there was a world of difference between its usual manifestation as snide snobbery and the virulent and ultimately genocidal hatred engendered by the Nazis. There are certainly a lot of myths about the “Finest Hour” which should have been abandoned long ago, but one fact remains: Churchill and his Cabinet could have done a deal with Hitler in the summer of 1940, seriously considered the possibility, and resolutely rejected it. They still deserve credit for that. Tylersboy (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Heres what I don't get. Andy says nobody is saying anything about the film. But from my view, THEY WONT SHUT UP ABOUT IT. I never saw it and have no intention to.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Monarchism isn't necessarily Andy definition conservative. There is a small but significant "monarchist left". If forced to label myself politically, I'd probably be in that category myself. And there is, as we all know, certainly such a thing as a conservative republican right ;) -- 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Took me a bit to catch onto the irony here. Conservatism is generally associated with the monarchists in Europe, but US conservatism is generally associated with (at least historically) decentralized, often populist ideals of the state like the Jeffersonian agrarian republic, Jacksonian democracy, secessionist/confederate movements, etc. Both types of conservatism, obviously are diametrically opposed, so Andy's head should asplode, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for logical consistency in Andyland. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thunderstruck, here's quick cheat sheet to explain how Andy's "logic" works:

• "I don't like Facebook" = "Facebook liberal"
• "Facebook liberal" + "Movie about Facebook" = "Facebook movie liberal"
• "Facebook movie liberal" + "King's Speech defeated Facebook movie" = "King's Speech conservative"
• "King's Speech conservative" + "Liberal media censors conservative news whenever possible" = "Liberal media censors news about King's Speech"

Andy's logic is mostly consistent within each session, you just have to accept that it builds on completely flawed premises. --Sid (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The King's Speech was a historical drama with the main character overcoming an impediment. Of course it was gonna beat the "facebook movie" for best picture! Liberal/conservative had nothing to do with it. Just shows how in Andyspeak, conservative means anything good and successful and liberal anything he dislikes. (Note: Both were very good films, though I thought The Social Network was better.)

Also, there's a Latino Fox News? Is it for Latinos who want to be afraid of themselves? I was wondering if Andy would feel conflicted about it, but knowing him he probably didn't read his source carefully. Just saw the 'Fox News' and went with it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• there's an mtvtres I used to watch--Brxbrx (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus, we've got him ranting^img about the stupid liberal Oscars and Hollywood values just a few items down the page. But yeah, his comments don't have anything to do with the movie itself, Facebook has just drawn his ire for some random reason. Like relativity, rock music, books and so on... Röstigraben (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Books are a well known source of Liberal Claptrap. Deny this and loose all credibility. -- 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, so Andy stays away from it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's having marriage troubles related to facebook, that's why he's having this grudgewank against them http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageright&action=historysubmit&diff=852861&oldid=852859^img--Brxbrx (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some pastor of some NJ church who ranted against Facebook? I think that triggered the "marriage destroyer" theme on CP... I'd have to dig trough the MPR archives, though. --Sid (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think Andy's anti-Facebook thing predated that pastor who said Facebook kills marriages by inviting adultery. (Fun fact: That Pastor was having orgies in his church with his wife and male congregants. Perhaps church is a marriage killer). --Leotardo (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy is such a twat, trying to make his own petty POV points out of nothing. The King's Speech was funded by the UK Film Council - it was subsidised with government money! How does that fit in with his free-market views? Also, there has been some criticism of the film by those who think the king's German sympathies were white-washed.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that this whole thing comes down to personal preference. Andy likes King's Speech better than Social Network, so therefore it is 'conservative' and the other is 'liberal' by default. sigh. my name is slugboy 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Andy has seen either film? It wouldn't be the first time he's declared a movie liberal/conservative without even seeing it: "I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also". --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I kinda took it for granted that he didn't watch either of those movies. If he had seen King's Speech, he surely would've mentioned it by now. Whenever his defense of X grinds down to "Let's talk instead about how much NOT_X sucks!", you can assume that he's arguing blindly. Alternatively, he watched it, couldn't find any strong conservative key points, and now silently falls back to "I defended it, so I must always defend it because changing my mind would imply having been wrong about somethin." --Sid (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

George VI and appeasement

A short historical detour, to avoid a good man's name being blackened any further. A couple of people above have said that George VI had pro-Nazi sympathies. He didn't - his elder brother, Edward VIII, probably did (which may have been why the British establishment wanted him out. He may have supported appeasement of Germany but it isn't known for sure. The Guardian article cited above says that many in the British establishment were in favour of appeasement but that's far from the whole truth: appeasement was popular throughout British society in the 1930s, the Labour and Liberal Parties were more uniformly in favour of appeasement than the Conservatives, Chamberlain's massive build-up military spending from 1937-39 was fiercely opposed by most of the Labour party and Churchill was totally out on a limb in advocating early military action against Hitler. So George VI might have been mistaken in hindsight in supporting appeasement but if he did, that wouldn't have at all unusual and it wouldn't have meant he was pro-Nazi in any way. My grandmother told me his decision to stay in London with his family during the Blitz instead of fleeing to Canada was as inspirational as Churchill's speeches. Here endeth the lesson. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Edward visited Nazi Germany in 1937, met with Hitler, and spoke well about fascism (see here for more details). After the war, like a lot of other people, he did the whole "...well...err...I never really....umm...". --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I only noted one person above ascribing pro-Nazi views to the King. I cited the Guardian article because it seems to be connected to the backlash against The King's Speech. My own views on the subject are pretty close to those expressed by The Real James Brown. Tylersboy (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that appeasement wasn't about being pro-Hitler, but about avoiding another war. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think anyone seriously suggests that Baldwin, Halifax or Chamberlain, for example, were German sympathisers let alone Nazi sympathisers. Their motives varied. For Halifax, appeasement would avoid the tragedy of another war (although he, like almost everyone else, grievously misread Hitler intentions). For Chamberlain, it was to buy time to allow Britain to re-arm. Baldwin's motives were perhaps less creditable because they had a great deal to do with holding together a shaky coalition government. The Real James Brown (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Kowardlyjerk...

...do you know why editors exist? It's to spell Def Leppard correctly. Product of a conservative education right there. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I love how he thinks that Rush (the band, right?) turns its listeners conservative. Their lyrics are consistently opposed to blind faith ("Free Will" the most popular example) and the band gives every appearance of atheism. But what can you say about a site that so badly misinterprets "Takin' Care of Business" as having a positive view of hard work. Phiwum (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be a pun of sorts. Rush the band, or Rush the Limbaugh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats exactly waht it is. The guy on the phone said "I've been listening to Rush" so it was most likely the stoopid lib thought it was "The band", not "The Hut"--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In that sense it's actually a rather clever joke. Pity the cartoon is just another straw man. Hasn't he got any original ideas? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that Rush were big Ayn Rand fans. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

They did, later, try to back away from that claim but I have to thank Rush for one thing. Because of them and their dedication to the idiot woman I went and got Atlas Shrugged from my local library (bizarely the local library in a little town called Cheadle on the outskirts of Stockport UK had it on the shelves) and read it. After dragging myself through that turgid pile of shite I realised that I was firmly of the left and I never once put myself throught the trauma of reading any more of her crap. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Secularized Language Google rank

Andy: Google ranks us #1 for Secularized Language.^img Ah, the time-honored tradition of a blog trying to create a searchable phrase that few people will actually search. "Secularized language" has 531 hits. "Secular Language" (where CP is nowhere to be seen) has 31,000 hits. "Godless language" 470 hits. "Secular words" 289,000; "Secularized words" 22. It's hysterical to see them excitedly championing their Google page ranks as a measure of their influence instead of substantive, serious, non-derisive discussion of their work. --Leotardo (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• someone should google bomb it to something lulzier--Brxbrx (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no? Even ignoring the entire "Google-bombing is bad and we shouldn't do it" angle, it's obviously something nobody on the planet would ever search for. That's like Google-bombing the term "Dead puppies having sex with sparrows" to direct people to CP. --Sid (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling that we (on this side of the pond) would use "secularised" anyhoo. 21:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

103 hits for "secularised language" --Leotardo (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Only 72 on my google 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They should create a redirect and they'll have a lock on it (except they don't recognize English English on CP). --Leotardo (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• • andy would search for it. just to grief him, we should do it. and google bombing is funnier than it is bad--Brxbrx (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, back in the internet's younger days one of my websites ranked very highly for the term "horse porn." I wasn't even offering any horse porn, mind, but that didn't stop the masses from coming. This rather colours my opinion of anyone boasting about their google rank. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you just trollin'? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• how about turning people looking up "child pornography" to CP?--Brxbrx (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, now. You wouldn't want to excite Ed, would you? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• • twice you make me lol!--Brxbrx (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

However, you're making me cry by failing to learn how to write comments. There's a whole page of examples here. Stop abusing bulleted lists, it reminds me way too much of TK. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

sry, that's how we do it over at ED--Brxbrx (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So that's where TK picked it up. Makes sense. Mountain Blue 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pastor Values vs. Hollywood Values

We see so many examples of Hollywood values on CP, that I thought it bore mentioning that the blog Joe.My.God runs a weekly This Week In Holy Crimes that documents all of the scandals of those with better values than liberals. It's pretty exhaustive. Here is just a partial list from the last week:

• Virginia: Pastor Jason Bolton charged with stalking an underage girl. He has a previous arrest for statutory rape.
• New York: Rabbi Nechemya Weberman arrested for molestation of 12 year-old girl.
• Georgia: Pastor Albert Turnell charged with possession and distribution of child porn.
• Alabama: Pastor Michael Wilkerson charged with writing a bad check to purchase $111K Mercedes. He previously served time in prison for defrauding the builders of his mansion.
• Wisconsin: Father Thomas Marr sentenced to only nine months in jail for stealing over $600K from parishioners.
• California: Christian college sued for knowingly placing a convicted child molester ministry student with a family whose children he then molested.
• North Carolina: Pastor Greg Metcalf charged with assaulting his daughter and then denying her medical care.
• Massachusetts: Father Franklin E. Huntress resigns in face of numerous molestation accusations.
• Britain: Pastor Albert Odulele charged with indecent sexual assault on a child.
• Arkansas: Pastor Shane Montgomery sentenced to one year in prison for sexual assault on a teenager.
• Tennessee: Father William Casey to stand trial for child molestation.
• California: Pastor Alonzo McGowan pleads guilty to stealing over $400K from an 87 year-old parishioner.
• Ohio: Pastor Daniel Monk sentenced to six years in prison for sexual battery on an underage girl. Monk says he was out of his mind because he'd been fasting.
• New York: Father Richard Nachajski charged with stealing $476K from his parish to finance luxury vacations to the Caribbean and Thailand.

That's just one week! Ahhh...Pastor Values. --Leotardo (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yabut, considering the schooling necessary to become a bastard pastor, (they usualy get "Doctor of Divinity" [at the very least] degrees), they're qualified to be Professors, ipso facto they haz it "professor values". 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Ah, that's some fine Andy logic. --Leotardo (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

BOOORIIIIIIIIING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111 Meh. (talk)!!!!!!!1 22:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

^Fuck you, you're not funny anymore. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither are you. Meh. (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You win. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who writes "Boring" and then uses an Internet meme (that he can't format) is a joy to have around just to laugh at. --Leotardo (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘A moment of pedantry: it's not true that a Doctor of Divinity is necessary to become a pastor. It depends on the denomination, but a Masters of Divinity will often suffice, especially for smaller individual churches. And some of the really odd-ball churches will accept anyone who "feels called to preach". MDB (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

He's completely lost it...

...I'm not sure what he had to start with, but he's definitely lost it.^img Jammy (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's fucked eh. Somehow a movie that Andy has decided is conservative is going to have bearing in real life on something Andy has decided is liberal. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This insight raises the far more important question: Does the triumph of The King's Speech at the Oscars mean that Prince Charles, one of the most prominent of the royal family, will be the Republican nominee for president? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh... Andy... *headdesks quietly* --Sid (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hah. He elucidates his reasoning on the page proper^img. There's no actual causal link, it's just an omen. Yes, his presidential rankings are really decided on the modern equivalent of reading a dead bird's entrails. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What intrigues me is that Andy doesn't appear able to distinguish between facebook and a film about facebook. I haven't seen the film but I find it hard to see how you could equate the film's success or failure with the success or failure of facebook itself. And is the film labelled as "liberal" merely because Andy thinks its subject matter, the creation of facebook, is liberal? It's a bit like suggesting that the Union Carbide Corporation is left wing because it has the word "Union" in it. --Horace (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a silly debate about this going on at Talk:Main right now. Unfortunately Iduan won't shut up so Andy hasn't yet deigned to share his wisdom. --Benod (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing reminds me of how children (and Peter Griffin) refer to the lead character of movies by the movie title (so, for instance, Macaulay Culkin played a kid called "Home Alone"). Phiwum (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually see the Social Network, but didn't the movie try to paint Zuckerberg as a creepy sociopath unable to see women as human beings? Wouldn't that make the movie conservative, seeing how it's ripping into a liberal? Mountain Blue 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a little more complex that that, but yes. But remember, the film still focuses on that liberal monstrosity facebook and even features alcohol, sex, and cocaine, so it must be evil. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Talk:Main heads-up. Now I have another observation arising from this^img post of Andy's. Isn't the concept that "all issues are political issues" a very left wing concept? Certainly that is as I have always understood the world of politics. Conservatives reject the intrusion of government into all aspects of life (and I have an amount of sympathy for that viewpoint). The suggestion that all issues are political, whilst convenient for Andy in the current argument, IMHO runs utterly contrary to traditional conservative values. It really just goes to reinforce the fact that Andy is not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. He is merely a Christian with a political agenda. --Horace (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy rejects the intrusion of government into all aspects of life EXCEPT for a few minor areas like women's reproductive organs, drugs, military activity.....Simple (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you, like Aschlafly, are confusing politics with government and party politics. The idea that everything is politics is a valid one (although not necessarily true) based on the idea that human interactions can be viewed as basically political in nature. But that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with government or, more especially, anything to do with party politics. Andy's belief in the latter, along with his dichotomous views on everything, requires him to label everything either liberal or conservative. Including films, language, science, religion, education, sexuality, clothing... Ajkgordon (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful. I wonder how Andy would fare as a campaign manager? "We won't use social media, they're inherently left-wing. We'll mostly abstain from TV ads as well, maybe a few on Fox. Newspapers are right out, as are book signings. But you can still do talk radio, and I personally recommend writing heartfelt letters to the voters." As far as the trainwreck factor's concerned, the only thing better than a Palin campaign would be one run by Andy. Röstigraben (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting Conservapedia itself with its vast reach, and blogs in general. Blogs are definitely conservative. Except the liberal ones. But probably those are not really blogs anyway. Because real blogs are conservative. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be an interesting test for Andy's thesis: one candidate uses Facebook for campaigning, the other one Conservapedia, and we'll see how it turns out. Röstigraben (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please screencap the whole talkpage debate for those of uswho are 403'ed. --Damo^Hi 08:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This should do the trick - current version of it.^img I cropped the capture to only have the relevant section instead of the entire page as one huge image. --Sid (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This has to rank as the most bizarre of Schlafly's insights. It's not even a non-sequitur, it's just throwing a non-related point about movies that Andy decided are conservative and liberal, and somehow linking that to the fact that somebody uses FB, and thus have ruined their career. Also, I thought she was bigger on Twitter than Facebook. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, seeing as it's pretty damn unlikely Palin will get the nod, Andy's set himself up for another "See! See! Conservapedia sees all! Conservapedia knows all! Now... gives me your children..." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, also, this "conservative" film was made in nasty, socialist, atheistic England, with funds from the nasty, socialistic National Lottery, which is GAMBLING!!!!!!!--PsyGremlinTala! 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm still trying to figure out just what's so conservative about The King's Speech. We know Andy has it in for Facebook, so by his logic, The Social Network must be liberal, but has Andy ever explained why he's so enamored with The King's Speech? (And I wonder if he saw either movie. It's obvious he didn't see The Social Network, considering it's a pretty unkind portrayal of Facebook's early history. MDB (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy, once you switch over to Andy's black-and-white mindset. He doesn't like FB (probably because nobody accepted his friend requests - that reminds me - Karajou, please accept mine, so I can poke you!), ergo it must be liberal. The liberal thing lost to some other thing. Thus this thing must be better than the liberal thing and anything that's better than a liberal thing, MUST be conservative. easy.--PsyGremlinPraat! 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Andy is now irreversibly latched onto the phrase "lamestream media" is hilarious. Doubly hilarious that he wikilinks it with every fucking mention. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is asking the most basic question: Has Andy even watched The King's Speech or The Social Network? I have this gut feeling he has seen neither, and thus talking out of his ass.. more than usual. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just who was "stunned" by The King's Speech Winning, anyway?

Anyone who follows Oscar history knows that The King's Speech is the kind of movie the Academy loves -- it's a historical drama with fancy costumes, and triumph over adversity is the key theme. MDB (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this makes perfect sense... unless you believe that the Academy Awards are a liberal award given by liberals to liberals for their liberal works (you know, just like the Nobel Prize) and that these liberals are constantly conspiring to censor conservative works whenever they can. So in Andyland, of course everybody was stunned by this previously under-reported (thanks to liberal censorship, of course) conservative dark horse which only was allowed to win because the liberals were actually getting fed up by liberals keeping up the liberal propaganda of the liberal movie. --Sid (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

God help me, I think I managed to understand that. MDB (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that Andy isn't spitting blood that True Grit was overlooked. I mean, it punches so many of his buttons: Best of the public (girl going after Daddy's killer), corporal punishment and the uppity female being put in her place, lots of defensive weapons of gun, good vs evil. And it invokes the ghost of Marion Morrison, who - let's face it - is every conservative's back-up choice of "person I would grab my ankles for" if St Ronnie isn't available. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If anything proves liberal Oscar censorship it's that. King's Speech is glorifying and romanticizing Socialist Atheist England's Socialist Atheist history. --Leotardo (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But remember, one of the key beliefs of conservatism today is that liberals are all Nazi-sympathizers. The King's Speech is about inspiring the English people to fight Hitler; therefore, it's conservative.

That's actually the most reasonable explanation I can think of for Andy's fetish for the movie. If you accept the underlying "liberals love the Nazis" premise (and yeah, I know what bullshit it is), it makes sense to argue it's a conservative movie. MDB (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the film even had MOAR HITLER!!! so it must be conservative. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It would've been awesome if Andy had been vindicated in his anti-TSN rants...only for The Kids Are All Right to score a surprise win instead. That would've led to a meltdown of epic proportions. Come to think of it, that movie's nomination makes it even stranger that he's focusing all of his hatred on TSN. Röstigraben (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming Andy could even tell you what all the nominees are. He probably couldn't name them beyond TKS and TSN. MDB (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else find it interesting that Andy insists on conflating TSN with Facebook? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is about the creation of Facebook. But it's "about" Facebook in the same way Citizen Kane was "about" newspaper publishing. MDB (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

He's taking it to the extreme. The "rejection" of TSN is a "rejection" Facebook, in his warped mind. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Enforcing 90 days

So will this affect Ken?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not much. Ken usually edits from his hovel using a Time Warner Cable connection (67.252.189.XXX). User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought that there were a load of IPs where he had edited from SUNY Buffalo.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There were but I think that was more a thing of the past. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if they banned his IP, one of the Admin rights is "Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt)", so I don't think he'd feel it. --Sid (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's Value

For once, I agree totally with the Assfly. This^img is undeniable: I really can't express CP's value, and CP has certainly increased my understanding of wingnuts, and my faith in their idiocy. The laughter it provides has certainly made me happier too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno...the opportunity cost of reading CP is pretty darn large - if I had spent all those hours working, I'd be pretty well off by now. But you're right, I do understand fundamentalism much much better than I would've otherwise. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Err, do you really understand fundamentalism better now? Those guys aren't even mainstream fundies. It's fringe all the way or you'd see them being welcomed by the community at large, talked about favorably, etc. But you don't see that do you? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but I better understand the rationalizing mentality that they employ and I understand that there are such divisions among ultra-conservatives. But I suppose I shouldn't try to rationalize my time on CP - it really is one huge time waster when you think about it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the key for me too - the blank refusal to consider other points of view, the idiotic dogmatism, etc. It's not just CP, but CP lets you see it develop step by step with each idiotic reply from Andy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If CP was making a lot of money you'd see Andy touting that as a great metric for understanding faith and happiness. Deny this and lose all credibility! Seriously though, just look how he's always boasting about page views, never mind that most people are just viewing CP for the lol's.

He's of course right that money isn't everything, but he only probably thinks that to feel better about not having financial success, despite having two Ivy League degrees, and having to make a living "teaching" kids in a church basement. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Money is meaningless until you try and get him to pay his fair dues as a member of society.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it has been very enlightening to watch the logic of fundamentalism develop over virtually any oddball topic. It boils down to "What we want to be real we choose to believe". Better than anyone else I've seen, they demonstrate the right-wing's "faith-based reality". --Leotardo (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a remarkably sane response; when I posed the question, I was hoping for a CP is worth millions/twice as much as WP story to laugh at. I did also want to see how he made up his figures. Noodledicksissypants (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask any proctologist. 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ