Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive23

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. 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>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Hee Hee

Bandwidth Limit ExceededThe server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:23:25 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) PHP/5.1.6 mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635.SR1.2 mod_ssl/2.8.28 OpenSSL/0.9.7a Bandwidth Limit ExceededThe server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

That's CP btw Susan^Purrrrrrr 23:30, 21 January 2008 (EST)

CP is down? This means party! - Icewedge 00:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Guess you (plural, not actually Susan) were pushing too hard to get the homo articles up in teh ratins. Lurker 23:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)

ZOMG!!!! Notice how that notice says "his/her" - yet another example of political correctness taking over! (This will likely be on CP's main page once it starts working)--Danielfolsom 23:37, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Aww, guess Assfly didn't get his allowance this month, so he can't afford teh hosting bills. Maybe he can get a paper round? --Jeɚv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 00:01, 22 January 2008 (EST)

(Another Brit around @ this hour!)

It's not fair - missing my CP generated lulz. Susan^Purrrrrrr 00:14, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Someone should send Andy an important email about this. And then send him another email notifying him that an important email was just sent. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 00:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Hee Hee (again) lol :- ) Susan^Purrrrrrr 00:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It's schadenfreude time! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:08, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Just for the record.

Actually Lurker, unless there was a DOS attack yesterday I don't believe that pagecount pumping has anything to do with this as the total views count has been rising comparatively slowly recently. I guess that the large number of images uploaded during the competition might have something to do with it. Genghis ^Marauding 01:53, 22 January 2008 (EST)

P.S. They are back up and there is no siginifcant increase in daily page views . Genghis ^Marauding 02:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the patronization, Genghis. Next time instead of using phrases like "teh ratins" I will just put a tag line that says "FOR THOSE OF YOU WITH NO SENSE OF HUMOR: THIS IS A JOKE". Lurker 10:39, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Well actually what you posted was "a joke and a poke". Otherwise you would have included yourself by saying "WE". Genghis ^Marauding 11:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I never have included myself when talking about RW. So this is being consistent with every other statement I've ever made on this site, joking or no. Hence the name "Lurker". Lurker 11:41, 22 January 2008 (EST)

WHAT!? They're back up? You mean I busted my ass making the "CP is Down" gif, for nothing?! Can we at least pretend it's still down? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:49, 22 January 2008 (EST)

You didn't make your GIF for nothing, it's a good method of testing for susceptibility to epilepsy. Silver Sloth 08:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It is a very nice GIF, if it makes you feel better. Lurker 10:39, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:49, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Deleting WIGO entries

Personally, I found it quite amusing that CP's article on Bacon used to have a rather loving description of how to cook it until Fox removed it. As such, I posted it on the WIGO page (with a dig at Fox's disingenuous description for why he changed it), only to see that Radioactive rolled it back shortly after. So, is it the done thing to delete (rather than comment out) entries without any discussion on this page? Bondurant 08:57, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Yes. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Everything that's not funny (i.e. some admin doesn't like it) must be immediately vaporized. If you are an anonymous user, you must be vaporized together with your edits. Much like CP, except that you replace "conservative" with "funny". --91.121.7.211 09:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Fair enough. I'll go back to lurking. Bondurant 09:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Just out of curiosity, mr. 91.121.7.211, is there anything in particular that prevents you from registering an account? I mean, you obviously care enough to complain about it, and you probably know that you're less anonymous when using your IP address than you'd be with an account, so... I must admit I'm a little confused here. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:29, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Just out of curiosity, how much did you sell your brains for? Maybe it's not so easy to see, but if you look very hard you may find out that User:Bondurant is actually a registered user (hint: IP addresses usually are made of numbers). Nonetheless, his contribution was deemed UNFUNNY and NUKED without discussion. Got it so far? Do I need to draw a picture? (And yes, I do know that I mentioned the fact that anons will be blown out together with their contribs, but that's not the point here.) --128.210.127.252 09:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Have you considered the possibility that the fact that I specifically address mr. 91.121.7.211 might mean I was talking to mr. 91.121.7.211 and not to Bondurant? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:55, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Have you considered the possibility that this whole discussion is about Bondurant's nuked edits and not about mr 91.whatever? --195.71.90.10 10:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Hello Sid! Genghis ^Marauding 11:16, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry. It's just that some of us are capable of keeping track of two different subjects at once. I'll remember to be more considerate of the attentionally challenged in the future. :-( --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:17, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Its better to shut up and let people think you are a rolling moron than to open your mouth and remove all doubts. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 10:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Why don't you live by your advice? --195.71.90.10 10:07, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I rather not stay shut while not looking like a rolling moron, its easy when one isn't a rolling moron. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 10:19, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Bondirant, I liked your entry, feel free to restore it, as always. Theres no king of wigo who screens them away. Oh, and regarding the ip users, hi TK!!!!^{wild ass guess!}-αmεσ (spy) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I seem to have started a flame war and that was not my intention. Can everyone take a breather, count to 100 and chill out, please? I don't want anyone arguing over my humourless (or humourlite) edit. Bondurant 10:15, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ames, isn't that against the spirit of the rules that you yourself wrote? How is it not ok to say "hi person from a location which he has voluntarily exposed" but not ok to say "high person who lives at such location?" Or do we break rules because it's TK? Lurker 10:36, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It would be against the rules if "Hi TK!" were based on me running his IP location, and it matching with TK's known location, but it's not. I just said "Hi TK!" because his strategy and assholery reminded me of TK. Nothing more. I haven't run 91.'s location-αmεσ (spy) 10:40, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I don't see how addressing somebody by their pseudonym is on the same level as addressing them by their physical location (that he might not have exposed it voluntarily), though I somewhat agree its a bit nasty to throw those judgmental remarks like that. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 10:48, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I tagged AmesG's greeting for clarity. human 10:45, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks, Human (not sarcasm).

TK would have been blocked or threatened for doing what Ames did, but I realize the rules are lightened when applied to someone you hate. Lurker 11:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)

If I might make a suggestion: WIGO entries should not be unilaterally deleted without consultation on the talk page. Then, instead of deleting, comment out (<!-- WIGO -->) to allow re-instatement if so agreed. Remember Mob rules". Personally I think it's quite amusing. Judge for yourselves:

|62=What could Fox possible have against bacon? Is there some kind of librul bias when it comes to the cooking of some good, old fashioned pig? Oh...

(Bondurant)

Susan^Purrrrrrr 11:24, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Personally, I find it amusing. Maybe not fall-down funny, but good enough for WIGO. --Kels 11:31, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Of course bacon is not kosher, Don't know if that's a material fact or not. Genghis ^Marauding 11:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Doh! That's the whole point shurly. Susan^Purrrrrrr 11:37, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, but does it still count if you've found Jesus? Genghis ^Marauding 11:41, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Dang - I just realised I made a spelling boo-boo (possible insteady of possibly). I vote that if it's to be reinstated, you correct that so I don't look like I've been homeskulled. Bondurant 11:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I suggest you leanr who to spell befroe you come rownd here lechering us on what's funny. Goatspeed, sir! Genghis ^Marauding 11:39, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with Susan and Kels. Outright deletion without at least pasting into the talk page is not very cool. And the Bacon wigo item is better than some. PS, that image is not indistinct, you just have to click on it. It's yummy! We should steal it and make a yummy bacon uxb! human 11:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Since we're on WIGO questions, I had one that I've been wondering for some time.... Should every entry get flagged for the voting system... There are several that I've posted that are funny, but I would never suggest them for Best of.... Is there any point to voting on them? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 12:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, but the joy of the humiliation when an entry goes negative in a big way. (I've been there!) Susan^Purrrrrrr 12:13, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Makes no difference to me, but I figured I could save some space on the system and not waste everybody's time voting on a self admitted low quality lulz piece SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 12:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Well, one reason for the voting is to reach some sort of consensus - someone could add something and think it was brilliang, and find out otherwise - or vice versa, a "low lulz piece" might turn out to be teh awesome. human 12:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

What human said. If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that I am an extraordinarily poor judge of what OTHER people will find interesting/funny. --SockOfGulik 15:03, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Some random questions

BTW, has anyone checked the weather in France recently? Nothing special, but I just wondered what it was like. Not sure if this is the best place to post this. Genghis ^Marauding 10:47, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe I'm missing some clever in joke, but this was my first hit when googling 'France weather' Silver Sloth 11:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

No "in joke", GK put that comment in the above discussion to try to defuse the seriousness of the business this innertube was becoming. human 12:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Not being an expert in American geography, would Purdue University count as being in the mid-west? Genghis ^Marauding 11:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Yes. It's sorta north central midwest. Lurker 11:47, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Plastic, son, plastic. human 12:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, Purdon't is very much in the midwest. We're working on evicting them. :-) --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 12:27, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Evolution talk page

It's sort of pathetic the way PJR's getting his ass handed to him, and doesn't seem to realize it's happening. But I love this choice quote, "I don't like seeing bad science either, which is one reason that I oppose evolution." Good thing he's into ID/Creationism, he doesn't have to see science at all! --Kels 11:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)

If you're as old as me (and I'm pretty ancient) then you'll remember 'Inagadadavida' by Iron Butterfly. It was basically the same rather pathetic riff repeated endlessly for twenty minutes and was hailed as a Rock'n'roll clasic. Nowadays it just highlights how many drugs we were doing back then and how boring large parts of the 60's really were. The point of this - well I'm finding the Order/PJR debate a bit like that. You really need serious drugs (LSD, Mescaline maybe) to appreciate it. Silver Sloth 12:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

You forgot to mention that the very title was due to a mind altering substance induced slurring of "In the Garden of Eden (baby!)" to "Inna Gadda Da Vida"! human 12:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I've contributed ineffectually a little on that talk page but PJR always has an answer. To be fair to him he argues and presents his case well even though the logical fallacies he recycles are pretty hackneyed. He no doubt has the same impression about "evolutionists". Ajkgordon 12:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

The replies also get longer and longer, which doesn't make it easier to keep track. But I don't look at it as discussion that tries to tried to find common ground, but more like an endurance match. To test whose weapons go blunt first, when you use them over and over again. There is definitely something psychedelic to it. Tohuvavohu 00:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Like snaw aff a dyke

This wasn't appreciated because it was supposedly unoriginal, silly and inappropriate, apparently this isn't. Auld Nick 12:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Hilarious. Did you wigo it so's we can vote it up the pole? human 13:01, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Gun control/knives

Just noticed this: the breaking news section misrepresents The Telegraph's article, which says that the cases of students carrying knives tripled from 1997 to 2006. Of course, Aschlafly renders this as students carrying knives tripling "since gun control" - even though gun control far predates 1997. Oh noes, conservative deceit!

Should also point out that Schlafly defended the right of 16-year-olds to carry guns while discussing dangerous dogs. You'd think he'd be in favour of schoolkids carrying knives then, especially when they claim it's for "protection".

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a tightening of gun laws in the UK happening around that time. That could be what he's referring to, but you are correct - it was a tightening of already very strict (in comparison to the USA) gun laws, which have been around for a long time. Zmidponk 17:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I'm confused. Is it better to carry a knife or a gun? Or would a Tazer be better? Perhaps a very sharp pencil? Genghis ^{Preparing to go nuclear} 13:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It goes Knife>Tazer>Pistol>Uzi>M-16>Bazooka>Semtex>biological/chemical bomb>thermonuclear bomb. So, of course, all students should go to school equipped with thermonuclear bombs. (Note: Parts or all of this comment may be sarcastic in nature.) Zmidponk 17:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And the page on the Telegraph definitely copyrights the photo - fair use? Susan^Purrrrrrr 13:53, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Of course. It's edumacaschional! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:56, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It's always better to carry a gun. Always. Even on planes or in school. And the only background check you should do before selling a gun is asking "Are you an Islamist?" - because you wouldn't want to sell a gun to one of those Sudden Jihad Syndrome guys! Valuable lessons learned from Andy, Kara, and that Pipes fellow. --Sid 14:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And the picture is not even at a school, it's at "an event". But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a cheap debating point? Genghis ^Marauding 14:32, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I don't get it either. Is he saying that if students were to start bringing guns—a weapon more considerably more deadly than knives—into schools, the schools would remove the metal detectors? --Bayes^update 16:37, 22 January 2008 (EST)

These questions have been raised on the CP main talk page, with no response so far. I don't understand it either. It sounds like he's saying he would rather that the students carry guns to school than knives. The only other possible point I can see is that if everyone had guns the kids would be too afraid to carry knives. That's quite a stretch, but I wouldn't put it past the spinmaster. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 16:55, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I took it to be a 'haha, look, gun control doesn't work' kneejerk reaction to that news, without him actually stopping to think that, if you apply the same standards to America, lack of gun control doesn't work either. Of course, if you also consider the fact that violence actually went down fairly significantly in the US schools that had metal detectors installed, plus the fact that the metal detectors are a very direct form of gun control, his point is kinda destroyed from that angle as well. Zmidponk 17:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Sysop Material?

The creepy MexMax is crawling up the slippery pole. For being Andy's contest #2 he's got block rights. Another Contest (only if he's on Andy's team of course) & he'll be sysopped. Will he beat in/out Iduan?

Apologies for not linking to the facts but it takes me forever to rootle round on CP.

(BTW why is he Mexmax? If I read it right he was once in Mexico but now he's back in the good ole US of A. Did he sneak under the wire? ) Susan^Purrrrrrr 13:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

main page broken

There's no way to easily document this, since mainpageleft works fine on its own. However, something about it (probably the CS Lewis illustration) doesn't play well with others. Hmm, I'll get a screenshot here soon. human 14:30, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Off the top of me head, wasn't the CS Lewis article the very first thing Fox did when he arrived there? Genghis ^Marauding 15:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

PS, it's still broken human 11:34, 23 January 2008 (EST)

By the way, someone explain how the hell a movie poster qualifies for Fair Use.... I mean in the real sense, not the Conservapedia "I wanna use it, that sounds fair" sense SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 14:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Just have a look at all their image files. Fair use is given more than fair use. Some of them, particulary those taken from newspapers (who are notriously mercenary & litigious) are beyond all meaning of the term IMHO. Susan^Purrrrrrr 14:27, 23 January 2008 (EST)

My personal favorite part is when they have a fair use image that has a copywrite watermark on it.... I really hope they get sued SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 15:22, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well, Andy thinks that since CP claims to be "educational", any theft of intellectual property is justified. By the way, THE FRONT PAGE IS STILL BROKEN! human 15:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Also note that the image was lifted from a UMass page advertising the movie which of course they would have paid to show. human 15:28, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Three days and counting. ANDY, YOUR BLOG'S FRONT PAGE IS BROKEN. human 11:30, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Bacon rewrite

I don't feel Fox's overwrite of bacon is scandalous enough to be noted on WIGO. (a) The previous version gave instructions as to how to cook bacon, and Conservapedia is (supposed) to be an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual or advice booklet, (b) Fox's rewrite is still accurate, however harshly truncated the article is, and (c) Fox's version doesn't gush over bacon like it was the highest accomplished in cooking humanity has known. Good riddance, I say. Fox? Back me up, Fox. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:44, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Take it on good authority that Fox suffers bacon and cheeseburger envy, but not to the point that he would rape an article purely to make a theological point. It was a rubbish article from the Horseyrider days, needed chopping back to allow something sensible to sprout. Reynard 15:56, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Although the build up to the Jewish gag of the WIGO was vaguely amusing. Reynard 16:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Mmmmm....Baaaconnn.162.82.215.199 15:44, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Just downscore it then RA - don't unilaterally delete - see (3 sections) above.Susan^Purrrrrrr 15:52, 22 January 2008 (EST)

We all know that the highest accomplishment of human cooking is pre-cooked microwaveable bacon. human 15:53, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ew. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:20, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It's actually very good - and less wasteful (doesn't go bad in fridge), and hell of a lot less messy to cook. I'd rather put my effort into the omelette or the rest of the sandwich. human 16:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Deep-fried bacon has its place, but if each slice of (American) bacon is left with a little space around it in the pan, and turned and moved frequently, cooking as much of the fat as possible, it is really perfection. Canadian bacon is swell, but doesn't fit into the same category.162.82.215.199 16:28, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I understand, Susan. I'll leave it, and just vote my opinion. But in the future, I think we should avoid minor events—I won't dignify them with the term "scandals"—such as this. We debase our purpose if we lower our standards of notability. We should focus on the solidly objectionable and the scandalous, not on vaguely objectionable yet still-technically-accurate edits. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Sure, but stuff still slips through - we've got a lot of different opinions here. The only things that should be redacted would be outright slander, that sort of thing. By the way, that's what "Best of" is for - the stuff that really meets standards of notability. WIGO is more of a news ticker feed of CP silliness. human 17:37, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Eff me. What happened to acrimony!
Can't even get a decent punch up now.
Turns away muttering "damned people being nice ... mutter ... mutter Susan^Purrrrrrr 17:42, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Well, excuse me for not being bitten by the Conservapedia bitterness eel. :-) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:56, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I thought my small contribution to the entry was entirely pertinent. True and verifiable, even, if you have a frying pan and a few rashers to hand. Learnt it from an ex who went on to be a damn fine chef - I remember her fondly enough to be almost miffed on her behalf. You hear me talkin' hillbilly Fox! Almost miffed!! :) --Robledo 18:18, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Oh Noes - cp:Bacon is dead, long live pork, and farewell to one of my favourite CP pages. Silver Sloth 13:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Fox has major issues with the Hog, it seems. He is now on a mission to redefine the very meaning of Pork, and he clearly has little time for Ham. He is a Porkist. Or a Hamzi. Or a Pigist. I'm not sure. DogP 13:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Actually this is just the sort of page we were churning out on CP just under a year ago! Probably proves He Who Shall Not Be Named's point about Fox being an RW sock! Genghis ^Marauding 14:34, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Hee Hee (again)

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded Susan^Purrrrrrr 22:04, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And again

Now this is growing boring! Susan^Purrrrrrr 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

[Citation needed]

Did anyone else find that amusing on the whole homosexual marriage image?--142.68.92.198 22:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Linky? Susan^Purrrrrrr 22:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It's from here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Same_sex_marriage

Interestingly, it was debunked at the bottom of this section.Shangrala 23:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ahh that one brings back memories. I think I (along with ConservaTory) brought out the best in all the bs tactics they use to "win" their debates. Changing the subject, making up statistics, intentionally misinterpreting statistics, namecalling...brings a tear to my eye. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 23:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Bill - i think i'll have to ask you to explain this to me, because I don't get it: so, they say that the moral values of public school's are virtually non-existent, right? And yet they want to give the kids guns (per the metal detector schpleeel on the main page)?--Danielfolsom 23:27, 22 January 2008 (EST)

It does sound strange, doesn't it? Personally, I never understood how the religious, who claim to be compassionate and hold the moral high ground, can say that every man, woman and child should be carrying guns. There seems to be some sort of disconnect there. Perhaps you could go and ask them for a better answer. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 23:44, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Everyone

CP still has editing on, and Andy is MIA - go nuts!--Danielfolsom 00:31, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I thought we decided that we were going to take the high road and not encourage vandalism...--BillOhannity^godvelocity. 00:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)

No, take the low road Bill - it's the best path (and if you take the high road I'll call you an elitist lol)--Danielfolsom 00:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think you can be an elitist when you're in my income bracket. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 00:53, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Elitism doesn't have to have anything to do with income. I'm better than Oprah, and she's worth several billion of me, financially speaking. Lurker 10:09, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I'm lower-middle-class (on a good day), and I am a MASSIVE elitist. How could I not be, when the last 7 years have proven to me that I'm smarter than 51% of the voting populace, and 100% of the Bush Administration? --SockOfGulik 15:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Conservative is not only obsessed with homosexuality, but, evidently, color blind

Egads, that is one ugly talk page. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:02, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think he made it - I think he copied it off tim cp:User:CPAdmin1--Danielfolsom 01:39, 23 January 2008 (EST)

De mortuis nihil nisi bene

It seems like nobody can die anymore, or he is the subject of some denigrating remark by Andy on the frontpage of CP. Do we have a list? Tohuvavohu 06:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

The truly sad part is that he constantly preaches a religion that commands compassion and sympathy.... People like that are the reason I got out of religion in the first place... A list would be a good idea.... I think I'll work on it today SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 10:03, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Andy will never need Viagra so long as people keep dying (especially those atheistic public-schooled Hollywood liberals).--WJThomas 10:06, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Cheap shots^{— Unsigned, by: Bayes / talk / contribs}

Damn.... Wish I knew that was there before I created Conservapedia:Death Oh well.... Maybe we can merge the two or something....SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 11:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia: Death and Rebirth, maybe?

Only if Aschlafly gets hugged and turns into Tang at the end. :) --Gulik 20:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I think that'd be End of Conservapedia :D --Sid 21:37, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Guns saved his life

Just saw this and thought immediately of Andy's claim that a gun could have saved the girl's life in the rottweiler attack. Wonder what Andy'd have said if the guy had received a worse injury than a shot to the arm. Jrssr5 08:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

What he'd say is that it's just collateral damage and that it's better to die by gunshot than by crocodile bite. I believe that when the story with the baby came up, either he or one of his minions said that a gunshot would be preferred because it would at least give the baby a fighting chance. Twisted, eh? --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 09:06, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Supremacists?

Liberal supremacist has my favourite misuse of the English language. "Like" used for "As if". Don't know why it annoys me so much but it grates every time I see/hear it.

"Liberal supremacist" = 38 Google hits. Awesome. PFoster 11:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Apparently the misuse has been fixed already... RW watchers and all that... Uchiha^KATON! 17:20, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe we should have page about CP sysops/editors who read Rationalwiki. Genghis ^Marauding 17:32, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Nope! Still there Susan^Purrrrrrr 17:30, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Lolz... Apparently good grammar don't last long on CP. Uchiha^KATON! 17:37, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Ha! They've done it. Does that make me a homskull edumicator? Susan^Purrrrrrr 17:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I seemed to watch it get fixed, unfixed, fixed.... that got confusing! Why don't they credit us when they fix these things? Or at least come here and thank us? human 17:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Correction, the edit comment was "SG again..."? Is that a ref to our very own dear SusanG? human 17:58, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Heh! Hadn't noticed that. FAME, I'm gonna live forever. Susan^Purrrrrrr 18:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

"(cur) (last) 11:54, 23 January 2008 Feebasfactor (Talk | contribs) m (SG rules)"

I think I know who the CP editor is. But won't out h/er/im h/ere/is. Genghis ^Marauding 18:20, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well I assume that, naturally, it's Icewedge Ames Human Fox... New Gwenson?

Also, SG =/= Spelling & Grammar? 19:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Erm, how about User:Feebas factor? I know, it's a very wild guess... ;) --Sid 21:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

You got me!!! New Gwenson 22:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Isn't this the name of a movie? Oh, wait, that's The Supremes, nevermind. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:03, 23 January 2008 (EST)

3 ... 2 ... 1 ... GO! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Affirmative?

On the Main Page talk DanH comes up with this little gem re Ron Paul's newsletters:

"For example, one newsletter called for black people to have a younger minimum age to be charged with crimes then white people. That's liberal, that's affirmative actions. Real conservatives don't support that."

words fail me! Susan^Purrrrrrr 11:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I saw that also and had a WTF moment. If you take the comment at face value, he's saying that affirmative action means minorities get the "advantage" of worse treatment by the law. Wow, no wonder it's controversial! I wanted to read what Paul's newsletter actually said, just to see if DanH accidentally got mixed up about something, but the link doesn't work for me. I do like the bonus No True Scotsman attitude though.--Bayes^update 12:22, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I think DanH knew exactly what he was writing. DanH may be Christian and even conservative but I'm phli% certain that he's not out of the Schlafly loony mould/mold. Genghis ^Marauding 13:39, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Making them look callous

Fresh in at #1, Pop pickers, it's our fault for baiting them Silver Sloth 12:31, 23 January 2008 (EST)

They don't need our help. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Anyone who'd "bait" a conservative into making "insensitive remarks" should be shot. Their remains should then be made into delicious Soylent Green®. Warren Terra 12:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)

That is truly wonderful! Conservatives are only insensitive because liberals trick them into it. LMFAO. Genghis ^Marauding 13:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Hollywood values

Apparently Hollywood really values and glamourizes gender....Shangrala 12:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Notice also, that Hollywood Liberals really promote genders.... Interesting ....SirChuckB^{They forgot the Rock and Roll too} 12:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Interestingly, the "Hollywood" liberal who died was actually a "Manhattan" liberal. Wasn't he? human 12:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)

By the way, where are you reading that? human 12:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)

In their Hollywood values article, the sex link brings you to a page about sex as in male/female..... CP has permantly deleted anything talking about intercourse SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 12:53, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see. Hilarious. It's only ok to to talk about sexuwal intercourse in contexts where it is "bad", right? human 13:26, 23 January 2008 (EST)

How sad.... GW cancels a planned event so he doesn't come off as a jackass.... Yet Andy and the Schaflys are orgasming over Ledger's death SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Gossip! Gossip! Gossip! Sterile^xx 14:13, 23 January 2008 (EST)

"British Politics"

While searching for some hilarious Conservapedia schenanigans, i came across the British Politics page. Could be worth some checking out- they refer to Conservative MPs as "Heroes", and still list Menzies Campbell as the leader of the Lib Dems. ^{— Unsigned, by: Comrade Brusco / talk / contribs}

Well he (Ming that is) has been replaced by a self-confessed atheist. Susan^Purrrrrrr 14:07, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I believe that is a first for the leader of a major British political party. (Stop that whistling!) Genghis ^Marauding 14:31, 23 January 2008 (EST)

(Whistles) Susan^Purrrrrrr 14:37, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Pantyhose! La, la, la, la, la! Genghis ^Marauding 17:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Euwgh! That's just so eaugh. Susan^Purrrrrrr 18:07, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were atheists. Barnaby 11:27, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Further proof that CP editors watch us closely? The British Politics page has been updated to change Ming to Nick Clegg. Actually, their British Politics page isn't all that bad if you allow for the fact that it's written for a primarily American audience who are most likely ignorant of anything (never mind politics) outside of the States. I think the Daily Mail would struggle to write something less politically biased. The only obvious thing that gives it away as a CP article is the phrase "homosexual agenda" Bondurant 05:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Swedish National Socialists = Nazis?

Hey there. I'm a lurker/supporter, and really enjoy having cps shenanigans at my fingertips without having to dig through their site. Anyway, I don't really know if this is wigo worthy, but regarding the title, DanH is pretty sure it's the truth. I'll let you guys decide whether to put it up or not. --71.57.54.19 23:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I agree that that's a somewhat sweeping statement (especially when it's phrased as a guess), but I don't know much about Swedish parties, so I held back my mockery. However, wp:List of political parties in Sweden seems to hint that this is about National Socialist Front - "the largest Neo-Nazi political party in Sweden".

It's mostly educated guessing on my side, and like I said, I don't really know Swedish politics, but it appears that DanH was right there. (It should be noted that "National Socialist" does not 100% imply "Nazi" - but it's apparently not the worst guess, either...) --Sid 06:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Cherry-picking

[1] RossC criticizes the New York Times for "cherry-picking" cases where soldiers commit crimes. Cherry-picking, of course, is allowed (and, basically, required) when selectively using scientific evidence to disprove evolution/a 6 billion year old earth, since it is too hard to disprove these when considering all of the evidence. As Jdellaro points out, what is the difference between what the times did and what CP does with the drug overdose story, the "murderous atheistic public school students", and every other sweeping generalization they make? Thankfully, Andy jumps in and makes up a statistic to prove the point, as well as provide a link that has very little to do with the topic being discussed. Of the ten people mentioned in the link he provided, one died in a plane crash, one died in an auto racing accident, and two were shot in gang-related violence. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 12:52, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, wouldn't your user name cover more ground if it was RushOHannity? Oh well... just a random thought. human 13:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It would, but I'm too set in my ways. Besides, no one (as far as I can tell) at CP picked up on the fact that my username is based on my 2 favorite fox news windbags, and so may still think that this is my real name, and I'd hate to confuse them. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 14:53, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Awesome new version of assfly statistics! "The rate of self-inflicted death by prescription drugs, illegal drugs, or otherwise in Hollywood is ten times higher or more than in the military." His reference is to an article listing ten tragic deaths among pop stars (I didn't know Kurt Cobain lived in Hollywood...). Nice work, trashfly. At least Cobain used the holy instrument of death: a firearm. human 13:12, 24 January 2008 (EST)

This is quickly turning into a classic. Not only is his "reference" useless (one died in a plane crash, another in a car crash) it doesn't even come close to his point. Not to mention, most of the stars listed were Singers, so the whole hollywood thing doesn't really come into play... unless Music is now produced in Hollywood.... Do we have anything about this on WIGO yet? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 13:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It doesn't appear to be up there yet. Someone who can come up with a wittier way to say it than I did should add it. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 14:53, 24 January 2008 (EST)

X dead singers prove that ""The [suicide] rate ... in Hollywood is ten times higher or more than in the military." ? human 15:06, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Wasn't that raving liberal, Ronald Regan part of the whole Hollywood culture at some point? --Kels 06:51, 25 January 2008 (EST)

With a little bit of research, I've located that the suicide rate for the Army (source is admittedly out of date - http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/terrorism/a/arsuicide.htm) is 17.3 per 100,000. I'm having a hard time locating Hollywood suicide statistics, (plus his definition of Hollywood is anyone involved in any form of entertainment) but the US average is 10.8 from this article http://www.livescience.com/health/070829_bad_suicide.html. Feel free to clean up my post - I'm not much of a wiki editor. --Lardashe

Wikipedia "Bias"

This really isn't WIGO worthy, because we all know that page is riddled with errors, but within five minutes of searching, I found something really funny... number 11 claims that Wikipedia is anti-christian because they refer to the Belfast Agreement as the... Belfast agreement instead of the Good Friday agreement... But Wikipedia has a redirect going towards it and the 2ND DAMN SENTENCE in the intro states "more commonly known as the good friday agreement." you'd think they'd take a little more care in putting stuff up that can obviously be proved false. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 15:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)

You'd think so, but then they'd have to take down almost all their stuff bashing wikipedia, liberals, evolutionists, etc and they really wouldn't have much reason to exist. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 17:05, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Right, because they're not so much about what and who they are but who and what they're against. Warren Terra 17:09, 24 January 2008 (EST)

"Real" Conservatives

This comment really floors me. Nice to know that Alan Greenspan and Colin Powell are considered too far left for CP. Of course, given that the definition of Conservative is tailored to cover either Andy or his mother (which is pretty creepy, really), it's doubtful even Huckabee is ideologically pure enough to qualify. --Kels 06:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Sweet. And another awesome iteration, in a new suit, of an assfly stat: "I doubt as much as 5% of the commencement speakers at Harvard over the past 30 years have been conservative.". Which means, can you find two. Of course, none that anyone came up with "count". Though I did look at the list, and there's a dadgum awful lot of liberals on it! And if we go back further than 30 years, we get to The ex-Shah of Iran - no one will claim him! human 10:52, 25 January 2008 (EST)