Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive230

This is an archive page, last updated 17 April 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>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Andy has already been portrayed in a movie

Okay, I know we've discussed the idea of casting Conservapedia the Movie before, but I realized Andy has already been portrayed in a movie.

Kevin Kline as Otto in the brilliant, brilliant movie A Fish Called Wanda.

Now, I know he doesn't look part, but think of the character. He's convinced of American superiority, hates the British, and believes he's brilliant but is, in actuality, a moron.

Think of the scene where Jamie Lee Curtis lectures him. "Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up." It's just like a debate on a talk page. Otto just needs a banhammer. MDB (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget his psychotic "Don't call me stupid!" whenever he was... --PsyGremlinFale! 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal namecalling". MDB (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing is that despite Andy's like for largely defensive weapon of gun I don't see him as a violent guy; unlike Karajou or JPratt, perhaps.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

True. Andy might be a gun nut, but I don't see him ever using it except for legitimate defense or sport. (And as far "legitimate defense" goes, you know damn well if he was ever actually seriously physically threatened, he'd be curled up on the floor quivering.) MDB (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, would Andru know which end of a gun is the business end? I'm just askin' Jimaginator (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In Andy’s binary world the business end of a gun would be the money making end; and that would make the other end liberal. JumboWhales (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jimaginator- it's funny you bring this up: I have a friend who decries any attempt to regulate weapons who, while talking about his need to defend himself, is way more likely to blow his own balls off then stop a crime. ATP (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama's Muslim Agenda!!!!!!!!!!

Next to Ken, JPatt's baby^img is the craziest thing on CP (even crazier than the toons). It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. His latest addition is more of the same... 9/11 trials will be held in military tribunals.^img WTF, JP??? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Capt. Mei III (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's such a disjointed mess of conflicting thoughts and aims that you could walk in there and really step on some crazy toes if you made a similar list for GWB, GB, or even Reagan. I know the purpose is to show Obama to be "pro-Muslim," but some of that stuff is just sort of, you know, everyday interactions with Arab leaders. Huh. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My favourite is

• "February 18th, the U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution supported by Muslim countries condemning Israeli settlement construction".

I might be confused but isn't this an anti-muslim agenda move? --Damo^Hi 20:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone gives JPatt shit about it, he suddenly dons RobS's idiot grin and replies, "You silly wabbit, this page is just for anything Obama and Muslim-related. It's not a smear page." Junggai (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that, but the page is supposed to describe his "agenda", not just random dealings with anything muslim related. --Damo^Hi 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that would necessitate Jpatt knowing what the word "agenda" means. Remember, we're dealing with industrial levels of stupidity here. DickTurpis (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember him actually replying that way once though. Would search for the link but I'm also 403'd. Junggai (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

All part of the wingnut persecution complex. Obama has a sooper seekrit Muslim agenda because he's willing to engage in diplomacy in the Middle East instead of making a glass crater out of the region. Obama has a sooper seekrit atheist agenda because he sometimes mentions non-believers and doesn't think the US should be a theocracy. Obama has a sooper seekrit illegal alien agenda because he doesn't want to "finish the dang fence" and immediately deport all illegals now. And so on. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's^img the talk page. He answers these questions, though of course the answers make no sense. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Student pi?

Why?^img I don't understand why Andy made one for student pi, that doesn't seem like a very Andy thing to do. --Opcn (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An in-class joke? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And why pi? The best mathematical constant is clearly either Euler's number e (2.717...) or Euler's constant γ (.577), because they're Euler's! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that Andy had to make a second "student three" and as the Bible says pi=3, that's what he rolls with. --UHM^harass_me 23:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe pi is the first of the cp:Best conservative numbers? --Sid (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I am allowed to enroll in classed to expand my knowledge. - π 23:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a "Student Eightteen" and a "Student Eighteen"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't use γ! It's used in that relativistic heresy! It's also used in image processing, and as we well know, you don't do image processing in Conservapedia - you upload blurry thumbnails from government sites or rip off some random images from Google Image Search. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How are any of you getting CP?

All I've seen for months is 403. Libraries, hotels, schools, the north sea -- nothing. Is anyone still unblocked or are you all using HideMyAss? Mei III (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I use hidemyass mainly. All IP's of mine are blocked. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I stopped looking. The only thing that kept me was that it was easy to access, but now that that's gone, I can't be arsed to actually work to watch idiots being idiots. --Sid (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that the site works. i dont expect to ever get ranged, being from the center of jesus land and all but most of the time the site is down. we arent really missing a whole lot. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't get in for a while and it started working again for me yesterday. Funny, hidemyass doesn't work for me but just punching in the url works fine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

HideMyAss comes and goes, https://kproxy.com/ works but do a search for anonymous proxy and you should find something. I hesitate to recommend a single one in case everyone uses it and it gets blocked.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Sid. If Andy doesn't want me to watch him taking a shit, I can't be bothered to drill a hole in his bathroom door. ħuman 07:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy on Karatoons as pics for articles?

I happened upon this^img Karatoon recently and it reminded me that I wanted to write an article for watermelons, so I did. Is there any policy on using Karatoons for page images? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

An artist of Karajou's stature is likely to be represented by an agency. You'll no doubt have to pay royalties. Simple (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's images are copyrighted by him and you probably need to justify the use of the image through the fair use doctrine (e.g. only use the image as part of scholarly analysis of the situation). See {{fair use}}. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Like everything at CP the copyright issue is a mess. I've not looked at all of the Jerk's images but the one noted above does not have any copyright notice. Of course, by virtue of his authorship he owns copyright but as soon as he posts it on CP it falls under their copyright unless he makes a prior claim which CP accepts. However, their copyright page states "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution" so avoids making any claim on images but later says "Images may remain protected by the copyrights of their creators" (emphasis added) but I think that their upload page requires them to release copyright. (Does anyone have the text of that page?) However, judging by their own claims of "fair use" I think that you could make the same claim against them if you were to use an image that was not already taken from a third party. Don't forget that 'fair use' includes parody as well as scholarly analysis. Finally, CP copyright says " Conservapedia may clarify and amend its copyright from time to time by updating this document here", unfortunately any changes that seek to impose greater restrictions on reproduction would only apply to newly created material as earlier work had already been released under the previous licensing terms. Генгис^{Gum disease} 09:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh, if it's a gray area I won't bother. I figured I'd just plop it in there if the answer was "There are no rules! Go wild!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's always been a bit of joke that Super Lawyer Andy's idea of copyright is "You can use it unless we don't like you or it makes us look bad". --Kels (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Judge Wigo

I enjoyed it. Thank you. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We aim to please, sir. Now if sir will just spread sir's knees, I'll kneel down and... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

... and what? Go on. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just close your eyes and imagine a bulldog eating porridge... --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would I want to imagine Sarah Palin? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy fails reading comprehension... again

This MPR entry^img features Andy saying that it's news to liberals that Federal workers won't get paid if the government shuts down.

If he, of course, read the damn article he links to, he'd see that the point is furloughed workers did get paid for the last shut-down, but they probably won't this time. MDB (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You forget, with Andy, he picks up the paper with a preformed "Obama is teh evil" idea in what passes for his mind. He then skims the article until he sees enough random words to form a semi-coherent sentence, and then he runs to MPR. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw this and thought of CP

For the CP sysops who always say Obama is going to be a one-term president: "“The people that are sitting around saying, ‘He’s definitely going to be a one-term president. It’s going to be easy to take him out,’ they’re obviously political illiterates – political idiots, let me be blunt,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in an interview." EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That could just be tactical on Huckabee's part -- he wants his supporters to think he's going to have to fight hard to beat Obama, not to think he's going to have an easy ride. It is an awfully forceful way to make that point, though. MDB (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Elections

This could be fun. CP breathlessly announces that with 94% counted^img, the incumbent conservative justice is ahead! Then in big letters they announce that with 99% counted^img he's still ahead!

But they overlook the fact that the precincts still to report are from areas dominated so far by the challenger, JoAnne Kloppenburg. CP's own source for the second story (USA Today's minute-by-minute update) currently has Kloppenburg ahead by 447 votes.

Note how it's so evil that liberals area actually spending money on this race. How dare they? Only big corporations are allowed to do that! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all the fault of the Citizens United decision, made by liberal activist judges...oh wait... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And note that conservative groups spent 37% more than liberal ones on this race. That's okay, I suppose Andy? Hypocrite. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

They're also silent about the fact there are apparently enough signatures for a recall election for Gov. Walker. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Worth a weego? Nice hypocrisy and failure to read. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to wait until the final result was known (well - there'll be a recount, but final result of the first count). –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Kos is now reporting that "JoAnne Kloppenburg continues to lead David Prosser by 224 votes in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. There are three precincts still remaining, all in Prosser territory." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I'm reading elsewhere, it's just ONE precinct left to declare: Lake Mills. They're going to finish counting in about 15 minutes and then 700-760 votes will be added to the total. Kloppenburg leads by 224 so Prosser needs a BIG chunk of those to go for him. Last time he got 56% of the vote, which wouldn't be enough. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Kloppenburg wins by ~222. That's 222 votes out of about 1.5 million. There's almost certain to be a recount but it's good to be going in ahead. Still waiting official word. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem CP has always had with their "blow-by-blow" accounts on MPR. They get whipped up in a frenzy when their side is winning, and then shut up when there is a stunning upset against their side. Same with Murkowski. --Leotardo (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It's another great example of CP's total lack of class. If the Conservative had won (and he still might, of course), it would be trumpeted as a huge victory despite the fact he's a 12-year incumbent against somebody with almost zero name recognition. Because the Liberal won (and it's a WOMAN FFS!) it either won't be mentioned at all, or he'll whine about all the money spent by unions (despite the teabaggers spending more).

The current AP (unofficial) figures are here. They're saying Klop has a 204 vote lead, but the figure has changed up and down as precincts confirm their results. That's a 0.014% majority and there's almost certainly going to be a recount as long as Prosser can find some pretext for it, which shouldn't be too hard. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Andys deleation of the posts tell me the lib won. Anyone eles expecting the "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" that came when harry ried won?--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The usual GOP lies have started already. One moron is saying there was voter fraud and Gov. Walker has made the true but utterly facile comment that it's all the fault of the liberal parts of the state. Give it up, wingnuts. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy should try his "Show me the data! All of it!" approach. After all, it worked so well with Lenski... --Sid (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

When Joe Miller Was beaten by a Murkowski writ-in campaign, it was interesting to hear the numbers of accused voter frauds and other ways to repair Joe's winning status rise to exactly match the number theoretically needed for him to win. Murky was presumably 8K votes ahead but they were uncounted (write ins not immediately counted) so there were reports of 4.5 k write in votes for Joe. Then there were ~11k so the number jumped to 6k for joe. Then they were counted and there were only 3 for joe and Murky had a 2K uncontested lead and at least 8k contested but clear write in votes and low and behold reports started to circulate about there being a reported 2K cases of voter fraud, and affidavits started showing up from Miller supporters talking about how they saw big huge stacks of Murkowski ballots. --Opcn (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Widespread voter fraud? It must be the work of ACORN!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It ain't over yet! Now Prosser has a 40 vote lead. With a race this tight it's going to change over and over again as results are checked and rechecked. Then there'll be a recount. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And in one (possibly) final development, the City of Brookfield might have been left out of the count, which would almost certainly give victory to Prosser. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But since Andy never reported on the challenger's temporary lead, his take^img on this development seems a little strange - "The conservative is winning...still winning...(grumbles) too close to call...STUNNING UPSET!!! The conservative has won!" Röstigraben (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that. Utterly incredible - the man has no shame. It's a stunning upset when a conservative wins a seat nobody expected any other result in? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I am looking for a graph of Conservapedia's new user creation rate over time, I think you guys have one? 128.193.245.29 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I want not approve on it, I think polite post. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that even make sense? ^NoodleDick_SissyPants^{Noodle with me!} 08:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

accounts created at CP

last 365 days

--larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JPratt on MPR

First of all, get your proverbs right. Secondly, are you insinuating Big O uses prostitutes? Or are you just throwing random words together to fuel your hatred for the black man in the White House? --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Capture tags? άλφα^Talk 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I keep forgetting about those... less fortunate amongst us. Or as I call them "technology have-nots."^img --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's pathetic even by JPratt's standards. Pratti, by your own logic, you're a pathological liar who betrays his colleagues because you hung out with TK so much. Grow up. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for tarring Obama with the same brush, radicals have radical friends, couldn't resist. TK may have had a problem with lies but nobody is without flaws. So I and Obama have flawed friends. I see it doesn't affect your love for Odumbo.--76.205.70.73 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Radicals have radical friends? You mean Andy has friends? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) There's a certain musical irony to the man who would drink Sarah Palin's bath water referring to the Pres as Odumbo. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would so give up my Catholicism to be in a bath kneykid with Sarah.--76.205.70.73 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that given some random statistics, one of Jpatt's past friends may have committed a crime. But hey, don't let that hypocrisy streak end now! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ironically I looked up one Republican today on Wiki about a completely different matter, and it turned out that he had been caught in the act of receiving oral sex from a prostitute and tried to run away. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

OMG!! Reagan got blowjobs from prostitutes!!!!! --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And then, there was this guy about 2000 years ago who associated with thieves, prostitutes, and (heaven forbid) tax collectors. What was his name again? --Shagie (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

--Scream!! (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. lol. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate: True, but that guy wasn't patronizing prostitutes, he was trying to redeem them. And the only thieves he associated with... he wasn't exactly given a lot of choice in the matter, y'know? MDB (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would a Devil's advocate make excuses for jesus? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a tricky one. That aside, I've found that if you swap god and the devil in christianity, it makes far more sense. X Stickman (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This should be good

Watching Andy defend Titanic as conservative^img - all because 2 rich men showed some chivalry and stayed behind. What about the nudity, pre-marital sex, theft, etc, etc, etc. I left out the part where Kate's beau slaps her around, because Andy likes that in conservative movies. Plus Sharon is using those nasty fact things... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems pretty analogous. Giant ship touted as unsinkable sets sail, error in judgement or whatever runs it into an iceberg, it starts to sink, as it's going down it splits in half, and a lot of innocent people end up screwed. «-Bfa-» 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic on that thread. Is Andy rally arguing, "Rich people did something positive in the movie, thus it is conservative" and is the counter argument really, "No, the rich left the poor locked in the bowels of the ship as it went down, which is unflattering to the rich even if historically accurate, and thus not conservative"? --Leotardo (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

From the actual Greatest Conservative Movies page, here is the blurb after Titanic:

Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young RINO are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues

Which is contradicted on the CP Titanic page:

However, this film is inaccurate in several areas. For one thing, it depicted the men on board as cowardly.

If that clears anything up for you....please explain it to the rest of us. Gooners (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole notion of movies being "conservative" is largely bunk. There are examples where movies are politically motivated but they are a relatively rare breed. This is just another example of stupidity and not worth worrying about too much. --Damo^Hi 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I believe that, because there is often a philosophy that informs a movie and its subject. It's just that they really grasp at straws to declare a movie 'conservative'. For a website that continually disparages Hollywood, I don't know why they are trying to shoehorn Hollywood blockbusters into this gimmick. Titanic creator James Cameron, an atheist, is a liberal, and his film Avatar was considered propaganda by the rightwing. So...I don't really get any of this. As CP declinesm, their logic is becoming harder and harder to follow because it is so full of holes. They should just say the "Left Behind" movies and anything Charlton Heston did are the greatest conservative movies, and leave it at that. --Leotardo (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we are largely in agreement. I agree that many (most?) have a point of view, but hardly ever is this viewpoint easily classified into "conservative" or "liberal". The world is just not that black and white. --Damo^Hi 05:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. --Leotardo (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Classifying movies like this just doesn't make sense. As with any art, much is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the TV show "All in the Family" is famous for being liked by both the racially tolerant and bigots of the time, who each saw what they wanted to see. Jimaginator (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that things can be subjective? That they can be A and Not A, depending on how you look at it? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Don't you know that this illogical approach undermines absolute morality as dictated by God? I guess you'll argue next that murdering people should not be crime because some people might regard it as okay, huh? Won't you, liberal? Stop rejecting objective truths and embrace the fact that movies can and should be classified absolutely! Jesus rejected relativity, and so should you! --Sid (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, all this talk of moral relativism is crazy. Pretty soon we're gonna hear arguments that sometimes killing people is bad, but other times killing people is good. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to him whether or not it's actually a conservative movie. His logic seems to go like this:

1. Pick one of the highest-grossing movies of all time
2. Shoehorn a "conservative" message into the movie, whether it exists or not
3. Bam! Score +1 for the conservative team! We have popular movies, too!!!!!

(ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's easy to view Titanic as being a conservative movie. It's effectively a Tower of Babel story, with God as the iceberg. Strangely, I think that most horror movies could easily qualify as conservative, as they discourage most "teen risk" behaviors. But I don't think Andy would want to lay claim to horror as a conservative field. - Lardashe

I'm going to go with this: It is one of Andy's favourite movies, therefore, it is a conservative movie. Now just sprinkle with some bullshit logic, et Voila! LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 02:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's income

There was a thread a while ago about Andy's source of income, well he seems to be earning something from the AAPS. "ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the most divisive, harmful, and unConstitutional legislation enacted by Congress in a generation," said AAPS counsel Andrew Schlafly. --Scream!! (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

he gets $65K in wingnut welfare a year from AAPS. --Opcn (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Who's been dropping docs on Andy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

He ain't been doxed. I also doubt he's on salary. People doing non-in-house general counsel gigs like that where very little is actually require are usually just billing hourly. I doubt he makes more than 10 grand a year for his work for AAPS. He does do a small amount of work for AAPS cranks who get hauled before their medical ethics boards. I'd expect he also makes a small amount from that. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Scuse me OPCN, but ^{[citation needed]}. --Scream!! (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I forget who brought it up, but someone took a look at the paperwork for AAPS which is a non-profit --Opcn (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

here

Incidentally, I was motivated to go see if I could find out just how much the Assfly's wingnut welfare cheque was for. As near as I can tell, he gets about 65K per annum from AAPS. Not bad for basically no work, eh? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

--Opcn (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Still ^{[citation needed]}. We want all the dirt, man. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I listed my source, if you want anything beyond that you gotta ask Jeeves. --Opcn (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I found Jeeves' source ^{ONE / TALK} 10:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see that you have such a keen grasp over the unidirectional motion of time. --Opcn (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Life Dynamics

JPratt's Life Dynamics^img article contains this wonderful line "Also, their Direct Mail Program (DMP) alerts doctors and medical students to the stigma that attaches to abortionists". Surely this is just a polite way of saying that they send out intimidating hate mail. Генгис^{Gum disease} 07:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Give him a break - he just copypasted that from their page (as usual): "Beyond abortion law, our Direct Mail Program (DMP) alerts doctors and medical students to the stigma that attaches to abortionists." --Sid (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to malign little Johnny. Although I hadn't checked the source I guessed that it was copydumped. No, my point was to clarify the tactics of the organisation. Генгис^{Gum disease} 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF Joaquin?

an ode to a big government program^img on MPR? Doesn't he know about the New Ordeal? P-Foster (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to this!! I can't see how they will allow this to remain on MPR, I mean, seriously. --Leotardo (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin only ever signed up to the social conservatism at CP rather than Andy's fiscal conservatism ideas. Генгис^{Gum disease} 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Assfly's response^img is, surprisingly, full of win. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to sock up and start spamming lieberal lies all over CP and then use the reverse psychology gambit. You see, if we turn CP into Liberapedia, then liberals will become conservatives. Wabbit season! Duck season! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken's awesome album

Ken's secret '70s gospel alter ego? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

More like this. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's gone...

How dare you, I never said anything^img about the Wisconsin judge election. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh, we have pibot to take down the things we wish we hadn't said. --Opcn (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Already been WIGOed. As has the followup. :-) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't :-). The original was wigo'd, then the alteration and then a completely new comment from the assfly. But not the out and out removal of what was left of the original comment. The last wigo was the addition of the 'stunning win', not the complete removal of the original comment. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

why does he keep deleting his user pages?

Ken

(love this template, btw) has again deleted his talk page, only to replace it with the same content. Am I missing something?--Brxbrx (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) No, Ken is missing something. A lot of things. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, this is an amateur way of hiding revisions.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a way of hiding his incompetence. "Oh dear. It just took me 27 edits to move a comma. I'll delete and recreate the page to hide what a moron I am." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he doesn't want people to realize how completely obsessed he is. He never uses the Preview button, so we get edit chains that move a comma or that make a picture larger/smaller until it looks juuuust right (on his monitor). Without regularly nuking any page he touches, the Recent Changes would be all Ken all the time. --Sid (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a thought. What if he does use the preview button? How many attempts does he really need to move a comma? It could be almost infinite. We may never know. --Horace (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I know why but I'll never tell. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

CP on ED

The ED CP article is up to date. Me and some other guy did some major clean-up. [4]--Brxbrx (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

noone cares you filthy homo--68.96.52.71 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, that was me. but no homo--Brxbrx (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread is now devoted to EXTREME FUCKIN CARING! because you're worth it. ^NoodleDick_SissyPants^{Noodle with me!} 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

When did ED become absolutely unusable? ATP (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

how do you mean?--Brxbrx (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Must have been a glitch. I kept reloading it and it kept looking like I was viewing it in Mosaic. Now it's ok. ATP (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Mountain Blue 06:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

hmmm... lost big chucks of the article right around here: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=1998761916&oldid=1998761915 and here: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=1998761919 - looks like totally gone now are all mention of Jpatt, AddisonDM, Chippeterson, Terry Hurlbut, and much more. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody really find that article funny in any way? Does anybody really find any of ED funny in any way? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't funny? I always thought I just didn't get it because I was on the wrong side of 14. Mountain Blue 09:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never found an ED link funny, but that's understandable given my disability of having more than four brain cells. --Kels (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

elitism is unbecoming--Brxbrx (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not as much as deliberate imbecility. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

ooh, you're cool, what with that stick up your ass--Brxbrx (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'll bet the way you have the sense of humour of a 12-year old has the girls gasping. Grow up. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

is that your tongue waggling or is the stick that far up your ass--Brxbrx (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, it must be hard for you. Everybody on here so far things you're an unfunny little child. You clearly still think that talk about bottoms is funny. Does your mum know you're on her computer? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Move it along fellas, go to one of your talkpage's if you're just flinging shit at each other. SJ ^Debaser 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

ED always seems to me like it's written by kids that just realized they can "say dirty words" on the Internet and their parents won't catch them. Maybe I've just lost my sense of humor in my old age. άλφα^Talk 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Please can all further comments on this topic be directed to Forum:Is ED Funny)

Is ED funny?

(moved to Forum:Is ED Funny)

SamHB

You'd think he'd have learnt his lesson by now. Yet he's still beavering away at the Ada Lovelace^img article, despite Smeg Ed having already said that he has an agenda with this topic.^img And you know with Ed his raging misogyny comes before pesky facts.

Seriously, Sam, if you read this, just back away from the article, smiling and keeping your hands in plain sight. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He's not listening^img.

Ed is really funny on this, with his constant demands (on both CP and WP) to see the program. Sam's edit probably won't satisfy him because he obviously doesn't realise the analytical engine's programs would have been fed in on punched cards. Does he really expect to see a scan of such a card? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

She used the \div symbol because she didn't know better? I thought that SamHB wasn't a parodist. Phiwum (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood - cancer preventing BASTARDS

I know he never bothers to read his sources, but even for Andy Pandy, this is a weird source to use for his latest MPR attack^img on Planned Parenthood. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming Andy would have read past the first two words of the headline. For him, that's actually a lot. --Kels (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He frequently gets past the first two words if neither is more than two syllables long. Mountain Blue 16:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if he didn't type up/post his students' homework, they could get away with writing "You're a big stupid doodyhead" fifty times after the first few sentences. I remember having one teacher where most of the "homework" I turned in was just word salad past the first paragraph. Good times. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, nearly everyone else sees funding cuts". Does Andy even realize that its the REPUBLICANS making cuts on nearly everyone eles? But NOOO, because Planned Parenthood keeps getting funds, suddenly the republican cuts are for nought. What a fuckin pud--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh

So Huckabee's turned into a RINO.^img Wasn't he Andy's man last time round, I'm sure there's a link somewhere showing he and Mama S contributed towards his campaign? Who'll be his choice this year - I'm guessing Rand Paul. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My guess is Trump the birther. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean Trump, the free-spending, twice bankrupt, twice divorced celebrity and personification of the East Coast elite? Why not, taking conservative hypocrisy to an unprecendented level would be his last chance for fame before CP shuts down. My bet's on Bachmann, though. Röstigraben (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

He's ranting about the GOP selling out^img on MPR again. Could be interesting to see the longer-term reaction to this will be. No doubt it'll drive Andy, and hence his spineless toadies deeper into teabagger country. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite being a fucking creationist Ron Paul is still the best offering on the GOP side of the isle. I hope Andy doesn't support him, because it would be embarrassing to be on the same team. --Opcn (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Ron Paul is your "team?" srsly? P-Foster (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I seriously wish that Donald Trump would win run, because I agree that the hypocrisy would make CP explode. I know money helps to win elections, but I think it'd be a long shot even for him. άλφα^Talk 17:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant "run" there... I definitely don't want him to win. Whoops... And isn't Ron Paul the one who wanted to privatize all of the federal departments? Maybe he was just playing the crowd when he went on Stephen Colbert, but I remember the interview where he raised his hand at privatizing the Department of Education, Defense, etc. Defense? Really? I'm all for a partially reduced military, but not in the sense of a)Blackwater XE running all of our wars, or b) Carl Icahn deciding that the USAF would be a good buy like TWA and going to town on it. άλφα^Talk 18:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's trying to decide between Bachmann and Rand Paul judging from this^img and this^img. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing the captures, is capturebot borked again? Incidentally, after becoming de-403'd at home last week I am now 403'd again here. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Damn. Looks like it's 403ed again. I've uploaded them manually for now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another classic Karajerk fail

From teh archives. In which he starts off by complaining he's being spammed by Russian brides (Icewdge's fault of course). However, we're soon back in familiar Karajou territory, and one where he shows a blazing ignorance of just what "suspicious contact" means.

I had a talk about this last night by my lawyer/customer buddy, who said that there is a federal law requiring US citizens to contact the FBI when a foreign national makes a suspicious contact.

Unfortunately, I deleted the emails involved, and I have not heard of this "Yekaratina" in a couple days. According to her last email, she said she would be arriving in the states June 14...if this is true. But, and this comes from my lawyer friend here, if she arrives or not, of she's a fake or not, someone's in deep trouble with the Feds. All I have to do is save the next emails and contact the nearest field office, and yes, they will do something about it.

No, they won't Popeye. "Suspicious contact" means if they approach you and offer you a dacha on the Volga (or Olga and a dachshund) for copies of your ship's blueprints. Marriage proposals, real or not, don't count. Still, I'd pay for footage of you trying to register your complaint with the Feds. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Attention all cabalists: Operation Bulving Volga moving into Stage II. All available hands to the secret forum. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutty gave me my first laugh in a half hour of perusing the latest here. I know, I know, making jokes isn't RW's mission, and stuff, but it was part of what made/makes us special. Thanks Slutty Roux! ħuman 07:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the same mentality that also keeps Karajou and some others attached to CP: They desperately want to be part of something truly big. It's like when you were eight or so, and you saw those movies where a normal John Doe type person suddenly is in the middle of a global crisis that only he can fix, and you'd run around for days, thinking that at any moment, this could happen to you.

He wants Yekaratina to be real, just like he wants Ames to sue him. It's his dream to have a (page 1, of course) headline saying "Illegal Russian immigrant messes with the wrong veteran" or to have a moment in court where he jumps to his feet and shouts "Your Honor, this man is a cyberterrorist!" (instantly followed by a SWAT Team charging in and dragging a wailing Ames away to Gitmo).

That's why people like Karajou (who have no direct agenda like Ed or Andy and no propaganda ambitions like Jpatt) are still active on a site that wasted its one chance of getting off the ground four years ago. --Sid (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd that he's the one, out of all them (well TK too but he's dead), who has done stuff that, if done to the wrong person, would have actually gotten him a knock on the door from the sheriff serving a restraining order. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think he made a typo. Shouldn't her name be Yekatarina? Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but not in Karajou's immutable mind. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 03:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob editing the Communism article again

so Rob reverts some amateurish vandalism on the Communism article^img, which is really a great excuse to reminisce about other times he's edited that article^img. P-Foster (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What's wonderful about that is that Rob uploaded the pic, inserted it into the article and at no point thought "Wait... that's an odd name for a photo about dirty commies..." --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Old stuff (but new to me) on WP

"After his escape from Vietnam, he asked Ed Poor to help him translate it into English. Poor had no wherewithal to do this, and Toai received help from David Chanoff who became a co-writer of the English edition." (Article begun by Ed in 2005). Ed ref put in by guess who. WTF is the relevance of someone who didn't help him? --Scream!! (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, interesting find. I guess Ed just couldn't resist placing his name on a Wikipedia article. I removed the statement since it isn't sourced, and also removed the link to RationalWiki that someone (you?) just added. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

'twasn't I wot added anything. That entry is all over the web whenever you look up that author or book. Came across it looking at Vietnam French on Google. --Scream!! (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Checking the IP that added the RW ref - it's German) --Scream!! (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, sorry for guessing it was you. The RationalWiki link was added just a little after you made your original post, which is why I guessed that it was you. Looking at it now, though, it was placed 18 minutes after your original comment, so it must have been another reader because of that time frame. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WTF! I half-expected Ed to trail off from the subject into a "Ed Poor grew up in the little town of..." to satisfy himself. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

More likely would have been:"...Ed Poor, descendant of the founder of Grumman Aircraft ..." --Scream!! (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

After more than 60 edits it really doesn't tell me much about the book. Looking at the early history I see it started off as an Ed stub with C&P quotes from external book reviews and lazy link to the synopsis by someone on Amazon (is that a WP reliable source?). We also get the grandpappy reference in the edit summary. Really, Ed's editing style is almost as unique as Ken's.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his user page on Wikipedia, I found this confusing contradiction. "I find Wikipedia a useful resource, but it's not very well-written and is often accurate." So... what's the problem if it's often accurate? Surely this is Uncle Ed trying to go on the attack by labeling WP as inaccurate? Be a dear and fix that, Ed, it makes you look ridiculous. άλφα^Talk 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could look at it as Ed really, really, really, likes being on Conservapedia, which he has to claim is the Holy and True Spoken Word of St. Schlafly, thus WP's accuracy is definitely a Bad Thing® in his book. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Yes, that came up here back when he made this edit. He's such a blithering idiot that he hasn't noticed even months later. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is sad... Admittedly I've had times when I'm correcting or editing a paper and I haven't noticed an error immediately before or after the text I'm proofing, but the context of his edit makes it simply too good to pass up. άλφα^Talk 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

umm, andy

How is the Christian Science monitor liberal? [1]^img --Brxbrx (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it not?--or are you one of those people who sees the title of the paper and makes all kinds of assumptions about it? P-Foster (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Most "liberal" sites have actually acknowledged that the revised voting figures are more plausible given recent turn-outs. Yes, there are a few sites shouting "fraud!" but they're in the minority. Compare and contrast the measured liberal reaction to the immediate claims of voter fraud from the wingnuts. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yegh, fixed all those sigs. Also, remember that the CS Monitor had a thing or two to say about the CBP... --Sid (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting the rule about reality having a liberal bias. CSM repeats the lies of the Darwinists, therefore, it's liberal. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, CSM has nothing to do with christianity, other than having a religious article every issue, but it is not an active christianizing newspaper. Rationalize (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read a few CSM articles during my policy debate time in high school. They aren't your Fox News, but they aren't "liberally biased." And please, forgive my faulty capture earlier. I was typing from a laptop, which I found to be rather unwieldy. I figured someone else would come along and take the split second to fix it....--Brxbrx (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

J. Scott Armstrong

Wtf is "forecasting?" Seems to me this guy does not have any authority on climate change. His TOW article says he's got degrees in engineering and management. So why is he testifying before congress?[2]^img--Brxbrx (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he has a crystal ball and said god talked to him? --UHM^harass_me 13:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a poor man's Gerald Celente. And he's testifying with Willie Soon, the guy who caused Climate Research's editors to resign. He's testifying because the Republicans called him in, natch. I have to say, it is an upgrade from last year when their only witness was Christopher Monckton. MoJo Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ipatriot and the birth certificate

[3]^img well, conservapedia just stopped sending me signals again so I'm stuck with one of these edits for the capture. I just don't understand what the point of proving obama isn't a citizen is. maybe 3 years ago, when he got elected but, aren't they sure he's going to be toppled in 2012? why waste the effort removing one guy who's not going to be around much longer in history scale of time. or am I missing some amazing loophole that says if we get him to be proven to not be American the last 3 years of US history will be reversed? --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

pardon me for messing up capture i think.--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah. Capturebot is borked again. You'll have to upload images by hand. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm basically preaching to the choir here, but this birther issue really makes no sense to me. First of all, Obama's father was Kenyan, his mother was not. People do realize that it is the mother who gives birth to the child, right? Is there any evidence that Ann Dunham (his mom) ever even set foot in Kenya, let alone made a secret trip there in her 8th month of pregnancy when people almost never travel great distances? She was a student in the US at the time, wasn't she? The only way Obama could have been born in Kenya is if his mother lived there for a good period of time in 1961. Surely there'd be a record of that. Then of course there's the "Certification of Live Birth" (which somehow, despite the words "certification" and "birth" some people are convinced is not a birth certificate). If they think it's a forgery, then they'd certainly say his "real" birth certificate is as well. It seems most birthers won't be satisfied until they hold Obama berth certificate in their hand, and even then they wouldn't have a clue what a legit 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate looks like. DickTurpis (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is a stupid issue, but you have to remember, these are stupid people. I've just never understood the argument of "He won't show us a birth certificate because he doesn't have one!" Surely, Obama, arguably the most powerful man in the world right now, could have one faked, no? And I'm sure, deep down, all the crazy right-wingers know that, even if they could hold the original birth certificate in their fat KFC-greaseed hands, they'd still cry fake. Carlaugust (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if Jebus himself floated down from the heavens with Obama's birth certificate, they'd ask for Jebus' birth certificate just in case it was a fake Christ. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My favorite part about the whole mess is that it's impossible for a non-citizen to govern better than a citizen. So much for Andy's beautiful meritocrazy. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But you see, it's the "Best of the Public," and illegal aliens are not part of The Public^TM. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, this whole delusional crap they call "thinking" repeats itself over and over again. We're now talking about Obamas Birth Certificate (would they ask the same question about a white guy that was born in Africa?) but you can simply change the words in Dick's (sorry) rant and it would as easily describe their "view" on evolution, global warming, common ownership or their golden cow "free markets solve all the problems" it's the same thing on every issue. You'll find the opposite effect (doublethink that would probably be) in their view of biblical literalism, Saint Reagen, pro-life movements. Damn just try to insert something negative in an article of a Republican politician and you can bring as many facts as you want, he'll either be branded a liberal or you'll be told to shut up and get banhammered. Delusion and doublethink are the basis of their "thinking". We can't change that, only they can. --UHM^harass_me 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

403!??11/1/1!?!?!?!!!!/1/!?

IS THE SITE FOUR OH THREED? WHAT'S GOING ON?!?! IS IT BROKEN!?!????!

Just kidding. But I tried to view CP today from my home IP (as opposed to from uni where I can see it) and my IP's been taken out. Been ages since I tried to do anything on it. Oh well, got boring for me ages ago anyway. SJ ^Debaser 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

atleast you have regularity in whether it works for you. --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, trying to follow WIGOCP using the captures hasn't got quite the same je ne sais quoi. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how you're getting 401s Josh. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So much stupid

I say this all the time, but JPatt is functionally illiterate. I really think we sell his stupidity short when compared to Karajou. For all you 403ers, here is the conversation:

"Secularizing" means to remove the religious elements from something, and thus to render it secular, such as replacing "Merry Christmas" (a religious concept) with "Happy Holidays" (a secular one). Going from "constitutionalist" to "birther" is not about secularizing a term and robbing it of its religious meanings. It's about using a snarl word for somebody's political point of view. LloydR 13:12, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Why don't you educate all to what that word means exactly marty? Strictly political? It is in fact a God given right to freedom and liberty. It has honor, it was deemed pure. There is a sacredness nature to Constitutionalist. To call someone a birther is to say fringe and extreme, to marginalize demands laid forth by the Constitution. In other words to secularize. --Jpatt 14:33, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

WTF??? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? JPatt has two holy scriptures - the Bible and the Constitution. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Constitution was actually one of the "deleted scenes" from the Bible? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally:

“”There are those evangelical Christians who speak of the United States as the New Israel, a nation whose foundation was directed by God and whose wealth and power are attributable to God’s continuing favor, which will be (is being) withdrawn as we descend further into squalor

—Blog post today

--Scream!! (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Scream gets it. those with an antichristian and anti-American agenda. Nobody is offended by the Constitution except for secular-progressives and their socialist buddies that can deem it 'living'. It is revered and sacred. You could never get 150 different people to agree on how to form such an exceptional country without divine intervention, the Invisible Hand of God. --76.205.70.73 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I love it when a random BoN comment demonstrates Poe's Law. Chthonios (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you mean Marriage? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the Invisible Hand of the Market? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One of my favorite things: You can get every last loony bin 'constitutionalist' to go from griping about "living documents" to demanding that we "fix the constitution" in under five minutes. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if he accidentally replied to the wrong thing, or if he was stoned. -Jpop (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• BS, Jpatt. If that were true, then all governments, all compacts, all contracts are sanctioned by god. People agree all the time. There's no miracles involved--Brxbrx (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We need a userbox, us 403ers do... ħuman 04:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is "the number 8 website on the planet"

Well. according to Rob Smith. Or at least it was back in 2007. Anyone have any idea where these people keep getting these rankings from? Mountain Blue 12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You're misreading that. They're talking about edits made about Conservapedia at Wikipedia, & saying these reflect significantly on the image of CP because WP is the #8 most popular site. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed Terry Chuckarse's 'I spit on WP'.

Thanks for this gem, MountainBlue (and they accuse me of not comprehending content I read...). So it's clear, my actions in April 2010 were carrying out exactly what I outlined nearly two and a half years earlie on the private maiing list -- and had nothing to do with coordinating or expunging the name Terry Koeckritz from any web server. The motivations for my actions are more fully detailed in the private email to WP Bureaucrat User:JzG (Bioutros Boutros Boutrous) found here. Can we correct the misinformation in the RW Conservapedia Sysop TK entry, now? nobs^{don't bother me}

And User:Sid also properly discerned my motives, both here & in WP, with the same posting that quotes me. Now we know the source of the Zuegledon group leak. Makes a lot of sense, me helping TK, when one of he things I was pissed off about was the leak of the ZG materials. RW editors promoting Lipson as an expert reliable source wortrhy of a subheading below Jimbo Wales in WP was uinfinished business during my absence. The Hit List & other events transpired. I was trully pissed, and it had nothing to do with hiding TK's true life identity -- TK, who did more to hurt' his own cause, and help Trent's & Dr. Lipson in WP. Jus the facts. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lipson subheading was added in this edit here. While it is technically possible this was an editor here, her userpage claims she is a female from Missouri, which I do not believe matches the description of any of our regulars (let's face it, we're only slightly less of a boy's club than CP, but at least here blatant sexism isn't responsible for that). It's gone now, and you probably could have removed it years ago yourself if you wanted to actually change something rather than complain about it. DickTurpis (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dick, but removing the Lipson subhead was {nearly} the first & only edit I did in mainspace last Spring that set off the firestorm of protest; I was immediately threatend with violating BLP, etc. A WP neutral Admin intervened, agreed with me, replaced it with the current Rationalwiki subheading, then recreated the wp:Rationalwiki article which immediartely was nomiated for deletion, which even Trent & Sid voted to Delete. Which also led to me being de-sysoped at Rationalwiki. None of this was surprising. The overall point now is, the notion TK & I colluded in WP to hide his identity is so far off base -- and not supported by any Conservaleaks revelations -- it's amazing several Rationalwiki editors would sign postings thinking its true. And most amazing of all, given everthing everyone knows of TK's character and habits, my telling of events fit exactly wih his clumsiness, insensitivity, failure to see a larger picture, self absorption to the point of self-recklessness, working agasinst the best interests of himself, fellow sysops, and the CP project, not caring about any rules and making an ass of himself in front of the entire Wiki Admin community. Simply tone deaf to common sense and common interests. That was my experience of working with TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lipson subhead existed between August '09 and March '10. Unless you edit under a different name than Nobs01, the only edits you made to the article that I can see in that space were adding a few inapplicable templates to that section, so your insistence that removing that subhead was the first thing you did doesn't hold water. Diffs, or it didn't happen. DickTurpis (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is many many diffs; you could begin here, here and here, although the first threat of action against me came at the WP:COI noticeboard when I posted my intention to edit the article and asked for neutral admin supervision. Pay attention to my, neutral Admins Dmcq, BFizz, and Papa Somebody-or-other, Tmt, Sid, and later PalMD's postings. Virtually all others -- including TK -- are extraneous, and trolling. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Talk page edits. So when you say "removing the Lipson subhead was {nearly} the first & only edit I did in mainspace last Spring that set off the firestorm of protest" what you meant was "I did nothing of the sort, but engaged in my standard tactic of making incomprehensible assertions and glaring non-sequiturs on a talk page until I was basically told by all parties to shut the fuck up and quit trolling". Basically the same thing. Nice work. DickTurpis (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's late. I'm tired. But those three links all provide evidence I tried to move the issue of challenging Lipson's expertise as a critic to Mediation with whoever challenged my claim, namely Trent & Sid. I had trouble hanging as much as a dispute tag, and had to get neutral admins to do it. Nowhere do I act in collussion with TK. In fact, the whole page reveals TK derailing my efforts with his bullshit, crassness, and personal problems, along with an army RW meatpuppets. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to rehash old arguments here, but Lipson isn't presented as an expert in the article, so your challenge is trite. It just presents brief information from the LA Times article. Here you add a tag questioning whether Lipson is a reliable source, even though he isn't a source, the Times is. I looked over your talk page rants and all you ever seem to do is hang tags on the article and whine when they're removed. I can basically paraphrase every conversation you had on that talk page:

You: This article is biased.

Random WP guy: How is it biased?

You: Rationalwiki is a vandal site

Random WP guy: What does that have to do with the content of the article?

You: I think I found a better tag for the article.

Random WP guy: Can you explain what problems the article has that warrant this tag?

You: Rationalwiki isn't notable.

Random WP guy: Can you please specify what changes you'd like to see made to the article.

You: I think Peter Lipson lied to the LA Times.

And you wonder why no one took you seriously? Whether or not you were in collusion with TK doesn't matter, though I do think it's pretty amusing that now that he's dead you like to pretend you opposed TK all along. As director of counter intelligence you did a great job thwarting his every move. DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

--PsyGremlinPrata! 13:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• (A) Lipson is identified as an internist from Southfield Michigan (qualified expert) and given a subheading (notrability).
• (B) Conservaleaks reveals no collussion between myself & TK's antics, to the contrary, it shows at every step of the turn TK ignored my advice on how to deal with a problem he created for himself.
• (C) Conservaleaks, Philip Rayments expose I was a Conservapedia Administrator, and several Rationalwiki 2.0 mainspace articles all show TK and myself consisten tly at odds, and in most instances on how to deal with Rationalwiki editors. The record shows, I have enjoyed many hours of stimulating, amusing, and even at times constructive editing with virtually all RW early founding editors (aside, RW has gone to hell since elevating people like Ace McWicked to Bureacratship); compare my block log of RW editors to TK's. I must admit though, since his reported death, there are times I do suspect TK was an RW plant all along. On balance, he certainly did as much to help RW, and hurt CP, as Trent, Human, Sid & the rest. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• (D) And "vandal site". I don't believe there is a single instance of me using the term, "vandal site" in CP, the discussion lists, RW, or WP. "Vandal site" is a code used becsaausew nof the spam block list, and I have been noticeably absent from any ofthose discussions, anywhere. Youn obviously have me confused with others, not surprising though, given these exhibited bigotted stereotypes. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"notrability", "consisten tly". "becsaausew ". Fuck, Robbie, been drinkin' again? P-Foster (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That said, the next postwas is also hysterical, with PJR ranting about Ken and his "plans" - I love this bit:

He has an Intelligent Design Movement "leader" writing a new Intelligent Design article to replace the existing one. I asked him who this person is, but he wouldn't say, as he doesn't have their permission to reveal their identity. He does indicate that the new article (once posted) might immediately be locked because it is likely to attract vandalism.

Say hello to Freedom777, aka Ken, everybody. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mustelid is right; I overlooked a certain significant preposition there. Oh well. Mountain Blue 12:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So WP accuses us of promoting German or Italian-style fascism. So what? Anyone who looks at our site will know that that's not true. - Yeah, looking maybe, if you're half blind - but try editing.

Also "German or Italian-style fascism", ehm can somebody tell me what he specifically meant there? Or is he just forgetting about other dictatorships like France (yeah ok only half of it), Spain and Hungary? --UHM^harass_me 13:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that Franco et al qualify as good fascists in Rob's mind and thus can't be included under the fascist umbrella. Then again, it's Rob - who the hell knows what he thinks. If at all. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Show a link I eve made any such statement. Put up or shut up. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rob. Please look up the word "assume" and get back to me. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobby, please don't edit other people's posts. You are free to comment but don't change them. Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh. "Nobs". X Stickman (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"clumsiness, insensitivity, failure to see a larger picture, self absorption to the point of self-recklessness, not caring about any rules, tone deaf to common sense and common interests, bullshit, crassness, and personal problems," ad infitum

I don't know about you all, but I for one am touched that Rob finally gets to say after TK's death all the things he always wanted to say about him while he was alive. Keep it classy, Rob. Junggai (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, you don't expect Rob to speak up against somebody whose shoelaces are hanging out St Schlafly's ass do you? Who needs integrity when you have a right-wing fuck knuckle to suck up to, in order to get your paranoid lies published somewhere on the web. Even if it is a stagnant backwater. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did think it midly amusing that nobs is now attacking tk. At least in general people at RW were consistent in their comments about TK, no-one has made him out to be some kind of saint since he died. Whereas his friends at cp couldn't be arsed to check if he was ok and now that he is dead they merrily piss on his grave. Classy, and classic, wingnut behaviour as always. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

gee, you're so polite to our friend robs--Brxbrx (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's round out the picture: TK did not leak all the material. For example, Philip Rayment published this extractrcation from the Special Discussion List:

• TK is a member of Rationalwiki, using the name "EWig".

He has been banning good CP users and installing

subversive "socks" from rationalwiki, and passing

information from the CP sysops

"special-discussion-group" mailing list and copies of

your emails to rationalwiki members, and is trying to frame Rob S for it.

I leaked this in recent days, from December 2007:

Terry to special-discus.

show details 7/2/07

Are you a moron? I pasted, in its entirety, Andy’s statement about using Wikipedia, Rob. That was the point.

I urge you to stop, as each post of yours shows a hatred and personal animosity that point to you as the source for the email.

None of this should be new, at least to oldtime Rationalwikians. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"I do suspect TK was an RW plant all along. On balance, he certainly did as much to help RW, and hurt CP, as Trent, Human, Sid & the rest." I lolled three times. "Hurt" CP? Only TK there, I don't see what T, S, & I ever did other than getting kicked out two or three times each for no good reason. Nobs, you make my sides hurt sometimes. ħuman 04:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if anyone has seriously reviewed Conservaleaks content, or observed discussions here for several years, they can determine TK & I were at odds on how to deal with RW editors. Despite abuse I'v recieved here from editors like Kels & Ace, I have consistantly argued some RW editors may be useful in helping to build CP content. I have long argued for open editing. Now that TK is gone, I may be in a better position to advocate that view. But some idiots & trolls here still have a shit-ass attitude toward me (begining with Ace's hypocritical decision to de-sysop me) and continue to confuse me, my motives and methods, with TK. nobs^{don't bother me} 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please show us where you've taken the matter regarding TK's actions on CP up with Andy directly, or for that matter proposed open editing. It's one thing to have handbags at dawn with TK (hell, even I used to do that back in the ZB days) but another arguing policy with Andy - especially where his favourite son was concerned. --PsyGremlin講話 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here: User:RobSmith#Inclusions_to_be_merged_in_Conservaleaks; to wit, Questions to TK (December 2007),

• Rob Smith to Aschlafly

show details 12/1/07

As to the TK controversy, my position is unchanged from when I asked this question -- and never received a satisfactory answer. While his technical knowledge and contributions have been helpful, there's been a pattern of deception from the beginning, of which opening the special-discussion list is only the latest. So I'd be inclined to vote no against bringing him back, but I don't really want to discuss it publicly.

Also here's a good post detailing your plan of action. Strange, can't see you arguing with TK much here. perhaps you could show us examples where you did disagree with TK, seeing as you're so adamant it happened? --PsyGremlinParla! 13:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Subject title from the ZG group, "Progress in NPOV in WP related Articles", that was my plan of action, eliminating Peter Lipson as a reputable expert critic. Once TK got involved in the WP controversy, he derailed my efforts by getting the focus on his behavior. I've posted elsewhere in RW very recently documentation how he did this (the TK/talk page, WIGO, and Forum Conservaleaks III). His agenda was very differnt from mine. All he did was muddy the waters on the NPOV dispute, and get his WP editing restrictd. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you seriously do not understand TK. TK was never a RW plant trying to undermine CP, TK was always his own man playing his own games. He used both sites for his own amusement. The difference is how we treated him. At CP Andy promoted him and gave him powers which he wielded sadistically. At RW we told him to fuck off as we didn't want him to screw up our site as well. I'm afraid that the mob overruled vanity.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I opposed TKs sysopship from the beginning, based upon his forgery of Andy's signature to promote himself. I never trusted him. But TK is a good example as to how I have been able to still have a working, collaboratve relationship with eidotrs of diverse opinions, among which alos count Trent Toulouse, Human, Ames Grawert, Chip Berlet in WP, of the notorious sockpuppet king with Arbitration sanctions in Wikipedia known as Ruy Lopez (not to be confused with Ken Demeyer who also used the same moniker in RW, I believe). Users Kels & AceMcWicked are abut the only mindless partisan hacks I've ever had trouble collaborating with, but I don't think I've ever encountered either in mainspace anywhere). nobs^{don't bother me} 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As a mindless partisan hack (defined as one who refuses to compromise with a wanna-be propagandist like you, Rob), I wear that lable with pride. --Kels (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"I have consistantly argued some RW editors may be useful in helping to build CP content. I have long argued for open editing. Now that TK is gone, I may be in a better position to advocate that view." - Rob, CP is dead. I'm truly sorry, but you're standing in front of a tombstone with a band-aid in your hand. This isn't some Disney movie where the kingdom is magically restored the moment the bad guy is defeated. You really need to take a critical look at CP - TK was only part of the problem. I'll tell you the same I told Ed last year: "CP is beyond salvaging - burn it down and start from scratch." If you seriously need me to elaborate, I could see if I can find the time to do so. --Sid (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. TK's dead. I saw somebody from India at WP Consevapedia/talk the other day asking about range blocks. I could undo some of that. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd do not just us, but also the project many favors if you could undo CP's 403 orgy. Just keep in mind that the most recent wave was unleashed long after the discovery of TK's death. I encourage you to open up CP, but be aware that it's still going to be a major uphill battle. And don't get me wrong, while I fear that opening CP up now won't be enough to get it off the ground (if you can open it up at all in the first place, that is), I'd of course be happy to be proven wrong. --Sid (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problems: (a) I'm much more interested in content, and personally contributing content, than vandal patrol, etc.; (b) my technical skill are limited (I'm a humanities & social scientist, not a computer geek or natural scientist; (c) I haven't a clue what a 403 block is, and am extremely limited in time to learn. But good faith editors I can work with, regardless how whacked out & innane thier personal views & politics are, within reason.

Here's an interesting discussion with me, TK, Andy, and Terry H where I bring up open editing. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Reader's Digest version of the 403 thing is this: Somebody (Andy or the webmaster, most likely) has blocked several IP ranges not in MediaWiki, but on the server level. This means that people with such an IP will not even be able to view CP. All they get is this: "403 Forbidden - You don't have permission to access /[pagename] on this server." If you want to get anywhere near open editing, this is the first thing that MUST go. Right now, entire ISPs around the world are unable to read CP. --Sid (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Right now there's a discussion on "clickbot attacks" on the list; according to Trent, CP wouldn't even be rated by Alexa if not for clickbots, as I understand it. Is this true? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly many of CP's most "viewed" articles appeared to have their counts inflated artificially. This is what got CP some notoriety when 9/10 of the top articles were homosexuality related. Many pages including Atheism, Evolution, Sarah Palin and Obama have all been targeted. Look at the CP Statistics page and tell me if you think that the web are really flocking to cp:Secularized Language or cp:Muslim agenda of the Obama administration. Andy has known about pageview bumping since summer 2007, in the SDG he asks about a large number of page requests coming from one IP. He gets the server logs and can see which pages are being hit but he is deceitful and pretends that they are all genuine visitors. Even Ken knows that his pet pages are being artificially inflated but he is happy to lap up the numbers as some sort of proof of his SEO tactics. However, I don't believe that the recent problems were a result of "clickbots" as there appeared to have been a world-wide DDoS attack on many sites including RW and the BBC. Andy's response has been to block much of the outside world from even seeing CP. Генгис^{Gum disease} 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. That disucussion first appears here: block all foreign IP's? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you need to go back to August 2007 when Andy first becomes aware of clickbotting. Генгис^{Gum disease} 6:04 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Incorrect. The policy of blocking whole countries was implemented shortly after the link I provided. nobs^{don't bother me}

Rob, your comprehension skills are appalling. August 2007 was when Andy first became aware of clickbots inflating his page counts. Генгис^{Gum disease} 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yah but the subject under discussion is range blocks. See WP Talk:Conservapedia, particularly the last two comments,

I'm from India, and I've been getting this 403 message for quite some time now.....

It looks like they are chopping off all access from outside the United States as part of a deliberate policy....

The link provided confirms this is a deliberate policy. nobs^{don't bother me}

Mh, careful, you might be confusing blocking and 403-blocking there. Jpatt's question in the thread directly points at this difference ("Am I correct to say they can still read Conservapedia, just not edit?"), and TK's counter-suggestion (Flagged Revisions) seems to indicate that the topic at hand had been regular range-blocks within MediaWiki (the regular kind that prevents you from editing, but not reading). If the subject had been 403 blocks, Andy would have been suggesting to literally prevent every non-US IP from reading CP - pure lunacy that goes way beyond even the current 403 wave. --Sid (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's helpful. Andy's concern was that a lot of German & Irish proxies were being used to vandalize, so given there wasn't many editors or contriutors coming from there, to go a head and range block those IPs. India, however, is an English speaking county & damn near 20% of the planet. These 403 blocks are appearing, I assume, since Tk's death. So I'm uncertain what the cause is. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Silence, liberal! Don't you know the conservative MSM and the Tea Party faithful are going to latch onto CP and Andy's dribblings any day now, just like they've been doing over the past 4 years. Any... day... now... Seriously though Rob, you were warned from the start about TK - by fellow sysops PJR, LearnTogether, Jallen, CPAdmin1. Hell, even Karajerk and Ed had stuff to say... but not to his face of course. Now, you've lost half your administrators and virtually all your editors thanks mainly to him. Although Ken's flying kitties helped too. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriosly no. I warned about TK since before he got sysoped. He was a guy I kept a close eye on from his first edit. When Andy sysoped him, that leveled the playingfield. Review TK's early edits from before he ever got sysoped and uyou'll see me keeping a close eye on him. TK spent probably more time tryiomng to gain my confidence than anyone else during his entire CP career, save perhapos Andy. He got Andy's confdence to limited extent, but never mine. I never would have granted him the power he got, but TK also knew Andy has never denied me anything I have ever asked of him. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"I warned about TK since before he got sysoped." ...and he got sysoped anyway, and allowed to speak in Andy's name and ride roughshod over the rest of you. Way to be totally ineffectual, dude. Feel free to bring up other examples of you being incompetent and not taken seriously, it's quite fun. --Kels (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

no need to be mean. I'm sure RobS has been quite effective at contributing plenty to conservapedia. I don't get why we're such dicks to this guy--Brxbrx (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, Rob, for someone who never liked nor trusted TK, and was a huge proponent of open editing, the bottom of this section makes you seem like a guy who's thick as thieves with TK, and favors banning users who argue legitimate points. DickTurpis (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Dick, that's all part of the larger discussion about the definitions, "a liberal is a leftist" and "a leftist is a liberal", part of the legacy of Rationalwiki 1.0 "cyber-vandalism". Early in my Wikipedia career I encountered "gay bashing is a form of McCarthyism" (diff provided upon request) in a mainspace article. Thank God -- and I directly take credit for forcing these issues in numerous WP articles -- Wikipedia is much improved from those days.

The discussion about "a leftist is a liberal" and such was your red herring, not mine (yes, I was BillyFranco). At the time, CP didn't really specify what the difference was between a liberal and a leftist. Now I see the cp:leftist article basically defines a leftist as a radical liberal, so leftists are liberals (although I guess not all liberals are leftists, even though I bet Andy would disagree). So Phelps wasn't just a liberal, but a radical liberal, according to the CP article on him as it stood at the time. I tried to point out that he did not appear to have one strong, discernible liberal trait (let alone a radical one), and about the only belief he seemed to hold strongly was a very anti-liberal one: utter condemnation of homosexuality. You were unable to provide one single opinion Phelps held that qualified as liberal or leftist (the difference between the two is still damn unclear), so you dodged the question, and though you didn't ban me, you lauded TK for doing so (despite the fact that you opposed his overall Modus Opperandi, and believed in open editing). None of this is terribly relevant to the discussion except the last bit: high-fiving TK for blocking a guy whose arguments rendered you incapable of an intelligent response. This is of course just one example; I'm sure there are hundreds of others.

I don't really want to reopen the "what makes Phelps a liberal?" argument here, as it doesn't pertain to the discussion, but since you can't ban me here, I'd be happy to delve into it again on your talk page. DickTurpis (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked for sockpuppetry -- a prett clear violation. And I engaged w/you to the bitter end, in good faith on the substance issues and merits. I didn't run Checkuser cause I exhibited good faith. Specifically on my handling of Phelps liberalism, see also wp:Immanent critique,

As a dissenting motif... immanent critique tests the postulates of orthodoxy by the latter's own standards... and certain strategic contradictions located. These contradictions are then developed according to their own logic, and at some point ... the one-sided proclamations of orthodoxy collapse as material instances and their contradictions are allowed to develop 'naturally.'

I have another very recent imminent critque example I'm developing, vis-a-vis the Glenn Beck firing. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Worst response yet. Some poorly thought out pseudopsychological BS and a link to a Wikipedia article that doesn't exist. As I said, this isn't the place to reopen the Phelps argument. I'll start a new topic on your talk page and give you a chance to actually try to respond in a way that doesn't sound like you had half your brain removed. DickTurpis (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the link. See also wp:Cultural_Marxism#Frankfurt_School_and_critical_theory and Political correctness for more background. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Fucking Christ, a picture of the flying kitty would have been more relevant to the topic. Better, as it would have at least made me laugh. But the discussion's been moved elsewhere, so I'll let it rest for now. DickTurpis (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"I think we've shown his intolerance and close mindedness. What more liberal traits do we have to prove? Rob Smith 16:16, 28 February 2010 (EST)" Nutty Roux (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And here' an excerpt from a very interesting discussion in Conservaleaks, Rational (ha) Response Squad (November 2007).

• Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:10:23 -0500:

Rob: That's all very well, but I'm not going to shun any particular group because some liberal jerk says that they're racist...

• "Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:36:41 -0700:

(a) You have no evidence to call them "liberal,"...

The whole thread is interesting for true RW/CP war buff junkies. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One of CP's more rational editors leaves; Andy is an asshole

AlaskanEconomy, who I thought to have been one of CP's most rational editors, just quit,^img confirming that observation. I find this newsworthy not because he/she was particularly important (although he/she was one of the more helpful contributors^img—being the person who actually fixed that stupid "35% of public schools don't graduate" factoid that Andy insisted was correct, and overall being relatively normal) but because of Andy's reaction^img.

I think at this point AE has aligned him/herself with the Conservapedia cause, yet Andy still falls back to his default argument: liberal! Atheist! Against classroom prayer! This is a man who knows he has lost... -Jpop (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone thinks this is worth a WIGO, go ahead. I've done enough for the time being... -Jpop (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well clearly if you disagree with Andy at all you must be not a conservative. --Opcn (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also: Isn't pretty much all criticism of Conservapedia a Parthian shot at this point? If you get blocked for 5 years as soon as you level criticism at the way the project is being run every critique is someones last. --Opcn (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Where was that discussion where questioning andy got a lot of bible verses about questioning god?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's such a typical Andy reaction - play the man and not the ball. Instead of manning up and addressing the points raised, Andy simply flings his usual inane snarl words... liberal... evolutionist... atheist... hoping that will somehow discredit his questioner. All it does is make Andy look an even bigger ignoramus. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Scrap that. Ken's just weighed in,^img to prove to us that he's the biggest ignoramus, whilst raising the spectre of the Flying Kitty all over again. Nice last-wordism there, fuckwit. Also, here's a challenge Ken - please provide links of the two videos that were "made inoperable" I'd love to see what morons are actually seeing your work in a positive light. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody give a screencap of AE's post, please? I'm always interested in those "I tried, but..." stories... --Sid (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see AE's post just above Andy's reply in the first post's link. --PsyGremlinFale! 11:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see the lot in this diff^img which Ken has just vomited on. Генгис^{Gum disease} 11:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Between the sincere editors that either get blocked immediately or attempt to contribute and fail, the parodists that occasionally chime in to further the delusions, and of course the useless bunch that is the administrators, it's no surprise the project goes nowhere (and never went anywhere in the first place). άλφα^Talk 11:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I hadn't realized that that paragraph was already the entire message. --Sid (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh look - Creepy Uncle Ed wants to kiss and make it better in his own special way.^img I love how in the same sentence where Ed asks how he tried to improve articles, d mentions he chided him for bias. Well, there were the improvements, right there, Smeg Ed. However, given his defence of Ken's "well-researched" Evolution article and his defence of the "flying felines" I'm starting to think our Ed is taking the piss with Andy. Well, I'd love to believe that. Sadly, the man is too much of a suck up to Brother Leader to even think about questioning him. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I also find it wildly amusing that the user said his bit and left and three CP sysops have engaged in liberal last-wordism. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to check a few times to make sure that wasn't another sysop writing those things about Ed specifically. What a hopeless ignoramus. Everything he touches turns to shit if people let it. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Another user just asked for their account to be deleted, and Karajou reverted his edit^img Manuel (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the KaraMcFuckhead approach to conflict resolution. "What? Unhappy? Here? You? Cannot be!!! Die! Die! Die! Die! Ok, move along folks, nothing to see, everybody's happy here..." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Don't worry, our time will come" SPOILER ALERT: No it won't. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to Ed

If you had bothered to read what he wrote you would notice that the improvements that AE was talking about went unmade, because CP wasn't worth the effort. Why on earth are you asking where you can see the improvements that weren't made? --Opcn (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Best New Conservative Words will beat Teh Gays

And that's not Andy saying it, it's recognised by even the lamest of the lamestream media. Have at it. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 06:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I laughed out loud (no, really) at "skilled heterosexuals" (re: sodomy). Nice one. ħuman 07:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I especially love the guy who says that "promoting gays in the military presents a national threat" because it all "comes down to the soldier who 'has your back or the one who wants to rub it.'" and it's stuff like this were I wonder were these people take their information from that every gay man wants to have sex with every man. Maybe it's a reflection thing were they transform there own lust on all the people their "boss" say are bad, but in the end they all want the same: boom-boom, lot's of it. --UHM^harass_me 09:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From the Huff Post article: "Later in the discussion, it was suggested that gays should also be referred to as "anti-Christian."". Don't tell all those RC priests - it might put them off their altar boys. --Scream!! (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. No true Christian could be a homosexual. Therefore, homosexuality is anti-Christian. Perfect logic! άλφα^Talk 11:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(To Ullhateme) Well, I can't speak for gay men, but I remember my early twenties. I pretty much did want to have sex with damn near every woman I saw. So, it just stands to reason ... Phiwum (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make a WIGO about this, but I'll just put it here instead: "The word 'gay' gives them grounds to demand fundamental rights! To rectify this, let's rename them as sodomites or anti-christians and instead them grounds to charge us for hate speech. Conservatives FTW!"

No but seriously, I lol'd at "unnatural vice". - Jpop (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Phiwum: Yeah I'll give you that, but if that were the real reason they should also use that crap on women in the military - I've never heart it though. And even with that thought in mind the argument is stupid, wouldn't you wanna save a person even more if you wanted to sleep with him/her? Except of course if you have necrophilia but that's a whol different discussion... Are they actually expecting people under fire starring at each others crotches instead of firing back? --UHM^harass_me 00:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly fair to the opposition, UHM, some of the opposition to women in combat troops is defended in terms of distractions in (or near) the battlefield. Of course, the reaction to this concern is fairly different: women have had a non-combat role in the military for some time, but no one is advocating that gays can serve, so long as they serve far enough back that they don't distract our fighting boys. (But, in any case, my reaction was intended primarily as a joke, of course.) Phiwum (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Being realistic, it's impossible to keep gays out of the military. All you can do is stop them being openly gay while serving. That said, from their point of view, wouldn't it be better to have the gay troops identified so you can... I dunno, sprinkle a salt circle around their bunk or whatever it is you do rather than have secret gays everywhere being secretively gay behind your back, about you? X Stickman (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My grandfather (a WW2 veteran whose military records and recollections were both conveniently incomplete) said that he was opposed to female front line troops because of his experiences with resistance workers behind the lines in occupied Europe (many of whom were women, naturally, including some of the most famous). He said he saw men risk their own necks too often to try to save a woman who would have been left for dead if they were just another soldier. I have some sympathy for this view - except that it's got nothing to do with gender. Powerful bonds sometimes cause one human to take undue risks to protect another. If it's Barry and he goes back for his best friend Charlie under sniper fire and they both live, he gets a medal. But weirdly if Barry goes back for Sheryl people say it's because she was a woman and she put everyone at additional risk. And if Charlie is more than "just a friend", it's a national disaster. Yeah, no. Not buying it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Phiwum: I thought you were just playing devil's advocat, which I have no problem with. Actually I now remember that my mother made that argument once - I even thought it was was crap when I was 12. If the men run back for the women and not otherwise, shouldn't the men then get thrown out of the forces? But then we'd have an army full of women! Ahh! World's gotta end soon! But in the end I agree with the BoN: I'm just not bying it. --UHM^harass_me 16:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing about men having to go back for an injured female colleague seems a little like special pleading. Why would a man have to go back rather than another woman? Because they only have the one token woman who needs to be taken special care of? I would imagine that any frontline soldier has earned the respect of their comrades if they have made it through the same training together. Squaddies that I have known often have a very strong bond with their mates because they are all in it together and would go back for them no matter what gender. I have to commend some of Hollywood's efforts (usually sci-fi) where female combatants have been every bit as tough and kickass as their male companions.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is rescuing an injured comrade, male or female, seen as some kind of bad thing? Norman schwarzkopf got a medal for it. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may play Dick's Advocaat for a minute; by doing something which might imperil your own safety others may then feel obliged to rescue you and thereby put themselves in greater danger, or your loss/delay as a member of a fighting unit may then undermine the safety of the entire group. In all honesty it's a judgement call at the time. If it works you're a hero, if it doesn't you're a twat.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Old question, but... who's left?

I know this question comes up every once in a while, but given the 403'd status of the entire planet, or at least where I am, I can't find the answer for myself. So I ask: who's left? The administrators are obviously still "working" away, but with the departure of AlaskanEconomy, there can't be too many normal editors left, right? I'm not looking for outing who's parody and who's not, but there cant' be too many regular editors left right? I'm looking forward to the day that only the administrators edit and no one else. Maybe it's already arrived, I don't know. It's difficult to ascertain without viewing CP directly. άλφα^Talk 11:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there's this. Not sure how up to date it is, but it should give a pretty good idea of things. AE was only "Semi-active", so he won't have left a big hole in their userbase. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC - bastard!)The easiest was to answer that is to look at LArron's graphs. For March - 53% of ALL edits were made by 6 sysops (and this was during Ken's "holiday" when his contribution did slack off - only because he was oversighting everything he did)^{This closing parenthesis brought to you by User:1}. A total of 25% of all edits were made by users with no rights at all - of these, 9% were subsequently blocked.

So to answer your question - yes, CP has been virtually reduced to the ramblings of 6 sysops. Although that need a bit of a tweak - Addision only pops up rarely, and TerryH and Rob 'Ooh Kara' Smith dropped off the map in March. Maybe CP has become too nutty for Terry Chuckarse. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse doesn't get paid at CP. Генгис^{Gum disease} 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to know; I totally forgot about LArron's graphs! Thanks for pointing me that way. άλφα^Talk 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging by his commenters 10:1 being outspoken critics of his anti-science diarrhea I'd say he's not making that much at Examiner either. The full extent of his positive support are a few other fundie loon "Examiners" who come by to bump his pageviews and drop oblique pick-me-ups about how the atheist evilutionist make him money too. There there, Terry. Save your pennies. Nobody really ever had high expectations of you whether during your "Yale days," your failed attempt at being a physician, or any of your other failed attempts to make a splash: you were always too big an embarrassingly narcissistic cunt to get along wherever you found yourself. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you all for remembering me
• I try to keep Conservapedia:Active_users up to date - the data was updated last time at Apr 4, 2011
• For a while, I added pics and stats which I thought to be interesting at my talk page: There you'll find Conservapedia's stats for Mar 2011, too. But there is no general interest in such things, I'm sorry to say.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I for one find your graphs useful and informative. And very handy for discussions like this. Keep up the good work Sir! --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LArron, the graphs are fantastic. You are referring to the fact that they do not generate many page views, ie. not many people click on them. But since they are usually accompanied by a concise description it often isn't necessary to actually click on the graph to see what is happening. That doesn't mean we're not paying attention :) D.T.F. (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Those graphs are absolutely brilliant and I'd certainly hate to lose them. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! NDSP 08:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with these comments. I even conarthropleura with them. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Again, thank you all - especially PsyGremlin, who always has an encouraging comment! Really, I like those, though the best compliment was provided by the late TK:

RonLar is Larron backwards...and he is taking our POV apart with Larron's typical boatload of charts! Everyone wave goodbye to him. TK, Aug 4, 2010

• Composing these little pics is a nice way of procrastination, so there is no danger of losing them
• But I'm still not knowing where to put them best - besides illustrating articles, that is :-) A pic which isn't linked to on any page, but just appears in RC will be watched perhaps ten times. Putting them here at Wigo-talk usually generates 10-100 additional hits. But after a short time, everything done here is buried in the archives. And it is quite painful to search to these for something you vaguely remember to have seen in the past... So, I thought of my talk page, where the liquid threads would make it easier to organize them. But these liquid threads have some disadvantages:

1. When you are watching a page, you are informed about any single edit at this page in your messages. That's quite annoying, so at least I have unwatched virtually all pages using liquid threads.
2. A lively thread therefore passes often unnoticed: only the creation of a new thread appears in Special:RecentChanges, while every subsequent comment seems to be hidden from RC. I haven't found a way to change that...

• It feels utterly narcissistic to link from Wigo to the own talk-page (Look at me! Look at me! - See, I've done it again...)

In short: the pics keep on coming - I just don't know where to ... larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

"According to Andy, racial tolerance is exclusive to liberals"

I'm with Assfly on this one. How is it not a double-standard to deny the pro-life club status? How does the MPR post say racial tolerance is exclusive to liberals? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it a double standard? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The stated difference with the club in question was lack of universal support for the student body. You could have a pro-choice club that supported everyone's choice, but you can't have a pro-life club that doesn't. In my opinion, it's not so much a problem with the policy, but the pro-life position itself that doesn't lend itself to make a good school club. Neither would a pro-abortion club, for that matter. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of a pro abortion person. I have heard of people, somewhat like myself, who whilst somewhat opposed to abortion feel that as a male it is not my place to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body so I am FIRMLY in the pro-CHOICE camp. That is not pro abortion and it is not anti abortion, no matter how the wingnuts like to paint it so. It is what it says on the tin. I believe a woman should have the right to choose. End of story. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From the article posted to MPR:

“”More than a dozen other non-curricular clubs are given official school recognition, including the Diversity Club, Environmental Club, Animé Club, and Book Club. Club status rights include meeting at times during a special period, making announcements, and holding fundraising activities. Yet, Dale Carlson, principal of St. Michael-Albertville High School, has denied ALIV equal treatment. ADF pointed out that District Policy 801 requires equal access for clubs for “religious, political, or philosophical reasons during non-instructional time.”

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But what was the principal's basis for denying the club's charter? Why is it a double standard and not a mistake, or even a permissible decision under some other policy? I'm just suspicious of any issue-framing that fundie wingers do since they have such a clear record of ignoring inconvenient facts. but who knows. Maybe Andy's right. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The first two club examples are a little weird, but not necessarily exclusive (unless you count racists or fans of pollution); it depends on what they actually do. "Pro-life" is a specific religious/political/philosophical position. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that they aren't supportive of the entire student body. School clubs are meant to unite, not divide. It's that simple. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, I'm not sure how students who hate anime would be supported any more by the anime club than students who 'hate babies' would be supported by the pro-life club. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As the person who put up that WIGO, here's my take: firstly, he calls it a liberal double standard that a diversity club is allowed but not a pro-life club? Would that not imply that diversity is a liberal concept? Otherwise it is in no way a double standard, as he would be saying that "they didn't allow this political club, but they allow neutral clubs! LIBERALS!!!" which is obviously wrong, even to Andy. I'm confused as to why it has so many negative votes, I thought that was pretty clear.

Anyway, a pro-life club is very political and it is a religious ideal, two things schools are supposed to avoid. It's pretty clear that there is a huge disparity and the acceptability of a pro-life club vs. an anime club. - Jpop (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But the school, according to the policy, is required to allow access for political and religious clubs. In any case, this is a due diligence fail by me (scrolled past the header to the story without realizing it was a fundy news site). Apparently, the club is allowed to meet (according to the local ABC affiliate), just not during school hours, so this whole thing is BS anyway. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Offed myself

I was DennyW66, and I offed myself a few minutes ago. If you want to see my parthian shot on Assfly's talk page, check recent changes (DouglasA deleted it already...pretty sure that violates a CP commandment).

Flubber (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here it is. http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=108781&diff=861366&oldid=861356^img Flubber (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What's your response to Karaturd's dig?^img He has a penchant for lying about anything and everything. Is it true that you "came and went under five or six user accounts?" Nutty Roux (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He's lying. By my count it was 4. He also didn't block me, as I kissed ass, just proving a point proven many a time before. Flubber (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

EC Lookatmelookatmemomlookatme. Jesus, don't be such a fuckin' n00b. Crying for attention here over the wiki-suicide of a completely unremarkable CP editor who only lasted, what, three weeks? There are people here who've kept socks running since 2007 and have never drawn attention to themselves. Come back when you're ready for the big time. kid. P-Foster (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(ECx3) Seriously, it's uncool to do something on CP and then openly post about it here. Anything you do there is done under your own auspices; when you admit it here you make us all complicit in their eyes. Генгис^{Gum disease} 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The only exception to this is: When you notice a new CP editor (who isn't you) and every once in a while alluding to making a bunch of edits to article X just to see if they'll take the bait and block a (potentially) useful editor for fear it may be one of us. Once or twice a YEAR is the limit on that though, and twice is pushing it. 21:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

you were kind of obvious--Brxbrx (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully I read this post before I came out with all my socks! I was hoping to emerge victorious on RW after unveiling that my sycophantic actions toward the sad, lonely fringe of reality, following a tired pattern of every sock before me, would earn me my long sought admiration of the RW community. I'm only impressed with people that sock up on CP now because I'm impressed they can actually even view the site itself... my little corner of Europe has been 403'd since I arrived. άλφα^Talk 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My only admission involving the sock I used on CP for a while was that I actually enjoyed running it... which is really just sad. So much power to terrorize editors attempting to work legitimately! Good times. άλφα^Talk 20:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so Was Kara talking about AE or this other person when he complained about the 5 or 6 socks. Or was AE the same as this other person who self outed here? --Opcn (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No and no. It was the dildo up top. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Andy's income

Is there any reliable information about Andrew Schlafly's annual income? --PLF (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See the numerous previous threads about this, the most recent of which is here. άλφα^Talk 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

He may already be a winner, several times a year! 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Other than conjecture about his political retainers I think that reliable information about his income is getting a bit too personal.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A wise man once said "All things are personal." Occasionaluse (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Who's this?

"Those who wallow in feelings of inadequate masculinity become quite destructive, incomparably danger. Those who lack in their private lives any evidence of warrior courage ... are far more likely to cheer on unnecessary wars and other acts of pointless brutality in order to feel the vicarious sensations of courage and masculine strength that they actually lack in their real live" - Karajou? JPatt? Rob Smith? No it's John Wayne. --Scream!! (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me that a few weeks ago i stumbled a quote about the danger America faces from the religious right taking over the Republican Party, and that it should never be allowed to happen. I went "yes, that's so true", scrolled down, and the quote was from that well-known pinko commie Barry Goldwater. It's amazing to see that people like Goldwater and John Wayne now look like moderates. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan on MSNBC sometimes. Evidence of just how some of us here Americans have gone over to the dark dark side methinks. Jimaginator (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pedant's corner

I see that Karajerk's spelling of "transparancy" [sic] in his Transparency award toon was not an isolated mistake^img. Lily ^{Countdown to correction.} 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Best New Conservative Word: "Speling". Newspeak here we come! Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Karajou:That shifty bastard Obama won't tell us his social security number!

I think you misunderstood. Karajou was saying that Obama won't acknowledge his supposed multiple social security numbers, not that he won't make public his social security number. The latter is overtly silly, even for Conservapedia. I propose it be removed, but I'll see what you guys think in case I missed something. - Jpop (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I took it as "He has multiple SSN's and will not release any of them" and simplified it from there, If I was wrong then I have no objection to it being blinked out of existence. --Opcn (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

we are not over-sensationalizing it, when you read it as it's typed it sounds like they wanna know the SSN's for obama. they have to fix it first--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. It's a pretty stupid thing for him to say either way, so it still has my vote. - Jpop (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, just change it to reflect the multiple SSN accusation. I'm excited to see what they'll demand as proof next (which of course didn't matter when the President was white). A DNA test to confirm that he's related to his American mother perhaps? I can see it now: "WHY WON'T OBAMA DIG UP HIS MOTHER'S CORPSE AND RELEASE THE DNA TEST?? THAT PROVES HE'S HIDING SOMETHING!!" Saladin (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We sure Ed isn't taking the piss?

Because when he says,^img "It's when one side demonizes the other and refuses to see any value whatsoever in the other's ideas and contributions, that trouble brews." with one breath and follows it with "Thank God we have a chance for a balanced description of political subjects here! (And everything is political.)'" I have to wonder if the man is actually laughing behind Andy's back. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point I believe that everyone at Conservapedia who isn't Andy is poe--Brxbrx (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, JPratt and Karajou are so dense - they are the real thing. Генгис^{Gum disease} 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

idk... In the leaks I saw karajou critiquing the CBP after having read a a Jack Chick piece critical of it. he was "scared" he might offend god. kind of odd, it seemed. jpatt, sure. but Ken

? no one is that off.--Brxbrx (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I believe that everyone at RW (other than CP sysops) is taking the piss, and CP is a trus_tworthy political encyclopedia. It's the only way to keep my sanity.

As for Ken, it's widely believed he has some sort of emotional problem. Y'know, the actual, medical kind. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken is the archetypal nutter on the bus.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

<rant>Jesus Christ, Ed's so fucking stupid it's unreal. Talk about hypocrisy. "Liberals change the subject and call names" - it's quite possible that literally every single person who has ever disagreed with Andy - or any other of the remaining editors on CP - have been subjected to this before being permanently blocked. "Well researched articles on evolution and atheism" - no, they're not. They're a bunch of truth distorting propaganda biased towards a YEC viewpoint. The flying kitty article? I've seen four year-olds that show more creativity than Ken. What a fucking joke that place is.</SuperJosh's monthly anti-CP rant> SJ ^Debaser 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Ed...

Ed is insulted by mere mention of the flying kitty.^img Why do you find that insulting, Ed? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

because it's really stupid?--Brxbrx (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a rant and a half... obviously hit a nerve somewhere. 17:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, Ed's extra-cranky today. And so much irony-love for this bit: "Unlike conservatives, they don't want anyone checking their work and removing errors of fact or exposing fallacies of reasoning" - that's why CP hides behind 403 rangeblocks, night editing, closed-down registration, locked articles and locked talk pages that redirect to other locked articles. --Sid (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does he come up with this shit? I read and re-read what I think he's responding to and for the life of me I don't see how you can say AE wasn't a decent contributor or how he was an "ideological opponent." Or how any of this shit about conservatives being open and liberals wanting to avoid having their facts checked makes sense on Conservapedia of all places. AE called Andy and his goons on some of their stupid shit. Lots of people do. They're not all enemies. The more responsible approach would be to be ever so slightly reflective when someone makes a cogent objection rather than reframing the entire discussion, to the extent you can call what CP sysops do "discussing," as a "drive by shooting." I mean for fuck's sake look at Ken gibbering like an absolute fucking moron.^img That's enough for my daily outrage. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed has his own preconceptions about editors and doesn't bother researching their edits. That's why we have seen such inane blocking from him and his pathetic demands "to submit a writing plan",which is just a smokescreen for ideological filter. The man is so full if self-import and delusions of adequacy that he's become an inter-wiki joke.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression that he never bothered to read AE's reply, about how he was only targeting RINOs. --Opcn (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed's been in a really bad mood the last few days. It may have been caused by the way SamHB soundly pwned him over the Ada Lovelace issue. Something about how her program wasn't a program because it didn't have flowcharts. (We're waiting to see the flowcharts of Ed's web server stuff that he does for the Moonies, or whatever it is that he does.) And he told Sam "If you want to help, stop editorializing and do some of the research, okay?" Yeah, right. Research. This isn't the first time Sam has put Ed in a bad mood and scared him off of a topic. Ed hasn't done any liveblogging of computer commands since December. Gauss (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Try not to strain yourself patting yourself on the back. As noted below, it's poor form to boast here about your own exploits at CP. Burndall (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's so damn frustrating when no one notices your sock though! --Opcn (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, did the Poor Touch really just write something about the "accepted standards of scholarship"? One of the core principles of real scholarship is to publish so that anyone can read, review and critique your work. 403 server blocks for the majority of the world isn't scholarship Eddy. We'll talk more about your delusions of adequacy when you use your pull as a "Senior Sysop" to allow the world to read your "well researched" articles again. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That old "Einstein was a Christian" story

An interesting little follow up^img to this with Ed and DMorris chipping in. DMorris has to be a parodist, right?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But he seems genuine. Witness his contributions to WP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually he seems to have calmed down a bit lately. Better examples available via RWW. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Lily confused DMorris and DouglasA there? The cap at least has no DMorris post... --Sid (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dang, too right I did. I'm too busy doing two things at once.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Kara's reply is fun: "I think you're right, and I likely quoted a fairytale, but as always, liberals are at fault! They're trying to censor the points of this story by not ignoring that it never happened!" --Sid (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DO we know dmorris is David Morris as claimed on rww? I only ask because there is a Desmond Morris who is a famous anthropologist and biologist who, as he wrote a book called man watching in which he compared the behaviour man to animals (in particular the great apes and chimps) may well not be a staunch yec. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about his being a YEC or not, but based on his user page and his actions on CP, he seems to be some high school or former high school kid who likes having all the power on CP. Reverting vandalism on WP is nice, but maybe he's just upset that he can't get admin rights on WP? άλφα^Talk 20:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense to college students, of course... we're not all bad. άλφα^Talk 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you ought to be, if you can't be bad while you're at college, then it's all rather a waste of time. --Scream!! (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm always a tad too busy to be bad... άλφα^Talk 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DMorris is not a parodist, he is a user at wikipedia with a long all-caps username who effortlessly fought to get a user banned there for (among other reasons) vandalizing CP. Rationalize (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, not a parodist. Just little guy trying to get what little power he can in the wiki world. On WP he was active for a time at Abuse Reports trying to get vandals in trouble IRL (a total waste of time). No chance of getting the mop at WP as he is far to vindictive when it comes to vandals, plus his bizarre obsession with his high school and cheerleaders. --Marlow (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was still a highschooler, so his obsession with highschool is not so very bizarre, and depending on the view of the cheerleaders that might not be too bizarre either, unless he takes it in a bizarre direction. --Opcn (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably still in high school and maybe bizarre is the wrong word, but annoying at the very least, he brings his particular school up at every opportunity and the thing with cheerleaders.... you're supposed to want to sleep with them, not block them for vandalizing a wiki. --Marlow (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well they would be fucking him, but they are too busy editing the wiki to manage. --Opcn (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Snopes isn't really an authoritative source. It's just the opinion of two people, really". So, totally unlike the authoritative and truss-worthy Conservapedia, which is just the opinion of one person, really. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"It's called "censorship through ridicule," and it's a standard liberal tactic today." Oh you lying fucking nitwit (there, I did it!). But seriously, it's a "standard liberal tactic today" is it Brian? Sure you didn't just make that up right there? Because you're a liar? Nutty Roux (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol, "Censorship through ridicule". So what is all this meant to be?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)