Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive237

This is an archive page, last updated 31 May 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>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <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)

TK

Has Conservapedia changed since TK left this sad world of toil? Kirk Johnson (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly been more room for editors to say 'Andy, you're talking crap' and the strange occurrence of account creation / editing being on and off at strange times has stopped. However, Karajou has picked up TK's ban hammer and swings it with glee. All that's really changed is the "I know where you live" creepiness. And the leaked sysop chats of course. --OompaLoompa (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that "liberals" may take some type of joy in TK's death is a very specious and paranoid reason not to acknowledge his passing. Even if this were true, which it mostly is not, why would you take that bait instead of allowing those people let themselves look like assholes? Actually, while RW has not removed postings of substantive content on TK off this site, without objection, some of us have removed some of the opinions and retorts in the mainspace that while may have been OK to say in life, is insensitive to the family in death. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"some of us have removed some of the opinions and retorts in the mainspace that while may have been OK to say in life, is insensitive to the family in death." On CP? Where? P-Foster (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So dying stopped him being a cuntwad? Fucking brilliant. Nightwish (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can view the site again. Have the 403 bans been lifted, or is it probably just that my IP address has randomly reset to something that isn't 403 blocked? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still blocked. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Since the unblocking of Human, CP sysops had a lengthy discussion about being more welcoming to newcomers. I'd appreciate some feedback (if however, a new account's intent is to be a pain in the ass and waste sysops time, don't bother reporting back). And Human, I'll look in to the 403 block, but it may take time cause I have to learn how to do it. If TK 403'd you, it's probably not a problem to undo it. If Karajou or Andy did, that's another matter. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

wow. this and Andy's latest spurt of open-mindedness just might herald a renaissance for CP! Just make sure you focus less on "Obama Kenyan Muslim Communist!" sharticles. You're going to want some moderates.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all very well to talk about a "post-TK era." There should never have been a "TK era" to start with. --OompaLoompa (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, Human is blocked from the server side, not the Wikimedia software. Andy and the webmaster, if there even is one, are the only people who can fix this. From having seen Andy discussing in the SDG or wherever that he's the one who's been server side blocking. You don't need to learn how to do anything. Just ask Andy to unblock New Hampshire from looking at his website. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

^-- What he said. This is 99% likely Andy's doing, though he might have had somebody supplying him with targets. Unblocking New Hampshire would be a good start, but ultimately, the question remains why any IP is blacklisted from even viewing the wiki. If you want feedback on how to be more welcoming, "Allow people to at least take a look at the site" would probably be the #1 item on the list. If you want suggestions beyond that, I can probably compile a short list. --Sid (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a big help tech-wise; I'm assuming Andy was able to review the extensive discussion we had where I was asked to explain & justify my unblocking of Human, although I don't beleive Andy participated. He would probably have to be asked personally & privately. I'd suggest Human do this himself, if he hasn't done it already over the past several years. I wouldn't blame Andy at all if he doesn't have the time dealing with this stuff. Those who now have access, we're counting on you to show active Rationalwiki editors mean no harm to the Conservpaedia project. If trolling, vandalism, and wasting sysops time persists, it's users like Human then who ultimately are denied complete access. I've pretty much done everything possible I can do at this time mend fences. We'll just have to wait and see what develops. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He's already denied complete access. If you discussed unblocking him why don't you go ahead and discuss removing the server side blocks? I'm sure after the disrespectful treatment Human received from a few CP luminaries he didn't ask for anything. Why don't you consider whether it's really true that you've done everything possible to mend fences. Cuz I'm sitting here laughing at you. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can discuss it all I want, but Republicans, and conservatives, generally have jobs, lives, pay taxes, raise families, etc. So if I post to the mailing list, or contact Andy privately, and say, "hey, why do we have these 403 blocks against RW founders? shouldn't we reconsider?" And let's suppose I'm ignored, or worse yet, considered a subversive infiltrator and ignored, what have I accomplished? Let me summarize briefly: I will not attempt something unless there is a reasonable probability of success. Human, et al, are 403'd evidently because of their own actions. Yes, I understand this is a problem for both them & Conservapedia. I tried, but when the fucking mortgage is due, and payroll has to be met, and compliance with workers compensation laws, social security withholding payments made, and a myriad of other problems in running a business, there are limits to what a greedy rich evil capitalist employer can do to help dumb fucks who don't understand a fucking thing about (a) the real fucking world, and (b) "discussing" problems that dumb fucks created for themselves in. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

403s cont

You have no idea whether Human's had an account on CP since he was blocked 4 years ago, yet you're perfectly happy to throw him under the bus when questioned on your bona fides (or sloth, I'm not sure you're describing be lazy or dishonest), as if you know he's done something wrong when you don't. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't now what the case is. Karajou wasn't happy with ublocking Human, but he's not in charge of the 403 blocks. And Andy just plain is not interested in Rationalwiki or its editors, and just does not talk about them at all anymore. So if Andy did the 403's server side, me or you or anybody could probably ask him about it, but I doubt you'd get a response, and if you did you probably wouldn't like it. And if I were to do it, I don't really have a good sales pitch with enough rationales to make it palatable. And even if I did, I can't make a sales pitch for a product I don't beleive in, so Human would have to convince me he means no harm to Andy or the CP project, or at a minimum, he's found respect and tolerance for dissenting views and opinions. These may be a tall order for anyone, kinda like bringing Netanyahu & Abbas to the table. Good luck with that. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a different story than you told above. Why'd you unblock him if you don't have confidence in the product? Human's never given any indication that he did mean harm in the first place. It was all TK poisoning the well and lying to you. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked him. That's the best I can do. When asked by other CP sysps, I said User:Huw Powell was extraordinarily civil (of all RW editors) in last years WP dispute. I've never had any unsightly confrontations with User:Human anywere, not in CP, RW or WP that I know of ('ceptin the time the little prick would not stand up to AceMcWicked over my desysoping, but that wasn't a confrontation between me & Human). And yes, I mistakenly thought Human was AmesG for a long time, but TK showed me enough evidence that convince me otherwise. Now, to ask me to be a public defender or advocate for Human to make a case before whoever's in charge of 403 blocks, that's another matter. We don't even know what the charges are, and it's asking a bit much for me to impinge on somebody elses time who evidently did it for whatever reason. If I had more facts from both sides, I may be in a position to review the evidence from both sides and form an opinion if one or the other side acted unfairly, or one or the other side is being misundestood, etc. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How the hell can anybody think that blocking people from even seeing the site a a reasonable thing to do? You need smarter friends, Robert. P-Foster (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If had to make a guess, I'd say it' probably related to DDoS attacks. But how Human got caught up as being suspected, I can't imagine. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!}

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

How fitting for the anniversary - you sound and act exactly like Geo did four years ago after the Night of the Blunt Knives: "Yep, I'm here to help and to explain." -> "I'm not sure what's going on." -> "Go fuck yourselves, you know why you're blocked and it's all your fault!"

Rob, let me explain the situation in small words you understand: Entire parts of countries believe Conservapedia is so dead it literally doesn't even exist anymore. Go tell a random Brit or German to visit Conservapedia, and the answer will likely be "It's down." This is quite bad for an encyclopedia project and even worse for a site that regularly makes bold challenges and portrays itself as not fearing the opposition. *insert Ken's rabbit-hole picture here*

Look, we completely understand that you - like all active CP sysops - prefer to shut up and play nice in order to maintain power on CP. We're used to that. However, please understand that you can't do that and at the same time claim that you're some awesome bridge-builder who is actively working on improving things.

You know who pointed out uncomfortable truths even when he knew it would bring him nothing but trouble? PJR. Go through the leaked discussions and see how that guy got completely slapped around for making such outrageous suggestions like "Hey, maybe we should actually have solid reasons for banning people!" or "Hey, Bugler and TK have been openly violating the rules/parole/common sense, shouldn't we do something?" or, wow, "Hey, how about we obey the rules we enforce?".

You can bitch, you can whine, you can call us names, but in the end, we all just got proof for what we always suspected: When faced with the decision between potentially losing your pretty rights and attempting to actually improve CP by question He Whose Words Define The Absolute Truth, you pick the easy route. --Sid (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not true. You've read Conservaleaks, and there is no hiding the facts now that CP has always totally lacked any organization whatsoever. Remember, RW Mission Statement is to study Authoritarianism, and you can spin it anyway you want, but the simple truth is CP has always had total anarchy among sysops, while ironically RW now is moving in the direction of authoritarianism (to wit, the powers granted to tmt recently that some now regret). nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the WHOLE of the UK blocked 24 hours a day?????? Kirk Johnson (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe so.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some IPs are blocked constantly (quite a few in Germany) from viewing. But they will 403 any IP which is used to make too many queries: a couple of hits in a minute will do the trick... Theses blocks are only for 5 - 15 minutes. And they don't like browser they don't know - an identification like perl 5.0 is a sure way to get blocked...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Those who can access Conservapedia can help the rest of us a great deal!!! Please copy the sillier parts into RationalWiki so all of us can laugh at it. Kirk Johnson (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought (and with no disrespect to LArron and his awesome bot) why don't the 403 people just use a proxy, instead of of cluttering up RW with more CP-centric stuff? There are plenty of unblocked proxies out there. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OL, um, this is the part of RW that is by definition cp-centric. And why should I learn to use a proxy to access cp after all these years of not bothering? ħuman 05:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My problem is that I can read cp from work and sometimes I can read it from home. I'm not 403'd at home, I just get 'you are trying to open file type....' and then I get server unavailable. Sometimes. But not always. And tbh I can't be arsed to use TOR unless I really need the lulz, I generally wait until I get to work and then laugh at them. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the whole UK blocked? No, I'm in UK & able to view the site now, though I couldn't a month ago. I've never logged into or edited CP from this address, so the statement that users were only 403 blocked for their own actions on CP is clearly untrue. My understanding is that huge blocks of IPs were 403 blocked, not individual IP addresses. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sayin I don't why they were 403'd, they're tellin' me it's server side, I'm guessing whoever runs the server targered, in their estimation, the most problematic sources of DDoS attacks. How to undo it? I'm not sure, but I need a pretty convincing case to approach the site owner that 403s are overkill. Even then, it's iffy whether or not it can be undone sone. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this one, Rob. My conservative Christian friends cannot access CP. My CC friend who is at Parris island right now, when he comes home for a break in a couple weeks, won't be able to access CP. 403 blocks are simply stupid. OK, that won't work with Andy, but pointing out that people are simply being denied access to his insights might. ħuman 05:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

1968 borders have no international standing!

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=104397&diff=870558&oldid=870549^img thats why thats the most basic demand on Israel from most of the world as far as i know. --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The bit that annoys me is once again we see Obama doing something unprecidented, except all the times it happened before. The return to the 1968 borders has been the US policy for at least the 15 years I recall, going back to Clinton and all through W. Bush's years. - π 01:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry doesn't understand that an agreement based on the 1967 borders would give them status in international law. It's not a matter of what already has status, its a matter of what can be used for bargaining purposes. --Opcn (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Another tragedy from la-la land"

Does that prick Andy just rub his hands with glee every time something bad befalls someone in Hollywood? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

*opens mouth* ...oh, wait, that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? --Sid (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And of course, the bad touch of using his la-la land slang in a news item about someone falling into a coma--Tlaloc (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Now the main page looks like Communist Propaganda

With a big picture of Kim Il Sung as the most visible item. --Tlaloc (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seriously does. An enormous picture in the center of the page... they are dumb.--^talk 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

MPL permalink^img so the 403 crowd can laugh at the "obese atheist" meme, too. --Sid (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Same propaganda picture being used by similar characters for completely opposite reasons. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And now for another episode of everyone's least favorite game show, "Andy doesn't understand the shit that he says"

Staring "sore loser"^img now normally a sore loser is someone who just has sour grapes over losing. However if you read the article it would seem that the lawsuit is a strategic action, rather than impotent rage. A case could be made that the election was a referendum on the issue and that the libs are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but when you actually have a shot it stops becoming sore loosery and starts becoming at worst cheating. Joe Miller was a real sore looser, he tied the courts up for months trying to hurt the state and Murkowski after loosing by about 10,000 votes to a write in candidate. --Opcn (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And Andy won again - he got the most facepalms. --ǓḤṂ^³ 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here I thought that Andy had said "sore looser." Please. It's "sore loser." I pride most of RW editors at being better spellers than Andy. -Lardashe

I am a terrible speller, I've never been able to spell, lysdexia runs in the family. --Opcn (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it even worth WIGO'ing New Conservative Words anymore?

They're getting so stupid, it's not even funny anymore.

The latest is "perestroika"^img.

Yep, a Russian word, used by actual Communists, referring to a plan the American conservatives disbelieved, distrusted, and mocked, is conservative. MDB (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it destroyed the evil liberal atheist soviets it MUST be conserva... wait... that would mean the nazis... --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But, but… I thought Saint Reagan defeated Communism sole handedly? Now the Russians actually had part in it? What's next? The Polish? The East German? --ǓḤṂ^³ 12:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign words of course only begin to exist the moment Schlafly learns about them, so this word was invented in 1986. Before 1986 Russian-speaking people didn't restructure anything. Internetmoniker (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So this means Gorbachev is a conservative? Doppelheuer (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Off course Gorbachev is a conservative. Didn't you know that all people that did good things have to be Christian, because if you weren't Christian, why should you do anything good? Without God's orders humans do not have any reason to behave good. So behave as God told you, or you will burn in hell. That's Altruism. Godspeed. --ǓḤṂ^³ 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Next Lech Wałęsa will be hailed as a conservative "He presided over Poland's transformation from a communist to a post-communist state, ..." (WP). Of course "Solidarity" is a true conservative word. Pippa (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also worth noting that those would be cases of economic liberalization. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

wait, did he seriously claim solidarity as a conservative word? --User:Brxbrx/sig 19:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No! Just anticipating. Pippa (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservative words multiply geometrically each century. You must surely realize this. If you don't, I am 95% certain you are an atheist and attended or are currently attending public schools and also enjoy the suppression of school prayer. Deny this and lose all credibility. Maybe you should edit the site and learn from our insights here and open your mind to the true conservative principles.--Aschlafly 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken in the ЯOЯЯIM

I always wondered what sort of edits Ken needs to hide by his excessive deletion/recreation actions. Now, ЯOЯЯIM caught one of his little antics:

Ken had created a page on ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, using the translation "He who asserts must prove": though it gets the gist of the phrase, it betrays Ken's lack of knowledge of Latin. A couple of minutes later he had googled the phrase, and comes up with: "the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies" (this covers the non qui negat part, too). So what is more natural then to bury his first try? And so, he deletes the page and recreates it with the new version.

But luckily, ЯOЯЯIM ignores deletions, and so a fuller (not the complete) revision history can be seen here: User:Diebot/Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Yes, I'm quite pleased by my new little toy :-)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pure magic. Can you teach Diebot to follow Ken around and crib everything he does so we can make fun of him? Nutty Roux (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No: Diebot can't perform that many queries - otherwise, he is quickly shut out from looking at CP... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Ken's nearly a DOS on his own without some doubling the server load following his edits. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no longer any doubt in my mind that you are this site's most valuable contributor, LArron.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This will be so awesome when you teach Diebot how to get the whole thing copied (however that is possible). --ǓḤṂ^³ 13:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

it will be even better once diebot learns to love--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I already love diebot so that's a good start. And LArron, you are awesome with what you do. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Diebot rules! Oh, and Larron, can you manage to somehow query the CP database to see how much 403 blocking they have done? I'd like to move to a place where I can follow wigo-cp in real time, as opposed to capturebot's images. ħuman 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the flattering comments - but keep it a tad bit more realistic (you are this site's most valuable contributor: a good compliment has to be believable without to much of an effort...)
• @human: Unfortunately it is impossible for me to extract that kind of information. I look at CP via www.hidemyass.com, which works most of the time. Data gathering is done via tor: here, I quite often run into 403-blocked nodes.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

more kim il sung stuff/western media doesn't uncover fat atheists

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=111551&diff=870755&oldid=870750^img original point was that having a picture of a communist figure on the mainpage will probably turn a lot of people away out of misconceptions.Kens reply "Atheists are fat" and "the western media never mentions all the fat prominent athiests with double chins conservapedia has found"--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What doesn't get through to Ken in his fantasy world is that not only would this turn away some people based on their initial misconceptions, but also that if they did decide to read the actual article it's referring to, many more would be turned off regardless. Either way, CP and Ken both lose. άλφα^Talk 17:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Liberal atheist dictator Kim Il Sung was a big fat lard-ass & the world deserves to be told. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What a nice and candid admission^img that what he's doing isn't encyclopedic but nothing more than muckraking (and third rate) "investigative journalism." What a fucking dope. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Ken even have a citation for his comment of 400 people leaving atheism a day? If only Camping's predictions were more widespread, he'd probably disenchant quite a few more people. Plus the market would be full of golden opportunities if everyone thought the world was ending. άλφα^Talk 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I thought that was wandalism at first. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the Poe's Law corollary that applies to incompetence and inanity instead of fundie nonsense? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Hanlon's razor? Apropos of nothing, is it just me or does that picture of K.I.Sung look weirdly like Colonel sanders minus the beard? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's related since the better course is to always assume good faith unless the presumption is rebutted. But I was more thinking it's impossible to distinguish a parodist imitating a cretinous boob from the cretinous boob himself. The same would go for expertly played mental illness. Or mental retardation. Ken, being a creature who for the most part could be replicated by a high schooler in Pascal, is a great example. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On the 400 per day thing, it's possible that could be like with a dynamic equilibrium. You just see a pool of water in a warm damp place. But in fact molecules of the pool are constantly evaporating. The pool doesn't vanish because other molecules are constantly condensing, and we see the aggregate. If the pool was in a fairly dry desert, while the pool overall is evaporating, a few molecules would still be condensing. Just not enough to balance it out. A net increase of say, 800 atheists per day could be caused by just 800 people abandoning religion, or by 1200 doing that, and 400 embracing it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't question the possibility of it or your logic, but without any evidence presented besides Ken's word (or anyone's word, even) then the statement is meaningless. Regardless of whether or not it's possible, the way he presents it, it's supposed to be taken immediately as fact, yet he offers nothing to back it up. That's what I take exception to. άλφα^Talk 13:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

not sure what to say

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=104397&diff=870840&oldid=870839^img about this, or how much this person agrees with the obesity thing--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

someone should remind him fat jokes are not a refutation. Wide angle lens? He's just embarrassing himself--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Because a Christian apologist agreeing with your anti-Atheist slander totally makes it accurate. The KKK would agree that Blacks should be purged, so Andy knows what to do. - Jpop (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian intellectuals... Vox Day... Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!! Nutty Roux (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken only does this as a desperate attempt to garish our attention. He hopes we will WIGO it and those gain him precious hits, therefore validating that his scribbles on the Intertubes have some importance and thus his life has some measure of meaning. This is why I advocate his stuff should never be WIGOed, and unless ts particularly funny in crazy in its failure, ignored completely. He never comes up with anything new. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But we run the risk that he stops providing us any comedy if we dont--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken has done far, far more damage to Conservapedia than all the parodists and vandals combined. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

wow. the picture Ken cited contains six people, including PZ Myers. He decides not to mention this and says 80% are obese. That is just idiotic deceit.the mpr^img. The picture Ken complained about [5]--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly that is not a very flattering photo, (but the lovely lady in the hat makes up for it, she's purdy) so ergo evolution is an atheist hoax and the universe is 6000 years old. Ken rests his case. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the preoccupation with people's appearances to judge their metaphysical beliefs is puerile and classless. That said, it's a terrible photo: the big ball of flash bounce-back should have been enough to disqualify it for dissemination. As to how the people look? Americans are slobs and so how those people look didn't stand out to me. While I agree Ken is a jackass, his "Atheists are fat" thing goes a looong way to offending conservatives so I support his work on this front, as it helps to keep CP in the gutter and resented by their own movement. They aren't the Westboro Baptist Church of the blogosphere for nothin'! Keep it up, reactionaries! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Women are yucky. The Bible tells us how to treat them.

Never noticed this one before. Apparently, we moderns should be setting our ladyfolk aside^img when they are menstruating, because the Bible told us all along that to do otherwise presented health risks. Also, "intimacy" during a menstrual period is wrong, somehow. Will the misogyny never end? P-Foster (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Added by parodist DavidE^img. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In Nepal, women are forced to live in the frozen wilderness, away from civilization, when they menstruate. This has little to do with the above topic, but it is frightening when you consider what fundies want to do with society.....--Lefty (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK menstruating women are still not allowed to enter churches in some Orthodox Christian & Eastern European Catholic countries, Orthodox Jewish synagogues, or most mosques. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Without shedding of blood there is no remission..." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Added by parodist DavidE" six months ago in one of Andy's pet articles = it's the party line. P-Foster (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Women have long been a drain on society. Once we let menstruating women in our churches, we will open them to radical feminism, fornication, homosexuality, among other sins. Once we become tolerant and close our minds, we will eventually ban all public prayer. I believe with 95% certainty that women want to take over the world, as that is the stated goal of the feminist movement. Deny this and lose all credibility. Women are meant to stay home during menstruation, as that is much healthier for all society.--Andy Schlafly 01:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Eygptians at the time this law came down didn't have manufactured goods like Lava soap or Lifeboy to wash their dicks with; they were largely restricted to large government spending programs like pyramid building, etc. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If only the Egyptians had knowledge of the Laffer curve, they wouldn't have been such smelly slobs.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys can be pretty smelly too if they don't wash. Unfortunately the ancient Jews didn't have a lot of soap either, that's why they took to lopping off their foreskins and preventing the build up of smegma.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Man didn't know how to take a crap until God instructed him

Man did not invent sewage dispsal systems for a large urban populatiopn, God had to instruct man on the proper way to take a crap (witness, man-made pollution was the cause of the Eygptian plagues so God called a people out unto himself and instructed them in he wildewrness on the proper way to live, including sanitation).

• Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: 13And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: 14For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp...[6] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the other thing?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sanitary laws. The point being, how lost man is without God. He can't figure out how to take a crap or not screw a menstrous woman until God istructed him. We also got these two:

• He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. and 10If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, etc. The truth is, Eygptans of Moses' day were like global warming deniers, slobs polluting the planet, and not relizing pursuing their own selfish interests was taking a disasterous toll on the environment. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But global warming is liberal. Back on topic, screwing a menstrous woman is different from letting one enter the public square. Many of the people who claim to be Christians don't follow those sort of laws, and such. The Bible says to stone gays, fornicators, and people who work on the Sabbath. Point is, many of the laws, like the one they were discussing, have been chucked out. If you must know, I am a staunch libertarian, and I don't think we should keep women home during menstruation. In fact, I don't think anyone in America does.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank God Christians are not saved by abiding by laws. Praise God for that!

[7] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but you seem to be advocating said laws.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I went to the first link that came up in the Google search you just posted. what do the Aussies have to do with all this? P-Foster (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There's much to be said here, but Roman's chapter 3 is foundational, excerpted:

• 8not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?

and after a reasoned argument, Paul summarizes:

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law...

IOW, Law doesn't save your ass, or redeem you before God, neither does law abiding make you acceptable to God. Law can only condemn, or educate, it can't save. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Romans is all very well if you're a Paulist. ħuman 03:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, did it ever occur to you...

...that the sanitary practices that you're writing about here aren't the literal words of some deity/supernatural being, but human constructions that were then attributed to a god? P-Foster (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yah well it's a theory. And to give it force then and now it would have to claim divine inspiration, which personally I beleive much of it has. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

seeing as you just gave an excellent argument for why people would want to "give it force" -- claiming divine inspiration --why persist in the belief that it's actually divine? The simpler explanation is "political spin," not "invisible eternal beings that exist on some other plane." P-Foster (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now imagine future generations reading the below verses. Which of the four has the best chance of gaining the widest possible acceptance as a universal axiom?

• Andy Schlafly says, "When you take a crap, do it outside the camp and bury it."
• Trent Toulouse says, "When you take a crap, do it outside the camp and bury it."
• Wikipedia editors say, "When you take a crap, do it outside the camp and bury it."
• God says, "When you take a crap, do it outside the camp and bury it." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I agree with you. But none of that actually proves that supernatural beings as such exist, or that we -- as you argued above -- learned anything from supernatural beings. P-Foster (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we'd have to digress into a discussion about what exactly a "spirit" is. Yes, human's wrote the stuff, but what spirit spoke through them? ort inspired them? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with "not wanting to live ankle-deep in other people's shit inspired them." P-Foster (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right? The problem is that for many Christians they believe they'd live in other people's shit and kill other people indiscriminately if it wasn't for a magic invisible spirit holding them back. So, I don't know if I want to disrupt Rob's belief in a god given that's the case. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all Christians who believe the Bible use divine inspiration for political spin. I know quite a few do, and maybe Rob is, but there are non-conservative Christians out there.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about "political spin" in the context of the moral authority that the people who were trying to get these new laws about sanitation to be accepted way back in the day, not in terms of contemporary politics. i know way more liberal Christians than conservative ones, myself.

Sorry bout that.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

it's all good. Also, I think I figured out why the menstrual laws came into place -- using the moral authority of "God says you're dirty and have to be out of the rotation for one week out of every four" is a totally awesome way to limit women's economic agency, thus increasing their dependency on their husbands and undermining their independence. P-Foster (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I would think that God would be upset over women having careers and being economically independent would make Him quite furious as well.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that; in order for a woman to be readmitted to the community after she was set apart for her time of cleansing, she'd have to pay a readmission fee, a couple of turtle doves or something at the door of the tabernacle. It was an income producing enterprise for the temple. As to women's rights, the law of kinsman redeemer (Deuteronomy 25) did more for women's rights than anything before (or maybe since). It is true, the Jews have a long long tradition o respecting womens rights based upon this section of scripture. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to point to the words "or maybe since" and call you a fucking moron. 217.115.137.222 (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The kinsman redeemer allowed a woman to claim a younger brother for a husband "to raise up a name in Israel" if her hubby died. But what if the kid didn't wanna screw his older brother's old lady? he was cast out at the village gate and labled something that amounted to, "the little puke who's barefoot & penniless for not screwing his older sister-in-law and raising a name up in Israel." Sheeshh, women sure had legal protections in those days that assured them childbearing and prevented them from becoming unwanted spinsters; if the male declined, he was ostracized and outcast. So it's complete bullshit the bible is not protective of women or womens' rights. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RobSmith, I don't believe the complaint is that the Bible offers no protection to women, but that it offers little protection to women. You must admit, that in the Old Testament, women were largely discussed as either property or harlots.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And if she didn't want to bang her late husband's twerp kid brother? ħuman 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you have full grown, fully developed woman (like Tamar in Genesis 28), let's say a 28 year old fox with big tits. But she can't find a husband (you know demographics always favor women). Plus she's a widow. Then God gives her an option, she can claim her dead husbands kid brother, who's 12 years old. The ked says, "But pa, she's twice my age & will be wrinkled & dried up by the time I'm her age." God then gives her the option to take him before the elders spit in his face for not "performing his duty." This is the law of God. God says, "fuck the little punk & his dreams of pussy, he's got a job to do." And the woman is not required by God to do this, she can or doesn't have to claim him as a husband. But its a special privilege designed to insure she has a fair shot at having a legitimate child, and not become a rejected old spinster. And the man doesn't have diddlhy squat to say about other (other than being ostracized & outcast from society). nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm hammered and I have no idea what the fuck Rob is talking about. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuck a kid or be become a rejected old spinster, yeah great advancement of women's rights. Nothing better has happened for women since... Internetmoniker (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame Andy doesn't read RW as much as his sysops. Rob should be fired for all this vulgar, apologetic talk. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I read nob's input this morning and thought to myself that he sounded very xian. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you meant to say xtian. This word was invented by pagans who believe in the "sun god conspiracy" (that the early Christian church stole pagan traditions while persecuting the original religions.)--Lefty (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is 'outhouse' the next New Conservative Word? Vulpius (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapundit vs. George Will

OK, so we all know Andy's criteria for ranking candidates are not only arbitrary, but most likely nonexistant. Still, two things are worth pointing out: first, what exactly is he gloating^img about? After Daniels' announcement, he had to adjust^img his position on CP's list as well. One would think that if you're "proven right", you wouldn't have to edit your assessments. Second, why is he now ranked at #21, still well ahead of candidates like Karger and Johson, who are long shots but at least actually running? A great deal of this confusion could be removed if Andy simply got into the habit of removing non-candidates from the roster altogether, or if he split his table into several groups. That wouldn't change the fact that he's just shuffling candidates around at random or that you'd get better predictions by tossing coins, but at least it would keep him from subscribing to the most obvious logical impossibilities. Röstigraben (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Andy is a moron.--The doctor is still in (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Presidential_Election_2012&diff=869686&oldid=868873^img had that suggested they use two tables, andy said "no" its somewhere in thaty edit mess--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I said it before and I'll say it again: it's hard to imagine Schlafly went to law school because one is supposed to leave such an education with the ability to understand arguments. In the diff at the top of this thread Andy wrote, "George Will was wrong for predicting last week that Daniels would be one of only 3 possible winners next year." No he wasn't. Will was making the point that only three people have a chance at winning the Presidency, Daniels being one of them. Now that he's gone, according to Will's argument, there are only two: Obama and Pawlenty. Andy, let me help you out a little: you won't know if Will is wrong until November 2012. It's worth pointing out that an objective study found liberal commentators were better at predicting the future than conservative ones, who were often wrong - George Will among them. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I too dumb to get this?

The latest WIGO confuses the living shit out of me. What is this even about? Can some science guy or gal explain that for dummies that haven't studied whatever topic this is on? --ǓḤṂ^³ 15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy argues against an old-age earth because assuming a constant decay rate is circular logic.

Andy argues against evolution because of the current, observed rate of extinction extrapolated backwards suggests a young earth.

Sometimes he understands that the rates of decay/extinction are constant. Sometimes he doesn't. It's funny that it can be within 15 minutes eachother. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok now even the idiot me got that and lolled. --ǓḤṂ^³ (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive decay rates are constant because the laws of physics have been constant (to within a very small margin of uncertainty) over time. Extinction rates are known to vary greatly depending on what's going on. Asteroid impact? High. Stable climate, no system shocks? Low. Humans start hunting / converting to farmland large parts of the biosphere? High. It's not that Andy is just applying different standards, it's that the variability of each rate is the opposite of what he thinks it is. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

???

Am I the only one who thinks Andy's newest habit^img is much weirder than his old catchphrases? Unless he's paying homage to the Three Investigators, he looks like he's seriously losing it. I guess we'll know for sure when he begins signing his posts with "Yrs, ASchlafly. PS: AHAHAHAHA!!!". Röstigraben (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's weird exactly. But it shows that he thinks it gathers attention more effectively. He values entertainment value over giving the appearance of professionalism. Eventually he might move over to printing in caps exclusively. -Lardashe

But it's confusing here because he's making it a question, when it would work better as a statement. And the additional question marks makes it appear to be a flabbergasted statement, as if, like P. Diddy, Obama asked to be called O'bama. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The O'bama thing is also old -- I remember seeing bumper stickers with that on them during the 2008 campaign. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a man with an apostrophe'd name, I'd advise Obama to not change to O'Bama, because websites really hate apostrophe'd names. X Stickman (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, others have said it in the past but now I'm beginning to be swayed that Aschlafly is a moar! betterer Stephen Colbert. I marvel at his deep, deep, deep (...add 12 deeps), cover. Once Mommie dearest gets Raptured (from out of her kitchen, just after making a batch of sugar cookies) kicks off this mortal coil, (and the will is probated), I expect he'll come out as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. 20:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I half expect Andy to say 'He's not irish - he's black'AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy refuses to acknowledge that he is black as I recall. --Opcn (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Andy's not black. P-Foster (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you refuse to acknowledge it too. Deny it and lose all credibility. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish teabaggers?

Apparently, protesting austerity measures is now conservative? I guess that's what happens when you get your news from Big Boy Jammies Media. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

lol. the only spending the tea party likes is military spending. someone should grab their sock and see how they'll try and wriggle out of this one--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

HPotter, HHarper...What's the difference?

When the blind fury of the swabby is released you don't want to be standing too close.

1. HPotter posts about Rationalwiki on Talk:Mainpage and is quickly reverted by Karajou.

2. In his rage Karajou loses focus and HHarper, who was quietly editing nearby, is permabanned and his entire article on "The War Against Boys" is deleted^img (you can't see his editing because of the deletion of the article). (Use the captured image rather than the link. I don't have the wiki competence to freeze the relevant section of Recent Changes)

Lesson: When the swabby gets mad, stand back. --Horace (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And, when I think about it, to fix his error would be tantamount to admitting to the fact that he reads this page. What to do...? --Horace (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He's got bird fever, and still has time to block librulz?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except it wasn't a librul who was banned. It was a good little conservative who was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. --Horace (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Same difference. --Opcn (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn wizards trying to edit CP!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Next up, Kaarajou mistakes HHarper for Stephen Harper and 403's Canada. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus on a pogo stick, I just noticed the bird spam spree. He literally put up hundreds of them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

hallelujer!

I'm not 403'd anymore! I may now look upon Conservapedia and laugh at them with impunity! Thank you to RobS, Dmorris, or whoever was kind enough to orchestrate this reform. I really like Conservapedia, though not for the same reasons you do.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, I've figured out why: apparently my IP address has changed. weird.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Liberal claptrap

Is Andy secretly a Dana Rohrabacher fan? [8] [9] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to WIGO this

andy is proud of biblical scientific foreknowledge^img and rewriting the bible to make the shroud of Turin a photograph mentioned in it^img rather than the medieval forgery that it is. --Opcn (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

that has to be one of his most brazen revisionist acts in a while. Instead of re-translating the bible, or omitting parts of it, he's actually putting things in? What's next, "Obama sucks" as a part of the sermon on the mount?--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

...what? *waits for Capturebot to kick in* O_o; --Sid (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, at first I was like "Eh, he's not actually rewriting the Bible..." until I looked up those passages and realized that all of them only mention the linen they wrapped Jesus into, not any images. *headdesk* --Sid (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So either he sees descriptions of the cloth Jesus was wrapped in and can't differentiate that from the image on a piece of cloth called the Shroud of Turin that's supposedly what the passages are referring to, or he's being deliberately deceitful and hoping that no one will check his passages. άλφα^Talk 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Andy's so much deceitful as he hasn't thought his methodology through very well, shoots from the hip most of the time, is prone to confirmation bias, and is stubborn as fucking hell. This certainly isn't a "translation" in any sense because it's so profoundly fucked by multiple improper heuristics. But hey, when it comes to Andy I'm much more inclined to chalk this kind of behavior up to abject stupidity rather than malice. I think he not only doesn't know better but actively resists anything that remotely smacks of intellectualism. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

....while thinking himself an intellectual. P-Foster (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he actually does. He just knows he's a lot smarter and has better common sense that every single other person on the planet. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This perversion of the bible pretty much confirms that Andy thinks he's a prophet of some sort who can alter God's supposed message whenever he feels like it. As I mentioned before, this would explain why he thinks Christian is a secularized version of Christ: some liberal fool dared call him Christian and not Jesus Christ. - Jpop (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Various members on hereat one point called him bascially god. its in those sekret discussions that got given to us--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, "modern photography" ... "negative imaging". Wake up, Andy. Do you still watch a tube tv and rent videotapes? ħuman 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Human wins. Also, if it is a photograph, does that mean that Jesus had gone gray? Or just that he was very pale and blond and living in the desert? Jesus must have healed himself of sunburn daily. --Opcn (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that first capture showing what it appears to? Does Andy think the quantum "observer" refers to a mystical ability of humans? Schrödinger's thought experiment works the same for a person! If superposition can occur in classical objects (like a cat) under the Copenhagen interpretation, humans wouldn't be exempt. The cat experiment is intended to highlight that the Copenhagen interpretation is intuitively ludicrous (though it could be true anyway just like either accepting or denying the Axiom of Choice leaves you with intuitively ludicrous results in mathematics). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Déjà vu all over again. This was discussed here just a month ago when I first pointed out Andy's anachronistic photography analogy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Setting this up for archiving

Currently WIGO CP is still archived by hand, the others are done by a pretty patchy Perl script I run once a month. DO people want this set up like the other three WIGOs? - π 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason it was not set up like the others in the first place? MDB (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

They grew out kind of organically. - π 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's no technical reason not to, I say archive it like the others.

I'm a software engineer. I believe in automating as much as possible. My favorite definition of software engineer is "someone who will spend three hours to automate a five minute task, and see nothing wrong with that." MDB (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But when you have to do that five minute task several dozens times, or get someone else to do it and then train them up, then automation suddenly seems worthwhile.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know. But my point isn't funny if you add that explanation. MDB (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the big titles just comment them out, I can fix the script to work around the commenting if need be. - π 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all set to go now. - π 14:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Marco Rubio wigo

So was well as reverting the edit where someone said Rubio does not meet cp's definition of a natural born citizen andy now defines asylum seekers^img as eligible to give birth to nbc's. I wonder if it were a democrat he would be quite so welcoming to the claims of asylum seekers? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The real gold is the line above: "[Marco Rubio] Will face the liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." First, I don't recall Obama's "inexperience" ever being okay with the CP cabal. Second, one sentence later, what's not OK for Obama is just fine for Rubio. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice spin from Andy and Penist. Even more so, the piano guy says Obama is natural born, but claims it's a liberal double standard. This coming from the guy who voluntarily steps on landmines at CP regularly and gets chastised for being neutral or rational. More than likely, nothing will come of Rubio's birth controversy and they won't admit being wrong through and through, again. This is a WIGO that deserves best of, IMHO. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I love it. I think we've hit the point where Andy is embarrassed and has to ignore natural-born citizenship altogether, at least until his boy Rubio drops out. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) To play devil's advocate, it would be a double standard if democrats attempted to make Rubio's NBC status an issue. That seems to be what JDW meant. Coming from the pianist, it does sound like pandering, but it is a true statement. Even better, his edit forces Andy's hand: he can either argue that Rubio and Obama are both natural born, or that they're both not. Or he can just wave his hands and make it all go away. Junggai (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope democrats attempt to make an issue out of Rubio's status. Nothing says "your standards are ridiculous" like getting them to say "my standards are ridiculous". Which is exactly why you'll never hear another peep from Andy about this. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of CP comedy, there could be nothing better than the democrats forcing the issue of Rubio's status. From the standpoint of what's good for the American political environment, I hope that democrat's don't. Either way, I wouldn't be so sure that Andy will ever shut up about this. Junggai (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, this is most certainly not a double standard of any sort. There's a crucial difference - both of Rubio's parents were foreigners, while Obama only had a mother who was an American citizen. This clearly gives him the better claim^img to US citizenship. Silly liberals. Röstigraben (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone did press him, he would presumably go on about how Obama Sr. never sought American citizenship. That seems to be his underlying reasoning. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we will probably never see Andy actually have to deal with this issue. No way Rubio is running this year. The guy has been in the Senate less than 6 months; he wouldn't be able to run a credible campaign, and will probably wait until 2016, if anything. Anyone think CP will be active in 2016? TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that Obama had one more citizen parent than Rubio, anyone wishing to challenge Rubio's status on those grounds would have to invoke a much harsher standard of natural born than has ever been used in the USA or England. Once you're willing to go into jus sanguinis territory, the citizenship of the father does indeed matter more than the mother's, making it indefensible to claim that Obama doesn't violate that standard. Junggai (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"the citizenship of the father does indeed matter more than the mother's." Sure, if you're a sexist it does. also, i know many Jews who would disagree with the idea that the mother is irrelevant to jus sanguinis. P-Foster (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic - Andy's actually saying that Rubio has the better claim because both of his parents were foreigners. The mind boggles. Röstigraben (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I recall some 'discussion' recently on cp about anchor babies and how they are disgusting and should not be allowed to be US citizens and any parent who has such a baby should be deported along with thier anchor baby. Anyone else remember this? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not when they're fleeing Communist oppression in Cuba and grow up to be Republicans. P-Foster (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, they take that attitude for parents in the country illegally. That was not the case for Rubio's parents. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama is I think the 6th president born to a non citizen parent, so we will have to really rewrite the history books to make him not eligible. --Opcn (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The real solution

is to just drop the natural-born citizen requirement, and come up with something not so 18th century. Only the most die-hard anti-immigrant activists would object to that at this point.

Use something like the "nine years of citizenship" requirement for Senators, plus add a form of grandfather clause so it's not the "President Schwarzenegger" amendment. (Well, Arnie is probably now unelectable, but I don't like the idea of suddenly granting eligibility to anyone.) MDB (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this would be acceptable to the majority of Americans. And since constitutional amendments have to be approved by a supermajority, it would never happen.--Danielfolsom (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not even the most pressing thing that needs to be changed about the constitution. The fact that both Wyoming and California get two senators despite California having about 70 times more people, or that the President is not elected directly by popular vote is quite anti-democratic. Thomas Jefferson argued that the constitution should be periodically rewritten, saying the "earth belongs always to the living generation". The US is actually unusual in having the oldest written constitution. Many countries have successfully adopted new constitutions in recent history. Unfortunately, a radical change is extremely unlikely to happen in the near future. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the Constitution has become ossified, it's near to being worshiped by some, the Founding Fathers were imbued by BibleGod to have perfeckt wisdom so they could write the perfect constitution, nothing was missing whatsoever! the "amendments" were like the New Testament. 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I think they confused 'amendments' with 'commandments'. They sorta sound alike. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding, each state gets two senators to please the smaller states afraid they'd simply get steamrolled. the house of reps is to make the population thing fair. Old things dont have to be changed simply for the sake of change.--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is saying change things merely for the sake of change. The fact is what may have made sense for an 18th century, primarily agrarian society doesn't necessarily make sense for a 21st century industrialized nation. When the constitution was written 'firearms' meant muskets. Now, weapons are far more advanced. That at least requires examining the wisdom of the 2 nd amendment for modern times. Also, if there are fairer, more effective methods available, then why not change to them? Like I mentioned before, Jefferson argued that it was unfair to hold the living to a document written by people who are long dead. The Earth belongs to the living.

As for the House of Representatives, it's less powerful than the Senate, so certain people still end up get underrepresented on the arbitrary basis of what state they happen to live in. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So the solution is to make the senate as arbitrary? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cracker has hit the nub of the problem and it's something that I have thought for quite a while; there is a strong similarity between the interpretation of the US constitution and literal reading of the Bible which probably explains a lot about the religious right. The founding of the USA has even generated its own mythology analogous to the Book of Genesis. Andy's court bleatings about the intentions of George Washington referencing some private correspondence is reminiscent of the theological arguments about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, shucks, I just knows my Star trek, is all. 08:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

spiral galaxies

[1]^img I'm betting there's a really, really simple explanation for this that an astronomer can explain to us.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I ain't no astronomer but it looks to me very much like the good old god of the gaps yet again. Anything that cannot be definitively explained by scientists becomes evidence for the existence of a god. As argumetns go it's about as pathetic as you can get. --Horace (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy: Take a towel and spread it out on the floor. Now take a fork. Stick the fork prongs-down in the middle of the towel. Twist the fork. YOU ARE NOW A GOD. «-Bfa-» 02:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

lol, that clinches it. thx, Bfahome--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The stupid, it burns! So I guess his engineering degree is as worthless as his law degree? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy makes me feel better at about having no formal education.AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I loled at the fact that is a mainpage "headline" even though the story is three and a half years old in the astronomy community.

Normally when we look at galaxies, the outer spiral arms are trailing the inner arms as the galaxy rotates, their "tips" are trailing back away from the center of the galaxy in the direction of the disks orbital rotation. In addition, normally all arms are spinning in the same direction (say counterclockwise). For NGC 4622 there are two observations which defy this standard convention for how galaxies rotate. First, the outer arms are rotating in the opposite direct from the inner arms, this isn't so unusual because we have seen that before. The current hypothesis is for inner and outer arms moving in opposite directions is a past galactic collision or merger. What makes NGC 4622 unique is that the outer arms are also leading (pointing towards towards the direction of disk rotation). We are very uncertain to as why.

I have no idea what this has to do with atheism though, unless Andy is suggesting that an unusual galaxy over 100 million light years away and not noticed until 2008 is somehow the singular proof of the Christian god. What we can say is that just because it is still a mystery, that doesn't automatically show something very powerful supernatural being just "put the arms that way". You have to show evidence of that somehow. How do you even make that belief into a testable hypotheses? You may as well say galactic engineering aliens did it and it be just as legit as saying "done by magic" (which is what Andy is saying).

The universe is full of mysterious galaxies, objects, and properties we don't fully (or in many cases, hardly) understand. No astronomer would ever claim we are remotely close to solving all the mysteries of the universe, or that was have somehow completely figured out how galaxies form. To assign every still unsolved mystery in the universe to the fickle proclivities of a deity though, that only works to blunt curiosity, to cripple scientific endeavor, to stifle the progress of our species. Imagine if we remained incurious, and always assigning to the supernatural all the natural forces and happenings just in our own world? Where would humanity be today?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

^ What he said. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't believe in aliens. Unless they are of the of the illegal variety. Then's its just Obama's fault. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know some editors here are religious and, for once, this isn't intended to insult them but.

I have always failed to understand why anyone can look at the universe and feel the need to ascribe an intelligence to it's design when the mere fact that such utter awe-inspiring wonder exists is in and of itself enough for me. I feel no need to ascribe 'creation' to it, I just marvel that I exist in it and have eyes to see it and can cry at it's beauty. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As Horace said, it's the "God of the Gaps". When there's so little (zero?) evidence for any deity, the religious grab any little thing, even if it's a one in a thousand million galaxies spinning in a strange way. I feel sorry for them. Pippa (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The sad truth with that "god of the gaps" viewpoint is that the gaps are continuously being filled, so they are forced to constantly be on the search for new ones as science progresses (as there will always be new gaps in our knowledge even as old ones are explained). So the whole "theory" is just reactive, where science is proactive.

Also judging from the Ufology article on CP, they do believe in aliens. Just that said aliens are demons from the eight dimension or wherever, which is just so much more scientific then the ideas of aliens from other worlds, lol. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit like the way they scramble to point out missing links in the fossil record. Every time missing link between fossil 1 and fossil 2 is filled by newly-found fossil 1.5, we just hear "But where is fossil 1.75?? Therefore God." ^{ONE / TALK} 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Every filled gap creates two new gaps (1.25 and 1.75 in your example), so the number of counterexamples to evolution is growing exponentially. Give it up, liberals!!1!123! Cantabrigian (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind is that the arms of spiral galaxies are regions of star formation, lit by bright young stars. They aren't actually groups of stars that spin around the galaxy maintaining the shape of arms - stars move in and out of the arms as they go about their orbits. Arms are more like density waves, so unusual arm structures would probably indicate unusual gravitational interactions with other galaxies in the past. So that galaxy's shape may be currently unexplained in detail, but there doesn't seem to be cause to believe that it's inexplicable. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, the spiral arms are galaxies are not actual "structures" but areas in the galaxy with somewhat higher star density then the regions around them. I don't believe the unusual properties of NGC 4622 are inexplicable. Just right now we have no real explanation; as every other galaxy we have evidence was gravitationally perturbed by another galaxy doesn't have the same unique features of the outer arms leading the rotation, and the inner arms trailing. Perhaps it was through galactic collision and we will find evidence of that, or it may be something else completely. It may be unexplainable now, but that certainly doesn't mean we can't discover one in the future. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I always thought they were actual structures. I've learned something today and thats awesome. Thanks!! 23:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

cp:User:HarabecW (who annoys Conservapedians with his bickering on the cp:Counterexamples to Evolution - the ongoing discussion with Karajou was moved to archives by Conservative) added some facts on Jack Thompson's A Modest Video Game Proposal which Andy disliked so much that he not only reverted the revision (mirror), but oversighted^img it! And he threw a block in for good measure - albeit for just one week.

Thus Jack Thompson stays outspoken and effective in Andy's world.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at that, as well as the cp:Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution. Fierce guy. Of course they wanted to hide it as soon as possible and now it's archived. king of the rats ^{do you wanna kick it in the backseat?} 11:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive decay

You know, my favourite nuggets from Conservapedia are when Andrew Schlafly decided physics or mathematics are lies. Has he alluded much to his views on radioactivity in the past? - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a standard creationist canard. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It goes "What's that you speak of?...You say it proves me wrong? Well, then it's wrong and I'm going to find out how...Like this!...That was bullshit? No it wasn't...Well, how about this!" Occasionaluse (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

He and his brother have a long history of making asses of themselves on talk.origins. I found a 2002 TO discussion of one of his "Eagle Forum University" "courses" pushing some anti-uniformitarian JAQing off about decay rates not always being constant. I don't have the stomach to keep looking for more. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Another democratic politician gets a job from a college friend"

or something to that effect^img Do you think Andy is mad at these people because they had friends in college? --Opcn (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What Mr. Schlafly actually said was, "Another Democratic politician is hired by a liberal college faculty." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am an idiot --Opcn (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Admitting it is the first step. MDB (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case CP has a long way to go. They're on the negative-10th step as far as I can tell: when cornered, accuse everyone of being liberal, then bring up classroom prayer at least once when they deny it. - Jpop (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding.........

Conservapedia mentioned Jerry Springer on its main page? I have only heard about the show (don't frequent afternoon-type talk shows), and it seems fairly trashy. Family values for you, eh?--Lefty (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the fact that he mentioned it that irks me, but the reason he brings it up. He really wants to believe that there is some sort of inner turmoil in the atheist community; what he doesn't realize that it is not a belief system therefore the opposing "sides" have very little to do with the average atheist. I for one don't give a shit about either side. - Jpop (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Jerry Springer comment is just trivial (is that show even still running?) It is this ridiculous concept that if the atheist community (which has in common just their irreligious beliefs) isn't some completely unified monolith, then it is in chaos and atheism is about to fall, or something. This is especially ironic given how utterly divided the Christian community typically is, even inside denominations. Given the historical bloodshed such division traditionally has caused up until the 20th century, it is doubly ironic. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New Yorks 26th

Spains not the only one with an election, New Yorks 26th has a special election today. Funny, no word from CP on how its going, wonder why?--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I found it crazy that Rep. Chris Lee resigned over that whole topless photo bit. Seems hardly a reason to resign from congress. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A topless photo sent to his mistress. Another "Family values" conservative for you.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And again I am going to say "so what"? Yeah, having an affair on your wife is obviously bad, but does it automatically mean you disqualify yourself from your congressional seat? There are members of Congress with far larger violations of ethical (and legal) conduct who refuse to step down and stay on, including illegal actions that would place you or I in jail. I understand if he violated some ethical rule while while serving in Congress, or actually broke the law, but this is just some personal failing that is personal family business as far as I am concerned. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's possible he knew more would come out if he stayed in his seat and chose to resign rather than go face further embarrassment.

Also remember, the Republicans portray themselves as the party of family values. By their own decision, they have to _{(appear to)} live to a higher ethical standard. MDB (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

SANTA VACA

I did not expect this^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So much for "RiNewt?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Man, the story where they call Newt a RINO is still on the main page. Granted its half way down, but still.--Thunderstruck (YOU'VE BEEN...) 12:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And since when does Andy use liberal NPR as a source? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken's fuckery quotes Pat Buchanan

What dumb fuckery is this.^img Ken uses anti-Israel (and scurrilous racist) Pat Buchanan as a source that Netanyahu's bitter remark to Obama's 1967 border speech (which has always always been de facto U.S. policy) "thoroughly and publicly humiliated" the President of the United States.

Ken, as one Israel supporter to another, let's get this straight: Outside of The U.S. and Germany, Israel has very few solid friends in the world. Many countries all over actively dislike them. They rely on U.S. financial aid, military might and diplomatic support at the U.N. and other international institutions. Without the U.S., Israel's future would be chaotic. So the rightwing Prime Minister of Israel (whose statements aren't even popular at home!) does not humiliate POTUS, no matter who occupies that office. So don't forget who runs that relationship. Oh, and about your weirdo curse stuff you put up and how Obama won't be re-elected? Why don't you check out your own solid Republican district's special election tonight where the Democrat creamed the Republican who voted for Paul Ryan's Medicare destroying budget. Your district was one of the few who voted for McCain in 2008! Oh, and those Jews in Florida you think won't vote for Obama? They're old and liberal, Ken, and they care more about their Medicare than 1967 borders - more and more of them agree with what J Street espouses. So suck on it, ya big dummy, and give it up, conservatives! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on NY-26. I bet you feel the tide has turned for liberals and elections. Ha, fat chance. Special election Republican district: NY the bastion of Republicans? I noticed no fake liberals were running (just fake teaparty members). The Paul Ryan "destroying" Medicare? Do you think for yourself or are you programmed by the DNC? Instead of still having Medicare 10 years from now with Ryans plan, the left would rather provide no plan and see the program wither away. No grannies off the cliff video when Obama proposed $500 million cut through Obamacare. You are a joker with beer muscles Leosturd.--76.205.114.186 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The right would rather keep spending all of our hard-earned tax dollars on wars--the only one advocating withdrawal is Ron Paul, who has little support--that are not doing us any good anywhere, but instead are bankrupting the country. The right would rather give tax breaks to millionaires while cutting the social safety net for the middle class, senior citizens and the poor. And you dumbasses who vote for this aren't even rich! Nor will you ever be. Obama is right: we are in age that will come down to what vision for America the left and the right have; what are our views of what it means to be a citizen and an American; what it is that we owe each other in our prosperous country. Your vision, Rand Paul's vision, Paul Ryan's vision, is not only uncompelling, it's objectionable. You wingnut tea baggers have been sold and you've bought wholeheartedly a crappy set of beliefs for yourself, that is leading to a vastly unequal, selfish, socially darwinistic society where the only respite for the poor is charity. The Paul Ryan budget materialized that vision, so thank you, you birther deather Tea Bagger extremist - and keep the Republicans feet to the fire for us! Haha! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@76.205.114.186. So someone who has been bought and sold by the Koch brothers and believes all the lies fed to them by those brothers and faux news feels they can criticise Leo. As CRASS quoted in the 80's here in the UK, Those who are the most oppressed are also those who pay the most fealty. And boy do you wingnuts know-nothings fit the bill perfectly. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right? Let's look at Florida, where going into 2012 Governor Rick Scott's teabagger budget and policies have given him the crazy low approval rating of 29%. Who are the liberals' favorite Republicans? Tea bagger candidates and their voters. That is why I love Conservapedia: you're my own little hothouse teabagger flowers. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All birds and no words

So Karajou has made hundreds of bird articles with no text - just templates. Where is he copy-pasting this stuff from? Furthermore, is he using a script? He managed to make one article every minute for a solid 80 minutes. And that was only the most recent stint - past stints have seen him do the same for at least 30 minutes each on several different occasions. The guy is a machine. If he isn't using a script, that makes it all the more sad. Nobody who's anybody is going to go to CP to find a few straggly taxonomical facts about any of these birds. And that's literally all these articles contain - virtually none have pictures, descriptions, or even a comment about where they fucking live. What on earth is he thinking? Oh yeah that's right - nothing. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A part of me thinks the swabbie is pulling some kind of Ed Poor stunt. First he creates KaraStubs^TM, then when some poor boob comes along and says "Erm, this is empty", Kara can go, "Aha! Instead of complaining like a liberal, you WILL get ornithological books; I don't care if you walk or drive to the bookstore or libary, you WILL study them and you WILL expand my pathetic stubs. And if you talk back, I WILL block you.

Of course, nobody will, so the articles will remain as they are - examples of epic fail.--OompaLoompa (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to use books on CP. --Opcn (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

opportunity

Karajou's bird spotting spree is creating golden opportunity for vandals and parodists. See this^img, for example. It stands. He's making so many articles recent changes is drowned in them. Unlike with Ken, enhanced recent changes doesn't help, since he's making tons of new articles. It's quite funny.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder...

…if constantly reading violent books changes a pesons perception equally?^img --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

well we've mounds of anecdotal evidence of people losing their shit because of reading the Bible and the Koran...--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this terribly surprising? It seems like the same kind of thing with spring-loaded cat scares. The first one might make you flinch, but after that the effect degrades. The change isn't in any sense permanent though. Seems like if you want to draw the conclusion the Arsefly wants to draw, you need to demonstrate the effect persists more than an hour or so. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I used the word "constantly". --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was playing video games heavily with my friends back when Mortal Kombat was big. I also watched - and still watch - a whole lot of horror movies (22 of the 52 movies I've seen this year so far have been horror). The effect on me has changed a lot. There are certain things that I've gotten used to, but I actually have a harder time watching certain types of violence more than I did as a teen. Other aspects of our personalities figure into the way that we approach movies and games. -Lardashe

There have also been studies showing (gasp!) that video games might have positive effects. I'm skeptical of any long-term effects due to the reason Jeeves cites. The video game studies remind me of the Mozart effect where one study showing increased performance on rotation tasks after listening to Mozart (which lasted for only about ten minutes) became the basis for a bunch of neuro-woo claiming that listening to Mozart could permanently increase your IQ. Of course, that doesn't matter in Andyland, 'cause the kids play the video games which gives them the brain damage so they don't know what the Bible is all about. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This sounds identical to a study that was done years ago. All it really proves is that people become somewhat more aggressive when they're agitated or otherwise keyed up. They could probably get similar results after a few minutes of wind-sprints or a half-hour of football (American or otherwise). Hell, you could probably get similar results after an hour of watching Glenn Beck. The decreased reaction to violent imagery is interesting, but even the researcher admits that that could be cause of attraction to violent games, rather than the violent games being the cause of the reduced reaction. What I can't figure is why they're treading old ground like that, and still issuing releases with misleading headlines. --Ellipsoidal (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy and Rand Paul

Help me out here -- Andy likes Rand, no? Then why is he pointing out that Rand is doing things^img that don't fit the CP party line^img? P-Foster (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Countdown to Rino Paul 'toon in 3...2... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, conservatives have stoped supporting the PATRIOT act as of 1/20/09 for some reason. I have no idea about the other thing...--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

wow.

I'd say that with these latest MPR's^img, it's time CP had a serious talk about their goals and mission. They're just confused.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"north African" - ok, everybody knows I suck with typing but that's just really bad. --ǓḤṂ^³ 23:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Their goals and mission are very clear. Mission: Become Andy's personal blog. Goal: Remain Andy's personal blog no matter how difficult that is and schizoid it becomes. So far CP seems to be doing a pretty spectacular job of that. άλφα^Talk 01:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Un - 403'ed

I have been un-four-oh-three'd despite living in England! What is this madness? NDSP 14:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

well I'm no longer 403'd too, but that's cuz my IP address has mysteriously changed--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mine hasn't changed recently though. RobS, have you persuaded Andy to unblock us? NDSP 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ve are still blockaded ... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am constantly getting 403'd for an hour or two and I live in the US. Infoseek (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm allowed to read it again, too. No matter who did that, thank you. (I hereby pledge not to vandalize CP) --ǓḤṂ^³ 15:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Zis is veird. Mein IP range iz unblockaded. --Sid (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As Poskrebyshev said in The First Circle, "there is movement." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!}

You mean like poo?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's daughter was trying for three months to get an appointment to see her father, and his personal secretary Poskrebyshev was on the phone with her outside Stalin's office and says, "there is movement," evidently in the direction of getting in to see her father. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NURSE! Ajkgordon (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm finally un-403ed.!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The conservative Holy Trinity

It's here folks! Now if you don't want to listen to conservative songs, or watch conservative movies, you can watch the Greatest Conservative TV shows.^img --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It also shows Andy didn't get Family Ties (surprise surprise). The parent's liberalism was mocked, but so was Alex's conservatism (though less so when Michael J. Fox became a breakout star). And Alex was pretty much a fiscal/small government conservative with social conservative leanings, not a hard-core right winger. If Alex was real and a prominet figure, Andy would list him as a RINO for sure. MDB (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Apprentice: liberals stopped watching when they realized that Donald Trump might be conservative." What a great criterion for a 'greatest' conservative show! Donald Trump is a buffoon actor who plays the role of a millionaire blowhard on television and convinces rube teabaggers to back his Hollywood Values and PR ratings stunt to think he is a conservative, despite his record of marriages, bankruptcies and support for liberal policies (and Obama) in the past. I like this addition. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You do realize Donald Trump really is a billionaire, right? MDB (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha! That's a good one. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Forbes' most recent list says he's worth two billion (which is not as much as he claims). MDB (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it was The New York Times Tim O'Brien who called Forbes's numbers bullshit in his book about Donald Trump[10]. Trump sued O'Brien, but couldn't prove he was worth billions[11]. The fact is, nobody knows and it is unlikely to be that high. Believing he is a billionaire is basically to believe what Donald Trump says about himself, not what is independently verifiable since he's never released any financial records to anyone to assess. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I like how Andy, after gawd knows how many years, still doesn't know how to do a numbered list on a wiki. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks the "#" character is a liberal invention.

"The list of liberal ASCII characters is growing geometrically!" MDB (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Office? That's the Office, written by Ricky Gervais (or certainly based on that UK show). That would be this Ricky Gervais? Atheist since the age of 8 Rickey Gervais. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What I also like about inclusion of the The Apprentice is it shows a bunch Hollywood Values liberals competing for charities; not necessarily in-line with the CP narrative. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondering the same thing about The Office. Actually, Dwight Schrute kinda reminds me of Andy.

Oh, and WTF is Andy talking about when he says the show mocks "corporate socialism"? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Office?? Hahaha. I'm sure the atheistic, evolutionist, pro-science, anti-religion, Obama supporting, wonky toothed, British liberal Ricky Gervais would be amused by that. Jaxe (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Truly the most brilliant entry is All in the Family, a sitcom that originated in Atheist England, created by Hollywood Überliberal Norman Lear (cripes, he founded wp:People for the American Way!) that was a very famous lampooning of the bigoted, conservative views of Archie Bunker. Bunker was portrayed as a total idiot. This truly is Poe's Law at its finest - they can't tell when reactionaries are not being championed, but ridiculed (see Stephen Colbert). Bravo, CP. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No Leave it to Beaver? Sheesh, could you at least try to make the list look legitimate, Andy? Vulpius (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also no Little House on the Prairie or Andy Griffith. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't know shit about conservatism or TV. None of the three shows he listed are remotely conservative, why someone would list The Office as the second greatest conservative TV show of all time is beyond me. The Office is built around poking fun at people who take their jobs too seriously. It originally (in the early US episodes and original UK series) focused on despair and isolation associated with the life in a post industrial late capitalist society, hardly conservative. Later (US) episodes tend to be less cynical, but by that time Jim and Pam are having premarital sex (a sure cure for despair and isolation) to the point where she gets knocked up, not very conservative. The only point Andy latches on to is the humor around Micheal's misunderstanding about political correctness which misses the point. Micheal is a buffoon, he does everything wrong, he is much more frequently mocked for being (unintentionally) politically incorrect (sexist and racist). There is a whole story line about how Micheal's lack of political correctness causes a (positively portrayed) gay worker to be outed. The worker gets a settlement and is shown as the hero, about as far from socially conservative as you can get. Since The Office lacks a laugh track, Andy, being a borderline aspie must struggle with determining what is supposed to be funny. When Michael tells the camera that Pam was hotter when she first started, Andy must be nodding his head. Add TV to the list of things Andy fails to understand. --Marlow (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

STAR TREK!^img fuckin' old humanist "God doesn't exist"/"Religion is bullshit"/"Let's be peacefull and understanding"/socialist "We don't have money anymore" Star Trek! And Andy leaves it there! What the fuck is going on here? --ǓḤṂ^³ 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This entry^img can only mean the definition of "conservative TV show" includes "things Andy watch while his mother was off giving speeches he was growing up" MDB (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That entry on Star Trek disproves that - it's wrong in just about every way:

• 'Emphasized morality' - nope, it saw no problems with storylines that gave great moral quandries, opening up question marks over what is moral and what isn't. TOS:A Private Little War, TNG:Suddenly Human and DS9:In The Pale Moonlight are ones that spring to mind.
• 'Abiding by a strict code of conduct' - what? Half the time, the various captains flagrantly flouted all rules, even the supposed 'Prime Directive', seemingly because they felt like it. See this.
• 'Problem solving in a science fiction setting that inspired real world innovations' - congratulations, you've got something correct.
• 'Portrayed the Cold War struggle as a conflict between the democratic Federation (USA)' - nope, not the USA, try one of the multi-nation groups, like NATO or the UN. That's closer, but still not entirely accurate.
• 'And the authoritarian, collectivist Klingons (the Soviet Union)' - the Klingons are most certainly NOT 'collectivist', they spend almost as much time fighting each other as fighting anyone else. As for 'authoritarian', well, amongst other things, considering that one legitimate method of advancing rank in Klingon society is challenging a superior to combat, and successfully killing them, it's safe to say that this is wrong. This sounds nothing like the Soviet Union to me.
• 'Correctly forecast the eventual winner' - erm, what? If it did, the Soviet Union would still be here, as, in Star Trek, the Klingon Empire never ended.

109.145.13.86 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"capitalism at its finest - improving health with technological advances"^img...ya sure you want to include that one Andy? Because sure sounds like stem cell research to me! 64.30.2.130 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lee Majors didn't need no stinkin' ObamaCare! Godspeed (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This "essay" is a good reminder as to why you shouldn't even bother trying to vandalize CP. You can't even come close being as funny as Andy is (unwittingly). --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We've entered the Twilight Zone^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Apprentice: liberals stopped watching when they realized" it was crap!. Pippa (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Welk? The guy that taught kids to toke up on his TV show? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone burn a sock and found out how many of the shows that Andy's added he's actually watched fully, start to finish. Also, there are two versions of The Twilight Zone, each different to the other. If JPatt came here and said thank you in a sincere manner for pointing out he'd added a pornographer to the Conservative Celebrities list I'd give him a slew of shows to add to that list. If he could undo the 403 blocks of course. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There are actually three separate runs of Twilight Zone. The original series ran for five seasons, there was a mid-to-late 80s version that ran for three seasons, and a 2002 third series, which was hosted by Forest Whitaker, and only lasted one season. -Lardashe

Of course, I'm getting mixed up with The Outer Limits. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still holding out for Death Valley Days (brought to you by 20 Mule Team Borax, with your host, soon to be beautified Ronald Reagan.) This was his second big gig after he became a right-thinking Republican (1962), (the first was doing a decent job at playing the heavy in 1964's The Killers). 00:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

"If JPatt came here and said thank you in a sincere manner for pointing out he'd added a pornographer to the Conservative Celebrities list." What now? P-Foster (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

JPatt added Vincent Gallo to the best conservative celebrities, or whatever the hell the list was called. After I pointed out here that Gallo made The Brown Bunny his name got quietly removed. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Twilight Zone is undoubtedly liberal being the brainchild of Rod Serling, noted envelope pusher, and writer of It's a Good Life, (the cornfield one!); since the cute tyke (Billy Mumy) sent people who displeased him to the cornfield, we, the audience see him as a monster. The reference wouldn't be so easy to miss for senior CP admins after sending so many IP's "to the cornfield". 01:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I disagree, and this is where CP shows their sad binary thinking. Rod Serling definitely infused his values, but they were generally ones every fair-minded person could agree upon regardless of their political persuasion. They were mostly common human values with an anti-war and racial equality bent. Liberals don't have a lock on those concepts, even if the way conservatives see racial equality is in practice something that brings about the opposite. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Catty Remark

The father would be criticized by the son for working for less money at a public television station, rather than in free enterprise.

is how Family Ties is conservative.

Gee, what if, say, the son criticized his Harvard Law degree father for running a small web site and teaching a few dozen students rather than getting rich in the free enterprise system? Would that be conservative? MDB (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bingo, Andy the hypocrite, who has not evidenced his ability to generate his own wealth. And what, pray tell, is conservative about a son talking back and criticizing his father's profession? That's not what is taught as a value in the Bible or on CP, but there they are trumpeting it, which I think would give Andy's students the impression that they, too, can talk back to their parents and criticize their lives. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a great point. How is it somehow "conservative" for an affected caricature of a presumptuous Reaganite shit, who himself had his own difficulty achieving, to criticize his own gainfully employed, college educated father for being an under-achiever. There's no humility or Christian charity in that and I'm fairly sure those ten commandments say something about honoring your mom and dad. ... Nutty Roux (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Andy doesn't see Alex P. Keaton as a presumptuous Reaganite shit, Andy sees Alex P. Keaton as a model of all that was good about the 80's. (And forgets the episodes where Alex lost his virginity out of wedlock and got hooked on amphetamines. Yes, I remember the "very special episodes" of Family Ties.) MDB (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you are forgetting the difference here: Andy has been kept away from the big education systems and big cooperations, because in the first one there are liberals running the place who would never give a conservative like him a job (in reality "conservative like him" means "batshit crazy and stupid") and in the other are people running the place who would never give him a job because he is a conservative and they have to keep their liberal image (in reality they don't because he's an idiot). And I firmly believe that Andy actually believes that. --ǓḤṂ^³ 18:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's Help Andy Out

Come up with your own Best Conservative TV shows!

• Batman: Man uses the fortune he made fulfilling the American Dream to fight crime.

• Lidsville: The villain was an evil magician, showing the dangers that sorcery presents to the Christian. Could be considered a rebuttal to the liberal JFK's refusal to wear a hat.

• Land of the Lost: Rebuts the evolutionist position by showing man and dinosaurs existing side by side.

(Okay, I confess those were three of my favorites when I was a young'un. So sue me. if someone can figure out a way to make Underdog conservative, I'll be much obliged and give you a spare internet.) MDB (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My Mother the Car - Family-oriented attorney goes out looking for a modest car, finds an old dilapidated jalopy only to hear his mother's voice coming from its radio. When he has a problem, he sits in the car and talks to "Mother". Shows nuclear family (wife, two kids, dog) in a positive light; champions modesty; people who owe everything they are solely to their mother can relate; villain is antique-loving "Captain Mancini", which sounds both European and gay. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon, because Ed likes it it features teenagers working hard to improve life in their local community. The American version is also completely devoid of any homosexual undertones. Röstigraben (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Things I thought I would never see...

A Guardian editorial^img linked from MPR with no accompanying outrage or ridicule...P-Foster (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It was posted by Joaquin, i.e. the sane one. Though, I don't remember if it was the Schlaf himself, but someone posted an anti-Libya quote from Ralph fucking Nader to MPR a while back. Anything to do with Libya is Twilight Zone-esque -- I find myself agreeing with posts to MPR and all the conservatives on another site I sometimes frequent are heh, indeeding all my anti-war posts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I really welcome conservatives being anti-war. It is a development that has cheered me. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute...

"Looks like Paul Ryan and the Fox News Channel owe Newt Gingrich an apology, as Newt warned against this weeks ago."^img Wasn't Newt declared a RINO for doing this? --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We have always been at war with Eurasia. Burndall (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

it all depends on who made the rinewt accusations. was it schlafly? --User:Brxbrx/sig 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, TerryH^img. And Karajou with his toon, of course. Andy is still rather fond of Gingrich, maybe because he thinks that he's the only serious alternative to Romney. Röstigraben (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy is more redmeat than he is principled, which explains his appreciation for Gingrich. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since Gingrich was critized by pretty much the entire Republican party, I wonder if Andy still believes his nonsense about Team Newt^img (Okay, it's Andy, I don't have to wonder.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, is looking real good in the polls! I wonder if Sarah Palin knows yet that she's one of several 'stalking horses' in Gingrich's stable...? Since Andy created a "Team Newt" article^img (not essay, but article) he has to stick by his premature ejaculation over Newt. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Vomitbum again

I see he's link-whoring^img himself on Andy's blog again, but what a load of crap. "Israel owns the land, because Abraham and Jacob bought it, according to my fairy tale." Yeah and what about Moses's lot murdering everybody in their path to take over Canaan? Vomitbum is quite funny - both in his lack of integrity and intelligence. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Divine land grant." He wrote that. Really. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Abraham or Jacob need to produce that divine land grant, then. Doppelheuer (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they lost it in a smiting, fire, or flood or something. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Chuckarse logic, if you buy a few fields you own the entire country. I'm going to go buy me a farm and then declare the entire of the UK Jeevestopia. I wonder if it'll work. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because in the UK (with a few very rare exceptions) all land is owned by the Crown. When you "buy" land in the UK, all you are doing is buying the license to live on and maybe develop that land. Major bummber. It's also why conveyancing (real estate law if you are a furriner) in the UK is so fucking surreal.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ultimately the only real value Conservapedia has for "contributors". Join, give a little, then spam in hopes of getting some hits off a website most people visit to ridicule. Ever since Coke Eyes started to spam his stuff on MPR extensively, his "encyclopedia" contributions have gone nowhere: almost all spam links^img. He established himself to get in their good graces, and now just uses CP for his 3¢/hit (or is it comments he gets 3 cents for...?) - haw haw. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A VomitBottom Tri-fecta

Wow - in one post^img, VomitBottom manages to whore his blog, his gold trading woo AND Ayn Rand. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing that Coke Eyes went on Glenn Beck's gold spree late and is holding the bag. Haw haw. What, exactly, are "Objectivist stores of value" in commodities, I mean, really. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy diverges from the party line

While Andy thinks Rubio was "natural born" because his parents "submitted to US sovereignty," WND's readership disagrees. P-Foster (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to that. I can now say I have heard my brain cells committing suicide. 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

This "submitting to the jurisdiction" shit is inane. What does he think it looks like to submit? Is there a form you fill out? An oath? Jesus man. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Show some respect. The man is an attorney....oh, wait. Sorry, Counsellor. P-Foster (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's such a terrible poll ... so many of the answers are repetitive ... and it appears the respondents were mentally impaired ... terrible poll, indeed.--Danielfolsom (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it says a great deal about WND readers' grasp of US law that only 12% (when you add both unqualified yes answers together)answered it correctly. What's terrible about the poll is that someone made a poll out of this question in the first place. Last I checked, facts were not up to public opinion. Junggai (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to give partial credit to the 2% who said it's up to the Supreme Court, as they aren't totally wrong. I suppose they could actually hear a case if it made it that far. Their decision (after taking into account all of Washington's letters to his nephews) would certainly settle the matter. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah in theory but this isn't controversial and is already addressed by Wong Kim Ark. Oddly no mention of any form filled out or oath sworn by Wong Kim Ark's foreign parents manifesting their consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. ... Nutty Roux (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I love all of the posts which say, "I like Rubio and Jindal, but face the facts! According to Article 2, Section 1, they're not natural born!" Junggai (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I love how all these people just decide something that has no basis in any legal jurisprudence, and contradicts long-established law of the land, and then expect their whims and uninformed fancies to now be law. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter what any of them think because they have nothing to back them up. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant, but you said it better than I could have. As I wrote several posts ago, it says a lot that this is actually a poll, as if the law will somehow magically morph reflect the opinion of their readers. These people are truly living in a post-modern universe.Junggai (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yipee, WND approved my comment for display. For whatever reason, the word "poll" in my comment header was changed to "post." Subtle, guys... Junggai (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I never knew that WND had a forum section. Their layout is horrible. But I'm a little surprised at how civil it is. It's packed with conspiracy nuts, and loaded with short-sighted claims, but they don't seem as outwardly cruel as they do on CP. -Lardashe

The response to Junggai's comment involved a lot of name calling, though, as well as a pretty blatant disregard for anything that Junggai actually said (and the word "liberials"). Bluefish (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I was wondering about that myself. Maybe he thinks that all American liberals are allied with Liberia and support Charles Taylor as the next president. Junggai (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy for President!

http://aschlaflyforprez.wordpress.com/ --JohnGall (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. As a foreigner, I'm unfortunately banned from contributing to the campaign, but I made you this awesome poster. Röstigraben (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't contribute to the campaign directly, but can someone set up a company we can contribute to? After all, Andy's favourite piece of recent legislation is that businesses can spend whatever they want on a candidate and don't have to reveal where their money came from. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone did this last election as well.  Blue ve Neer^{what compels me on} 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one expected this guy to be elected Mayor of London

It's not bribery, it's free speech! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got a better chance of pissing vodka, then hes got winning the white house. And believe you me, I'm tryin.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion for a campaign slogan: "Don't read a President, write a President." (Though "Give it up, liberals!" and "The Trusworthy Candidate" from the image are also great choices!) --Sid (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly: "Ranked #1 in 'likelihood of winning the Republican nomination for president'", or to be more clear, "#1 in Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination" 64.30.2.130 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me that when a certain somebody sees thing, the irony may be lost on him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Other possible slogans:

Godspeed, America!

Will Dance To Prove He's Not Muslim

America, Deny Him and Lose All Credibility

--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for 'cause you just might get it. Pippa (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I believe in Americans' right to own the largely defensive weapon of gun!
• The Last Best Chance we've had to save this true Christian nation since time began 6014 years ago!
• My Mom would have ran for this office but she was too busy making sure no other women would try!
• I worked with Obama on the Harvard Law Review, where I corrected his spelling!

00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

We should set up a WIGO-like voting poll so the Best Of The Public™ can submit Schlafly Presidential slogans. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If he ran, I would happily switch my registration to the Republican Party to vote for him in the primary. I would love to see him in a presidential debate (or any political debate, for that matter)... άλφα^Talk 00:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hell, after rewriting the Bible a Presidential campaign will actually be a step back. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am holding my breath for "Schlafly/Schlafly 2012", the first mother and son presidential administration. Naturally, Andy's first act will be a Conservative re-write of the Constitution. Doppelheuer (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many conservative words have been created since the days of the Founding Fathers? That language needs updating if we want to communicate what they really meant. Bluefish (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You liberals can mock all you want, but it's clear from poll results that Mr. Schlafly is a popular candidate. --JohnGall (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

politics, and then on a related note

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=872203^img normalish news about different debt fears. This is all related to the fact atheists are cowards. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken needs our attention again it would seem. Perhaps he is having a bad week, perhaps he was recently shot down by a woman, or rejected by a potential employer, and now seeks validation from the only audience he has.

Or perhaps this Rationalwikian has noticed the foolish religion on Andyism is dwindling in adherents as shown with the decline in acolytes editors and articles of quality in the temple on the website that hosts the collection of Andyist thought and dogma philosophy. Rationalwikians have also noticed that high priest of Andyism, Ken has continued to flee in cowardly anonymity from debate offers from any online proponents of rationalism into his proverbial bunny hole, lacking MA-CHEESE-MO.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That mind of andy wigo.

For as long as I have been here people have been mocking cp for their range blocks. Now it seems, possibly post tk, andy may be lifting those range blocks. Not entirely fair to try to smack him down for that. If he starts range blocking again then smack him down perhaps. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be worded funnier. - π 08:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a stab at re-making the wigo. Incidentally, how does this string of range unblocks affect CP's planet-blocking standing? Is Larron about for a deluge of stats? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that wigo I can vote FOR instead of against. Well worded imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to 1 for saving what could have been my lowest rated WIGO since this dog.

Number of Active Range Blocks at conservapedia.com on May 22nd, 2009

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65536	32768	16384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	280	22	41	64	83	10	155	17	191	3	3	4	2	9	0	0	879
# ∞Blocks	73	0	22	0	0	0	22	2	88	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	491

Number of Active Range Blocks at Conservapedia on May 27, 2011

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65536	32768	16384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	252	6	18	20	9	5	46	7	113	0	2	2	4	2	0	0	960
# ∞ Blocks	138	0	2	0	0	0	28	2	89	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	588

The undoing of the blocks isn't as significant as letting old blocks expire without renewing the block: TK kept up with doing so, his absence has an remarkable effect.

I just wonder if Andy gets rid of some of the 403-blocks, too: I haven't spotted this - but I'm still range-blocked, too... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

range blocks at CP

TK's contributions to range blocking

Actually, Andy just unblocked a bunch of them today yesterday.

• 23:25, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 85.143.0.0/16 (Talk) ‎
• 23:24, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 97.123.22.0/24 (Talk) ‎
• 23:24, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 74.167.0.0/19 (Talk) ‎
• 23:24, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 109.169.32.0/19 (Talk) ‎
• 23:23, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 109.230.0.0/16 (Talk) ‎
• 23:23, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 89.238.160.0/19 (Talk) ‎
• 23:22, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 64.151.224.0/19 (Talk) ‎
• 23:22, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 109.203.0.0/16 (Talk) ‎
• 23:21, 26 May 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked 64.128.11.0/24 (Talk)

Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 13:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The pics and the table were updated this morning - after the unblocks... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's back

I can access Conservapedia today from the UK, right on the front page is a photo of Richard Dawkins that has clearly been touched up to make his face look redder than the original. Now UK'ers can see how silly Conpedia is again. Kirk Johnson (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Conpedia says atheism is inconsequential and declining^img, naturally others disagree, these disagree too. Do any Rationalwikians know how to find the truth? Kirk Johnson (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I use fancy calculations based on months and dates, calendar stuffs with history bits mixed in. Didn't work too well back in 1994, but it's picking up.

As a side note, "congratulations"...? Now you don't have to sit here and watch the WIGO unfold, right? Keklik 10:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I could see Atheism numbers "declining" as people in Communist and former Communist countries 're-discover' religion. Also, birthrates in religious countries are high unlike, say, the U.K. It can't be hard to pick up numbers in China. This Wikipedia article on the demographics of atheism states, "Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been un403d too. -- Nx / talk 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. Maybe that will keep you from trolling around looking for ways to prolong your stupid little fued with Human. P-Foster (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's more fun than CP. -- Nx / talk 19:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

They aren't allowing editing except by administrators, that will keep some parodists away but not all. Remember Bugler, Ma ha ha! Kirk Johnson (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy's Donald Trumpism

We know he thought this thrice-married, bankrupter of companies, Hollywood Values New Yorker was considered by Andy (and nobody else) the third most likely "Republican" to become President. We know Andy thinks Trump's Celebrity Apprentice is one of the greatest conservative televisions shows in the history of mankind. But is Donald Trump an Obama plant? Joseph Farah at WorldBirtherDaily suspects:

I have strongly begun to suspect that Trump had other motives than seeking the truth about Obama. I think he was pumping Corsi for information for some other purpose than being on the right side of history.

Not that there's any rhyme or reason to what Andy likes - he's all moment-by-moment, with little historical context and little insight into motivations. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like typical Andy/CP behavior from WND: "Hey, this guy agrees with us - HE'S AWESOME! [...] Oh shit, everybody thinks this guy is a moron, and people associate us with him - HE MUST BE A LIBERAL SABOTEUR!" --Sid (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Vague hints of a Ken Break

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=872707&oldid=872700^img the paragraph above it mentions alexa numbers are high. the second paragraph says there might be another ken break from CP

Shorter Ken: "I will edit as much as ever, but I will ignore all questions and challenges." --Sid (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The only kind of break Ken ever has is psychotic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Best New Words that Conservatives Don't Understand, and Will Make No Effort TO Understand

Socialism, Fascism, Atheism, Deism, Agnoticism, Freethinking, Scepticism, Religion, Myth, Christianity, Nazism, Hinduism, Islam, and so and so. Add you own, or make up your own definitions! Jimaginator (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Socialism - A method or process for making the last first and the first last. Incompatible with Christianity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

ZOMGZ OBAMA HATES ISRAEL!!!!

Good dismantling of this idiocy by Lawrence O'Donnell. Netanyahu's comments were even unpopular with Israelis, but the wingers won't let that stop them. WE SPEAK FOR ISRAEL AND ALL THE JEWS!!!111!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

conservative repentant?

He's taking out his personal jabs from articles and he baleeted Cowardice. Did he get a lecture from above?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

here're the links. It's maybe a little premature to make a guess at his angle. [2]^img[3]^img[4]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Conaway MPR news item

He celebrates deaths but he thinks he's a christian. Out of all the things that happen on that blog, I think this is what bothers me the most. It's disturbing. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

TV replaced by CP!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (x10^100) Holy crap. Dear Andy, the margin of error on the TV news daily ratings is larger than the entire webtraffic you got this year. You aren't stealing away their audience, your audience isn't even really growing, you've gotten smaller every year for the last 3 years! --Opcn (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the most delusional thing that was ever written on CP - and that fucking means something. --ǓḤṂ^³ 19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty astounding. I wanna see that at the top of the Best of CP. SJ ^Debaser 19:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wwwwait....didn't he also say that liberals stopped watching Trump's show because he was a conservative? Liberals aren't stopping watching Trump to go vandalize read and admire CP. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 19:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, wait. what else is failing as people go to conservapedia?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again it's even more moronic: "as people flock to Conservapedia for content […] Only content-less TV shows like the Super Bowl and American Idol are holding their TV audience." Does that mean CP doesn't have any content? Or that people move away from things they don't understand but CP is dumb enough so that people get it? And can somebody get the man that shot himself in the foot an ambulance? --ǓḤṂ^³ 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to mention this, but they beat me to it.^img --Ag Bengip (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In related news LloydR goes full blown "deny this and loose all credibility"^img, Andy is completely missing the point that people are switching over to IPTV and TiVo resources^img and BenP tells us that there also is an expiration date on CP^img. I love stuff like this, all the parodists and nutjobs come out of their respective holes. --ǓḤṂ^³ 22:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually the worst of his delusions of grandeur are kept behind-the-scenes. Like after mentioning the different faiths of Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee and Palin, he said the Conservative Bible Project could provide "a foundation of unity" for the entire conservative movement. Or that CP "could be the single biggest reason American culture is moving to the right". --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is the driving factor in the universes' seismic shift to the right. Welcome to the future here^img. --Marlow (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I love it when the comedy gold writes itself^img. Remember you can't fight the future you can only embrace it; CP is like the automobile compared to the house and buggy of TV^img. I love the megalomaniac level of grandiose delusion Andy shows; comedy platinum!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

GregoryYstates the truth^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Which makes any support against the wording suicide...--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Don't fight the future, but welcome it." - Andy Schlafly, the traditionalist and conservative. --ǓḤṂ^³ 01:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So does Andy truly and honestly believe that the audience is moving to conservapedia, or is he just grandstanding? Either one is pretty sad, but the first one is pretty delusional, even for CP. X Stickman (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A ddos attack made them say "MORE PAGE VIEWS THEN EVAR," the MPR is filled with statements saying "we know the truth about who will win the POTUS 2012 Election, so x should look here" and they maintain that people are leaving facebook in droves for them. this is normal now. ontop of the CBP delusion. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! He calls American Idol "content-less"^img, but restores it to Greatest Conservative TV Shows after it was removed because it lets "the best of the public to come to the fore, musically"^img. The guy is a laff riot. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

With the death of TK CP has gone from one parodist blocking the world to many parodists encouraging Andy's insanity. I honestly don't know what was worse for the site. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I love Andy talking about less political correctness on CP, I think that all forms of correctness steer clear of that place. --Opcn (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Parodists have also operated freely on CP when TK had been around. I'd say the site is better off right now - CP has always had a bad track record when it comes to identifying parodists, but without TK, legitimate editors (read: socks that aren't parodists who try to destroy the site) can at least register and try to make a few edits before they get banhammered for some bullshit reason. --Sid (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)