Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive24

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. 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>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

Here we go again[edit]

We just had this discussion..... I thought it was agreed that we were going to discuss taking things out before deleting from WIGO? What's going on here? SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 10:40, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Who removed what? Can you give us a difflink when you post things like this so the witch-burning can be done more efficiently? And, yes, deleting items from wigo is very poor form. If they are low quality, just vote 'em down! humanUser talk:Human 10:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Well, as I rule, I wouldn't provide a link, but you helped me with my signature so here I think it was the whole don't tip them off to their mistakes things... SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool...
I deleted some lulz. Put it back if'n you wanna do their proofreading for them. Warren Terra 11:02, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Sorry about being pissy...sleep poor last night. Warren Terra
Once it's there it's kind of "always" there anyway. I think it was an amusing link, although, it doesn't rank much higher than a typo (and we all make them). There's no way to "proofread" that article to make it sane anyway. Sid Vicious was a Hollywood liberal? Wow. And they forgot Marilyn Monroe... They should also start a list of how liberal values get politicans shot (and killed, conservatives survive), another reason they are bad.
Classy apology WT. We all make misteaks. humanUser talk:Human 11:07, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I don't want this to come off like I'm an egomaniac or anything, I just thought it was funny.... and an error like that won't last long anyway... besides, it's really funny when miracles occurr and the problem magically solves itself twp minutes after we post it. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 11:20, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Andy's latest racist abortion of an article.[edit]

"Affirmative Action President." A classic. The best part, is that all of the 2500 Google hits for "Affirmative Action President" read like this: "After a review of affirmative action, President Bill Clinton famously proposed to" or "was a critical feature of the national assault on affirmative action. President Nixon, who did much to institutionalize affirmative action." PFoster 11:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)

An interesting concept. I wonder if, by extension, that means e.g. Condoleezza Rice was an "Affirmative Action National Security Advisor" and is now an "Affirmative Action Secretary of State", or if Clarence Thomas is an "Affirmative Action Supreme Court Justice"? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:43, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I hope he remembers to add it to "Conservapedia [made up] Terms" so we can find all teh stupid in one easy to find location. Articles like this are why we call CP "Andy's blog" - completely made up opinion pieces in the "encyclopedia" article space. humanUser talk:Human 11:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I suspect the CP'ers are making excuses in advance for why the American People are going to vote in a FILTHY EVIL LIBRUL for President this year, since they can't admit what an utter hash the Nepotism President has made of everything. --Gulik 11:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Here's the really amusing part...The article sez, "An Affirmative Action President is someone selected for that office based partly or entirely on the person's race or gender." Presumably, then, the election of all of our 40-some presidents has had nothing to do with the fact that they were white males. No doubt Ronald Reagan would still have been elected had he actually been a black female, right?--WJThomas 13:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)

That's just silly talk. After all, everyone knows that white males are the standard for humanity. All others are deviations from God's original template. :-P --Gulik 14:10, 25 January 2008 (EST)
It's as plain as the nose on Andy's face that when a conservative is chosen for political office, it is on the basis of qualifications and merit, while in the case of a liberal, it must be either affirmative action or deceit. Hey, he's nothing if not consistent. Consistently absurd. PoorEd 14:20, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Good point. Why, look at our beloved (conservative Republican) president--how could any of the current crop of Democrat candidates live up to such a standard? Here's a man who lifted himself out of poverty. With hard work and intense study, he got himself into an Ivy League college, where he graduated with honors. Then, while his contemporaries were off drinking and doing drugs, he volunteered to serve his country in a time of war, asking to be sent into combat. Fortunately for our country, the military recognized his leadership abilities, and instead ordered him to protect the homeland from the dreaded North Vietnamese Air Corps. Though disappointed, he swallowed his bitterness and served with distinction. Only when the war was over did he move on to the next phase of his life, bootstrapping a series of highly successful businesses. Then, unable to shake the nagging feeling that he was making more money than any moral man truly deserved, he decided to go into public service. Many thought him naive to try to win the governorship of a state where he had virtually no name recognition, but he proved his naysayers wrong, and lead the state government with a strong but gentle hand for many years. He would doubtless still be serving his beloved home state were it not for the bipartisan "draft Bush for President" movement; humbled and honored, he bowed to popular demand. -WJThomas 21:03, 25 January 2008
Let's see if he'll get sainthood like St Ronnie! Warren Terra 21:05, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Hollywood Values[edit]

Did anyone else see this? HelpJazz posts some helpful inclusions to the article.... But the source is the NATIONAL FREAKING ENQUIRER..... SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 14:01, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Wow.- 18:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)
ANDY'S FUNNY LOL UchihaKATON! 18:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Liberals Well-Intentioned?[edit]

Typical conservative deceit. Just to make themselves look like good Christians, they term liberals "well-intentioned but, misguided" on the front page. Whatever happened to liberal deceit? I guess we should be grateful that we are now considered well-intentioned. PoorEd 14:17, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Wait... I thought that on Planet Conservative, all us Libruls were pathologically-lying drug-worshipping baby-addicted Satan-molestors who cry ourselves to sleep every night because our idol, Osama Bin Laden, hasn't DESTROYED AMERICA and BANNED JESUS AND CAPITALISM yet? Did they go and change it on me again?
But, I do think Conservatives "mean well". In the sense that where it comes being MEAN, they're quite well at it.
And I _do_ think George W. Bush and his Howling Commandoes are REALLY BAD PEOPLE. In a cynical grab at political power (and Bush's daddy issues), they've done more damage to America than Osama Bin Laden could dream of, even if you gave him a moonbase and a mass driver. --Gulik 15:07, 25 January 2008 (EST)
(Add: I see some soon-to-be-banned guy named Boomcoach called them on it on the talk page.)

Give That Man A Hood![edit]

I did a Google for one of Andy's new terms: "Liberal supremacist". Said search makes it clear that the term is in vogue amongst nazis, white-powerites, and others of their ilk. Makes one wonder where Andy picked it up...--WJThomas 14:25, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Projection -- Not just for movie theaters anymore. --Gulik 15:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I saw a similar trend when I searched for "affirmative acting". humanUser talk:Human 16:43, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Somewhat related, I had to think of the CP main page when I read that the Westboro Baptist Church is going to picket Ledger's funeral. --Sid 16:52, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Are any of these folks since 1978 conservative?[edit]

Harvard commencement speakers. Two would be more than 5%... Sterilexx 16:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Some that would generally be considered conservative would include Solzenitsyn and Greenspan (though perhaps not by Andy's standards). Many are not political figures at all, and several are Democrats. With foreign political figures its hard to say, because some conservatives in their own countries would be somewhat liberal by America standards (and very liberal by Andy's). Powell is not terribly conservative, but he is a Republican, and not a liberal anyway. There are more "liberals" than "conservatives", but none of this has anything to do with Rowling, which is supposed to be the point. Andy does have one point though: if instead of saying Dumbledore was gay, she had said he was, say, a member of the National Socialist Party, she probably would not be invited to speak at Harvard. So they do have a liberal bias in that sense. -DickTurpis 16:21, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Some names that I noted after quickly checking the list: Helmut Kohl (1990) was (German) conservative and chairman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU, the center-right party in Germany), but I seriously doubt he'd count as a conservative in Andy's universe. Richard von Weizsäcker (1987) was also in the CDU. Benazir Bhutto (1989) is praised on CP for being pro-life at least. That being said, Andy defines reality on CP (including who is "conservative"), and he never admits defeat. So even if somebody somehow manages to find 100% correct examples, Andy will simply change the subject, make 90/10 threats, or ignore the entire post. --Sid 16:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Lord Carrington is a Tory as well, I believe. 'Course, we all know that 94.6% of all Tories are actually Liberals in disguise. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Almost nobody is conservative according to Andy's standard. The only conservative candidate seems to be Huckabee, and even that is in doubt. I wonder if Andy himself is conservative according to his own standard. He is Harvard educated, ex-editor of the liberal Harvard Law Review, a trial lawyer, has gays in his family, is a working Manhattanite who likes to tell the honest Midwesterners what to think and how to live, and he apparently was not even homeschooled, or he would not have been able to go to Princeton, another liberal stronghold. This would at least mean that his mother isn't conservative then. Tohuvavohu 19:05, 25 January 2008 (EST)

He also wasn't a young-earth creationist until his 40s (then again, he would be a hippie if we used the real definition of things such as deceit and open-minded). NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)
He must have had quite some liberal parents. Tohuvavohu 23:55, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Kids, I think you almost wrote a great article there. Pick a title, copy and paste, copyedit a little, and I think you have winner! humanUser talk:Human 00:02, 26 January 2008 (EST)

I think we have stumbled upon a fantastic new idea. Conservatism as a form of goodness. All aspire to it, but in our fallen and imperfect world, only saints such as blessed ronnie succeed. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 00:16, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Where's Rob?[edit]

There been a shortage of lulz over at CP as resident moron Rob Smith has been absent from the site since December 16. Where is he? Some possibilities follow; feel free to add more. We can work out the odds for a pool later.

  • In Nicaragua working with neo-contras to overthrow Ortega
  • In a bunker with his brand new bride, minister of propaganda, and cyanide pill
  • Lobbying Congress to get McCarthy's picture on the nickel
  • Dead on the toilet
  • Still recovering from Beethoven's 237th birthday bash (unlikely)
  • Looking for holes in Hillary's Secret Service protection
  • On a romantic getaway with Ken

I can't decide which is the most probable. -DickTurpis 16:07, 25 January 2008 (EST)


Forcrissake. This is not rocket science, Andy. In Greek, 'weapon' is 'hoplo', and 'fear' is 'phobos'. Hence, 'fear of weapons' is... wp:Hoplophobia! "Gunophobia", my Liberal ass... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:11, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Perhaps gunophobia is the fear of yawning, if you'll forgive me mercilessly plundering germanic languages... --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 20:26, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Genocide Entry at CP[edit]

Can someone with a spare sock - or a CP editor who reads this, fix Iduan's fuck-up please? The UN Genocide Convention - which I put into the entry in question, uses the word "ethnical" - Iduan thinks it's a typo for "ethical," annd he is, of course, wrong. One little "n" changes everything.

Meh. I really hope the treaty doesn't butcher our poor language like that. What's wrong with the word "ethnic" in this context, as far as I can see it means the same thing as "ethnical" and has the dual advantages of being recognised by the spell checker, and being a syllable shorter. This horrible habit of adding meaningless sounds to the end of words has to stop. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 20:20, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I blame 1948 diplomatic language. You're right though, "ethnic" would have been a better choice. Turned out my current IP wasn't one of the several of the ones in this area that TK or Ed didn't block, si i fixed it myself, and got blocked for it...PFoster 20:24, 25 January 2008 (EST)


So drugs have no positive effects on people, not even prescription drugs? And claiming otherwise is liberal? I'll bet this is news to, among other people, godzilla, who scientists have estimated is between 80 and 300 years old, and who no doubt has a bathroom full of prescriptions. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 09:12, 25 January 2008 (EST)

ALSO: Underwear will changed every ensure this is done it will be wore on the OUTSIDE....that is all. Warren Terra 09:25, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Well, let's be honest here ;) It was actually me who wrote that section, and I am a liberal. So there. I mourn its passing, however. It took them eight months to remove my lucid and factual prose! humanUser talk:Human 11:14, 25 January 2008 (EST)
PS, thanks for defending what used to be a decent article, PJR. humanUser talk:Human 11:15, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Oh Noes!!! Andy has deleted the section on 'cake'. Surely the episode of Brass Eye was not in vain. How will my kids be protected from cake pushers like that awful Mr Kipling. Silver Sloth 12:45, 25 January 2008 (EST)
He does make exceedingly good crack. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 21:08, 25 January 2008 (EST)

This version brought to you by the guy whose cousins own a big hunking brewry...Gee no wonder alkeehol got cut! Warren Terra 20:58, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Hahaha. Liberal attempts to "mainstream" drugs. As far as I was aware, caffeine, nicotine and alcohol were pretty mainstream without any help from "liberals." My diagnosis? Too much Jesus, not enough real cider and perry. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 21:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Don't take Schlafly too seriously, that's just the Percocets talking. Warren Terra 21:07, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Wow, that article is getting stripped down to shit! It now contains less text than my innocent description of legal, prescription DRUGS. Wha' happen? humanUser talk:Human 23:47, 25 January 2008 (EST)
It does however now have a truly great example of tautology now. "Illegal drugs are drugs prohibited by law." I bet assfly reckons he's saying something with that sentence. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 00:00, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I like the way Trashfly was shocked to find how the article was liberal. Who knows how many more liberal tainted articles there might be? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I'd suggest he carefully examine the building trades articles, and the brief synopses of eras in classical music (that I pulled out of my ass and submitted unwashed). I'm sure my liberally biased writing style will be obvious to him, even if I tried to hide it. humanUser talk:Human 12:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

"Affirmative Action President" Update -[edit]

I'm not sure that some troll calling Obama a n***** - which was deleted 2 minutes later - is noteworthy. PFoster 23:40, 25 January 2008 (EST)

The update hath been removeth from thy view, and so hath thy impious contents. Speak ye, users that hear thy brother's plea, speak your minds about the actions that hath been acted upon. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 10:42, 26 January 2008 (EST)


Did you like my attack at CP? --YOUR WEBSITE SUCKS!

Yawn. Did you say something? Attacks at CP are so two weeks ago. Wake me when you have something smart to say in a normal font.PFoster 15:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah normal fonts are so hip.CЯacke®

Jenkins speaks out[edit]

It seems like Jenkins cannot take it any longer given what appears to be two Parthian shots [1] [2]. It is hard to not agree with his observations, but does this mean that Jenkins will have to leave? Or is Andy able to read this with an open mind? Tohuvavohu 18:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

"Or is Andy able to read this with an open mind?" No, no he is not. He is incapable. Everything Jenkins said is true, which is why he will be blocked and, most likely, what he said will disappear.--BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:59, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Godspeed! NightFlareSpeak, mortal 20:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Aaaaand 1 day changed to infinite. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 22:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Admittedly, after my user talk post, the Dawkins talk post, AND my mail (see my user page here), I gotta say "FINALLY!" - The basic premise of CP might have worked out, but Andy is really driving the project into the ground by taking the "neutral to the facts" principle and adding his own "...and I get to decide what is a fact!" --Jenkins 23:15, 26 January 2008 (EST)
I gotta say, though, it's been refreshing to finally speak my mind instead of constantly engaging in self-censorship just to please Andy, Wielder of The Banhammer. --Jenkins 23:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Know the feeling, believe me. But I disagree that the premise of CP could possibly work, just because it is a contradiction in terms. An encyclopedia contains facts. There are no "conservative" facts or "liberal" facts. True, there are facts that can make one side or the other look good and facts that can make each side look bad, but facts are facts. The closest they could come to an "encyclopedia" would be an encyclopedia of strictly conservative beliefs and stances on issues. But they would need to preface it by saying "these are our opinions" instead of what they have now, where they claim that their his opinion is fact. Or at least, that's the way I think.
But either way, welcome to the light. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 00:37, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Typical Liberal Deceit. Don't you know the facts have an obvious Liberal agenda? (Or, sadly more accurately these days, the conservatives have an anti-fact agenda.) --Andrew Schlafly 03:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind, Bill (I admit I had phrased it somewhat vaguely/incorrectly there). Just give the US conservative view of things without claiming any sort of neutrality (and without calling the end result an "encyclopedia"). Declare CP to be the right-wing opinion blog it is. Instead, CP claims that Andy's ultra-Christian US conservative position is The Truth and that everybody else either is in denial or uses deceit.
In a way, the only thing that's missing is that admission. The entire rest is already there. Just look at their position on what is a reliable source: Andy's dinner conversations, Newsbusters, TownHall, conservative blogs, essays and random websites supporting the conservative position... but on the other hand, any major source Andy doesn't like gets dismissed as being "liberally biased". That alone enforces right-wing bias from the start and eliminates any chance of becoming "neutral to the facts". And the few indisputable sources get radically reinterpreted to fit the agenda (see gun control). Oh, and let's not forget that sysops are automatically right in content disputes if they feel like it (see Atheism, ToE, Dawkins, etc). All of that totally goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia, but it completely fits into the spirit of an opinion blog. --Jenkins 07:24, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Don't forget Parody websites, "obvious facts" and Jack Chick tracts as references. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:00, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan's last stand[edit]

I actually do hope we didn't have anything to do with Andy being so reluctant to give him rights. It's bizarre, because he's actually one of their few solid contributors. Unless RW much of the mob recognizing Iduan as fairly reasonable renders him automatically undesirable at CP? I genuinely hope he gets'em (rights, that is). Hey, but Iduan, you're still welcome here! UchihaKATON! 01:44, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Unrelated note: Andy loves "trolls". UchihaKATON! 01:49, 27 January 2008 (EST)

I don't - I think we should do everything we can to try and make sure he doesn't get rights - I mean, sure he deserves them, but Conservapedia having a good sysop might actually give us less lulz.--Danielfolsom 01:55, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, you really just proved his point...... Pinto's5150 Talk 01:56, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, obviously someone can't detect sarcasm (hint: most sentences with "lulz" are sarcastic - that being said i did try to get his password once) - but honestly, do you think one good sysop could change anything? And besides - Iduan was banning people just like TK was - why is there so much love for him on this site--Danielfolsom 01:59, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Iduan is occasionally too heavy-handed on banning, but it never gives me an evil vibe. Lurker 02:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I think Iduan is good at heart, but he seems to have adopted a tough-guy image to show that he has what it takes to become a sysop: Quick with blocks, giving out block warnings, no sense of humor, censoring talk page postings... --Jenkins 07:27, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, many of his blocks were remarkably short (1 hour, sometimes 1 day) compared to those of other sysops. None of that seemed to help him much anyway, though, as Andy had apparently already relegated him to the category of "untrusworthy liberal peon". UchihaKATON! 11:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Question is, of course, will he make an appearance here, if only to say hi? -- 11:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

He did, and it was. Hi! UchihaKATON! 11:31, 27 January 2008 (EST)
At the end though none of his blocks were short, however, I will say that I do think I remember him telling andy (or maybe ti was RobS) to shut up when he was new there (he was blocked by Andy for it lol)--Danielfolsom 11:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Does Karajou think that the only thing preventing Iduan from editing is the fact that he blocked himself - because karajou just unblocked him lol--Danielfolsom 11:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Hey I just realized - Iduan updated his message on the userpage - didn't we have that posted somewhere? WE should probably update ours--Danielfolsom 11:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I think that entry is WAY old (if I'm pondering what you're pondering, so to speak), so "correcting" it would be somewhat pointless. Besides, the new entry pretty much acts as a Full Update anyway... --Sid 11:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, this just fully sank in: Andy is really going to completely ignore Iduan's departure, isn't he? --Sid 12:00, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Personally I think Andy just isn't smart enough to understand what Iduan did for the site- I mean the area Iduan did the most in - templates - Andy knows nothing about, I mean especially those university templates (I just noticed now that Iduan was downloaded images in order to get the EXACT code for the school colors - and I also just noticed how painful it would be to go to each universities' sports page and retype every sport). So no, Iduan isn't going to get much attention leaving, well, besides from us--Danielfolsom 12:20, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I think it speaks volumes about the site: he clearly cares more about ideology than hard work and legitimate contributions. And that's why they're dying.-αmεσ (spy) 12:49, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Well, they're not. We're keeping them alive XD --Sid 15:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe a bit too much of a cheap shot (and a bit of a guess) for a dedicated WIGO entry: "This project is not of speed but of resistance." Yeah, but on CP, Resistance Is Futile. Persistence, however... ;) Okay, persistence also is futile on CP, now that I think about it... --Sid 15:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Also, the comparison with Learn Together must sting - LT got edit rights less than five weeks after joining! --Sid 15:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)
BrianCo managed some impressive sarcasm here. (Or maybe he's a completely sincere dupe. I honestly can't tell.) --Gulik 16:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Jenkins, Iduan et al[edit]

The "retirement of these two and the death of Suharto today reminds me of Andy - a megalomaniac who stretched his use of power until it snapped. Shouldn't we admit that Andy's "bonkers" and that we're mocking the clinically ill - it's rather like the Victorian entertainment of visiting the lunatic asylum for laughs. SusanPurrrrrrr 13:14, 27 January 2008 (EST)

"Rather like"? I think, sadly, it's more "exactly like". Oh, actually, there is a difference. We aren't crashing the Schlafly summer barbecue to laugh at them. We are reading what Andy is proud to display in public. humanUser talk:Human 13:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Interesting proposal.... tmtoulouse beleaguer 13:21, 27 January 2008 (EST)
So what should we do, then? Mock Chronicles Magazine? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I'd argue that there's a difference between say, a schizophrenic and a True Believer. How much of a difference, I couldn't say, but one's worth mocking--especially as the schizophrenic has a very low chance of getting the government to pass a law stopping the CIA from stealing his thoughts with their microwave rays, but the True Believer has a huge support structure for his delusional thinking. --Gulik 16:24, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I'm in the process of assessing his mental state on this here Wiki Spica 17:56, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The fastest growing educational resource![edit]

It has taken them 11 hours to get 50 mainspace edits that were not marked as minor.[3] - Icewedge 15:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Alot of that is actually wolfbagger wandalism. CP is seriously stagnant. UchihaKATON! 16:18, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Wolfbagger's posts were all perfectly legit! Not vandalism at all.
Errr I'd agree with those numbers on any other day of the week, but it's Sunday. Oh and editing was probably only on for 6 of those 11 hours. Lurker 16:25, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Lurker (is that your real name?), all your edits are talk, talk and talk, liberals love talking. Why don't you contribute with new articles from the Wanted pages? If you don't want to contribute possitively then maybe Wikipedia is for you. Thank you and Godspeed!!!!!!! --Aschlafly 16:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)
HA! I must be right if you are impersonating Andy! (BTW it's not ALL talk. Once a month or so I correct a spelling mistake.) Lurker 16:38, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Lurker, your attempts at getting the last word fool nobody, everybody knows liberals love Last Wordism. Cease your attempts at Last Wordism now or you will be blocked for it. --Aschlafly 16:54, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Meh, that joke's funny the first hundred times, but it's a bit old now, dontcha think? Lurker 17:06, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Never, not as long as Andy keeps finding ways to get mocked. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 17:27, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Meh, I don't find much of the rest of your site to be funny either. You guys don't like Will Ferrell, do you? Lurker 17:49, 27 January 2008 (EST)
"Oh and editing was probably only on for 6 of those 11 hours" was written deadpan, as if the writer thought that was somehow no big deal. It's actually funnier than the random andy's in this section. humanUser talk:Human 21:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)
See? It's not hard to get new material every once and a while. Human gets me. Lurker 23:32, 27 January 2008 (EST)
[4] (10am EST). Oh man looks like your contributions are going downhill, too. 10 hours for 50 non-minor edits!!!!!11!!1!!!11! OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DAI!1! Lurker 10:07, 28 January 2008 (EST)
And.........? We all know RationalWiki gets less edits than Conservapedia. However unlike Conservapedia I have never seen any one here claim that we are "The fastest growing education resource." - Icewedge 12:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
And.........? We all know that summing the edits in one 12-hour period tells us nothing about growth. My statement was just as relevant as yours, regardless of the claims made by either RW or CP. Lurker 00:33, 29 January 2008 (EST)
To be fair the only person to state that (as far as I could see) was TK months ago. "Growing rapidly" on the other hand... NightFlareSpeak, mortal 13:28, 28 January 2008 (EST)
I always thought he was doing it to be facetious; kinda hard to tell. Lurker 00:33, 29 January 2008 (EST)


  • Suharto = bad
  • Liberal = bad
  • Ergo: Suharto = Liberal

Simple realy. SusanPurrrrrrr 17:00, 27 January 2008 (EST)

I agree that that's exactly how CP logic tends to work (see i.e. cp:Fred Phelps) but in this case the editor's made all of 10 edits, and his last one (sans Suharto) was exactly 3 months ago, so it's not really fair to call it the CP logic. Lurker 17:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)
True, but it will be the CP logic that (most likely) keeps it from being reverted. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 17:39, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Hey Lurker - I realise the guy who put it up there is no regular, but as of now it's been there for like four hours, and it's linked to from the front page, so I call fair game. PFoster 17:43, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Such is your prerogative. Lurker 17:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I think the bestest part is how they use "liberal" and "authoritarian" to describe the same person. Does. Not. Compute. If it's a parody it's a pretty good one. --JeēvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 17:46, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Err. I'm not gonna touch that one. I've been good lately. Lurker 17:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Well, rememebr that on Planet Conservapedia, ALL Liberals are secretly Stalinists. --Gulik 18:08, 27 January 2008 (EST)
The funny thing is, if one looks at Golkar and its ideology, they actually seem pretty conservative. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:13, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Let's Play, "Andy Sez..."![edit]

Andy Sez: "...(B)ig-city newspapers are almost entirely liberal. Just look at whom they endorse if you really doubt it." Okay, let's do that. Fifty biggest US cities and their newspapers' presidential endorsements in 2004... WJThomas 21:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

I cut and pasted this info and discussion to conservapedia:liberal newspapers and its talk page for posterity before it gets archived and vanishes. Those who care, please to go there & improve & comment more. humanUser talk:Human 19:21, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Jerry Springer, the Opera[edit]

It looks like CP is getting worked up about JSTO but I can't open the video link. Can anyone clarify? Silver Sloth 02:50, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I can't open it either but JSTO was sued for blasphemy in the UK a couple of years ago & was not guiltyfied I'll look it up & get back on it.SusanPurrrrrrr 03:07, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Nice site Nice site

SusanPurrrrrrr 03:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes! Whenever we Brits get too arrogant about the USAsian fundies all we have to do is remeber the way that Christian Voice went after JSTO to remember that we have our own set of loonies, and they can be just as dangerous. Silver Sloth 03:43, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I'm amused by CP's contention that the "liberal elite" is behind this, as if Clinton, Kennedy, Soros, Streisand, et al are having secret meetings to plot the downfall of Chritianity via the production of profane operas.--WJThomas 07:50, 28 January 2008 (EST)

It's all part of the Liberal boogeyman Agenda SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 10:28, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Pill & cancer risk[edit]

Surely, after these news, Conservapedia will advocate regular pill use to avoid cancer? Ed @but not the Poor one! 05:44, 28 January 2008 (EST)

When will they ever learn?[edit]

Yet another poor misguided fool tries to use logic against the slight bias onevolution. SusanPurrrrrrr 11:52, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Jeb Berkeley Returns to Conservapedia![edit]

Yesterday I returned to trolling Conservapedia after having been range-blocked for over four months. And yes, they are still as liberal as ever. They hate Holocaust Deniers and Metapedia. just like you. JebBerkeleyReturns 12:41, 28 January 2008 (EST)

No-one ever said they were all bad. SusanPurrrrrrr 12:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Oh! We did? Just goes to show. SusanPurrrrrrr 12:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Key New Term[edit]

Haigui! How ever did we get by without that one? Fretfulporpentine 13:20, 28 January 2008 (EST)

HPV vaccine (yet again)[edit]

[5] This whole discussion is...interesting...quite a bit more of of the quote mining that Schlafly claims he doesn't do. It's perfectly okay to use the part in the story that says that the people who died had received the vaccination, but it's liberal bias to read a few sentences later that there is no known connection between the vaccination and the deaths. Also, has anyone else noticed that Karajou has started trying to draw every discussion back to how he's served his country and therefore no one can question him? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 15:36, 28 January 2008 (EST)

He's a vet? Big deal. So was Lee harvey Oswald. --SockOfGulik 16:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)
And Tim McVeigh. -DickTurpis 17:51, 28 January 2008 (EST)

A(n) fucking ad hominem attack[edit]

RA rips karajoukoopoogoo a new one. Well, I moved it all.

I copied all this as I suggested above. Please go here and there for more comments and contributions? humanUser talk:Human 21:06, 28 January 2008 (EST)