Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive245

This is an archive page, last updated 16 July 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>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <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)

Nothing Creepy...

With an elder gentlemen who nicknames himself "Uncle" watching teen flicks. I pray that he at least has Netflix, and isn't forcing some underpaid Blockbuster clerk to imagine him watching these movies. Seriously, Uncle Ed, save your money, and just get a subscription to Mr. Skin. Jared (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn you for beating me to this. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thought this article might be Uncle Ed's creation after his latest viewing party. Jared (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on Ed, I'm still waiting to learn what Never Been Kissed is about. Consider this your writing plan. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank God Karajou took care of that vandal and put back Never Been Kissed to its original Uncle Ed's Encyclopedia entry. Jared (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, i don't think it's creepy at all. i just think that's about as much mental cognative activity he can do - deal with teen age plots. --En attendant Godot 20:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Disneyland

JPatt returns from an important and gruelling fact finding mission in the deepest depths of the internet to bring us all Creepy Secrets of Disneyland. Yes, these are such secrets... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Ken hack Rob's account, or is he just trolling us?

Nothing like User:conservative's incoherent drivel to feature on your user page^img RobSmith, I am disappoint--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

wtf? --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I like his google results picture. Look! I pinned CP to the top of my search results, so everyone who searches for Barack Hussein Obama on my computer will get CP! We're awesome! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hilarious. Though to be fair, he probably doesn't even understand that these are personalized results. --Sid (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(+ cap^img of current version so 403'd people can see it, too) --Sid (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's only trolling if you didn't expect a CP sysop to side with another CP sysop. Seriously, did anybody actually expect Rob to enforce some sort of policy that keeps Ken in check? Sorry, but in Rob's own words: "Muzzle not th[e] ox, and you've certainly been the workhorse trampling out the grain here."^img Or as I call it in the case of CP, the "TK Principle": "If you show enough activity and claim the site would be completely lost without you, you can get away with anything." --Sid (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"RobSmith: Obama declared the War on Terror."

No, Lx. I'm pretty sure that Rob meant "Obama declared [that] the war on terror [was] over [,] two years ago." not that Obama declared [a] war on terror [more than] two years ago. The "over" means "finished," not "more than." P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognized that about thirty seconds after I posted the WIGO. This is why one should not read quotes out of context... ListenerX^TalkerX 03:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Birth certificate signature forged

Can Andy really be stupid enough to believe this crap http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=319221 ? "I had to scrunch the image a bit to fit on the screen," - well yeah, because the 'proof' doesnt work with the original image.

The part of this i like the most is that the signature is "on two layers" which is proof its forged. cept no one can offer any reason why one would do that. I've forged my hubby's siggy on a registration doc, and i copyed his siggy, and pasted THE ENTIRE THING onto the new form. i didn't take the first two letters on one "layer" and the last letters on teh next layer. --En attendant Godot 20:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it being on two different layers indicate that it's NOT been tampered with, and it was the scanning/PDF converting software that saw it as two different elements? I'm not very up to date with my computer graphics knowledge though. It's about a decade and a half out of date. :P Dendlai (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get it? Layers!!! Mathematical proof!!! Windows Photo Viewer!!! That man's a real pro and I definitely believe him. --79.40.20.228 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Shit, yeah. i guess you convinced me. Damn You OBAMA! for being muslim and now a forger! I mean, you were not even a citizen cause your father grants citizenship not your mother, so why why why???--En attendant Godot 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this make no sense whatsoever? It seems they have an issue with the scan of the document, not the document itself. Surely there aren't "8 layers" to the original document. What are these layers they're even talking about? I realize its WND, so their target audience is people with an IQ of 37, but still. DickTurpis (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cause the "only document we have" is the scan. They claim that the "long form" is not real, just one more scan scam. --En attendant Godot 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I love this argument. It's so idiotic and self-defeating. "It's obviously computer-generated text, since there's no visible height difference between these five-pixel-tall letters. Never mind the fact that the antialiasing clearly indicates varying heights and the fact that every letter is different." And that this somehow got past multiple levels of government and media, yet is instantly exposed by a lone computer engineer. Quick, someone suggest it to Andy as a new "Best of the Public" entry! «-Bfa-» 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just any ol' computer enginner, but i think he called himself a "prominent one".

Man, this is getting into truther territory, i.e., blow up digital images until they're pixellated and full of artifacts, declare said artifacts to be explosive devices aka "squibs." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is too funny. The crack -ahem- "analysis" by a "prominent software engineer" flows something like this: The signature is obviously computer generated because the bottom of the letters are spaced exactly 1 pixel from the line. No human can do that. The proof? First begin by cropping off the letters that don’t fit the hypothesis. So if you ignore just over 50% of the characters in the signature, you will see that this theory fits perfectly. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Carefully select the data to fit your theory? No wonder Andy likes it!^img --Sid (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I still find it hilarious that these people think that Obama would be stupid enough to create an over-engineered photoshop fake rather than just print off a fake document, write on it with a pen and scan it. X Stickman (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the beauty of the birther version of Obama: they sincerely believe that he is grossly incompetent while simultaneously being an evil calculating mastermind. In other words, he's somehow both an idiot and a genius in their eyes. Check out the comments, they're a wonderful slice of humanity. I've submitted my hypothesis that time traveling wizards have conjured a legitimate history for the President. Of course, when Corsi and his lot eventually sink down to that level after any and all possible "evidence" has been refuted they'll simply replace "wizards" with "Satan". It works so perfectly for them! Saladin (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Another frigging anonymous "software engineer". I need to start a campaign to build awareness of the fact that every idiot who can run Ubuntu off a live CD and code a bit in VB isn't Alan Turing. Ellipsoidal (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

...of all the things...why Ubuntu and VB? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Slothful and impotent fireman

According to Ken the fireman in this picture looks slothful and impotent^img. Ace^{of Spades} 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He's putting down firemen now? people who risk thier lives for him? what . the. fuck.^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Clearly they aren't risking their lives hard enough, or that fire would be gone. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused on another point. Why did Ken just now get around to answering this editor's question about the fireman? The guy asks the question on April 17, gets banned, by Ken, 2 weeks later over another matter, now Ken goes back and decides to answer a months old question, from a user that can no longer respond. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also interesting - I'd love to meet anybody besides Ken, who looks at that picture and thinks "Ooh look at that fantastic fire destroying that evil house! Boo, Mr. Fireman! Boo! Don't you dare stop that lovely fire!" Ken is a very strange little man. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Ken's an arsonist? A fire fetishist? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell it like it is.^img --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Caylee's Law

• Andy: A law that would require parents to not wait a full month before reporting their child missing would be BAD! Why not make abortion illegal or something instead?"^img
• User: "...that sounds like a pretty okay law..."^img
• Andy: "But what if the parents are divorced, and what if the child just runs away for a few weeks? I mean, this happens and is no reason for concern, right? With this terrible law, the non-custodial parent might actually press charges against the poor victim (the ex who couldn't be arsed to inform people who could've helped to find the child)!"^img

Yeah Andy, your "Father of the Year" award is in the mail. =| --Sid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The law is pretty big bullcrap, despite Andy's dickish reasoning - even a broken clock is wrong twice a day. Ateafish (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From Denis' post: "this law would open the door to abusive prosecutions of grieving parents" How should I put this? IF PARENTS DON'T USE ANY HELP THEY CAN GET TO FIND THEIR CHILDREN, THEY ARE BAD PARENTS. I'd rather have an abusive goverment than abusive parents everywhere that don't even give that much of a fuck if their children are gone. For fuck's sake, I knew these people lack empathy but I didn't know that lack love for their children. --uhm, t! 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

" I'd rather have an abusive government than abusive parents ", I wouldn't, abusive government affects everyone, abusive parents are (despite the sensational news stories) few and far between. The law is bullshit, ignoring the reactionary response on the part of the legislatures to the not-guilty verdict (which alone should raise some HUGE red flags for you), it criminalizes a behavior that is at best an accessory offense. The laws intent is clear, it is to protect the state's ass if there is insufficient evidence of foul play to go for the big charges. Your reasoning (and the reasoning of the state legislatures) is pretty cut and dry, that is - the only people that would be against this offense are bad parents or people trying to cover something up. However, if the state had evidence of either abuse, foul play, or murder on the parts of the parents they would be charged under those statues and spend a long long time in jail, just because someone who looked guilty got off (i.e. Casey) doesn't mean that the state is always so incompetent in prosecuting abusive parents. The equivalent of this law would be prosecuting someone for driving a vehicle without permission when the state couldn't nail them with grand theft (which incidentally the state cannot do per a Supreme Court decision). Let me put this clearly - it is NOT the business of the state to prosecute or jail "bad" parents, (However, the state can and should prosecute and imprison abusive parents). Ateafish (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So, uh...abuse, "foul play", and murder are wrong. Losing your child for weeks is fine, much like borrowing a car without permission. "Bad" parenting is a private matter; "abusive" parenting calls for jail time.

I'm not sure I follow. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You are (probably not consciously) quote-mining me "I'd rather have an abusive goverment than abusive parents everywhere". I was specifically speaking of everywhere, not just some. I think that if a persons life is at risk and it not his or her own, a state should intervene. Why? Because if children disappear, they are automatically in danger because they are children - that means weak and naive. Why intervene? A state has to protect the people that life in it, the age or if their parents have something to say in there life is not of importance. If a parent does not care if his kid is in danger or not chooses to still do nothing, they are actively risking that kids life. Would we allow parents to do the same thing in different situations? No, we wouldn't. We wouldn't let a mother have her kid if she let him or her run across a highway. We wouldn't let them if a mother let her son jump from building to building, because it's not safe. It's the exact same thing. As I see it, that law is not their to punish parents that are bad, it's their to protect children from strangers, because the parents are bad and the state has to secure the lifes of the people that life in it's borders. My stressing of "bad parents" is due to the fact that I find people that are underprotective of their children even worse that people that are overprotective of their children. I'm btw, speaking as somebody who grew up in the first category. --uhm, t! 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing always seemed a bit strange to me. Does the US really not have "failure to report a death" as a crime? The child died, and the death was concealed, these appear to be admitted facts of the case (once the mother managed to go five minutes without telling a lie). Concealing a death interferes with the proper exercise of numerous legal authorities the government has, such as in this case to conduct a post mortem on a dead child and investigate whether foul play was involved. You're basically begging gangsters to hide their victims, children to conceal the death of parents (and collect pension benefits), and parents to hide infanticide. Without "failure to report" being a crime obviously it's never in your interests to report even an accidental death you witness. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A special message to Ken

I try to avoid sending out blatant red telephone messages because I don't want to taunt and anything anyone has ever said you haven't understood anyway but there is something I want to highlight. You go on about wanting to debate prominent atheists (I believe you offered a debate to Richard Dawkins once and there is your current offer to Penn Jillette) but what you fail to understand is that in order to debate someone, particularly someone of high standing, you need credibility. Credibility is not offering a written debate from your hidey-hole. Credibility is gained through offering your debate opponent your name, qualifications, a debate venue and the promise you'll show up. You have given none of these things so no one is under any onus to take you seriously. You a mere faceless somebody shouting from a website where you make absurd challenges to people yet block any avenue of them contacting you anyway. It isn't cowardice on anyone elses part but your own. Ace^{of Spades} 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Ace? You accidentally wrote "faceless somebody" instead of "faceless nobody". Want me to jump in there and correct that for you? DickTurpis (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What HAS ken actually told us about himself? I know he enjoys denying any attempt to say where he livses, what his name or gender is, including vague geographical terms for the first one--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In regards to this message, Ace, what you fail to recognize is that user:conservative has gained an incredible amount of credibility in regards to the manner in which he has slain Evolution, Atheism and Homosexuality on the internet through the millions of page hits that his articles on Conservapedia have received, and the resulting high rankings that those articles have earned on a certain search engine that starts with a G. In regards to his courage, he is not the one who retreats into an intellectual bunnyhole, or who lacks machismo. In regards to his debating skills, they are obviously above reproach. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 00:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ace, in regards to this message, Ace, what you fail to recognize about the message is on the internet User:Conservative has gained an incredible amount of credibility on the internet in regards to the manner in which User:Conservative has slain Evolution, Atheism, and Homosexuality on the internet through millions of internet pageviews of the Evolution, Atheism, and Homosexuality articles on the internet, and the resulting high rankings that the Evolution, Atheism, and Homosexuality articles have earned on a certain search engine that starts with a G. In regards to User:Conservative's courage, User:Conservative is not the one who retreats into an intellectual bunnyhole, or who lacks machismo. In regards to User:Conservative's debating skills, User:Conservative's debating skills are obviously beyond reproach. User:Conservative^{not really!}

You forgot to append "in his MIND", P-Foster. That's the crucial aspect and, quite frankly, the only thing he gives a flying fuck about. Veracity is immaterial if he can self-validate it. He's like the William Lane Craig of crazy. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading Kens "response" I am not surprised. Completely misses the point, makes some vague insult against atheists, archives the page. Ken, if you want to be taken seriously then you need to man up, stop hiding behind CP and your bizarre claims, make a serious challenge, declare your qualifications and display some machismo. Ace^{of Spades} 06:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Give it up Ace, you'll never win. Ken has armies of YouTubers conquering Texas, and he's coming for New Zealand next, and you'll be consumed in the Godless hellfire long before you've ever hit 'Save Pa...... DogP (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

JoMar on Arab-Americans and NATO.

Okay, so we know that NATO are murderous thugs in Libya (though not in Afghanistan, apparently). But did you know that Arab-Americans have been here since before there was a USA and are part of the national fabric, treat their women better than non-Muslim Americans, do not represent a terrorist risk, and have no desire to impose Sharia in the US? How his stuff stays on CP is beyond me. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The last two tend to be generally true, and even the crazies there have to recognize that--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

all of them are true. None of them in the CP universe, though. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Was I the first one to use the nickname JoMar to refer to Joaquín Martínez? Do I get credit for that? I get credit for so little...--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Awwwww, does wittle Brxbrx need more attention? 12:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for providing--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Community Portal - all discussions conveniently ended

Phew,^img just in time to cut off calls to Andy...^img

This is almost literally a repetition of the old Sysop Abuse page: The accused parties get to decide when the discussion is over while the people who earlier promised to do something sit on their asses and do nothing. Next stop: Deletion! =D --Sid (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait... "This feature [internal mails] seems contrary to the spirit of a wiki..." Where the fuck was Andy when his trusted right hand man was insisting that ALL discussion take place via e-mail? In some respects, this is a good thing, as it encourages open debate... well, it would on a normal wiki, on CP it just flags those the sysops must kill. And Rob's ADD seems to have kicked in re: the Portal, Ken's done his usual cowardly "nothing to see here" deal, and Rob's busy masturbating over Obama again. Good old CP SNAFU again. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Spirit of a wiki"? LMFAO! And I'm not just referring to the system email service. I also think Ken's spat with Nate deserves a bigger capture^img. Генгис^marauding 10:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure it isn't missed: "Next, RobS just put an animated gif that I use on one of my anti-evolution satires on his user page and RobS and I have a very cordial relationship with RobS." I think Ken should use more pronouns when Ken is talking with other people in a conversation with Ken. «-Bfa-» 10:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

this won't go down well^img Nor this.^img --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LALALALALA Andy can't hear you LALALALALALA Occasionaluse (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't someone waaaayyy back in the Abuse Desk days ask Andy to intervene or at least reply to the abuse discussions? The outcome was an obvious cacophony of crickets from Andy, and the Desk was rife with lulz for at least a couple weeks. In fact, Geo archived and locked it or something (too lazy to check), and instead requires email with admins, something which Andy has now said he's against. I can almost see the strings guiding Conservative as he aims his stream of urine all over the wiki. DANCE, KEN, DANCE! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

People asking Andy to do something has been CP's most consistent theme. "Andy, maybe we should make namespaces for essays and debates! Could you do something?", "Andy, TK is openly copypasting! Could you do something?", "Andy, people are being banned left and right for disagreeing with sysops! Could you do something?", "Andy, Ken is becoming the sole author of the Evolution article and also claimed Atheism and Homosexuality as his property! Could you do something?", "Andy, there are serious complaints about your sysops! Could you do something?", "Andy, I have made five million category edits and generally do solid editing here, so I think I deserve edit rights! Could you do something?", "Andy, Bugler is destroying the community! Could you do something?", etc. The result is always the same: Andy sits on his ass and waits for the problem to solve itself somehow. CP has no leader, which is why minions like TK and Ken are trying (and succeeding) to assume de facto leadership. --Sid (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Far be from me to point out the obvious. Andy recently said, Lead by example^img. CP is a meritocracy. Andy has been known to promote RW users and like-minded idividuals in the past, or take thieradvice. But many of the closed-minded bigots on this site cannot reconcile these facts to their stilted view that Andy & CP are "auhoritarian", and CP is a dictatorship. Leadership positions have always been open to Rationalwiki editors. None have chosen to gain leadership positions by merit. Again, contrary to RW conventional thinking, Andy is not stupid in discerning whether a user's intent is to help the wiki, or harm it. But let me restate the obivous again, CP sysop positions have always been available to Rationalwiki users who wish to contrbute to the CP project, in good faith and constructively, under it's family-friendly guidelines. Now who are the dense idiots here who just can't seem to grasp reality? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpjazz, Human, Bugler, RodWeathers, PJR's holocaust revisionist, AlanE, TK, Conservative, JacobB, DouglasA, countless others. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[EC] Rob, are you honestly trying to say that the site that bans any suspected RW members on sight (with the exception of you; sysops are above all rules, written or unwritten) has an open policy for promoting them to positions of authority? Do we really look that dumb? Yeah, early on Andy promoted Hoji, but that's it. And he demoted him for no reason except his politics. You might be able to sell your fantasy world to the cretin over at CP, but it won't wash here. DickTurpis (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to interject, some more of the obvious---it is repeatedly pointed out from senior sysops that "It's Andy's site...", "Andy pays the bills..." etc. etc. and therefore even the top CP-ers seem to acknowledge, albeit at times of disagreement with users (and to prevent further reply from the user), that Andy's word is the final word. Therefore, while you perhaps present this idea of a meritocracy, when there's a dispute between a user and a sysop, especially during the time when sysops were not supposed to contradict one another, it's understandable that users will then appeal to Andy as well. Stating that meritocracy is the policy, and that users can elevate to sysop, seems to overlook the subjective nature of the meritocracy...particularly that it appears to be Andy's decision who will be elevated. You can clearly see the promotions of users throughout CP by Andy, and Andy alone. Therefore meritocracy or not, it's Andy's final judgment that matters, and that's going to leak into other discussions. (Sidenote: Were the satire talk page protections "resolved"? I thought the redirects were deleted, but the talk page protections were never lifted.) Jared (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It saddens me that Rob, who is nice enough to come and talk to us, is so fucking delusional. CP is a meritocracy, alright...if you define "merit" as "agreeing with Andy". Show some balls. Promote someone. Is there anyone to promote??? Why not? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Of all the lies CP has promoted, "CP is a meritocracy!" is the most ridiculous one. --Sid (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Those statements of "CP is a meritocracy!" and "Lead by example" are two of the largest, and most thinly veiled lies uttered in defense of that site. I can safely say as an honest editor on that site for seven months that promotion and even acknowledgement is purely based on ideology alone. How closely you align yourself to Andy's personal eclectic belief system (henceforth known as Andyism) directly affected how you treated on that site no matter how good or poor your actual encyclopedic contributions were.

The CP Community Portal was just Conservapedia's version of Communist China's "Hundred Flowers Campaign"; painted as an opportunity to criticize the regime and find solutions, its real purpose was simply to weed out those "undesirables" who would dare question the sysops and CP's ideological purity. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick point - the Hundred Flowers Campaign was started with the best of intentions, to get intellectuals, who had a lot to offer, onboard - it's just that the CCP and Mao didn't think they'd receive quite so much criticism, and they reacted rather poorly. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, I think I was promoted there by meritocracy. I never buddied up to Andy and his ideology, I admitted to leaning left politically, and yet I earned blocking rights by reverting vandals. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To a certain extent, as evidenced by kendoll, raw utility can earn some rights, but no respect (other than a unified front of Andy ignoring criticism against you). All of my accounts which "earned" elevated rights got it by ludicrously aligning myself with Andy and being rude to anyone who disagreed with him. Andy turned on me as soon as I diverged from him. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Block rights are given out like candy. Edit is the critical one. Hilariously, that right covers an ability that is available to everybody by default on basically any wiki: The ability to edit around the clock without having to conform to somebody else's schedule.

And Ken just got and kept his rights by playing into Andy's fears of what will happen without him, just like TK did. Liberal atheist evolutionists have been hyped as the ultimate bogeyman who will try to control and censor the site unless Andy leaves Ken in charge. So naturally anybody who challenges Ken must be an evil atheist who is trying to Censor Powerful Conservative Truths! --Sid (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I always found edit rights easy to get. Want to team up? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I went the route of honest, sincere editor who was open about his beliefs, that was probably my fatal flaw. Eddy: What you said about the Hundred Flowers Campaign makes its comparison to the CP Community Portal ring even more true. If the Portal did start as a sincere attempt to give unhappy editors a place to air legit grievances (and I am not convinced it was), the end result was still the same, banishment of editors deemed too "out of line" with CP's ideological goals. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree; they probably opened the abuse page thinking that either it would never be used, or that the non-sysop would come around to their way of thinking. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Even when he's trying to be helpful, Ken fails

• Sharon: "Andy, could I have upload rights, please?^img
• Sharon (two days later): "Hello? Anybody?"^img ... "Fine, whatever."^img ... "Rob, could you upload stuff for me?"^img
• Ken: "Have you considered asking Andy for upload rights? I bet you won't have a problem getting them!"^img

I weep for the people who genuinely try to get shit done on CP. Between Ken's trolling, Andy's "Whatever." attitude, Rob's empty promises and Karajou and Ed having bad days, I don't see why anybody would even want to contribute anymore. --Sid (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy's getting bored of CP; it's been happening for a while now, but I think TK's death, and the subsequent revelations about him, really brought it along. He realizes it's not going anywhere; the old homeschoolers are gone and new ones aren't coming in, the courses are nowhere to be seen, he's got less trusworthy admins than ever and save for Ken (hooray!) they're starting to ease of editing too. Hopefully it'll pick up with the presidential campaign. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily related to CP

But still quite relevant: a child is murdered for fear he might be gay and a woman murdered for being infertile. The punchline? The crime would have been discovered sooner had the kid not been homeschooled.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well shit, I'm sure all of the homeschoolers whose parents are batshit crazy are quite scared right now. Do they not teach them how to dial 911 at home-school? - Jpop (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Who lives in New Jersey?

The NJ Star Ledger will be featuring CP on Sunday,^img and Andykins doesn't know whether or not they'll say nice things about him.

Odd that a paper "not know for being conservative" will be having an article about CP before Hurlbut's latest spam fest. What should that tell Andy about how one of his admins views the site? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(quasi-ec: made section just minutes after Iscariot) THIS SUNDAY!^img

I wonder if Karajou and Rob managed to fulfill their wet dreams of namechecking RationalWiki as a cyber terrorist site that was founded with the sole goal of vandalizing and destroying CP and that is responsible for the death of a noble senior administrator? --Sid (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If they have done their usual smear campaign against RW and this isn't a paper that's staunchly Faux News-lite, the RW Trust should be contacting the paper and asking for another article. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Possibly criticizing"? "Pretty damn likely holding it CP up to public ridicule" is more like it. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 16:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I could consider the Star Ledger to be a liberal paper at all. It's less conservative than the Asbury Park Press, which got really, really poorly handled. It's funny that he added the 'and possibly criticizing us' tag. The addition is not needed, and it makes him look paranoid. -Lardashe

If and when they do criticize CP, Hurlbut will be there to shred the review with his eyes analysis. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They've an online element, so maybe we'll see it there. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm really curious which way the article will go. It's been a while since we've had a general news article about CP, and a lot has happened. Bible Project? Relativity? Flying Kitties? Best New Words? Presidential Candidate Rankings? ...maybe we need a betting pool. =P --Sid (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lower your expectations. We can't expect someone from a newspaper to really get into depth with the crazy at CP. In fact, reporting on CP accurately would probably make them a little nervous, because it would come across as them saying "all you conservatives must be like these conservatives." If anything, I'd expect the article to treat CP as little more than a local curiosity. -Lardashe

EC Assuming it was an Andy interview, he's savvy enough to steer the questions away from anything to do with Ken, and vain enough to steer them towards stuff where he gets to take maximum credit -- new words, B of the P, CBP. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 18:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From the Colbert interview, we can surmise that they probably aren't going to do much research and/or Andy has a performance rider longer than my dick that prevents them from asking about anything lulzy. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask: how much can you put into two lines of a performance rider? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear for Ken's health if they mention his essays - given that Penn's off-the-cuff remark launched him into a new essay-writing spree, just think what'll happen when a resonably large media outlet picks up on his crap. And with his ongoing domination of MPL and recent changes, it's inevitable that a reporter browsing the site would come across his material. Röstigraben (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't too late, maybe someone should send the Ledger here? Much of the research into the craziness of Andy/CP has been done for them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It would have been funny if Colbert had confronted Andy about the Obama-doesn't-dance-therefore-Muslim comment in his interview, then made Andy dance to prove he's not Muslim. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I live in Jersey! Flying Kettles! Andy does slow dancing... Haven't had a chance to see him dance anything else.... Haven't had a chance to hang out with him in a while either. *shrugs* Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

While we're waiting for the real deal...

For fun, I poked the site's search and saw that they briefly covered CP before, though more of a "We re-report existing news" thing. The original article (January 2010) is behind a paywall now, but this one isn't and mentions two intriguing bits:

1. But a spokesperson for the site told the newspaper Conservapedia tries to maintain a neutral point of view [...]
2. An entry on President Obama in Conservapedia includes skepticism about his birthplace, the report said.

Is my memory foggy, or did we seriously miss this last year? I certainly don't recall CP ever officially admitting that they're aiming for fricken NPOV... --Sid (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Humor

To compliment Best Conservative Words I think there needs to be a Conservative Humour^img page. Ace^{of Spades} 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So the Office is a conservative show? The one started by that conservative Christian Ricky Gervais? Sure. DickTurpis (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the atheistic british version doesn't count. Ace^{of Spades} 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What, no Half-Hour News Hour? At least that would be relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing humour. - π 01:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Point: Ace. DickTurpis (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why mention "The Office"?--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Again it is just Andy politicizing everything and then him trying to justify his bullshit when called out on it. Remember Andy can never admit he is wrong, first commandment of Andyism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He's trolling us. Or it's a honeypot meant to draw out the liberals so he can ban them. Provoke+ban is a time-tested CP strategy--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I never got the impression that Schlafly reads us, it is Karajou, The Conservative Gentleman, and Rob that have a browser tab open wot WIGO talk and click refresh all day. - π 03:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And bradley tries to fight back with an impresive combo of logic^img/asskissing (he said "that vulgar liberal Larry David)--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

...Aaaand another user^img joins in. This is getting interesting. *Eats popcorn* Facepalm (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that of the Conservative TV Shows, the Six Million Dollar Man comes in at No. 4. Apparently capitalism at its finest - a government program improving health with technological advances. Eh? Um? Aren't Government programs socialism in Andyland? Auld Nick (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"The technology could have been developed by private companies under contract with the government."^img --Sid (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That stands to reason, but it wasn't market led. A bit like private companies providing services to a government in order to deliver tax-payer funded universal health care. Auld Nick (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt has added a picture and filed 'Laugh Track' under 'Deceit'^img. Another user has also added examples of liberals not using a laugh track on their shows. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what they would do about shows like "Married...With Children"? They had a live studio audiance.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Explanation requested re:Copernicus

Could someone explain this to me?--Danielfolsom (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Parody? Surely? Mind you, I deal with this all the time...Eyeonicr (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) He is stating that the sun is not the center of the universe. For some reason or other, he thinks this is news to the scientific community. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. He moves the goalposts to redefine "Copernican" as meaning the current center-less universe, then switches to denying the Big Bang. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

EC " He is stating that the sun is not the center of the universe" No, Lx. He's arguing that there's a case to be made that the Sun could be closer to the centre of the universe than previously thought: "A universe that is not only expanding but spinning will be very difficult to explain. A spinning object has a line to spin around. A boundless object can still spin around a line and have no center. But a bounded and spinning object must have a center.The object at the center would spin with the universe, and have an axis along the axis of the universe. Our own Milky Way qualifies. Every cosmology that places our galaxy at the center of the universe now has more support." P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 03:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So the beings over Sagittarius way must be really special :D Eyeonicr (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He is taking the goalposts and running all over the field with them. No one believes the Sun is at the center of the universe today, Copernicus thought his as part of his heliocentric model but in which he was incorrect (well partially so, he was correct the Sun is the center of the solar system, versus the Earth, which is demonstrably wrong). What I think he is claiming in the article is the Milky Way galaxy is the center of the universe, because it contains the Earth (but does stop short of claiming the Earth itself or the solar system is the center) by completely mangling what modern cosmology states about the universe (such as the idea that the universe is exactly the same looking from anywhere within it or that it is completely symmetrical, and homogeneous, whaaat?). Also by the fact galaxies have a slightly higher chance of spinning counterclockwise, and then somehow making some bullshit calculation on the chance of this happening (based on what?). In fact his claim is closer to the original Copernican model than what modern cosmology is. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I love the way chucky looks at the what he astrophysicist says (if the bloke is one I've not read the original article and I suspect chucky hasn't either) and says that The universe even has an axis of spin that lines up with that of our galaxy. Note it is not the other way around, our galaxy happens to line up with the universe. Oh no, goat made our galaxy first and then the universe just felt like copying our spin because goat is great. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that he hasn't, or if he has, he took the findings and extrapolated something completely ridiculous from them:

"The work provides new insights about the shape of the Big Bang. A symmetric and isotropic universe would have begun with a spherically symmetric explosion shaped like a basketball. If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion."

Somehow Chucky has taken this to mean that a)The Big Bang couldn't have happened (although he cannot explain why the Big Bang theory would be falsified) and b)Because the Milky Way is in the "majority" as far as the preferred spin of the 15,000 or so galaxies observed in the study (counterclockwise) somehow makes our galaxy and thus the Earth "special". In addition with the idea of the universe rotating (although the hypothesis is that the universe was spinning at or right after the Big Bang, which doesn't really means it is now, and again this is just a hypothesis ) means it must have a central axis and that the Milky Way is located at this central axis and thus again makes the Earth "special". How does he conclude we are at this central axis? Well because the Earth is here and it was made special with a special plan by God just for us so of course it is in the center, its scientific! Note he provides zero evidence whatsoever of either, nor does he attempt to explain how this works with the knowledge we have that the Milky Way itself is moving through inter-galactic space instead of remaining "motionless" at the center of the universe (and no, not every inter-galactic object is moving away from us, try again). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple questions: first of all, what's the difference between a clockwise and a counterclockwise spin, other than the position you view it from? Also, I think I've heard this "the universe looks the same from any perspective", but only in terms of background radiation, not in terms of physical appearance, as Hurlbut states. That would seem to cease to make sense one you got down to a very small scale. So what is the real story about this? Also, is he trying to say that we are at the center of the universe, and this disproves the Big Bang because an explosion of that magnitude would leave its epicenter empty as everything is propelled away from it? It seems his thesis is "here's some new information that doesn't prove we aren't at the center of the universe, so we probably are" which is all the burden of proof any creationist needs. DickTurpis (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The other thing is that this (again) demonstrates the difference in mindset between the scientific rationalist and the fundi creatard. The rationalist says 'Oh, not sure I understand this. Can someone help me by explaining what he is saying'. The creatard says 'Oh I dont understand this. So goatdidit. Gotcha you evil liberul atheist rationalist'. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What you often hear is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. So what does this mean? Basically it means that the on the largest scale the universe "looks the same" no matter the location (homogenous) and direction (isotropic). Obviously they don't mean exactly the same, what they mean as mo matter where you are in the universe, if you look at any direction and could see at an intergalactic scale, the density of galaxies and matter are generally uniform. So how does the idea that slightly more galaxies spin counterclockwise than clockwise have to do with this? Well nothing, actually. What we know is that from the amount we surveyed, that counterclockwise spin is slightly more "preferred", so of course the rational mind then naturally asks "why?" One possible explanation is the universe was started on a spin, but this is just a hypothesis to attempt to explain the findings. As Oldusgitus pointed out, what the creationist does is take that mystery of slightly more counterclockwise spinning galaxies and extrapolates without any evidence whatsoever that somehow the Earth has a special place and it was all magically made because he has a pre-conceived notion of how the universe was made and he isn't allowed to deviate from that dogma upon pain worse than death.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, what is the difference between a clockwise and counter clockwise spinning galaxy? If you look at one from the opposite perspective, it becomes the other, right? If the universe were "flat" and had a "top" and "bottom" this would seem to make sense, but that isn't the case. Aren't galaxies all over the place in terms of their axis or whatever? DickTurpis (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The direction of its rotation and that's it. Just like how to Earth rotates counter clockwise and Venus rotates clockwise. It isn't the direction of the rotation itself that was significant, it was that the small majority of galaxies "prefer" one direction of rotation. Of course like any unexpected observation, we wonder "is there a reason for that?" and really that is it. There may be some yet unexplained reason for the "preference" for counterclockwise, or maybe it is just a random chance. The universe is "flat", but this means that the local time-space curvature is zero, but it doesn't mean there is a top or bottom. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

China, prospering thanks to Christianity

While secular socialist europe fails^img the famously religious, not at all communist/chinese communist country of China continues to grow! Perhaps if all countries were as amazing as China things would be better?--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Christianity, China is now taking a similar position as the Roman Empire did at first. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In the same post, but not entirely related: WTF?! Why is Seeking Alpha running stuff by Michael T. Snyder?! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the US doing even worse the last 10 years? Oh, wait no, that of course has nothing to do with what people vote want but only with liberals like GWB and BHOgeyman that continously lie to the American people and go so far to control the election process with mind controlling by satellites funded by NASA. So no it's not like these bankruptcies were caused by the remaining hypercapitalism and the greed that mainly funds the Republican Party in the United States. And it's not like the European states that now have problems are actually neck deep in shit because they had to save the asses of the banks that invested in the overhyped housing market in the US, which can through it's strong capitalist system simply take one or two big bakns flunking out the system, while the European markets - which are much bigger -, through their centralized socialist "economies", can't take one hit at this big banks. See? It's because of their weak economic system the European states go bankrupt and not because of their economic alliance with a nation that managed to do pretty much everything wrong the first time around. It's clear. It's self-evident. If you don't understand it open your mind. Jesus Fucking Christ, these people will be the death of us one day… --uhm, t! 13:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles Rangel should look up what the Bible says before talking about Jesus

not even going to bother with a comment on this one^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Rangel is a criminal scumbag anyway, so I roll my eyes anytime someone like that attempts some moral high ground. That guy gets to be a Congressman and earn a hefty paycheck at our expense after getting a slap on the wrist for crimes that would land any of us average folks in jail for a good long time. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, didn't he mostly just violate ethics rules? He did fail to declare income, but I believe he paid the back taxes and the penalty, which is what generally happens to anyone. Not to defend him, but I'm not sure your statement that his behavior would lead to a long jail sentence for most people is true. DickTurpis (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice one Ken!

Just in case you still weren't sure that Ken didn't give a fuck for CP, it's fun to watch him pottering around, moving full stops in his articles, whilst a bot called "NowikiTagger" causes mayhem under his nose. It's up to Andy to actually block and revert the bot. As long as it doesn't affect Ken's little turd piles, he couldn't care about CP. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's probably just Ken's utter, soul-crushing obliviousness. Doppelheuer (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline of the lamestream media

Another sign of decline by the mainstream media: "The 18-floor office tower that is home to The Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News, and philly.com is inching closer to sale." Meanwhile, unique visitor traffic at Conservapedia continues to grow!^img Facepalm (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are gaining the facebook userbase--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ouch.

Terry got pwned--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone do me a favor...?

Tell me if anyone was recently blocked or any edits to talk pages by the sysops. I may just be paranoid, but I can't access the site right now for some reason. Thanks. Kix, they're not just for kids~ 00:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully follow (then again, it's 3am here, so that's to be expected), but if your error is that you can't connect because of a time-out, try getting a new IP from your ISP, using a proxy (though not to edit, obviously) or waiting an hour or two. For me at least, CP sometimes tends to block access to my IP when I browse the site too much (though my browsing of CP should be well within the limits of a regular active visitor, and I'm definitely not clickbotting or anything). The site stays up, I can connect through a proxy, and when I re-"dial" my DSL modem to get a new IP, I can access it again just fine - it's always just my one IP that suddenly can't connect anymore... --Sid (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll reset my router later, since other people are on the net right now, and would get ticked if I did that now. >< *poofs back to netherworld* Kettle o' fish 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, Robert, Robert....

Obama "declared the war on terror over two years ago."^img Really? Don't you mean "declared the end of combat operations in Iraq"? Not at all the same thing, you know. "Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks?" Seriously? If I murder 3,000 of your nearest and dearest, I should get a free ride because, heck, they'll still be dead anyway? Seriously? "Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure?" You want to pin those wars and the rationales for them on the guy that started them, not the guy that inherited them, Rob. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 03:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RW needs a facebook-style "Like" function. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if only we had a rating system where we could vote certain posts about CP up or down.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's too much glorious wrongness for a single WIGO. It would crash the system. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I already upvoted but I was talking about P-Foster's take on the insanity, Bricks. I am limited to (mostly) Fox News over here as the Armed Forces Network gets the bulk of their programming from Mr. Murdoch (at least during the times I can watch it). His comment above reminded me that there are others who think like me. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured you meant something else, I just felt like being sarcastic. Sadly, on mediawiki your desire would only be granted on liquid threads, which most people abhor. Otherwise sticking a template with every talk page edit would get really really messy.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's about retribution, not prevention? Really? I thought Obama was a Christian who beleives God is a God of forgiveness, not a Muslim who beleives God is a God of vengence. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, have you even THUMBED through the Old Testament?--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people' " - Numbers 31:1-2 Nope, never vengeful or promotes vengeance ever... --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"You have heard said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." -Jesus. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert, are you going to even try to address some of your claims here? That Obama declared the war on terror to be over, perhaps? That OBL should have been given a free ride? That the rationales for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Obama's problem? Anything to say on those? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 19:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

bin Laden was kept in a box under house arrest. What was the secular regime of Pakistan suppose to do with him? Execute him? Try him? turn him over to the Western Christian powers? Then what? How was the secular regime allied with non-Islamic powers to explain this to their populace, assuming it survived? and who would take its place after it would be overthrown for turning an Islamic hero over to the Americans? And who then, would control Pakistan's nukes? Does Obama, and Democrat shills and pundits think Americans are just too fucking stupid to understand any of this shit? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, wikiologist

Semi-redundant, but this seems to be a trend. Andy's immense list of things he's an expert in is getting longer - now he knows what makes wiki communities function properly:

• "[Internal e-mail] seems contrary to the spirit of a wiki"^img
• "The convenience of a wiki is partly due to its centralized location, and splintering off separate namespaces is contrary to that."^img

If this keeps up, I'll have to make popcorn. --Sid (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Namespaces make it harder to find stuff. Everything needs to be in one great big pile of shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course Andy is an expert on every subject. How could anyone even question this? Here's what we know about Andy's universe: Liberals are wrong about everything, 100% of the time. Without fail. He disagrees with everything liberals think, say, or do. Thus making him, by default, correct. So who is a liberal? Anyone who disagrees with Andy, of course. The logic is without fault. In fact it makes a perfect circle, further testifying to its soundness. Perhaps if you had a more open mind, you would have realized this. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

really very funny. I laughed out loud. thanks inquisitor--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Everything needs to be in one great big pile of shit." This very true. When I was having discussion with TK about sorting out categories back in 2007 he said that Andy didn't like hierarchical categorisation; he would like there just to be a single level of categories because it made it easier for the homeschoolers to find stuff. The man just hasn't a clue about how to run a wiki, mixing up his homeschool classes, debates, essays, insights and essays so that everything is in mainspace. Yet when they used to have the editing contests Andy had different namespaces and there was once a "secret" sysop namespace. Andy is such a conceited git that he thinks he is always right about everything no matter what those with more knowledge and experience might say. Генгис^marauding 11:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy hates actual wiki solutions like categories and namespaces, which is why we have mainspace articles like Ancient Terms X^img or 100 BC^img - both are basically categories with lists of articles... yet neither of them is a category or uses (wiki-)lists. --Sid (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Law Terms D was my favourite. Генгис^marauding 11:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberal laugh tracks.

More evidence that "liberal" = "Anything that Andrew Schlafly personally disapproves of, or that gets on his nerves in some way^img." It's been said before, but are we SURE he's not a parodist? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty liberal, and laugh tracks drive me nuts. I HATE THEM. Live studio audience laughter drives me nuts too. I like my comedy laughter-free. (When it is obvious they are on a stage in front of an audience, I don't mind... but sitcoms, where they do the sets up to not look like that, I can't stand it.) People tell me Seinfeld was a really good show - I'd probably agree if it wasn't for the laughter. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The worst is when the laugh track is like A MILLION TIMES LOUDER THAN THE REST OF THE SHOW!!!!! Maybe someone can invent a "laugh track remover." BTW, @Maratrean: I always liked Curb Your Enthusiasm better than Seinfeld, plus no laugh track on CYE. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a discussion a few months back about laugh tracks on British comedies. I guess they don't use them as much as I thought they did, and the really annoying, incredibly loud laughter is real, and somehow even worse. Yeah, laugh-free sitcoms are they way to go, like all those ones the conservative comedies use. You know, 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, and such. DickTurpis (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Err! A Sitcom without a laugh track is like a fries without ketchup or an English language fantasy show without British accents. It's just wrong. Multi camera and laugh track, keep it simple. Single camera (in most shows complete with shaky "I think I have to puke soon" cam and mockumentary style (as I would believe that you're actually trying to look like documentary!)) is mostly just bad. If single camera shitcoms sitcoms are the only ones in ten years, I'll stop watching contemporary comedies. --uhm, t! 23:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is sad is a lot of us could agree with Andy that laugh tracks are indeed stupid, if he didn't make it political.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I think the real reason Andy hates laugh tracks is because they serve as a painful reminder of what normal people sound like laughing. As opposed to that bizarre sound that comes out of his own neckhole.--Inquisitor (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just a (stupid) joke. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually just went through this question myself. I purchased some MASH dvds and they have the option to take out the laugh track. I tried it and actually found that I hate it. I don't know why, but the laugh track just adds a bit of life to the thing. It seems dead without it. Come to think of it, the decline in the use of studio audiences is directly correlated to my decline in watching television comedy shows..... Makes you think (not really). SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 06:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Live audiences are not as bad as laugh tracks, though, even though I prefer neither. If you're going to use a laugh track, you might as well hang neon signs around the actors' necks that light up and say "Laugh, dammit!" whenever they deliver a punchline. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I don't have too strong an opinion on the issue. Of my personal favourite TV shows, some have laugh tracks, some don't and some have a live audience. It seems whether a particular show is better with or without a laugh track, or with a live audience, depends heavily on the style of the show, but all three can be used successfully IMO. However, overuse of the laugh track on a sitcom can be extremely annoying.--Night Jaguar (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What struck me is that he uses The Office as an example of conservative humour. Surely that can't be the same The Office that was written and created by rabid liberal atheist Rick Gervaise? Генгис^marauding 11:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevant to the issue, here's a youtube of the big bang theory where someone removed the laugh track. This is why I don't like that show. GTac (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

obscure

O rly?^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again are we sure that andy isn't a poe? The man who "teaches" manages to insert this drivel into his own wiki "Liberals rarely object to it, although it laugh tracks have been omitted......". Seriously i wouldn't let him educate the worms in my compost heap, let alone a child. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Question Evilution campaign, again

They are not only contacting churches still, but now major websites and blogs!^img Evolution is in trouble now!--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh who cares, he is only repeated posting that to get our attention; who else is going to read it? Besides he keeping linking to the same tiny blog; ignore. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If we actually followed that attitude, we would have to shut down most of WIGO: CP --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference is, when Andy and most of the rest say whatever kooky thing on their minds, it is because they simply believe in it enough to mention (or in Andy's case it is often sheer pride and belief in his own supposed brilliance and for Terry it is just about attention for his blog). Ken does his crap purely for the hopes of getting our unwarranted attention, because it validates his idiocy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do my homework please?

Anyone remember how Andy applied to have CP certified as a state-sanctioned teaching resource once? Do we have a page/section on that? I seem to remember there was an article on that once but I have a really bad hangover. Mountain Blue (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? Why is everybody drinking today? Then again, I've just had my Sunday meat & 2 veg, so maybe it's time to crack a bottle of wine. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. We kept talking about this application for weeks, right? There must be reams of text somewhere about what he did and why it was completely ludicrous. I have a hangover because I was drinking yesterday night. You know very well I'm in your time zone. Mountain Blue (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, if it's reams of text you're after this should keep you busy. And a hangover at this time of day. Must have been an epic night. Or cheap booze. Or both. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aw crap; reams of text alright. Thanks, I guess. Oh, and it was both. Mountain Blue (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll's takeover of CP almost done

Mainpage right was more or less the last bastion of contributions by the three stooges, but looking at the history it has more or less fallen to the unstoppable train wreck that is Ken

. I think at this point Andy would probably be best served handing over the keys to him, and taking a private copy of CP for his homskolling if he so desired. All hail Kendollpedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, many of the quotes from the Star Ledger piece were from Ken. Even Andy must be realizing how bad Ken makes CP look. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Long live User:Conservative and his glorious new regime! Doppelheuer (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Doppel, are you stating that oneday comrade conservative will... die? HOW UNPATRIOTIC AND AND 5 BLACK CLASS OF YOU (I horribly messed up that reference but, eh)--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new overlord whose name begins with C. In regards to rounding up dissenters, I would be a great scout and, seeing as how they are all fat and have no MA-CHEEEEEEESE-MO, I could track them down easily. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 05:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken no longer wants america to fall

in a complete change^img from Earlier^img, ken no longer wants america to collapse economically. (that andy talkpage is the only one i could remember him saying it, atleast til he removed it and left the comment replying to it in)--Mikalos209 (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Godwin's card

Someone's getting banned over this...^img

I wondered about that... This version has references too^img Eyeonicr (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Rob made a funny^img. Sadly I'm pretty sure it's unintentional. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, so now it was a typical Nazi strategy to liken your opponents to Hitler? This is some of the best new content I've seen in a while though. It just drips with bitterness, obvious shallow stabs, butt-hurtness and raging idiocy. GTac (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And a bit of unintentional irony, especially in the ones nearer the bottom... and why is there an 'anti-gay' and a 'homophobia' card? Do they count them as different? Edit: Oo, they have a talk page.^img "CP's homophobia is so well written" apparently. Eyeonicr (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny, because only last week Rob was saying he doesn't read Kens's articles, but now they're "so well written"? Генгис^marauding 12:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Um no. I was talking about my stuff. Me & Roger wrote cp:Homophobia, on the fly, to prevent AmesG from spilling his bile on the page. And after 4 years, it's still #6 on Yahoo & Bing because of its unique content. It ain't cut n' paste crap from the LGBTA or whatever that group is. We didn't set out to dominate the search engine ranks, we intented to thwart ratwiki trolls. And I'm damn proud of our success. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we all know how hateful and full of bile AmesG is, especially when it comes to teh gays. You're a stand-up guy, Rob. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Who still uses Yahoo as a search engine anyway? I see they only make page 2 of liberal Google. However, I have to love Rob's work. Homophobia on CP: "Homophobia would be an irrational fear of hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed" Reality: "Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian and gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people"

Yeah, Rob, I'd be mighty proud of that too - if I wanted to come across as a non-thinking bigot. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I notice that Rodger^img has added a 'guilt by association card'. I assume of course his next action will be to remove the guilt by association^img assertion in the Obama article as it is only a liberal tactic? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What you guys are forgetting is that when conservatives compare liberals to Nazis, it's because the liberals are actually being like Nazis, so it's ok. We don't censor here. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The last breaths of the Community Portal

• Ken: "Heh heh heh, Andy's not going to help you, sucker." :)^img
• Nate: "Fine, whatever. If nobody is willing to put a leash on Ken and his antics, I'm gone."^img
• Rob: "Aw jeez, man, all you do is complain!"^img

Yes, thank you, Rob. This is exactly what people were hoping for when you talked about building bridges, nurturing a larger community, and improving the site. I'm sure that CP will flourish in this new era of change. =| --Sid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the point of the community portal is not to sort out the sysops; it's a place where recalcitrant commoners are supposed to bring their folly, be defeated and then repent their sins and accept Andy as their lord and saviour. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we've got a whole bunch of stuff done already. It's a work in progress. And we know just cause the word, "wiki", means "quick", everyone knows that ain't the case when policy processes and building consensus are involved. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because every complaint lodged against Ken has so far accomplished something, right? And not just people being banned/forced to back down.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then at least tell us what you're currently doing in terms of policy and consensus, Rob. Looks like a big load of Basically Nothing to me. I think you're simply stalling because you know that you bit off more than you can chew. --Sid (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"I disagree. I think we've got a whole bunch of stuff done already." Examples? I mean what does the Community Portal do besides provide a different location for editors to be told "no can do"? --Inquisitor (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's part of Rob's evil plan. His honey trap to sniff out the commies at CP and destroy them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Work in progress?" Look, building processes to handle problems isn't terribly difficult. Thousands of organisations of various sizes manage to come up with one, sometimes spontaneously. Here's one, just for example: 1) Put up a page where people can list problems. 2) Handle the problems as they come up: find the causes of the problem, design and implement a solution. This quite straightforward, and you really should have a basic process up by now. What's holding things up? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we've got a whole bunch of stuff done already. It's a work in progress. - Sorry Rob, but this is how most of us see it:

3+ years ago: Complaints of Karajou, TerryH, and Bugler go ignored and unheeded.

Today: Conservative runs amok unabated. TerryH spamming his site for profit, and Karajou is even more angrier than before.

Fun fact: Andy has never replied to claims of abuse, ever. Whatever is claimed to be "done" to improve CP is insignificant to the elephant in the room. Abuse shouldn't take years to resolve. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This^img will be fun to watch Eyeonicr (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unauthorized borrowing is just as much following the constitution as stealing is the pursuit of happiness

There is no dispute among mainstream legal community (I.e. Any one not in the Senate Democratic caucus) that unlawfully borrowing funds that Congress has not authorized is a serious impeachable offense. Even Obama understands this, which is why he won't do it. For all the left wing bitched about the unitary executive during the Bush years, they now seem to think that the Constitution is only good for wiping their asses now. Talk about illegally borrowing money and callig bombing the shit out of Libya as not hostilities makes me wonder how averse this administration is to the constitution. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

wtf. we didn't bomb libia, NATO did. unlike our unilateral, unwarrented attack on iraq, this one was done by our treaty as part of nato, not a choice of the admi. the world doesn't stop at the US.--En attendant Godot 19:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, who was doing most of the bombing until we switched to a "supporting" role? And if you're the prez, it doesn't matter what your legal advisers think. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with CP? Move it to the bar. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 03:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it was the French that did a massive amount of the first striking in Libya. In fact, they rather uncharacteristically seemed to be saying "it's okay guys, we got this one" for a few days. But it's politics, though, doesn't matter which country provided the actual weapons and people or even applied the most pressure to do it, if it was a NATO action it was a NATO action. ADK^{...I'll bust your hairball!} 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey the Franch have a long history of kicking ass. - π 13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics be damned. As an Englander, I am obliged to hate a Frenchman as I hate the devil. ADK^{...I'll envision your air conditioner!} 13:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As to why this was on WiGO CP, I think it was in response to the WiGO about Obama using the 14th Amendment to borrow beyond the debt ceiling, so it was relevant. DickTurpis (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I put it up on WIGO because it not only shows Conservapedias hypocrisy on the subject, but all of Conservatism. For all they're talk about Obama ignoring the constitution, they threaten with impeachment the moment he does use it.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn.

Schlafly might even have a point there^img, of course teenagers like to play with each others genitals more than to study, but I predict a heavy increase in homosexual activity if he gets "his way". Are these numbers average anyway? --uhm, t! 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"That's my advice to all homosexuals, whether they're in the Boy Scouts, or in the Army or in high school: Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do, your life will be a lot easier."-Billo. Social Security is going down the gutter, my fuzzy rectum. Teens who don't study will create new peoples to pay for old farts.

But seriously, there will be an increase in homosexuality, and the numbers seem similar to what I've seen before.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Realistic Chronology at Conservapedia

I haven't bothered fact-checking it, but I found it interesting that Conservapedia had a historical tid bit that actually seems to defy biblical chronology. It says that "Sumerian agriculture^img is credited as one of the first uses of irrigation in history, with some irrigation set-ups dating as far back as 4000 B.C." So according to Conservapedia, the Sumerians were already around when God created the Earth 6000 years ago and were developing irrigation on their own. Those damn Sumerians must've been communist evolutionist atheists if they thought they could go around watering their crops without God's permission like that... Socal212 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Cain and Abel have farms and stuff? Don't think they were Sumerians though - maybe their wives were :D Eyeonicr (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that will be changed as soon as Ken

logs on here to check what is being said now won't it. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting how high-up Conservapedia folks actually visit this website to see all the crap we say about them :) Socal212 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That kind of stuff isn't uncommon on CP, it depends on who wrote the article or at least that part of it. Not everyone subscribes faithfully to the YEC point of view although I believe all the current sysops do (I remember TK once saying to me that although he was a creationist, he wasn't necessarily a YEC). How strictly they enforce that dogma for articles depends on how important they feel the article is.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ed's an OEC, if I recall correctly. Kinda explains why he also remains active on WP and CP: One site says that Creationism is not science, the other site basically says that believing in an Old Earth makes you an atheist liberal evolutionist. --Sid (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also sprach Aschlafly

It's amazing how Andy just makes up "facts" to fit in a grander scheme of things... now he's decided that there are exactly 52 political cards, because, you know, there are 52 cards in a deck. Be sure that if somehow the expression was "political day", he'd find out that there are exactly 7, 30, or 365 of them. --Maquissar (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IDK, he just likes it to be neat. Just like some people like even numbers or multiples of ten--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This really is a textbook example of taking a metaphor/analogy too far. It's like trying to apply the physics of fluid dynamics to Internet protocols because the 'net is a series of tubes. --Sid (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Obesity card's still missing, eh? My Tarot deck has 78 cards; I'm going in. Mountain Blue (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

karajou, he owns the obama article

do not edit the obama article without asking karajou first^img or else.. (his talk page is still locked btw).--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of context it just seems like Karajerk is being a jerk. But in fact it seems entirely warranted - the user is being an ass. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you look at the slightly bigger picture and the events that happened not that much earlier in the same article... Karajou is an ass, and so is Jpatt... and Rob only makes things even more confusing:

• McHolland: "We have a birth certificate, and it has been accepted."^img
• Karajou: "Nope."^img
• McHolland: "Did you somehow miss the news?"^img
• Jpatt: *revert*^img 6 month(!) block for making negative personal comments^img
• Karajou: *extends to infinite*^img (Reason: Sheer stupidity; this user never bothered to check the fact that the "birth certificate" is an Adobe software creation, aka FORGED)
• Jpatt: "Never forget that we also still need all his other records!"^img (Cap showing the pic in question)

Combined with Rob's "No no no, the Kenya thing was a White House conspiracy - it was ALWAYS about his father!!!"^img we get a very odd consensus on CP's birtherism: The birth certificate is forged (Karajou), Obama must also submit his kindergarten records (Jpatt), and yet the forged birth certificate is good evidence that Obama is not fit to be president because of his father (Rob). Yep, no matter what happens, it's all proof that Obama should never have been allowed to run. How convenient. --Sid (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob is delusional, Karajou is angry and JPatt is stupid. Just another day at CP then. Rob, perhaps you can tell us what the purpose of asking for the birth certificate is if you think it's all about his father's nationality? Do you think Obama has been trying to conceal that fact? If so, it might have been a bad move writing about it in his books. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob isn't delusional, he's just a racist. What other reason is there? the only criticism of Obama is he's a black man. It's traditional racist pigs that can't hang with the idea of a black president. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Xenophobia. Personally, I find it even worse then racism. --uhm, t! 09:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have thought for awhile Jpatt would probably win the "Least Intelligent" award. He can't write, and his logic when he does is incomprehensible. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I love that picture because of the irony of JPatt using it, not realizing it is poking fun at Birthers, after all any reasonable person would know you don't need to see kindergarten records to see if a candidate is eligible for president. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually is not intentionally poking fun at birthers. brain reboot really thinks that the BC is not enough. However, it is vastly amusing that no other president has ever shown their birth certificate and that the artist includes kindergarden records as some how required.

I like how all the "experts" are bandying on about Adobe, when it was actually "made" using Quartz PDFContext. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Adobe thing definitely makes you think, doesn't it? Why are all conspiracy theorists attacking Adobe? Sure, they say it's completely incidental, but this is obviously a sinister conspiracy to sling mud at Adobe. They try to make sure that whenever there is a controversy, there is also a mention of Photoshop, whether Photoshop was actually used at all. All this cloak-and-dagger conspiracy nonsense is pointless, however: It's already obvious to everyone in the industry that Adobe products, for most part, suck. </loony> --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not now, nor have I ever been a birther. Neither have I ever been sympathetic to the birther movement. But I do suspect Obama nourished and fed birther conspiracies because he did not want to revisit Robert Bork's doctrine of original intent in an effort to pass himself off as a moderate and appeal to Republican voters. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh Rob, your Obama conspiracies take some odd directions sometimes. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So what's that say about the conservative voters who fell for a ruse so patently ridiculous on its face? That they just aren't very smart? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is a conspiracay theory!!! In related news, Andy is saying the mother's signature is faked on Obama's birth certificate^img. I guess Obama is secretly controlling Andy too. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

world net's math Wow, how is it that criminal prosecutors who struggle with silly hand writing experts have not figure out this new "computer math" to prove fake siggies. we must get this news to them. can you imagine how great it will be to use a computer instead of some loppy headed "expert". (rolls eyes.)--En attendant Godot 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Da stupid guy says Obama doesn't have to provide his Kindergarden records. The stupid guy would like to see his Occidental college records. Can we get one more check off or is that too much to ask of the Dear Leader? --76.205.73.125 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker, from an idiot like Obama doesn't say very much; the rank & file GOP can be as big a bunch of dumbasses as Democrats. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad you agree with our opinion of Andy Schlafly^img. It must be fun to be a member of a birther website, which CP undoubtedly is. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@nobs: Just to be clear, are you saying Andy is a dumbass? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta say, i'd rather think the birth certificate is a fake, than think that Obama, who had written two books that focus in no small measure on his father; who has talked openly and freely about his father, his relationship with his father (or the lack there of), and his desire to have known his father; who took not one but two trips to africa (one before the election, one just after) to meet the family of his father; and who has talked of how his father's religion and citizenship (yes, citizenship) opened his eyes to issues he was otherwise ignorant of --- is somehow "hiding" the fact or even downplaying teh fact that his father was not a US citizen. um... hello?--En attendant Godot 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

Clearly Obama should have called his book Dreams From My Foreigner Mulsim Atheist Father. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, there's no such thing as "Robert Bork's doctrine of original intent" that's relevant to the firmly established Supreme Court authority on citizenship. He might have his own ideas about original intent that you could call his "doctrine," but he's not on the Court and isn't an authority any more than this Vattel stuff is or ever was. 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, even Ken isn't getting behind Andy's birtherism^img: "Sometimes you have to take pet political issues to the vet and have them put to sleep".--Night Jaguar (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides, there is not and cannot be an "original intent". There were 3 major writers, 12 minor writers, and about 30(?) people with advisory input on the Constitution. there are, by that count, no less than 14 "original intents". Hell, the bill of rights wasn't even, technically, an "original intent" since it had to be added later as an amendment. Like anything else in law, you have what you have. you cannot extrapolate based on what you wish, what you think, or what you've read somewhere by some scholar. The words say what they say "natural born citizen", not "born only to men", not "born only to two citizens", not "born only to white racists who hate the president". just "natural born citizen". He was born in Hawaii. That makes him "natural born". But i do like the idea that every single child born of a single mother is not a citzen. that's funny.--En attendant Godot 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (edcon)

Perhaps there's a heartfelt letter from George Washington to his nephew's cousin's former roommate out there somewhere that we don't know about? Random surfer (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, what is your major malfunction? Why on earth do you think that Obama, a trained lawyer, would be afraid of law that is well established and practised on literally a daily basis in the US? There is nothing to be debated as to what constitutes the difference between a natural born and a naturalised citizen. Nothing. Obama knows this, anyone with a brain knows this. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense whatsoever, except as a dodge to excuse the utter craziness of the birthers. They aren't racist morons! They were deceived by the evil and sinister Obama's misdirection plan! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I just don't believe Obama, in 2008, wanted to say, "based on our living Constitution, I'm a natural born citizen, and when I'm elected president, I'll make sure strict constructionists like Robert Bork will never sit on the bench." I just don't beleive that's true. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Go read Wong Kim Ark and stop this nonsense already. Everybody but birthers knows what the law is. There's no flimflam skullduggery here. Just a natural born citizen mostly ignoring cranks. 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What bearing would any interpretive theory have on the matter? The constitution doesn't define the term natural born citizen, so it's entirely up to legislation or common usage to define it. As it stands, it's defined as any person born in territories governed by the USA (the 14th amendment) or any person born to a citizen or citizens outside the territories governed by the USA who is duly registered as a citizen under the provisions of the naturalisation act. Obama qualifies under the first heading, unless you subscribe to the bullshit birther conspiracy theory that he was born in Kenya. It doesn't even matter what nationality his parents were. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's just admit that Obama is a creation of powerful leftists. Trying to pin anything on Obama is like trying to nail shit to a wall. He's a Muslim. No, he's a Christian. No, it's just a Muslim name. He's a Socialist. No, he's a Communist. No, he's too far right. He's born here. No, he's born there. He's black. No, he's white. He lies. No, he's never told one while in office. He leads and he gives great speeches. No, he's an empty suit and is gaffe prone... meanwhile as Rome burns, Obama keeps his game face on. He's out there helping us. No, he's out there destroying us. One thing is certain-- the age of Obama has already brought democrats down with him. Down and out is the next stop. --76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)--76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)--76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)--76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)--76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)--76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Can anyone translate that pile of shit above into anything remotely resembling intelligent communication for me. I can't actually understand a single point the moron is trying to make - a fact for which I have to say I will be eternaly thankful to my teachers and university professors for. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine what it's like to be angry all the time. Constantly angry about being wrong. Occasionally angry about being right. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The universal translator turned that wall of text in to "JPatt is insane." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Card nonsense

You know what I love most about this? Conservatives, who screamed about Obama nad Hilary playing the race card or the gender card have been after Jon Stewart for perceived racial slights against Herman Cain ("he did a bad impression, that's racist, it was like Amos N' Andy") and we have Rob over here almost daily saying that the only possible reason people wouldn't vote for Bachmann is because they're sexist pigs. Do they really not see the hypocrisy and the irony? SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit amused that they have all these negative modifiers: "racist", "sexist", "uneducated", and then there's "creationist". DickTurpis (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If somebody wants to burn a sock has an account and wants to risk getting blocked: Add the obesity card, please. --uhm, t! 22:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Rob is trying to suck up to help Andy out by defecating all over contributing to Andy's newest stupid pet article insight. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how the privileged are always claiming some sort of victimization whenever something they do is questioned. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wondering what the "Responsible Republican card" is. I'm guessing the Chuck Schumer thing is going to be on the "extreme card." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How the fuck does denying global warming belittle victims of the Holocaust?^img Mr. Swift (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's climate crank butthurt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be 'collect all 24!' by now? Eyeonicr (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of 52. My they have lofty goals.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what they would consider a 'joker'? Eyeonicr (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Let's keep making things up until we reach an exact and arbitrary number then brag about how powerful and revealing our insights are." My, that sounds familiar. Kallium^talk 02:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone should go through and add all Newt's big list o' words to call Democrats and add them as cards. They're totally missing the traitor card, the sick card, the unionised card and the welfare card. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Give it time. They're up to 33 now... Eyeonicr (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh Andy, you're such a card! Also in the proper CP fashion, it stops bothering with the definition of a "political card" anymore and just starts adding any jabs they can think off. See Cherry picking data card - selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't GTac (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no-longer a case of them-accusing-you of doing it, rather it's a them-doing-it (even though they apply more to Conservapedia than many other places). Eyeonicr (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Everything is political" - Karl Marx Andy Schlafly --uhm, t! 09:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of these cards are typical Schlafly debating techniques. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's a shame they've reached their goal of fifty-two cards. Because otherwise, we could say they're not playing with a full deck. #rimshot# MDB (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You overlook the obvious; there is another card - The Joker. Генгис^marauding 01:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

US life expectancy

Should be greater than that of socialist, fatty atheistic, death-panel controlled UK, no?

Oh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14070090

Does anyone feel like telling Andy & co?

Fretfulporpentine (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You've posted it here. ken, nobs and karajerk already know now. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you know, that's because of Obama Care. --En attendant Godot 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All the fat atheists are dragging life expectancy down, so it's just that our atheists are extra-fat. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Republican in me wants to point out that...

Our life expectancy is shorter because of the way we account for death, and how accident prone we are. A 65 year old American can be expected to life just as long as a 65 year old Belgian for instance. A 16 year old american is much more likely to be killed in a high speed collision on the highway or fall off a ladder and scramble themselves on the sidewalk. And then there is infant mortality. Even though the US NUMBER is twice as high as any other developed nation if you are a 9 month fetus you are more likely to see your first birthday if you are american than if you are born in any other country. The reason our NUMBER is so high is that we count all births that show any signs of life at all as lifebirths. In most other countries they only count babies who are born near their due date and are alive and moving for at least 5 minutes after birth. Cut out premies and babies that don't last 5 minutes and you cut the number in half. Cut out half of all infant mortality and you significantly improve your life expectancy at birth. --Opcn (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some quick googling about how infant mortality rate is calculated and found this: "It is possible that other countries 'report' their data differently, but for comparison purposes, a standard definition is used. Fortunately, infant mortality rates are reported using WHO standards, which do NOT include any reference to the length of the infant, duration of the pregnancy, but do define a 'live birth' as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.". Dendlai (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The newborn death claims basically boil down to "Yeah, but the other countries cheated in the test". Conveniently unprovable. I would guess the real reason is the same as for accidents. Americans aren't especially clumsy, they aren't driving particularly badly made vehicles, but uninsured Americans can expect to be discharged as soon as they're notionally "stable". And if they drop dead an hour later well at least they weren't inside the hospital building so there's no need for an M&M conference right? Chalk it up to the American dream. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?

hello again, haven't been on RW or CP for quite a while, could someone please tell me what the fuck is going on at CP? Whats with all the Passive/Aggressiveness? LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 06:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In a nutshell, CP editor (and RW concern troll contributor) RobSmith has embarked upon the incredibly noble cause of attempting to clean up CP's abuse of sysop powers (and, ostensibly, its overall credibility) by taking on Ken

(mano a mano). After winning a few early rounds (by landing some very clean punches), Rob has since been crushed by Ken's explosively persuasive debating style. And that, more-or-less, should bring you up to speed...--Inquisitor (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. fucking Ken. heh. LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 02:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For all you wikinerds

It seems to me that if User:C didn't see the You have new Messages! thingy when someone dares to post on his castle wall talkpage, the "problem" would go away. Is it possible to modify one's own monobook.js so that notification of graffiti messages simply doesn't appear to the user? 18:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

WIGO unworthy but...

Just to reinforce the point that Andy has absolutely no idea about wikis, let me show you Kangaroos! Генгис^marauding 13:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be seeing here? DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, you don't need to link to the plural if it's just adding an 's'. Генгис^marauding 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He's just making the plural redirect to the singular, so people searching for the plural still get the result they're looking for. Wikipedia does this literally all the time. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't even WIGO talk page worthy... GTac (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeebus, I'm sorry. My bad. Генгис^marauding 14:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're bad and you should feel bad! ;-) GTac (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

More counter examples

I'm not sure if it's just an example of wilful ignorance, or a complete lack of thinking, but Johnny Sedition thinks that 32 inches of snow falling in the driest place on earth (actually it's not - Antarctica is, but I wouldn't expect Jpratt to grasp that) is a counter example to global warming.^img

Does he not think "wait... 32 inches in a place that normally gets 50mm of rain a year... that's odd"? I guess thinking would mean having to face facts instead of propaganda. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What a dumbass. But hey, even when you're dead wrong, you can always use the fallback position of "It's God's will, he works in mysterious ways and he has a plan". Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You hate to admit it but you know you love Conservapedia. Your dull, boring lives find newsworthy excitement from the rightwingers. Ok, one of the driest on earth or the driest desert on earth-- boy did I stretch the truth. As for global 'warning', the hockey stick says unusually warm and rising, the Pole (singular) is melting, I blame bush not Al Gore. --76.205.73.125 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I admit - I do like watching CP... but then I also like slowing down at traffic accidents, especially if there are mangled bodies to be seen. It's the same thing really. Also, Jpatt, here's your homework. Go and find out why it snowed there. Here's a hint: "because it got colder" is not the right answer. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You hate to admit it but you know you love Conservapedia RationalWiki. Your dull, boring lives find newsworthy excitement from the rightwingers libruls. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I "hate to admit it"? What? I love reading Conservapedia. I think the better question is if people feel embarrassed for taking Conservapedia seriously. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken-blocking extension

Somebody here once wrote an extension that allowed them to read CP's Recent Changes without Ken's edits? Anyone have that for me? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was *seriously* just wondering that this morning, so I'd like to know too, please. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're likely thinking of my Greasemonkey (Firefox extension) script. --Sid (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob to Kendoll: Please sir, may I have another?

I've politely asked you twice before, and now I shall be forced to politely ask you again^img. Countdown to burning in 3, 2, 1... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy ignoring all of this is fascinating, delightful, suspenseful, telling, etc.. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice that on July 10, Ken got Andy to thank him for his recent archiving work. That's not exactly silent. Phiwum (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Drug store murder

Might be worth a WIGO. Andy^img seems to want to acquit a guy who shot an armed robber, then proceeded to pump 5 rounds into his unconscious body, killing him. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

5 rounds when he is already down is CLEARLY self defense. I mean, he might have spit his aids ridden blood on the guy or something. (rolls eyes).--En attendant Godot 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1st degree sounds a little iffy, but it's plainly murder. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

uh «-Bfa-» 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

shrug. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy is quicker with his judgement than most SciFI spaceships can travel. But hey, you can still make up stuff and claim them as facts if you're desperate enough. --★uːʤɱ pirate 17:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TerryB is a horrible little man.

Discuss^img. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 23:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, probably a parodist like everyone else at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy Shit. God I hope that's a parodist, but I think Andy doesn't think that different. --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy would just voice it in a slightly more palatable fashion. Anyways, most Conservapedia editors are parodists.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Since he apparently shot him in the head already and he was lying unconscious on the floor, the jury in this conservative and gun friendly state thought he used excessive force and the 5 extra shots were unwarranted and deserved punishment.^img" - Ken (I boldly bolded). --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Manual capture, as if we didn't know already. 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Interesting - only banned for 6 months instead of the usual 5 years that Ken gives for anyone who doesn't agree with his every viewpoint. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 04:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Some truly moronic vandalism

Sorry, but I lol'ed.^img --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Some one needs to tell these people you don't need to vandelize CP to make them look bad, they do a good enough job of that themselves--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering 3/4 of that article is dedicated to stuff that happended before, it isnt much of a vandalism attack anyways--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it just looks exactly like the kind of vandalism that schoolkids do to Wikipedia. Wouldn't be surprised if it's one of Andy homeschoolers or something who's got bored halfway through his assignment to research some piece of fringe crap. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's Idea of a good read!

really, ken. you would read books about soviet atheism^img to YOUR kids before you tuck them in for bed. You sir, disgust me. LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 02:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Star Ledger piece

Here it is. http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2011/07/new_jersey_home_schooling_the.html

I'm pleasantly surprised, since it does bring up some of the wackier aspects of CP. -Lardashe

Actually it's quite an attack on Schlafly: "It’s all factual, according to him. And he’s free to teach whatever he wants. New Jersey law says home schooling must be "equivalent" to a public school education, but because there are no state standards for these students, there’s no way to ensure that. Other than parents, no one keeps track of what these students are being taught, or even how many of them exist."

It's more a piece on the lack of regulation in NJ homeschooling and citing CP and Schlafly as examples of just how bed things can get without regulation. Can't wait to see Andy's reply. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An intriguing article, that's for sure. I hadn't known the details of the homeschool situation in that state, but this certainly explains why Andy is allowed to do what he does. Kudos to the author for showcasing some of the loonier aspects of CP; maybe one or two parents will read it.

Though I'm now concerned: "He readily acknowledges he uses his classes [...] to spread his own views." and "After the teenager argued for evolution, Schlafly lent him a book that advocated creationism." really make me frown.

That being said, hooray for fat atheists, living dinos and professor values! --Sid (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. I see Addison gets a big name check as well, sucking up to Andy. Генгис^marauding 12:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• "lesson plans that recognized educational experts would consider nonsense"
• "Then all of a sudden you have these extreme cases, which give a bad name to home schoolers in general"

Генгис^marauding

Interesting how Andy perpetuates the myth that Conservapedia is mainly a tool for home-schooling, while it is in fact a hobby-horse for a couple of middle-aged male... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone still had any doubts about the identity of CP's public face, four out of six examples cited in the article are Ken's droppings, while only the professor values one is vintage Andy. He might've had something to do with the kangaroos as well, I'm too lazy to check the edit history. Röstigraben (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, that's great. I don't think they could have written a better article if they'd cribbed it directly from WIGO CP. Notice how many of the crazy sidebar items are direct Kendoll quotes. I wonder if this'll make Andy sit up and pay attention. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't like it^img :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! XD --Sid (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See also PZ on Louisiana. Very timely - I've dropped a link in the comments. Scream!! (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Ken really doesn't like it: Julie O'Connor is now a <quotation marks>reporter</quotation marks>^img --Sid (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Kendoll is hurt because Andy gets the credit for his magnificent octopus on Homosexuality. Also, I wonder what John's real reaction to that article was. I'm going for "*exasperated sigh* Whatever you say, Andrew." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Andy is quick on the damage control: Ken suddenly had NO involvement in writing up the MPL item, and the scarequotes are mysteriously gone... --13:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the star ledger really liberal? Or is he just mad because they made him look like a crazy wingnut?--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, they outed his brother (as if nobody knew). I want to see them discuss this. Hopefully they won't just forget about it and we'll get to see their indignance in full--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The reaction is just so CP: "Waa! Somebody said something nasty about us! Waa! Well, they're a poopy head! AND liberal! And who reads newspapers anyway." Pathetic. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

it's wonderful that another Reliable Source has commented on the contents of Conservapedia articles. Something oft wished elsewhere. --Shagie (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I expect WP to be updated accordingly. Генгис^marauding 14:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahem --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oversight is being used merrily: This was the edit briefly after Ken's edits were oversighted, then Andy "trimmed" (read: "engaged in even more damage control") and oversighted the old version, erasing any trace of "poor journalism". Ken doesn't quite catch his drift^img of course. --Sid (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good old Ken

. He only knows two things: 1) You haven't pointed out any errors in my atheism, evolution or homosexuality articles! 2) Look at the impressive girth of my e-penis! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This might be a highlight for me: "I never got the impression that the class was tilted conservative," says Addison's mom. Addison, I don't mean to be insulting here, but what planet is your mom living on? DickTurpis (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

More taunting by Ken.^img

And yeah, that bit was really puzzling, too, DT. Even factoring in that kids don't talk about every little lesson detail with their parents, Andy giving her child a freaking YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST TEXTBOOK should've clued her in. --Sid (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I do like that the women in his class are in a constant state of revolt over his sexism though. It sounds like the kids are smarter than their parents who committed them to the care of this lunatic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. "Boys generally will not ask out a girl who does better than a boy on a test" Fuck you, Arsefly. Fuck you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the best line to impress a female reporter... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If Ms. Julie O'Connor's employer wants me to provide her assistance, let me know. :) Clearly, she needs someone to help her. :) Conservative 10:30, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

O please, Andy, bring the "reporter" and the mystery (wo)man into contact... But unfortunately Andy doesn't have the intention to piss off the largest circulated newspaper of his home-state. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Oh God, please stop talking, Ken..."^img "No, seriously, stop talking..."^img --Sid (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the most interesting parts for me was the report of a "huge uproar" over the sexist testing. Those must be Andy's very words, right? And I doubt he's exaggerating. I knew a couple people made a fuss, but this seems to go well beyond that. "...there were no boys who defied me..." Andy, you are such a colossal prick. DickTurpis (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

First shot across the bow.^img --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Home schoolers already do better than public school students," he said, breaking into a smile. "Have public school students take one of my tests." Andy, I've taken some of your history and government tests, and passed them easily, and I'm not even American. X Stickman (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that. "Many homeschoolers do better than public school students, my students are homeschooled, therfore they do better!" Great logic, Andy. I have to say, I sort of feel sorry for Addison. The only teachers he's ever had are his mom (who's unaware that Conservapedia is conservative) and Andy Schlafly. That is downright tragic. DickTurpis (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, come one. Someone needs to work at Wendy's and MacDonalds. May as well be poor Addison, after all his mother has paid for him to have the education to do so. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I loved the questions "Describe the difference between Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Hows this for an answer, one was more fiscaly conservative then the other. Heres a hint, it wasn't St. Reagan.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Andy has to wipe up after Ken.^img --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Schlafly... lives in a mansion in Far Hills" Why is the world this fucked up? --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this sounds trite Jaguar but andy can live in a fucking palace surrounded by nubiles catering to his every whim but he will still spend every single day of his meaningless existence wandering around spluttering to himself in anger and pretending that he is making a difference. Truthfully I REALLY believe he knows he is impotent. He REALLY knows he is of no consequence to anyone on anything. And that hurts. Deep inside he KNOWS he, and his silly hate blog, means nothing. I would love to have the kind of money that Warren Buffet is able to give away, and I notice that andy hasn't mentioned the 1 billion he donated the other day and I can't begin to guess why - but assfly is a nobody and he knows it. I'm a nobody and I don't really care. Andy is a nobody and it hurts him to the core of his meaningless existance. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

*Skims through the article* Found a few discrepancies:

1. Not a mansion, since he shares the driveway with the neighbors and the house is worth below $1 million.

2. $250/semester? $250 for homeschoolers, $300 for public schoolers.

3. "No one keeps track". I kept track. At least 15 students per week. And he teaches mostly 8th grade material to supposed high schoolers. 'Today, we'll learn the differences between passive and active voice in writing.' [paraphrase]

4. I'd say the general average of homeschoolers are more dedicated to school work, but several of them fail in social interactions (I was punched in the face at a homeschool party, for those of you who have forgotten). Further, their work ethic seems to have just as high a chance of failing when going away to uni (compared to that of a public schooler).

5. Most of the grading is the same. Watched Andy grade once or twice. Didn't see his facial expressions change based on the gender sex, just based on someone's grammar.

6. I took one of Mr. Schlafly's tests. Got about 50% correct. Probably because I haven't taken history for two years. Made me "quit" Cpedia for a few months with the message about how wrong it was of him to openly tell the class my score.

7. The questions section seems a little out-of-context to me. "ERA = evil" seems more like a parodist said that. Oh wait... that was me. Oh well.

16:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Approx $730k according to my creepy snooping. Looks nice from the air though. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy loves to point to his tests to show how smart his students are, and how your average public schooler or guy off the street won't do as well as his best students. Of course, what he fails to mention is that many of his questions are on specific crap that's unlikely to be covered outside of his class, so if you aren't one of his students you aren't going to do too well. It's like his Bible quiz, you could have the entire book memorized and still not know half the answers. How many copies are sold every year? Yes, if you don't know that you are a Bible ignoramus. DickTurpis (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Boys generally will not ask out a girl who does better than a boy on a test" I thought ALL the 'students' got 98% so how the fuck can girls get higher marks? Sphincter (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're thinking of homework. Tests actually have wrong answers. The only wrong answer on a homework is writing something Andy doesn't agree with, though he will occasionally mark 1 point off for a response completely devoid of fact. Hypothetical example: "In your opinion, who was the best President of the US ever?" (Correct answer: Reagan or Washington). Student A: "Barack Obama." Response: "I said 'best' not 'worst.' 0 points"; Student B: "Jesus Christ." Response: "Was never technically President. -1, 9/10." For his tests you occasionally actually have to know a little bit. DickTurpis (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's antics

lol, Andy's patience with him might just be wearing thin.^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy defends himself and Ken... and states^img that contributors on CP have a right to free speech? Bwah? Whatever happened to the old "NO, BITCH, THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH HERE!" argument that popped up whenever people tried to defend their criticism by invoking free speech? ...and why is Andy repeatedly censoring Ken's free speech? --Sid (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You got that wrong. Look at the sigs--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm? Tracy was complaining about Ken's idiocy on MPL and Ken in general. Andy brought up free speech in return. Which sig did I get wrong? --Sid (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The "and states" part.. or just before that: "A boy will never ask out a girl who did better than him on a test." I asked out Phynix, if I remember correctly.. >.> Keklik 16:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a liberal pinko then. Deny this and lose all credibility. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone added the original MPL write-up to the comments section of the Star-Ledger? Might prove to the new audience that Andy's incapable of maintaining editorial control of his own website, let alone teach children about to head to university. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone at CP so passive-aggressive about Kendoll? Even Rob won't come right out and say he's a dribbling lunatic. They continually delete his most embarrassing emissions, but never try and stop him making new ones by telling him to stop. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's classic TK Syndrome - "Yes, I admit that I kinda sorta unofficially might maybe disagree with some of his actions, but he has done so much good, and we can't afford to lose him because without him, the liberal hordes rush in and destroy this last bastion of true conservatism!" --Sid (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's funny/sad to see how much of liability Ken has become to CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

All this definitely deserves a WIGO. I'd do it myself, but I can't find a way to sum it up nicely. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Clinton did what fit the Democratic Agenda such as the Brady Bill or the ADA bill." I know it's futile to point this out, but the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed by Bush Sr. in 1990. Two years before Clinton was elected. It was amended in 2008 by Bush Jr. In other words, there were two acts and Clinton had nothing to do with either one. --Roofus (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

At least they didn't try to pin NAFTA on him. I hate it when they do that.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

There's some fantastic comments appearing. So much for Andy thinking he speaks on behalf of home schooling:

• This is an article on Andy Schlafly, not on homeschooling families in NJ. Been homeschooling for 13 years in NJ. Contact me SL, and come meet some real homeschoolers in NJ. We're atheist, muslim, jewish, christian, "whatever" AND have a wide variety of political viewpoints - not one dimensional as you chose to portray in this article.
• I'm disappointed in this article. It presents an extremely narrow, one-sided view of homeschooling. I don't believe Mr. Schlafly's teachings are all that different than what many conservative Christians are teaching their children - public schooled or homeschooled - in their own home or in "home study" church groups. And yet we would never see an article about the appalling views Christians are teaching their children. This is not homeschooling in NJ. Do some research and present a more balanced view, please.

Everybody is basically saying, "Don't lump us in with this wing nut" - although they seem to be missing the point. The author is saying that lack of regulation leads to Conservapedia. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone here commented yet? A link to a relevant article here might give inquiring minds some more insanity to peruse. Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights is full of gems. DickTurpis (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments seem to be run over by rabid "ALL REGULATIONS ARE BAD! GIVE US OUR FREEDOM TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN BULLSHIT!" people. I can see why Andy is still in business despite postulating open garbage on a regular basis. --Sid (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Health freedom! Er, I mean, academic freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedooooooooooooooom! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Those comments are incredibly negative - some of them seem to have been left by people involved in the NJ homeschooling movement. It will be interesting to see if any Schlafly mentions occur on homeschooling websites about what an embarrassment he and Conservapedia are for the homeschooling movement. The answers to those questions were atrociously written, with Andy's blessing! And good point about Clinton having nothing to do with the ADA bill. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey pssssttt, Andy... The Americans with Disabilities Act and recent amendments were pass with overwhelming bipartisan support! 17:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Larry Summers

User:Conservative did quite a hit piece on that bigot and sexist pig Obama saw fit to oversee the destruction of the U.S. economy, Larry Summers. Then the Ledger trashes Andy for saying precisely what Obama's stooge said after he quit Harvard and went back to the White House. Looks to me like Andy is Summers biggest defender. I think it's just anti-intellectualism on the part of the Ledger, they just can't hang with Harvard elites speculating why women do so piss poor on math scores. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Was that your doctoral thesis in non sequiters there, Rob? Did that have anything at all to do with either Andy's homskolling or Kendoll's dribbling about it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob, do you still stand by your assertion that Obama declared the war on terror to be over some 2 years ago? P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 22:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You think Ken's still mad?

Yep, Ken's grudge continues: "Newark Star-Ledger"^img --Sid (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's pathetic boast

Wow, the piece is now the 6th-most-commented-on article on nj.com^img! Far from his usual delusions of grandeur. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Now Ken

"atheists are fat hur dur" campaign has leaked into "real" media? FSM save us. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so which wag ran the Andy-bot in the comments section? Twice. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

For goat's sake why can't people spell "atheist" correctly? Генгис^marauding 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an incredible blow, as someone said, it could have been cribbed from WIGO:CP. It illustrates the black eye that Ken is. A better article could not have been written. So it's a stunning boast and I still want to see if there are any discussions about it on mainstream homeschooling websites. Is this the most devastating article ever written about Andy's homeschooling, and Conservapedia as a resource for it? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The really interesting thing is that the comments section has now died and interest is done. No-one gives a damn, and couldn't be arsed to give a moment of their time thinking about those loons. Yet more proof of Best Of The Public? DogP (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Public high school group-think

Wow, that's the title of a follow-up entry on the blog of the liberal rag, and it's quite painful to read:

“”The point of the article, in my view, was to make the monopoly of liberal orthodoxy in the public schools look good and acceptable. How? By trying to make those outside the public school system – conservative home school educators and students – look bad.

“”Of course, public high school students don’t get detention if they articulate a conservative viewpoint in class. But they are courageous. Just try and argue in current events class that gay sex is wrong – and see what kind of social ostracism you will face. Or try getting your biology teacher to do an intellectually honest discussion of Intelligent Design.

But take a look for yourself. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)