Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive25

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Up/down[edit]

Hey - what does the up/down system actually mean?--Danielfolsom 23:07, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Whatever we want it to mean. Since "anyone" can vote, including probably IPs (we loves our bunchanumbers!), it's not exactly a perfect poll. But it's there. And we kinda use it to decide what goes in "best of CP" at the end of the month. Also to humiliate editors who add really lame wigo entries, of course. Life is hard all over, ya know? Oh, what it "means" - it's "WEB 2.0", dude. You can push a button and the website changes!!! Cool. humanUser talk:Human 23:12, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Haha, I meant like: does an down vote mean your upset an event happened and an up vote mean your happy an event happened? or does a down vote mean that that event isn't that important and an up vote mean that's huge--Danielfolsom 23:17, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Up means funny, remarkable, down means unfunny and unremarkable. Unless it's mine, in which case both mean "fantastic catch". UchihaKATON! 23:22, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, sorry I misunderstood, DF. As Uchiha says, it's a vote on the "quality" of the wigo entry itself, not the event behind it. humanUser talk:Human 10:59, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Months ago, there was a page, the BoCP that was intended for pure lulz. As RW grew more people were putting more things into BoCP, (some things were of lesser [lulzwise] "quality" ) and the consensus was to use another, little used page, to do day-to-day edits saving the bestest for BoCP. That page was WIGO, the UP\DOWN was added to let the mob decide what was BoCP-worthy. (I think anything over 10 gets to be in BoCP.) Warren Terra 11:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Even more, even rapidlier growth![edit]

Connected to the "fastest growing educational resource bit, here's Tuesday morning, 7am on CP (I pasted the Recent Changes into a comment, if anybody is interested):

  • 13 Recent Changes entries in total between 0:00 and 7:00
  • Two of them are new user log entries. One is one of said users getting banned (justified, given the name).
  • One edit by DanH to fix a typo.
  • One talk page entry for Fox News Channel.
  • Four Main Page talk edits.
  • One non-trivial edit by HelpJazz, and one talk page entry to document/explain the edit ("Electric car").
  • Two edits by Andy (neither marked as "minor") to wiki-link a single word. No, not a word per edit. Both edits to wiki-link the same word ("Competition").

I'm seriously impressed. Sure, it's just early morning in the server's timezone, but there was a time when CP had editors from around the world. However, that was before pretty much all those people got booted for not supporting Andy's agenda and before night-time edit rights were introduced to prevent the remaining few editors from contributing. (Seriously, how many of those with night-time rights actually USE these rights on a regular basis? Whenever I check CP around this time, I usually just see PJR and one or two others...) --Sid 07:18, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I'm seriously depressed. It's like my favourite web comic (Doonesbury, if your asking) going from daily to weekly updates. As the flow of lunacy dries up so checking for recent updates has diminishing returns. After all, where would RW be without CP to lampoon? Silver Sloth 08:28, 29 January 2008 (EST)
in ur innertubes eatin ur cheezeburgers! humanUser talk:Human 11:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I wouldn't look too far into it.... I mean, even if the site was reduced to Andy, sitting up late and editing by himself, we'd still have enough to fill WIGO for months SirChuckBCall the FBI 11:13, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I seem to recall I predicted they'd end up doing this to themselves, as the collision of Andy's ideology and wiki technology made it kind of inevitable. Either they open it up, and (and Andy loses his grip on the all-important "Liebrals r T3h Suck" message), or they achieve total lock-down (and the site stagnates). Unsurprisingly, given his authoritarian personality, he went with option 2. --Gulik 12:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
True, a lot of people predicted it.... You can only survive in complete isolation for so long... Whenever anything Andy considered liberal snuck in, he killed it and grasped tighter and tighter... AS such, he's scared off most of his good editors and keeps other potential good ones away.... and having the trash that he posts on the front page probably doesn't help either.... Conservapedia has become just another interent joke... Stop in for a laugh and move on... I can't even find Conservative sites that endorse it. SirChuckBCall the FBI 13:26, 29 January 2008 (EST)

This is pretty sad. Not to bore people with further updates too much, but it's about 2 PM, and I count TWO mainspace edits all day that I would not consider minor (regardless of whether or not they are marked with "m") or vandalism. I was also looking for sort of random articles that an encyclopedia, but probably aren't "tier 1" or anything (examples they're lacking include Thomas Cromwell, Roberto Clemente, Stanley Baldwin, Charles Parnell, to name just a few, to say nothing of their short sentence on Jean Paul Marat), and at this rate they're never going to be anything they can call an encyclopedia. -DickTurpis 14:06, 29 January 2008 (EST)

As with all collaborative sites, Conservapedia will wax and wane depending on all sorts of different effects. Their low activity could be down to a combination of it being January, lots of exams coming up, a few high volume contributors being busy on other things... With such a small number of contributors, the effects are bound to be more exaggerated than they would be at, say, Wikipedia. But even WP has its ups and downs. I wouldn't write off CP just yet. There are plenty of politics and social issues coming up that could fire up interest. Interestingly, there seem to be a lot of non-US actives on the site at the moment - Fox and PJR being the obvious ones. I haven't thought why that might be. Ajkgordon 14:24, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Oh I didn't mean to imply they were on their last legs and about to collapse, but the lack of real solid additions of useful articles is not helping them. With Rob and TK not contributing, Ken either absent or working solely on more articles on atheism and homosexuality, Andy working mostly on his godawful court case articles, and a slew of discontent contributors doing less and less, the site is a far cry from a general purpose encyclopedia, and not getting any closer to being one. They should give up all pretenses of replacing Wikipedia (which is just obviously never going to happen) and work on being an American-centric conservative forum which encourages discussion rather than prohibiting it. Of course, it's not going to happen, as it would mean Andy would have to admit defeat, and change his notion that "talking" is a liberal trait. But that's fine; it's fun to watch Andy make mountains out of molehills with the problems of Wikipedia, and his bizarre notions that the #9 site on the internet won't exist in a year (till can't figure out where it is going to go). -DickTurpis 15:18, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Well, TK pretty much got memoryholed, so he's excused. ;) You touch a good point, though. The currently active editors (a few sysops and a few editors who have to live with the fact that half their edits get reverted or twisted beyond recognition) cover a very narrow field. It's been noted before that CP pretty much dropped the ball twice when it had an editor rush by locking down everything and driving away everybody who could have widened their horizons. Call it a blog or a forum, but it's really not an encyclopedia anymore. --Sid 15:26, 29 January 2008 (EST)
(Disclaimer: I don't have hard data here, but it's a stomach feeling from somebody who's been watching CP for a while now. This was also written before DickTurpis had posted his nice and concise reply, so there is a certain degree of redundancy.)
Actually, it's been pretty much of a slow downward trend ever since the Night of the Blunt Knives. And it's not that there are no people to edit, or that there is no time, or that maybe there aren't subjects to contribute to.
  • There are several editors who want to edit. They just can't because of Andy's "It's night here, so let's basically shut down the site" mindset with the "edit right". The problem is that Andy's "night" collides with noon or afternoon of editors worldwide. The result? Those who are limited to a 2-3 hour window per day (for example) will go to a site that's less restrictive.
  • When there is time (read: Whenever Andy has declared that it's day on CP), the sysops are closely monitoring the Recent Changes and hit "Rollback" whenever they don't 100% agree. Reverting that leads to Andy's infamous "Warning of likely blocking of your account!" rants. By now, you can't even place a "fact" tag without summoning Andy's wrath.
  • There are plenty of subjects, but most of the ones people want to edit are the propaganda articles that are in total sysop control, even if they aren't officially protected. Sure, you can make concise entries about completely mundane articles, but at best, you'd produce something that's as informative as the WP counterpart, and you know that everybody would look it up on WP anyway. And at worst, your article would get deleted for some cryptic reason without discussion. (Alternatively, the worst case scenario is that your mundane article gets turned into a propaganda piece, so you'd have to watch how Andy twists your article into a Bizarro version of it...)
It all simply adds up to growing frustration. And it's not just people like Jenkins or Barikada who chose the direct and blunt approach when pointing out CP hilarity/sadness. It's even moved up to the main helpers (Iduan, HelpJazz) and sometimes even to sysops (PJR). People realize more and more that it's Andy who decides what every article should read. He goes into edit wars and content discussions and simply enforces his decision until the opposition gives up.
And there had never been genuine interest in CP. I'd almost guess that WIGO drives more traffic to CP than Google does, and people only visit WIGO for Lulz. The site had two major traffic peaks: The initial blog rush, and the rush when it hit the blogs again with the ridiculous pageviews. Other than that, traffic's doing badly. Sure, things like the election might drive in a few more visitors, but what are the odds they'll stay when they realize that CP is biased and in tight control? --Sid 15:26, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Of course not, I don't think Conservapedia is really going to go anywhere.... But unless there are several changes to the basic formatting, It's gonna be down to just Andy, a few homeschoolers and a few diehard editors churning this stuff out... Andy is becomming more and more paranoid at the liberals under his bed and he's squeezing harder and harder on his baby...... Maybe there'll be a Conservapedia Coup and a new leader will emerge SirChuckBCall the FBI 15:29, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Even more depressing, once Conservapedia dies, traffic here will probably cease entirely. Like it or not, RationalWiki is a sort of hybrid detritovore (feeding off of Conservapedia's crap) and parasite (sustaining itself off of traffic to Conservapedia). Any dream of turning this into even a minor semi-notable site after CP dies is just quixotic. Type in "rational" or "pseudoscience and we don't even come up. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:43, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Let's add to the fine points above that many CP editors ARE RW socks. Inactivity by us them means a considerable loss of activity at CP, or am I wrong? Add to that that editing has a positive feedback factor (?), I mean the more interesting edits and the more one feels stimulated to contribute, and voilà. So, now, everybody take your socks and edit! Says Editor at CPBring TK back 16:01, 29 January 2008 (EST), who hasn't edited there in this AD 2008.
Addendum: whatever RW's best intentions and raisons d'etre, RA is absolutely right. CP and RW live in symbiosis, if one goes the other follows. Editor at CPBring TK back 16:02, 29 January 2008 (EST)
"...and driving away everybody who could have widened their horizons." Sorry to be cynical but surely CP is precisely that. They don't want to widen their horizons. Any dissent that doesn't fit within their very tight horizons gets reverted or shut down. Their very definition of conservative is extremely tightly defined and quotes from otherwise commonly-accepted-as-conservatives are often dismissed with something like "(s)he's not a real conservative" if it conflicts with a Aschlafly/CP stance. CP is narrow incarnate. Ajkgordon 16:37, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I have a little idea...User:PalMD
Ideas are dangerous and inherently liberal! Ajkgordon 16:56, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Well, this one is certainly liberal....User:PalMD

Andy admitted in the SDG that RW is the primary source of referral traffic to CP...as for RW in a post-cp era, we get a non-insignificant amount of search engine traffic for people look for donair sauce recipes and goat colonics so you never know. And if worse comes to worse the database is in my possession maybe I can write a paper or two about the whole thing.... tmtoulouse vex 17:14, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe what you'd like to consider is taking RW offline for a week? Sort of a MANDATORY boycott. Imagine the lulz we'd find after a week of them having no spele checkers? Half the fun of CP is coming HERE to see the best of their worst. CЯacke® 17:25, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Hi Cracker! Well, that's what our half-hearted boycotts that don't work are supposed to show. But if we had no wigo, and no RW to play on, um, what would we do? <-- example of having no life, ulp. humanUser talk:Human 23:34, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I sense another revert coming.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 22:13, 29 January 2008 (EST)

As long a Andy continues to pay the hosting fees, CP will never die. --Gulik 12:41, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh[edit]

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh shit dammit!

Ugh!

You need TurboLax.
Will it help make CP go away? Then yes, I need that. Lots of it.

Gossip[edit]

Mexmax just banninated shrub for" inserting gossip. That ought to ban everyone on the site (specially anyone who includes a dinner conversation as "evidence"). SusanPurrrrrrr 17:04, 29 January 2008 (EST)

The "gossip" was about Bush's DUI arrest. How the crimes of the leader of our nation is gossip, while everything listed on the National Enquirer Headlines Newsfeed Hollywood Values page isn't is beyond me. Lurker 18:04, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Well, someone should really do something about this gossip then. -DickTurpis 18:32, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Wow, "This became one of the most famous political events of the late 20th century". Completely overshadowing the murder of both his brothers, the march to Selma, Nixon resigning.... etc. etc. I also love the endemic illiteracy of CP... "just off of Martha's Vineyard in Cape Cod, Massachusetts" Cape Cod is not a "place" that would be described that way, and, to boot, MV is not in (or on) the Cape - it's a freakin' island. As in what they call Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, & c.: "The Cape and Islands". humanUser talk:Human 18:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Liberal evil = educational -- we gotta make sure that people don't do what liberals do, for the people's sake, of course. Conservative evil = gossip -- liberals always gossip to take down the conservatives because they are scared that the Good Conservatives will take over and then they won't be able to control the media or smoke pot or kill babies. Same old song and dance. It's sad that after all this time it's still impossible for me to tell if Andy knows he's using incredibly faulty logic in almost everything he says, or if he truely believes what he says so much that he doesn't think there is any error in his logic. Lurker 19:27, 29 January 2008 (EST)
The latter, I think. We are surely all guilty of sometimes buying into poor logic on a topic we are utterly convinced of. Of course, in his (nut)case, that covers virtually all possible topics. humanUser talk:Human 19:31, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Heh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You're probably right. Lurker 19:34, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I suspect Andy knows that his arguments are garbage, which is why he's so hard-core on everything--he's desperately trying to convince himself that the things he believes are true. Hasn't He said that he came into his current views around the age of 40? He's like those ex-smokers who become virulently anti-tobacco to shield themselves against the craving for a butt.--WJThomas 07:45, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Or like those repressed homosexuals who become virulently homophobic to shield themselves against the craving for a butt. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:56, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Are you suggesting that cp:User:Conservative's passion about homosexuality is actually a passion of another sort? Methinks he dost protest too much as the bard said. Silver Sloth 10:01, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Making Conservapedia's "examples of bias" obsolete.[edit]

I've been working a long time trying to get much of the things that CP complains about in WP. I fixed the whole "HPV is God's punishment" stuff, he actually did say something close enough to that, it's pretty effective at representing his views.

Anyways, apparently Hamas supports Hilary Clinton, while the KKK supports right-wingers (anyone have a reference to what they're talking about?) And whole crap, it's hard to squeeze any information at all into the Hilary Clinton article. I'm sure you need three sources for every phrase. I just can't be bothered to do so. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 18:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)

This is a useful, and subtle thing to do. Those who do find CP's article and then go to Wikipedia to see that example of bias would then shown CP's inflexibility and misunderstanding of Wikis that can (and to an extent are required to) change with the times. It also has the nice subtly of not showing up on CP's radar. Sure they can watch WIGO and fix their mistakes... but it is a bit harder for them to watch all of the pages they cite on en.wiki and remove outdated citations. --Shagie 15:05, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It's pretty slick. If CP ever notices, they will simply add the ol' "once we announced it here it was changed on WP" mantra. Which, strangely is true, if Eira is the one who's changing it. Heh, wouldn't that burn CP to find out they are making WP better. Fun fact: not only does Andy think that changes on WP are due to CP, but he also thinks that you can't make those changes because they will be reverted by teh liebruls. 1=72. Lurker 15:15, 31 January 2008 (EST)
However, it also weakens his argument that one cannot 'fix' wikipedia and the need for Conservapedia. The unfortunate part is that Andy and the rest (even Poor Eddie) have difficulty with the concept of compromise and that the truth may be different than what they believe. They'd rather be a big fish in a small pond. In this case the small pond is more along the lines of a fishtank that people point at and laugh. --Shagie 16:04, 31 January 2008 (EST)
On a tangential tangent, there was an article on /. (that I now have trouble finding) that engineering types more eaisily fall into an extreme political/religious mentality. Ah ha... here it is... [1] and [2] (note I disagree with the anti-islam stance of the and believe it to be much more general - Christian fundamentalists fit just as well). The thing being, engineers think that they can fix things. Be it a social structure or computer problem or engineering problem the engineer thinks that they are right, have the know-how to fix it, and can fix it (consequences be dammed). Give The Big Bang Theory a watch - episode The Big Bran Hypothesis [3] . There is one right way to do it, fix the problem (which may not be a problem in the first place), forget the implications and the people involved. (if you liked that episode, give [4] a watch... its about his mom) --Shagie 16:04, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Noes! 1≠72! Your blasphemy has incurred the wrath of…um…the reflexive property of equality? Yeah. That. assume a=a 16:52, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Scorpion[edit]

Wow, that was a blast from the past. Some diff at wigo showed him still playing. I remember trying to figure out "which side he was on" - gave up and decided he (she?) was on his/her own side. Still mildly active. How the hell did this arachnoid avoid the great purge and survive this long? Intense training for life in the desert? humanUser talk:Human 23:48, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Is he poisonous? --Stabbythe Misanthrope, essayist 23:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)
I recall he was good for a few kicks over at Uncyclopedia (Conservapedia page there). Seemed pretty genuine, certainly didn't like being laughed at. UchihaKATON! 00:03, 30 January 2008 (EST)
While I'm not one for repeating gossip, oh what the hell...
Back in ye olden dayz, like around March 2007 while cp:userJC was busily defending the validity of this "picture"[5] Scorpion aka ScorpionMan looked like a typical CP troll, though a conservative troll. While I forget the source, maybe hisself?, I was informed he was a young (13yo or so?) man with Asperger's syndrome. For short he is a intelligent kid without the ability to empathize with other people, (or at least be able to see what their POV might be). As such he was given leeway, until he started socking up to participate in votes (when such a thing looked as if it may have mattered on CP), when he was given a monthish block but never did return to his salad days. CЯacke® 01:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I resent that. I'm a young man with Asperger's. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:45, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Really? I have a mild form of synesthesia myself, I "see" flavors as shapes. It is actually a boon for cooking as I only need to know what "shape" I'm shooting for for a particular dish then add ingredients or spices to fit that shape. CЯacke® 13:49, 30 January 2008 (EST)
So Ritz taste "round" and saltines taste "square"? That's a really cool sensory mashup. We used to use chemical assistants to see and taste sounds back in the day... Did you know that Strawberry Fields Forever is actually reddish-pink and tastes like strawberries?! humanUser talk:Human 14:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Ritz CЯacke®s have a "crescent moon" shape with a sort of bulge in the middle. Saltine CЯacke®s have a "flat" board kinda shape. CЯacke® 19:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I don't think there is really anything in that to be resentful about...Scorpion is a young man with Asperger's and does exhibit a significant amount of the positive symptoms of that diagnosis that did effect his tenure at CP. Nobody is issuing a condemnation of him or anyone else. tmtoulouse vex 03:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)
he held fastly and angrily to ridiculous views, but we ended up leavinghim alone because of his disorder.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 03:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Flood geology---again[edit]

Someone is giving PJR and Andy a hard time again, and without the banhammer. Andy falls back on his old canard :

There is a logical circularity, and hidden assumptions, in using the earth to date the earth. But you omit them. Radiometric dating depends on assuming that decay rates have always been constant. But plainly that is false.--Aschlafly 09:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 18:09, 30 January 2008 (EST)
"But plainly that is false"...do we have an article that lists all of the different fields that he pretends to be an expert in? I am not aware of any real scientists who believe that decay rates have been anything but constant except for the possible exception of the first few instants after the big bang. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Of all the people to be talking about circular reasoning... "Ridiculous" is rapidly becoming my word of the year, closely followed by "absurd" and "mind-blowingly-stupid" (the hyphens make it a word, okay). Kirkburn 18:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)
If that's multiple choice, I'm going with teh stupidz.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 18:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I just looked up "irony" in the online dictionary, and there is already a link to that statement by teh assfly. humanUser talk:Human 18:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Sometimes you just have to wonder what evolution was thinking ... was it drunk that night? At least other other animals don't know any better :/ (debatable?) Kirkburn 18:39, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Doc, it looks like your blog seeding has brought a new influx of people willing to do long and hard battle at CP. Too bad PJR is so stuck on his 6000 yo earth - he's a pretty smart fellow otherwise, it seems. humanUser talk:Human 18:50, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I was feeling naughty, but I hope I didn't feed the beast too well.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 18:51, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I have to wonder. If God went to so much trouble at the Dawn of Time to fake us out then, to the point of messing with the fundamental laws of physics He created, why doesn't He still do stuff like that, to disabuse those stoopid librul scientist cultists of their delusion that they live in a mechanistic universe with replicable universal physical laws? What is His deal? --Gulik 04:15, 31 January 2008 (EST) (oops--got logged out somehow.)
Well, as anyone who has read the Bible can tell you: because he hates us. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:53, 31 January 2008 (EST)
I think he just does it for the lulz. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:10, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Exactly! To God, earth is just a giant ant farm, and he enjoys shaking it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Negro[edit]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! This could spell the end of my favourite category on CP: :Rob Smith's one-word Spanish/English dictionary.(One of my socks created it to show the ridiculousness of his entry on the "Negro" page - "the Spanish word for 'black.'" ) PFoster 20:38, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I wouldn't worry yet, it's been there for less than 3 hours. Plus, lesser changes haven't survived. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 21:01, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Start the countdown[edit]

Takes serious 'nads --PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 22:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Well, at least it was still there when I followed your link. But by tom'w morn'in? I doubt this disgusting truth will see the light of day, where the homskollars might read its travesty!?!?!!! (and go fuck, with rubbers, like bunnies!) humanUser talk:Human
We can always save it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:19, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Which Edit?[edit]

The one where a user is blocked for an "unproductive edit" and the contribs of the user are "missing" indicates that the edit was a created page by the block recipient and that the page was deleted. As such, the editor's only contrib was that (now) deleted page which doesn't show up in contribs since it's no longer there. We probably have a couple dozen of these same cases. Warren Terra 01:26, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Actually it's more likely that it was an edit roll-back rather than a new page as you can't delete a page without it showing up in the deletion log (unless you go super undercover which is highly improbable just to cover a minor bad edit, cf DanH's deletion of Meatloaf). Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 07:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Of course, it could have been something that had to appear in the memory hole. But what could it have been? Not even andy's log show that he deleted anything. Any clue? Tohuvavohu 08:10, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Chances are Andy attributed someone else's edit to that guy and blocked the wrong one. They're not the best at figuring out wiki-related things. Jrssr5 08:36, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Fox[edit]

Fox's latest spiel is an interesting read. I don't really know what to think. When things like that happen in the US under a conservative government, CP and their fellow travelers get a hard-on and accuse anyone who is against it of supporting terrorism. And I'm not sure how Fox can say it has nothing to do with terrorism (though certainly the juvenile crime laws he cites don't), but somehow it everything to do with socialism. (Besides, Britain has a longer history of domestic terrorism than we have.) He also uses the word "Orwellian" to attack socialists, ignoring that Orwell himself was a socialist, and his 'the abolition of parliament bill' quote is from a Liberal Democrat. I don't know the details about the acts he cites, though it seems they should give any civil libertarian some cause for concern (perhaps Fox should form some group, or "union" of "civil libertarians"; I bet CP would be behind that 100%), but I'm not sure too many are that different from what is happening in the US and A ("anti-terrorism stop-and-search powers that are constantly being misused", thank god that never happens here! And I wonder if the elderly Walter Wolfgang pleaded pleaded not to be tased when he was ejected from a meeting). If any Brits know more about the specifics he alludes to, I'd be curious to hear about them. I WPed a few and got some info, but would like to hear more. -DickTurpis 09:34, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, he has a valid point although I disagree with him that it is socialism's fault and replied as such on the next edit. Ajkgordon 10:01, 31 January 2008 (EST)
You have to realise that Fox's source is the Dail Mail which habitually bashes the Labour government no matter what. On one hand most of the Mail's readers actually agree with all the CCTV and surveillance as it does reduce the problems that concern good law-abiding god-fearing folk. It may only move the problem elsewhere but as long as that is away from comfortable reactionary middle-class areas then they don't really care. Of course if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to be afraid of. These infringements of personal liberty are only railed against when they affect typical Mail readers whose main concern is the price of their house. Many of the measure's taken are actually a result of the outcry from papers like the Mail demanding that something should be done when there is some sort of calamity. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 11:55, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Indeed. It is also because HM's Opposition and the Lib Dems have been completely ineffectual in combating the erosion of our civil liberties. Truly shocking from both parties as well as from the government itself. Ajkgordon 12:05, 31 January 2008 (EST)
"Of course if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to be afraid of." Please post below your full name, postal address, date of birth, National Insurance number, bank account details and balance, an up to date full face photograph, and your employer/school's details. Thank you for your cooperation, innocent citizen. Reynard 12:34, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Well pointed out my foxy friend - I should have used quotes to highlight the sarcasm! For as an old style liberal I do not endorse that view either. However, it was a remark oft quoted by those middle-class papers calling for something to be done. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly and dysgenics[edit]

There was a comment from Aschlafly the other day in response to some post of mine that claimed that people are getting stupider, at least that was the gist of it. He claimed that people today are less able to appreciate the works of great authors such as Dickens. I asked him to expand on this topic but failed to elicit a reply. LINK My question is, is this a general fundamentalist Christian belief? Is there any evidence that fundies cite that humans are indeed getting stupider? Or is it another ideologically driven interpretation of facts to support winding down to the Rapture or something? Ajkgordon 15:55, 31 January 2008 (EST)

May be not what you are referring to, but it is a widespread Creationist view. You know, harmful mutations, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Think about it: could you build the Pyramids? When was the last of the Seven Wonders built? Editor at CPBring TK back 16:04, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Sure, I understand why it would be just that I hadn't heard it before and wondered if there was any text out there on the interwebnerd that explains all about it. Ajkgordon 16:09, 31 January 2008 (EST)
If i remember from various history classes, it's essentially a medieval worldview (which makes sense since the rest of Schlafly's views are straight out of the 12th century). The ancient Greeks believed in a progression of humanity whereby every succeeding generation would be smarter and more fit than the prior generation. During the Dark Ages it was hard to be so optimistic, and the prevailing view in much of Europe was that we had started at a state of perfection in the Garden of Eden and that we've been going downhill ever since, and will continue to be worse off every generation until the second coming returns us all to that state of perfection. The Renaissance brought about a new view that such things were cyclical, that we would oscillate between periods of improved human condition and declining human condition through the generations. the Post modern perspective is ultimately that humanity as a whole doesn't have an overall direction and that the improvement or decline of humanity is an unpredictable quality. Stile4aly 16:25, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Er last time I checked, it's not possible to add item number 8 to a list called "the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" ;) Lurker 16:11, 31 January 2008 (EST)
They would have called them the "Ever growing list of Wonders of Ancient and Modern Times", but they aknowledged that with our corrupted DNA and soul we could never build anything that could compete with those Ancient Wonders. You would aknowledge it too if you read RW CP with an open mind. Goatspit etc. Editor at CPBring TK back 16:21, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Heh heh heh. Lurker 16:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, us decadent modern folks could NEVER manage anything as impressive as a Big Heap O' Rocks (tm). We'll have to console ourselves with trifles such as putting a man on the moon, building Boulder Dam, transplanting living hearts, wiping an entire city off the map with one bomb, and other similar non-accomplishments. fnord --Gulik 17:11, 31 January 2008 (EST)
A bit more widespread than just Creationist. There has been debate through time if the golden years are behind us or ahead of us. Aside from everyone looking back at nostalgia, you can see this in ancient Greek mythos with the time before 'now' was when the heroes were and before then was when gods were more involved in the world. The same is true for most any religion or culture - that the cultural heroes of the past was the good times and now is just pale imitations of them. Contrast this with the technologist viewpoint where the horizon always shows new promise for better times (read some Ray Kurzweil).
I will agree a bit though that people are getting stupider - well, maybe thats not the right word. I believe that people can apprecitate great works today as they did 20 or 40 years ago, be it Dickens or Plato. The problem (at least as I perceive it in the US) is that the current generation Y are, well... unmotivated slackers. Not everyone, but more than a few. Not sure exactly where it is, so I'll go with an anecdote from my father (college physical science lab director for a senior level class)... Students now expect to push a button and have the experiment done. And an application that you put the numbers you got from pushing the button to churn out the analysis. They want to do as little as possible to get by - don't want to set up the experiment, be it properly measuring the components (the tedious parts of science).
Are people too reliant on technology and the quick availability of easy answers the internet gives us? Short attention span coupled with faster and faster access? Fewer shaggy dog stories in humor and more rapid fire punchlines?
Still, it is often the case that yesterday feels better than today in any area of life. I suspect that much of that is rose colored bifocals (getting old ya know.... get off my lawn.) --Shagie 16:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

This is not an uncommon line of thought, and hardly exclusive to the fundies. References abound in our culture: the Onion reporting the daily drop in the lowest common denominator, the movie Idiocracy, and others. Assfly and colleagues are likely to blame the librul edumakation system. You can draw comparisons between education 100 years ago and today, and while a 5th grader back then may be more advanced in some fields, clearly they will be far behind in others. I don't know if people today are less able to appreciate Dickens, but I think there is evidence that they do appreciate him less. Clearly he's not the bestseller he was back in the 19th century. Of course, that in itself doesn't say much (maybe we've all gotten to smart for Dickens). I will say this, the existence of Andy Schlafly is as good an argument as any that people are not as smart as they once were. -DickTurpis 16:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

To be honest, even some prominent scientists fear that the lack of natural selection makes us worse - I don't know if that includes stupider. Was it Dawkins who wrote that some conditions, such as daltonism (?) are much more widespread that they used to be? Editor at CPBring TK back 16:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Maybe not Christian, but definitively conservative. That's what conservatism is all about, hanging on to the glorious past. I am of two minds, although it is fine to rely on technology to do things for us, if no-one knows the details of how it should be done in the first place who will create the technology in the future? I don't always bother to perform mental arithmetic to the last decimal place when I compute something or somebody computes it for me, but I know how to calculate a figure to check if the answer provided is close to what I think it should be. The problem with technology is when it removes thought from the process of doing something, ("computer says no"). Although I went to a pretty classical independent school there was a lot I missed out on at the time. Without an inspirational teacher I would have probably rejected it all as a teenager. Now I read classical stuff out of real interest. However, although I despair at the ignorance of some of the youngsters of my acquaintance, the intellectual faculties of some of my young fellow editors here fills me with hope. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 16:41, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Are you implying that the young editors here are a representative survey of today's youth? Don't you think that they are la crème de la crème? Editor at CPBring TK back 16:53, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It is not that natural selection makes us worse, but rather we (as a species) have for the most part gotten past the 'natural' part of natural selection. Bad eyes? If you're not a human, and depend on your eyesight, you're probably dead. We can wear glasses. The harmful mutations are not being selected out because we can provide technological and medical ways to deal with them and have children. I'd be happy to put money down on as a species, our eyesight is now worse than it was 10000 years ago (need to go far enough back that a move to agrarian lifestyle was a way out) if such a study is ever done. I'm sure there are other mutations that are not problematic now that are not being selected out.
Arguably, if we can deal with it, this is no longer a harmful mutation and may instead form the building block for some much more helpful mutation somewhere down the road (natural selection is like that). Ask me again in a few hundred generations. The advantage of dealing with fruit flies is you can get the generations quickly... humans are just a tad bit slower and it is difficult at best to make predictions that may be technomagicaly removed in the next generation or so. --Shagie 17:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmmm... I understand all that rose-tinted all-this-were-fields conservative approach to harking back to something that didn't really exist. But I think Ashlafly's comment went deeper than that. Isn't there something in YEC that supposes that since the Fall of Man humans are slowly losing their purity through the aforementioned hijacked Second Law? We all know that Methuselah lived nine hundred years. Does YEC use this "data" to calculate the the date of the Rapture? Ajkgordon 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, most definitely there is, surely from a "scientific" point of view (the loss of genetic information etc.) and at least by some from a religious point of view: you are not the first I hear about Methuselah's (?) age and how the Original Sin is degrading us. But I have no references other than CP and talk.origins. I'm sure PJR would be happy to help you if you ask. Editor at CPBring TK back 04:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Yup, I'm sure he would! Ajkgordon 04:36, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I'm so glad Assfly is still going on about this, it's probably his most ridiculous and stupid attitude. I tried to find the instance from many months ago, but it must have fallen in to one of the CP memory holes back when TK was still DA ENFORCER.

Back in the day, he opined that people were getting dumber and you only had to compare today's art and literature with those of yesteryear to know this is true. Of course, as usual, he's a complete moron. Art and literature are subject to fashions, what we value now was not valuable even as little as 60 years ago. Some artists we now think of as "old masters" were regarded as hacks at the beginning of the 20th century. Similarly with authors, though not quite to the same extent.

I'd put the plays of Arthur Miller up against Shakespeare any day. Many of Shakespeare's plays were pretty much pandering to the lowest common denominator, and the humour hasn't aged at all well. We can only appreciate some of Shakespeare's comedies intellectually and with study, rather than as originally intended. Nobody can tell me that the literature of the past somehow shows people were "smarter." --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 12:42, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Stupid? There is plenty of evidence, as mentioned above, that the human species may be getting stupider because of the demise of natural selection and possibly the active selection of people who rely on welfare having more kids, blah blah di blah, we're all going to turn into chavs on council estates before 2100, got a light?, Big Issyoooooo, got any change?, a'll 'ave you you farking carnt. (Apologies to our non-Brit cousins.)
So, is this Aschlafly reinterpreting the raw data (if it actually exists) to support some theological premise that man will become stupider until the Rapture? Or is it Aschlafly just presuming that man will become stupider? Or simply the conservative trait of wearing rose-tinted spectacles? Ajkgordon 16:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Meh, there is no raw data and all his anecdotal evidence is pretty much bollocks. It's kind of like the way people believe that society is getting more violent and crime ridden, when it's just an artefact of more coverage of crimes on TV and in the paper.
You've got to think more positive. Like when I saw some of Rauschenberg's white canvases and the blurb explicitly said they painted with roller. I've never, ever been closer to demanding my money back from a gallery. That was until I started thinking of it from the opposite direction, you really have to admire the artist's ability to get paid for those works. I wish I had the moxy to demand $100,000 for ten bucks worth of canvas and a splash of crown white emulsion.... --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 20:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Well, his Talking Heads album cover was pretty cool (I'm hoping to retire on it). And, usually the people who can get away with radical work like that have already proved their skillz and insight - you think John Cage could have gotten away with 3:41 (or whatever it was) of rests as an unproven amateur?
As far as the dummification, for every poor gene we keep in the pool via medicine etc., we get to keep those people's smart genes - the example here is of course Stephen Hawking (although I think he bred before becoming debilitated). When are they gonna hook him up with a British accent computer, anyway?
And another thing that can lead to anecdotal but incorrect support - the 3rd generation thing. We follow the offspring of well known people (Prescott, George, George, anyone?) and watch them fall from the first achievers levels - but the smarts are gonna come from elsewhere, not inbreeding and lack of challenge. humanUser talk:Human 20:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Very few human traits follow Mendalian inheritance, and most traits follow a regression toward the mean, so eu/dysgenics is basically bullshit anyway.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 20:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Interesting, thanks all. I wonder if Aschlafly believes that he is stupider than his ancestors of Dickens' time, say his great great great grandfather. If this is a downward trend that is built into our reproductive mechanism by divine design. That must be the ultimately depressing way to view the present and future - we can never ever achieve greatness again. Stop, I wanna get off! Ajkgordon 04:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Hey you kids, get off of my lawn![edit]

I'll weigh in on this and say it is a general feeling that some people get as the years march by. "Back in my day"...sorts of things. Tis a simple thing; those things (bands, movies, "morals") that one had as favorites whilst growing up and in early adulthood are held onto and viewed with an ever increasing brilliance. After some amount of time, (say when one reaches their 40's or 50's), one begins to lose track of the changes that are going on about one. This is exacerbated when one's outlook is of the conservative bent: "The old days were better in every single way" or more simply:"Tain't what it used to be".
I think this is more or less natural since we can only keep track of so many things (as time goes by) and those things we (ourselves) cherished slowly become arcane or antiquated, we choose to embrace those things we know to be "good" and reject newer versions (first by comparison then out-of-hand). When one leaves the 18-25 yo demographic and turns 30 one has the sense that one isn't "up on things" like you used to be. You have thoughts like: "I wonder if the Squirrel Nut Zippers are going to release a new CD soon?" Nevermind that the "new big band" revival is dead and gone and has been for ten years.
Looking at Pr0n at fifty years of age is odd, these children one sees were born when Bush the First was in office, this has to be illegal! Doing the math though:1989+18=2007. Wow. CЯacke® 18:01, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Hehe... my loader is older than I. My truck was built the year I entered college. My older car just turned 26, and my "younger" car is two years older than I was when I graduated high school. My favorite band broke up when I was nine. And what's all this I hear about an "internet", punk? humanUser talk:Human 18:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Well, the New Kids are getting back together.... [6] Maybe it should be Old Men Across the Street now? --Shagie 18:20, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It's simple. Just keep asking yourself: What would John Peel do? ;) --Robledo 18:41, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Emma Peel's husband? --Gulik 04:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
d'ya ken John Peel with his voice so grey? / He sounds as if he's far, far away / he sends us to sleep at the end of the day / 'til we're woken by Tony Blackburn in the morning. --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 12:30, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I haven't seen any creation "science" type stuff demonstrating a declining culture either, but I remember that one of Andy's Big Ideas is that Christianity played a huge role in the development of modern science, math, democracy, literature, and probably everything else. Somewhere he talks about the days when the good science was being done in Christian-dominated Europe by Christian guys like Newton, Gauss, and whoever else. I think he also mentioned how he thinks that those guys are the pinnacle of awesomeness and that modern scientists/mathematicians/writers who try to improve upon their ideas (or debunk them, as the case may be) are inferior hacks.--Bayesupdate 17:00, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Well, to be fair, he does have a point. Modern science has been and is largely dominated by the West, a culture dominated in turn by Christianity. While other cultures had their own scholastic and philosophical notions that we today call science, they were not a set of established empirical techniques even though natural philosophy and modern science built upon them. It was the European academic community that finally split the empirical from the metaphysical and the scientific method was born. Of course, that doesn't necessarily elevate the religion of Christianity any more than any other belief system - it probably had more to do with the circumstances of the European lead in commerce and wealth (largely through the subjugation of large parts of the world) allowing it the luxury to follow all manner of academic pursuits including science. But because Christianity was such an embedded part of the culture of Europe and later the wider Western world (just like Islam had been in that culture's success in science's precursors), it was part of the mechanism, through universities and other centres of study, that enabled such great progress.
What shouldn't be forgotten though is Christianity's role in stifling scientific endeavour as much as supporting it. It has been said (weasel word alert) that had it not been for Christianity, the industrial revolution might have happened in the Middle Ages! Ajkgordon 06:28, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Gender bender[edit]

[7] To be fair, we can't really expect homeschoolers to know Latin. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

It's not like it says "I'm a girl" on your user page; then we would have something. Why now though? This happend over a month ago. Lurker 23:45, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Hey, I'm not the one who put it up. Blame Bohdan (no reason, just 'cause :-)). --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:48, 31 January 2008 (EST)
The issue is the inherent sexism in assuming someone is a boy without asking. Also, dumbass, try googling the user name. "Girl of the Snow" is pretty clear, no? humanUser talk:Human 23:51, 31 January 2008 (EST)
It's clear if you google it, sure. But if you think it's a male, then you have no reason to google it. Lurker 23:56, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Did you just call her an it? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 00:52, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Heh, so I did. Take THAT sexism! Lurker 00:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Don't take that tone with me, Human. I already knew puella means girl. I did take Latin, you know. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I wasn't being rude to you, RA, but to Lurker. And again, why would you "think it's a male" if you don't know the word? Google isn't that hard to use (that's how I know that Afikomen is a grocery store of some sort!) humanUser talk:Human 12:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)
It's not sexism to assume that someone on a Conservative website is a male. I think it's safe to say that most internet users are male, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that most Conservapedia users are male (possibly the same with RW), and I know it's safe to say that most conservatives are male. Also, curiousity of looking up usernames gets boring after the first couple thousand, and eventually you just don't care. At any rate, I highly doubt that LT made some sort of conscious decision. Lurker 03:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)
If I had had a chance before they banned me to state that I'm a girl on my user page, then this would have been so much better. As for being old, honestly, I'm just getting sick and tired of the annoying sexism staling upon my User talk page. And as with my infinite ban for supporting CP in a way that they don't like, I don't really have a way to change it myself. :( Well, without creating a sock puppet. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 11:35, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Did you ever email LT about unblocking you? I can't remember anymore if you said anything about it. Lurker 11:44, 1 February 2008 (EST)
What good would it do if she got unblocked? Currently, even the good faith users who join the site are shoved around and warned the moment they disagree with Andy or any other sysop about content. And users who get unbanned after a perma-ban are kept under sharp surveillance and are being warned and threatened even more often than others. I dunno, but it doesn't sound worth the pain of admitting some sort of wrongdoing to some trigger-happy sysop wannabe and begging to be let back in. (Yes, I'm bitter.) --Sid 13:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I was going to suggest that Lurker, as a CP editor in good standing, could make the correction quite easily, but, sadly, that would "out" him. Or her. Wait, I think he identified as a boy-gendered person. Could some happy CPer/wigo watcher add a comment at [8] (or [9]) indicating her gender? Thanks! humanUser talk:Human 13:53, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure I ever have told my sex, seeing as how I exclusively refer to myself in the first person. SEXIST! At least you didn't call me an "it" like I did :) Lurker 03:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Andy [insert active verb here] himself[edit]

I thought it was pretty funny as well. I think he still thinks there's a contest going on still? Really explains a lot about the man. Lurker 00:40, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I presume this refers to the "auto-compliment" wigo entry"? Yes, edit commenting "good article" is pretty funny. Remember, he never really got over being pwned in the last COpy aNd pasTE feST. Little Andy needs to stop playing with his new train set and get outside more often, I think. There's no oxygen left in his playroom. humanUser talk:Human 12:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Darkness[edit]

Darkness. "It is impossible to visual sight in darkness," -Barricade

Good use of categories for that article too, "Bible" and "physics". A match made in heaven? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 00:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Can you change that to a perma- or diff-link? The lulz have been (mostly) repaired in the current version. humanUser talk:Human 12:21, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Mommy! He said it again![edit]

I love this little exchange. Culminating in the shout. Presumably it was intended as lulz, but it is funny. SusanPurrrrrrr 03:23, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! --JeēvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 09:24, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I'm warning you! If you say "tit" one more time-
Who did that? Who blocked me for an hour? -Aschlafly 09:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I think HeartOfGold is back at CP[edit]

cp:User:FightPerniciousSwarm? Sure sounds like him...

S/He's been renamed and moved to User:StephenW. Did HoG believe that global climate change is a communist conspiracy? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I don't recall him saying so - but he believed that many things were conspiracies of one sort or another so it's quite likely. The other comments look like him, and the clincher is that "Stephen's" signature has a small heart in it.--Bobbing up 07:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)
What heart? They look like tiny blobs to me. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)
This is a sample - ♥ . Perhaps you need a better monitor? :-) --Bobbing up 07:20, 1 February 2008 (EST)
SW·· Feh. Only one is a heart. And it's so damned tiny I still can't see it. Additionally, considered in context with the spades also in the signature, the heart doesn't lend much weight to StephenW being HeartofGold. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I agree it sounds like him, and the "pernicious swarm" is pretty much (c) HoG. But he is surely not the only, um, person with such views, just as there are more wandals than IceWedge (v. 2007/5) and more rednecks than Jeb Berkely. humanUser talk:Human 11:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Start the timer[edit]

A teenager has been stabbed in a UK school. How long before Andy pounces on it as an example of why gun control is bad in the UK, given his recent hardon for our liebral values over here? Bondurant 07:50, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Pfft. There was a much more telling report in the sidebar of that page. Reynard 08:05, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Heck, let's give Andy a choice: I much prefer this stabbing story.--WJThomas 10:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

If all the children had had knives at school, then obviously this wouldn't have happened, because someone could have stabbed the stabber before he stabbed an innocent stabbee. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 11:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Poor girl. Why weren't any of the teachers packing heat? They could have filled the boy full of lead to prevent anyone getting killed.
Oh.... Bondurant 11:39, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Oh this never would have happened if those gun control nuts allowed all students to carry guns. Schools would be a haven of peace and tranquility. -DickTurpis 12:15, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I suddenly feel the need to direct you to this video. No reason... --Kels 21:59, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Army Values?[edit]

I don't suppose the surge in suicide among people in the army (see article) will promote Andy to write an article on "army values". While he had to go back more than 40 years to get 18 examples of Hollywood Values causing deaths, anyone who was inclined to use tragic deaths to score cheap political points (sounds like anyone?) could get more than 100 from last year alone. I wonder how Andy would react to such an article. My guess is with epic amounts of hypocrisy. DickTurpis 09:35, 1 February 2008 (EST)

It's probably because they're all just stressed out about protecting the freedoms of the people back home who use liberal deceit and values to abuse those rights. ... Yeah... that's it. Actually, military members have always had high suicide rates, which is sociologically because they become such a cog in the wheel of their military, that they begin to feel entirely expendable and replaceable. So, if you can't handle the stress, you can get out of the way for another soldier to take your place. :( OMG, don't try and use that logic with CP though, you'll undoubtedly be banned forever for implying that the military has always had high suicide rates before this odd fluke. Just like family values, the way we think they should be is the way they always were! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 11:43, 1 February 2008 (EST)
If there ever is an army values article on CP, you can bet the gays and women in the army will get the blame. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Conservative Bias[edit]

I love this part: "This entry is below our standards, containing accusations as though they are facts...". HeyZeus H, talk about having blinders on...--WJThomas 11:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

This article is doubleplusgood. I love the way they HelpJazz says that nobody has conservative bias, so much as they are just conservative. Articles and entries like this make me think CP is the work of a bunch of genius parodists. Bondurant 11:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Actually I suspect a lot of it is, by now. People out there have had a lot of time to find it, learn how to join and stay, and hone their psrodt skillz. humanUser talk:Human 13:47, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Agreed, Aschlafly has lost "control" of (CC)CP though he may not realise it just yet. To get it "back" at this point he'd have to kick out the parodists and lock registration re Creationwiki, Citizendom or lock it down altogether to tease out the "true" from the lulz articles and content.CЯacke® 14:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)
I fully agree with your suggestions, but the much more interesting "problem" is this: Since most parodists channel the existing CP vibes, the parody often echoes what Andy thinks. Sure, over time, it gradually became more and more obvious, but Andy seemingly adjusts by acting crazier himself, so it still looks normal to him. --Sid 14:27, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Which is okay so far as it goes, but for those actual conservatives who would like to contribute in a reasonable fashion, they're going to find a site that is so far to the right that Bob Novak looks like a flaming liberal by comparison. Such conservatives seeking to bring it back from the abyss are going to get the accusation of being liebruls in conservative clothing, further marginalizing CP's involvement with serious political discussion on the intertubes. CЯacke® 15:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)
But you gotta admit, that brings paranoia to a whole level.... If you say you're a liberal, you're a liberal, because no one would lie about that... but if you say you're a conservative.... you're a liberal, because liberals lie and you don't want us to know you're a liberal.... If you say you're in the middle, you're a liberal.... It's fun... so obviously, if your last name isn't Schafly, you're a liberal. SirChuckBCall the FBI 16:48, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Nah, this one is a liberal and these ones are moderates. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:55, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Terrorists on Wikipedia[edit]

"Terrorists (sometimes call "freedom fighters" by Wikipedia) attach bombs to two mentally disabled women and detonate them remotely to kill over 70 people in Baghdad."
Once again, Andy butchers his grammar. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:40, 1 February 2008 (EST)
[10] And once again we serve as his proofreaders. Hi Andy! Liberal liberal liberal! --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:17, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Incidentally, that should also be in past tense. -Barricade.

Hypocrisy on Conservapedia? Naaahhh...[edit]

Talk:Creationism Barikada gets rather annoyed at Philip, and points out some lovely hypocrisy. Incidentally, the tactics he describes are also an example of "Liberal style." -Barricade.

... And Philip finally actually makes a claim. After his opponent is banned. Coincidence? I think not. -Barricade.
What? Barikada was only banned for two days ... meaning (s)he can respond when (s)he comes back. Coincidence? I think not lol--Danielfolsom 18:57, 1 February 2008 (EST)
And now that I look at it the points being made weren't even that great - but nonetheless - Barikada has been making points w/o being blocked - that's rare on CP, why would (s)he screw it up by being so blunt in the mockery that it was obvious (s)he was going to get banned. I am, however, surprised Iduan only did 2 days.--Danielfolsom 19:02, 1 February 2008 (EST)
He. And yeah, but that's two days gone... I suspect it might have been a lapse in his judgement to point out the double standard of cultural effects of evolution and creationism. -Barricade.
Meh - i still say that pointing it out was fine, but it was just stupid to do it so carelessly - that's just asking for a ban. And how do you know (s)he's a he - what if it's an it? lol--Danielfolsom 19:23, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Because I'm Barikada. Which might explain my fondness towards him/me. -Barricade.
And to actually address the point: Yeah, it was a bit stupid. -Barricade.
Uh oh.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 20:59, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Who could he POSSIBLY be referring to? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:04, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Tick....[edit]

Tick...... tick....... Pinto's5150 Talk 21:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Its been an hour and he still has the last word. Andy's getting rusty. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 23:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Love his response now though, he must have just been taking his time to think about it. Essentially, "my logic works, yours doesn't...blablabla last wordism." I would love to see this guy in a courtroom try to use these tactics when he doesn't completely control the forum, it would be catastro-rific. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:11, 2 February 2008 (EST)
He should mention that having one chid instead of 9 or 10 increases the risk of cancer. Somehow I doubt he will. -DickTurpis 12:54, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Or abstinence, for that matter... UchihaKATON! 14:28, 2 February 2008 (EST)
We'll have to see how this discussion evolves. No blocks for now, not even for this edit: I'm shocked. Editor at CPBring TK back 07:00, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Balls[edit]

I could not help myself. Really do they need an article about balls?--TimS 23:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Somehow, it lacks the zing of ours. humanUser talk:Human 00:10, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Apparently this one didn't cover the plural of the word. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:13, 2 February 2008 (EST)
And upon further examination, two more facts emerge: 1.) A ball is a uniquely baseballian concept, and 2.)the topic is so controversial that Joaquin had the article protected for a 5 day period. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:17, 2 February 2008 (EST)