Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive257

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>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <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)

In the sense in which one might chip away at a sculpture in progress

JPatt chips away at false science^img no but really does anyone have the scoop on this? My immediate inclination is to disbelieve anything like this that comes from CP. First it was no Global warming, now they are saying good science says yes but from a different source. If the good science said no global warming before then this must be bad science right? Basically they are science whores for anything that they can make fit. --Opcn (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Without looking at any link or source, the whole statement seems utterly silly. Which has more of an effect on the Earth's climate, human beings or the fucking sun? It's pretty obvious which it is. Without humans the Earth might well be very slightly cooler overall. Without the sun it would be a ball of ice nearing zero Kelvin. This comes as a shock to nobody. DickTurpis (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dick's right. Like him, I'm ignorant of the original source, but the claim that the sun is the primary determinant of climate does not contradict the claim that this particular warming trend is primarily caused by man. Phiwum (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Did it ever become standard to blame humans for any and all warming? --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's BS -- check Clogo for ConCERN Trolling. This is how the deniosphere interprets any scientific literature: One denialist blog finds some study vaguely related to one of their talking points, quote mines the shit out of it, and then the rest of the denialist blogs parrot the claim without looking at the paper. Anthony Watts is the king of this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For context, I should add that this is just the latest iteration of the cosmic rays talking point Svensmark has been pushing for years. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Without the Sun the Earth isn't a frozen rock. It's radioactive, so it would remain noticeably warmer than dead rocks like the moon this in fact critical to its current status as an inhabitable planet. The Earth is basically a giant RTG that's orbiting a poorly shielded fusion reactor. If we built something like that deliberately no-one would be allowed to live there because it's too dangerous, but having grown up here we all think this is normal. Humans actually deliberately go outside during the day, exposing themselves to lethal radiation and smiling about it. 188.220.41.110 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Humans actually deliberately go outside during the day I'm a computer programmer, you insensitive clod. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how he still manages to shock or offend me...

But here goes Ken

again in a heavily oversighted MPR postimg--User:Brxbrx/sig  03:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama looks damned classy. Ace^{of Spades} 03:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we certain that Republican Governor of Texas Rick Perry and former Republican Governor of Texas George W. Bush weren't separated at birth? Seriously, they even look and sound alike. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A modified version of the photo comparison points in the same direction. --Xyr (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that a legit photo? I thought PArry (with an A for AmericA and IowA) flew a C-130 or Kc-135 or something like that. --Opcn (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Perry was a per-veterinary student who got Cs and Ds in his science courses. And prays for rain. Because he's a fucking moron. 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The photo of BHO also looks doctored. This isn't the first time CP has put a doctored photo directly on the front page, showing him with an unrealistically large cigarette hanging from his mouth. In the current pic, the cigarette seems noticeably wider than the opening between his teeth. Gauss (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not doctored, but it is also not from when he was 22. AFAIK, it's from when he was 18, not 22.--^talk 05:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, here we go. I knew I remembered reading about this on Politico: The original photoset from Obama when he was a freshman in college. He was 18.--^talk 05:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the better Perry picture to compare to that Obama picture is this. --Reichhol(talk) 16:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because how two people looked 30 years ago should affect whether or not we elect one of them president of the U.S.--Durbinator^{An armchair calls to you} 04:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the most idiotic forms of character assassination tend to be the ones that work best. --Xyr (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheists are fat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't even understand the point of Ken

's post. After all, when you get right down to it, what are military forces? They are groups of people who are trained to kill people in a variety of ways. Does this mean that the only people qualified to be President are people who have been trained to kill other people, according to Ken

? 86.161.47.42 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"The Point" is that Perry looks all manly and heroic so that one wants kiss his strong and hard muscles, while sliding back in a nice position so that one can feel him ram his manly manliness inside you harder and harder everytime vote for him, while Obama is black doesn't look that good according to Ken. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick, someone tell Andy

Scientists announce they are almost certain there is no Higgs, making Relativity the last plank of the foundations of modern physics that's not officially broken in some way. Angry Blue (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Misreading the article for Andy. That'll save him time. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whut? Angry Blue (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say they're certain there is no Higgs. Just that they're 95% certain (Andy has ruined yet another phrase for me) that it isn't in the "145 to 466 billion electron volts" range. Anyway, I remember seeing an interview with Steven Weinberg where he said that if he were a young physicist he'd be hoping they don't find a Higgs boson because they would mean physicist would have to go back the drawing board. Much more opportunity for discovery and making a name for yourself that way. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize I said almost certain, not certain, right? Concerning the energy range, as far as I know the Higgs is extremely unlikely to have a mass of greater than 466 GeV/cc under any current prediction. For the record, I'd be perfectly OK with there not being a Higgs. The whole thing has always felt wrong to me. Angry Blue (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few predictions of mass greater than 466 GeV/c². Anyway, I think it's still too premature to say anything for certain almost certain, though there will likely be more definitive answers in the near future. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can tell Andy some other day then. Angry Blue (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This thread is hilarious. Ace^{of Spades} 09:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't actually read his sources anyway. He reads a headline, imagines what he wants the article to say, then reports that the article says that. You could write a blog post with the title "LHC proves widespread gun ownership reduces gun related crime" and just copy and paste the above article into the main body of the post, and Andy would post to MPR about how liberals are finally understanding the benefits of gun ownership. X Stickman (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'd be perfectly OK with there not being a Higgs." Well I wouldn't. They must find this Boson or my world collapses!--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sucks to be you, I guess. Angry Blue (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How long until we get cp:Counterexamples to the Higgs Boson? --Sid (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A physics major chime-in here, the excluded range precludes a low-mass higgs, but says nothing about its existence. There are several thoughts on the what the mass should be, but no one can definitively tell you that it must be in that range, and theorists (being theorists) will find some mistake or assumption that will be corrected to reflect a different mass range. Hence, we have not excluded its existence in general, just in that specific mass-range. Ateafish (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Damn liberals! They moaned about Bush taking months and doing the square root of fuck all to clean up after Katrina, well it's been almost a week and they're doing nothing about Irene!^img Christ but Andy is a shitstain on the boxer shorts of humanity. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Says the man who has spent how long considering Iduan's request for sysopship. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy is getting worse - certainly more hysterical. I think he's taken a leaf from his new BFF Ken's book, and having realised that everybody is ignoring him, will now ramp up the crazy until a PZ or somebody blogs about him, and then declare victory. --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Andy wants to be a leader, not a follower. So he will inevitably go further than most others (and thus over the top) in whatever subject he wants to be recognized. Once you look at things from there, everything will suddenly make sense: Conservapedia's Law, Best New Words, CBP, Relativity denial, Lenski, Obama the Mind-Control Muslim, etc. --Sid (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy fancies himself as a leading Conservative intellectual. The rest of the world sees a deranged buffoon. Auld Nick (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

True dat. He tries to spot bandwagons before they're moving and often finds he's the only rider. Fun to watch though. Pippa (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole "Tropical Storm" Irene meme is pretty hilarious (and infuriating) Ateafish (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm not one to complain about fanciful metaphors, but fuck all is very small, right? Surely, less than one (whatever units are relevant). So, square root of fuck all is greater than fuck all, not less than fuck all. Geez, man, get it right! Phiwum (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fuck all" is actually zero, so the square root of fuck all is also zero. It just always makes me giggle for some reason. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ref tags on CP namespace pages

It's more of a Mediawiki issue (maybe) than a CP issue, but in looking at this page in the CP namespace, the references section looks horribly broken. Does capturebot automatically try to capture any reference? I tried to remove the extraneous img tags, as well as the broken </li> tags, among others, but I can't figure out why they're there. Not enough wiki knowledge, unfortunately. Any ideas? It's nitpicking, I know, but it bothers me. άλφα^Talk 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

One was missing an end tag. Should be all better. «-Bfa-» 03:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How many real editors does Conservapedia have?

I know that many of you have active socks on Conservapedia. I have a few myself. Observing the two communities, RationalWiki and Conservapedia, I often feel that I am in a house of mirrors. How many of Conservapdia's editors are deep cover parodists? I know many people here have socks that have adopted all manner of styles from the reasonable visitor attempting the sisyphean task of moderating the community to the parodist, who has much more fun, and more success, making the site crazier. I think we are often having conversations on RationalWiki while simultaneously we are, in ignorance, having separate conversation with each other on Conservapedia. Essentially I'd like to ask two questions. How many of Conservapedia's active members are socks of RationalWiki members or other parodists? And when you edit Conservapedia what is your purpose? Infoseek (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I sit in my own self created category of being a legitimate editor of both sites. And i would put a estimate that around 90/95% of accounts on CP are parodists/socks/other such users.--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that everyone who isn't a sysop is a parodist. There are some minor exceptions, who you can identify by them being flat out crazy about a single issue, e.g. Daniel1212 and his "homosex." More or less everyone else is taking the piss. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To avoid actively perpetuating the problem aspects off CP while still maintaining a presence there, I only edit their article on vegetarianism.--^talk 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are some minor exceptions, who you can identify by them being flat out crazy about a single issue. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

While I generally attack categorization and other manners of organization. Although I am tempted to speak out about the whole mass transit - Hurricane Irene thing Andy keeps harping on. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 00:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually, they seem to drive away the nonparodists who don't know what to expect. One of the things that makes it so weird is that even though RationalWiki has a huge impact on Conservapedia everyone on the site is banned from mentioning RW, the best they can do is make cryptic allusions. The efforts of Andy, Consevative, and the other core members with the assistance of parodists have turned the site into a reeking pigsty of misinformation, omission, error, and polemical essays that seem at times to be parodies of parodies. Nonetheless, I think Conservapedia must be declared a success because everyone is getting what they want, Andy and the other core members claim to be thrilled with the results, and the rest of us get a target with which we can mock the excesses of conservatism and religion, albeit an obscure target. I think Conservapdia and RationalWiki are mutually symbiotic and should do what we can do support and promote one another. For instance, I have registered an account on Stormfront and intend to recruit some editors to help build Conservapedia. Infoseek (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an account on there. I originally had the ambition to try and become a sysop but I quickly lost the motivation. I can't bring myself to spend my time editing such a stupid website. Now I just say things to try and get banned but it just won't happen. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I used my account to just write about things I enjoy. It was actually fun to write stuff without having to bother with citations and junk, and find somewhere where someone else hasn't already written it. Also the article I was editing had absolutely no religious or political connection, which made it's inclusion on CP odd to my mind (it was already there, as a stub, when I started on it). Nothing I added was false. I had a vague ambition to have the first letter of each paragraph spell out "LIBERAL AGENDA", but I got caught up in the 403 blocking wave and I can't be bothered starting up again now. X Stickman (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ther was one point where I was either categorizing or doing some other pedantic work where I spelled out something like "fuck this shit" with the first letters of the pages I was manipulating, but I'm sure I'll never find it again. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 01:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am an editor at Conservapedia, and I'm obviously not a parodist... I don't edit there very heavily... while, like all editors, I have my motivations, I'm not sure you could call me a single issue editor there either. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an account there which I rarely use and I have not inserted parody. There is more than enough without me and besides which the current editors, genuine and parodists, do it so much better than I could. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

In which Rob and Mikalos have yet another bitch fight.

This is a good question. Jpatt boasted recently 1100 active users over the past 90 days; I counted 889 blocked, minus 30 sysops, minus another 12 or 15 active RW parodist with enhanced user rights, leaves two non-parodist active users (Iduan & FOIA; whatever happened to Chip Petterson?). So that's a little less than 200 sleeper socks. Since they only have about 40 active users (including parodists with enhanced rights), of which 75% are sysops, it would be easier to sysop everyone at signup (like RW) rather than waste years of manhours blocking 40,000 username to net 40 active users. Andy talks about "constructive editing", this and getting rid of 90/10 could be first steps. (Oh, and yes, Brett Favre is still the quarterback of the Jets, thanks to Karajou's blocking of Human. That illustrates how fuycking stupid the man is, he could of at least waited til Human fixed it, then blocked him. But Karajou doesn't have near the manipulative skills of an Andy or a TK). nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that Andy wanted to get rid of the one rule that allows him to reign over the wiki without dissent (Besides having the power to smite people in the first place)--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I (and former user JY23), were in charge of the rosters of all major American sports teams. Being that he/she (JY23) left, and I left, only to return recently (thanks to you), the rosters are totally out of date, and I have been meaning to trim them to key players instead of full rosters, but haven't the time or ambition currently. It will be taken care of in time (once the NFL teams finalize their rosters). Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks AD. Andy is much more willing to allow parodists to remain active than Karajou or Ken; he knows he needs them. He just pays attention to their mainspace contribs. The parodists problem (I don't know if this applies to Mikalos) is they make themselves a pain in the ass to other sysops, like Ken or Ed Poor. Then they get blocked. But you're right, Andy uses 90/10 to get parodists (the only willing volunteer contributors available, and he knows it) to build an index of 34,000 articlee content pages, which helps with Google. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, i in general don't try and piss off the Sysops and do the job i am given with my rights, along with a general goal of improving some articles, which im rather lazy about doing. the lack of templates annoy me as i hate articles that don't have them--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)CP Templates are a sorry mess. There's two categories, cp:Category:Template and cp:Category:Templates that would need a robot to merge. The stuff there about making templates (written by Plourde or Rayment, I forget) is pretty good, but it's the domain of sysops. And techno-idiots like myself, TK, Karajou, etc never did anything with it. Iduan knows templates, but Andy doesn't trust him. You'd have to go and try to talk to Andy about what you propose to do to help improve and upgrade the site, but it's a tall order. I know he'd actually like to try and find a way to work on some of this stuff, but he hears nothing but how much the other sysops hate anybody who has anything to do with Rationalwiki. So he's scared of pissing them off or making them feel betrayed. How anyone who was once active on Rationalwiki can ever build good faith with anyone at Conservapedia, I don't know. I'd guess it would begin with improving cp:Good faith and trying to get it integrated into the policy pages, but I didn't live long enough to do that. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus. here we go again LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When the bloody hell did i start a fight? I commented that andy wouldnt want to get rid of 90/10, and then told rob what it is i do on CP. --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

looking up, about half the page is filled with bickering between you and rob. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 02:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, the site will continue to grow. The CP perception and greater influence that you tried to invoke with accountability changes will not alter the facts. Cp will always be a creationist, Christian, anti-false science website under a conservative banner. The narrowly focused name says it all, conservative only, which excludes giant groups of contributors. The site would likely have had more users if was named Wikialternative or Wikitopia. As it stands, it is one of the larger wikis and the largest dedicated to conservatives. Any new conservative wiki competition would be best to present both sides; Creation For & Against pages & Evolution For & Against pages, with a template that says "We do not endorse this viewpoint." One thing we can all agree on, the site is a magnet for troublemakers. If their views can't be included, they make sure the presence is felt by stinky socks. [[User:--193.200.150.82 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)| TKrocks]]

Cp will always be a[n ...] anti-false science website BWAHAHAHAHA good one. Oh you were serious? I see. Which senior sysop are you again? I can't keep track of these numbers (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Terry fans the flames of racial resentment

It's here,^img the black uprising is upon us! All good white patriots will be locked up in FEMA concentration camps by the ACORN/New Black Panther militia created through Obamacare!! Galt save us.... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear sweet FSM. Why don't they just come out and say, "watch out for angry n*gg*rs"? That's for damn sure the subtext. MDB (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing like the weapons-grade projection of whining about your opponents being racist and then presenting this as reality. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I always feel a little unclean after viewing fuckface's blog, knowing that he may be getting a penny or two every time I do it. Is there a way to read his childish screeds without risking him making any money off it? DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Capturebot the page. Legally a little iffy as his blog doesn't have cp's generous reuse policy, but still. Pimobile (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Or google cache. Pimobile (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'll try capturebot. Let Terry sue us. It'd be funny. DickTurpis (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What would his damages be? I doubt he's ever made more than $100 on any of those sharticles, even when a ton of us pull them up to laugh at them. 13:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow. Terry's article is remarkable. The anonymous source was reported by a forum poster, evidently, but you can totally trust the source because once, the non-existent insider said there would soon be a scandal and guess what? There was. Totally. Phiwum (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? I didn't bother to read the article after I saw the headline. A forum poster? Really? I mean, that's pretty low even for CP/Terry standards. BTW, if those count as sources, I've got a time machine to sell ya. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, their verification that the source is accurate is that he predicted that there would be a scandal involving a Cabinet. Jimeny crickets, what recent administration hasn't had some scandal involving a Cabinet member? That's like saying you predicted Hurricane Irene by saying, "there will be a severe thunderstorm on the US East Coast this year." MDB (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not even - it's like saying "there will be a severe thunderstorm on the US East Coast in the next two years" since the forum poster's scandal prediction took two years to come to fruition. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

On the plus side, he's allowing dissenters again. Ive been arguing with him since last night.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, and I thought I was the masochist 'round these parts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great reasoning there. A year ago, some dude made a generic prediction with no time window and a month ago it came true (well, kinda, because no cabinet member was involved or resigned)! The guy's omniscient I tells ya! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is this: suppose that the source really was an administration insider. How could he know two years ago that this scandal would break now? That's Terry's claim: that you know he's the real deal because he knew so far in advance. But that makes no sense at all. A week in advance? Sure, an insider might know that certain journalists were on the trail. Two years in advance? How long ago did they plan the operation? Did they work from the assumption that they would be caught and a scandal would ensue? If not, how could this source really have been talking about this scandal so long ago? Phiwum (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Greatest Conservative Video Games

I like how someone copies^img Andy's^img style^img with "Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games" and Andy then deletes it for not being "educational enough to remain"^img. Obviously the deletion just has to do with Andy's hatred of video games. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

dammit, i would have liked this one. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 05:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, would that it did exist and I had a sock...

• Custer's Revenge: Great American general gets a chance to avenge his defeat at the hands of vicious savages.

MDB (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BioShock should have been on it. It depicts how it takes Free American Men, unfettered by the liberal nanny state, to extend Man's dominion over the earth, and how scientific progress naturally accelerates when liberated from Statist regulation... right? Angry Blue (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never played BioShock (FPS games aren't my cuppa, and they can make me dizzy), but I recall an article that says the lead designer actually is a hard-core libertarian, and the sequels are more libertarian sympathetic. MDB (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if he's libertarian, but I don't think it necessarily matters much. Some of the best creators consciously set out to explore (a) the dark side or (b) possible catastrophic failure modes of their convictions. Some of the best art we have is the result of this kind of venture. It's when creators are un-self-consciously proselytizing that things go horribly wrong (cf. Rand, Heinlein, Simmons). If it is possible to be libertarian without being a total idiot - and I think it is - then BioShock can very well be acrimoniously critical of libertarianism even if its creator is a full-bore randroid. Angry Blue (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I was at a science fiction convention once, and attended a panel on libertarian themes in SF. (I think Eric S. Raymond was one of the panelists -- this was before he went completely nuts.) I asked if there was any dystopian libertarian science fiction -- libertarian ideals taken to the extreme and run amok. The panel response was, somewhat jokingly, "that would be impossible." I suppose BioShock disproves that. MDB (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Government. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. Regarding the panel, I think this nicely illustrates one of the main things that are wrong with libertarians. For as long back as it matters there was never any shortage of hippies who were willing and ready to admit that hippie communes done wrong can be terrible, oppressive, fascist-in-all-but-name shitholes. The same goes for communists, fascists, and Catholic theocrats. As far as I can tell, commies and pope blowers are actually really good at critical self-examination, possibly better than most moderates. I know this for a fact because I've personally talked to a few. Libertarianism is the only socially revolutionary movement that consists entirely of children. Angry Blue (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been only one sequel so far (before Bioshock Infinite comes out), and yes it was pretty much the exact opposite of the first one. Bioshock 1 explored objectivism and its effects on personal freedom, both to the person expressing their freedom and the impact that it has on others. Bioshock 2 does do the opposite, but, like MB said, the first one is so critical of objectivism (and libertarianism in general), that it doesn't really matter. The first one is an absolutely fantastic game that you should play if you can stomach an FPS. The second is optional: good, not great. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the original lead designer had nothing to do with BioShock 2. Vulpius (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

TK

Can someone remember where the mail/post was from TK where he talked about his serious illness - the time he was in hospital with his veins. Thanks in advance. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? Angry Blue (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenk yew. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Keine Ursache. Angry Blue (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger is still a Schlafly

Despite his being less silly than Andy (especially on relativity), he's still a Schlafly:

User^img: Brokeback Mountian is against homosexuality and is really a conservative movie.<br\>Roger^img: "I agree that the movie is anti-homosexuality. Based on the publicity, I expected the movie to be pro-homosexuality, but I was quite surprised by what was actually in the movie."

I really, really hope Roger adds Brokeback Mountain to Greatest Conservative Movies. Also, Roger watched Brokeback Mountain?

In related news, YMCA by the Village People is still a conservative tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the US Navy wanted to use "In the Navy" as a recruitment jingle see about half way down this article. Bob Soles (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats because in the navy isnt inherently gay, unless you remember the navys reputation.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Have to... say it… can't... hold back… Why don't they just ask John? He probably has a much more refined perception of the topic. --★uːʤɱ secularist 21:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

He's not a proper gay, he's just one of those Republicans who shags guys when Jesus isn't looking. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised a few days ago, when Andy removed In The Navy from conservative songs, but left Macho Man. I looked up the lyrics to make sure, and In The Navy certainly qualifies as conservative, based on their criteria. Macho Man was much more of a stretch to include. Regardless, both of those are gone now. But I'm still counting at least a few that are distinctly anti-conservative. -Lardashe

Wow, as the WIGO says, looks like Ken

disagrees with Andy about YMCAimg. Quote:"(Not conservative, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k It's fun to stay at the YMCA,! You can hang out with all the boys!)" Maybe he reads the article title as "Greatest (User:) Conservative Songs", which would make him taking out a Village People song all the more odd.... (Can we please get Andy and Ken to debate this?) --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Capping before Ken burns this^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Ken is right--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to say that often. Anyway, Ken is only oblivious to his own homosexuality. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see ken as homosexual. I just see him as a dribbling moron giggling to himself when he doesn't tkae his medicine and occasionally moderately lucid when he does.
Karajerk however seems to display deep seated symptoms of self-loathing which could easily arise from suppressed homosexuality. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I may be hopelesslybwrong but I have a suspicion that Karajou might have been in the navy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah I'm pretty sure he would've mentioned that if he was. X Stickman (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You might be thinking of TK and DerekE, as they both claimed to be Marines. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

MatthewQ is cruisin' for a bruisin'

Sorry to be so focused on geeky stuff, but the relativity debate keeps getting deeper. Though I suspect Andy will declare victory and end it soon. MatthewQ has been gradually losing patience, and posted this^img. By the way, Matthew, if you are reading this, I respectfully take exception to your statement that only 3 out of 4 of your cited references are within the error bounds. I could be wrong, but isn't 43.00 within the bounds of all 4 measurements, as well as being within the bounds predicted by GR? I also note that Andy claims the data were showing "increasing divergence". Bounds of plus or minus 0.21 -> 0.20 -> 0.20 -> 0.14? Doesn't sound like divergence to me. SamHB (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

MatthewQ:"Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit...[O]nce you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something)."

Ha, Lenski 2 3: NASA edition! I'd love to see NASA send Andy tons of data he is no way capable of analyzing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't NASA, a part of the liberal government, hide data saying liberals were hiding it? --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he's really getting exasperated with Andy. And he reads RW. Thanks for reading, Matthew! I really can't go back and edit CP, since, with my current internet service provider, it would probably lead to a Karajou's-fantasy-of-IP-conflicts block for being a sock of some unknown persons. And getting to the MIT campus, an apparently "safe" place, is very inconvenient. In any case, I've been silently cheering you on. I could not have done better. If you get nailed, you will have scored an excellent victory. SamHB (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it's quite frustrating debating Andy. Like talking to a brick wall. His claims will be refuted and then he'll just repeat the claims in his next reply. He'll completely misread a source what his sources are saying or just plain make things up. It was fun to watch Lenski get angry and then go on to absolutely humiliate Andy in his letter. Epic pwnage. One of the best I've seen ever. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Max shouldn't last long

with his attitude: StevenG reverts Kens removal of YMCA^img, which, predictably, Results in a 5 year ban, for "Over the top faux conservatism"^img, but, Max sees this as unfair and changes it to a day^img.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Too bad. I kinda liked that guy.--Durbinator^{An armchair calls to you} 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Kara returns it to 5 years, along with revealing the sockpuppetry^img So many socks of late--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shirley you're not saying that because Karajou says someone is a sock that he actually is a sock? Gauss (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I love how Kara banned hm for being a sock, but only gave an (almost unheard of) warning for all that blatant racism. I think that says a lot about old Angry Bear. --Roofus (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But Kara explicitly claimed that "everyone who was a slave [...] is [sic] an American citizen." Surely, that wasn't true at the time of slavery, was it? .... I just checked. Slaves were certainly not citizens and, if I readskim that page correctly, the Supreme Court even said that free men of African descent were not citizens. So, Karajou's claim was just wrong. (Mind you, I don't see why citizenship is required to be an "American hero", but I also don't know why supporting Obama is sufficient reason to reject a claim of heroism. I guess I just don't get heroism.) Phiwum (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Gauss, oh god no. II'm commenting that that reason seems to have spiked for uses. --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy vs User:Conservative YMCA Showdown

In my opinion this is the most interesting thing to happen in a while. The car may be Andy's in theory, but Ken

drives it practically all the time without restriction so it's effectively his in practice. Now let's find out -- whose car is CP? Whose MA-CHEEEEESE-MO will prevail? Will the logs of this scuffle be permitted to exist or will all evidence of dissent be burned to the ground?

Now taking all bets!

^{— Unsigned, by: Sasayaki / talk / contribs}

PART I: Gay or Not Gay?

---

YMCA stays.	25	Vote
YMCA goes.	69	Vote

PART II: Ban or not ban?

---

Ken is not punished.	93	Vote
Ken is warned.	4	Vote
Ken is banned temporarily.	0	Vote
Ken gets a 5-year.	1	Vote

PART III: Memoryhole?

---

Logs are not trimmed.	10	Vote
Minor trimming.	3	Vote
Major trimming.	6	Vote
*BURN* What dissent?	72	Vote

Edit break

"Ken gets a 5-year" Yeah, certainly. Angry Blue (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for somebody to add an entry about "In The Navy" to that page. Jsonitsac (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give us a link. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A link to what? If you mean what this is about then perhaps you may find the WIGO link to be helpful. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If Andy cared to fight he would win, but I think he'll ignore this. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

After the whole business with Rob, I'd love to see Ken

get put in his place.  But I'm afraid Schlafly's just going to roll over or ignore the whole thing.--User:Brxbrx/sig  12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course Andy will ignore this. Now he gets rid of the YMCA entry without having to admit being wrong about its inclusion. Vulpius (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

^THIS. Andy likely has only been defending YMCA because he can never admit error, (unless for some reason it allows him "to find" a new conservative insight given by the user). Now Andy has a way out, Ken

will do the work and Andy can pretend the entry never existed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't think Ken's going to vape the discussion. As pointed out above, Andy is just going to ignore it because he doesn't care enough about it to get into a fight with Ken, and I doubt any parodist is going to go up against Ken on something so dumb, so I think it'll just go away quietly. Then again this is Ken, so who knows what kind of nonsense goes through his head? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh great. Just the way I needed to allocate my free time this morning... I just wasted the last 40 minutes watching original Village People videos. "Macho Man" "Go West" "In the Navy" "YMCA". Poor quality videos from the early 90's. sheesh. On the other hand, it was kinda funny. Refugee^{talk page} 16:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whaa...you mean Andy's been led down the garden path^img by his hand picked sysops, again? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Kara should block Andy for 5 years, an obvious parodists. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unca Ed's new project: re-stubification and redirection

Okay, so as we all know, Ed hates IE. I can understand that. But, first^img he deletes everything after the first alleged error (namely, that MS developed IE). Then he waits. No one will revert any Ed Poor deletions, of course, so the article remains in the same sorry stub state. Conclusion: no one maintains this article. Let's redirect^img to "web browser". That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you make a trustworthy encyclopedia! Congrats, Ed! Phiwum (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No suggestion whatever that he might maintain it, of course. But at least he is doing some housekeeping, after a fashion, which is more than any of the other sysops do. Pages can stay on the so-called speedy deletion list for years, for example.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe IE just isn't notable enough for its own entry in the Trusworthy Encyclopedia? Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Ed's right. Microsloth had nothing to do with developing IE. Not a thing. And it never improved on the original NCSC Mosaic. Not one bit. No sir. 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Election 2012 gets cleaned up

Wow - AaronL actually took out all the bullshit^img! How long before Andy restores under the theory, "Anything can happen at the convention?" --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

13 minutes^img, it seems. Under what logic does he think that someone not running has any chance other than zero of winning the presidency? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably what did it for Andy was this hilarious riff on his dumb 'stalking horses everywhere!' ideas^img. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I like that they're delusion enough to consider Ralph Nader as a possible Democratic Presidential candidate for 2012. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Stalking horse --- what?

How come CP's idea of stalking horse^img bares absolutely no similarity to the same notion as presented at WP? Okay, I know, because they just make shit up at CP, but the thing is, WP's etymology makes sense. I can't come up with a way that "guy recruited to surreptitiously steal votes from the other candidate" is somehow a "stalking horse". He's not stalking at all. Bah. What I get for trying to make sense of CP. Phiwum (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's basically an "I heard someone say this on Fox News, and here's what I gleaned about its meaning" article. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The case of the disappearing conspiracy theory

Did anyone happen to catch what the article linked here^img said before the black helicopters swooped in on Cokeeyes' blog and forced him to take it down? I'd love to know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You could always try here. For the bot [1]^img. ^{— Unsigned, by: Csmiller / talk / contribs}

Wow. Erm. OK, that was crazier than I was expecting. Especially the cute little enticement at the end to murder the non-believers in the name of Jebus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I don' know if this has been mentioned before but at the top of the MPR template it says Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama fails". I think that sums up their position fairly concisely. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And? Anyone who views the MPR diff has seen that.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I never noticed it, not that it's a particularly interesting thing to have noticed either way. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, my eyes are bleeding now

Hurlbot spams MPR once again^img, this thime with those beautiful words: "A new bill to reform the United Nations is in the hopper at the House of Representatives". How can a national lower parliamant reform a supra-national world-wide organization you might ask? Cutting off the money until that supra-national does what they are told to apparantly (the real deal here).

And while elected officials want to blackmail the organziation that exists to prevent things like wars, tyrrany, save human rights from being ignored (at which it really fails) and all those lousy idea humanism the bill justifies this the following way:

“”(1) The United States pays billions of dollars into the United Nations system every year (almost $7.7 billion in 2010, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget), significantly more than any other nation. (2) Under current rules and contribution levels, it is possible to assemble the two-thirds majority needed for important United Nations budget votes with a group of countries that, taken together, pay less than 1 percent of the total United Nations regular budget. (3) The disconnect between contribution levels and management control creates significant perverse incentives in terms of United Nations spending, transparency, and accountability.

In other words, because the ideals that the UN has don't work with the American interests the control over the UN has to be given into the hands of those who finance it - which furtunately are the United States! Wheepee! Another of those problems gone that prevent any single nation to dominate the world! Terry agrees:

“”The bill runs to 153 pages. Its target: a United Nations that, the sponsors say, is out of control and thinks that “it can be as anti-American as its dollars allow.”

Exactly how bold can the rest of the world be to sometimes look at their ideals and say "you know what, as of late our main financial contributor (and back in the day also supporter of our cause) really isn't following the ideals anymore they once swear to follow, mabye we should treat them like every other country in this organization and apply these rules to them". That's right! The United Nations hate America (even if all the ideals of the United Nations and the United States of America are basically the same thing)!

Why would we not consider giving those citizens who pay more taxes countries that give more money more powers? What is this? The 21st century??

But Terry also captures the real problem here: "|Those who apologize for the United Nations are already complaining. Stephen Lendman at IndyBay focuses on one thing only: how the bill would affect the “Palestinians.” His real quarrel is with the Republic of Israel, as his rant makes clear. He says nothing about whether the United Nations wastes money in other ways." Once again the world outside of church and flag is evil by thinking that a people that existed for thousands of years is actually a people (consider that this comes from Americans and throw you irony meter out of the window, it will most certainly irradicate a few blocks). Of course what the "United Nations apologists" mean with "Palestinians" is "terrorists", and if you consider them to be a people you are most certainly an anti-semite - let alone if you think these people have rights! *let documents that document Christians being anti-semites for more than thousand years slowly drop into the trash*

So many people agree that the United Nations should be reformed, let's copy the way in which the House of Representatives is designed — votes or seats by population. What do we get here? China: 1.3 billion, India: 1.2 billion, EU (let's pretend they get their shit together until this reform happens) 502 million, USA: 312 million, Indonesia: 237 million, Brazil: 190 million, Pakistan: 177 million, Nigeria: 158 million, Bangladesh: 151 million, Russia: 142 million, Japan: 127 million, Mexico: 112 million, Philippines: 94 million, Vietnam: 87 million, Ethiopia: 82 million, Egypt: 80 million, Iran: 75 million… Something tells me the USA would loose much more control if we actually democratized the UN…

But Terry really nails those evil others with "But no one has ever asked whether the United Nations, as a supra-national organization, violates the Constitution." — Sheesh! Of course, Terry! Of course what an organization with 193 member states shouldn't violate any of the constitutions that are in effect in any of those countries! Or... did you mean the membership in that organization?

I swear folks at some point a rational beeing will loose faith in humanity because of you guys and commit suicide…

(sorry for the length) --★uːʤɱ heretic 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, how much money does NYC get from having the UN based there? CS Miller (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear. Keep in mind that the missions don't any pay taxes because they're diplomats, the UN does obviously employ a whole bunch of specialists (translators, and so on) who aren't diplomats, and the building itself is pretty cool and probably attracts a few tourists. Plus the US saves money because its UN representatives only need to live in New York, not Brussels or... wherever the Africans would put it if it was up to them. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also all the wining & dining at the local up-market eateries to consider, plus all the support staffs general spending. CS Miller (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that the US security services prefer to have the UN in their own back yard where they can more easily monitor and influence diplomats rather than it being on some kind of Tracy Island that might object to clandestine operations. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just think though, if this goes through what the larger States in the US can do next. Demand that all the small states, or the ones that receive more Federal money than provide it lose their representations to the senate and congress. To more accurately represent the people that pay for the Government. Flakey101 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So the US can either (a) borrow 7.7 billion from China to continue its commitment, or (b) when the wp:Super Committee fails, OMB then can explain why $7.7 for the UN is more important than implementing Obama's job program to be revealed this week. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Schlafly Bible

Is the Conservative Bible Project still alive? And if so, are anyone but Andy and parodists seriously working on it? --Roofus (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically its finished, since the NT is done and the OT is far to long to do a dedicated translation effort for.--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, you'd think they'd have done Leviticus. I guess that one's already conservative enough. lol --Roofus (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The translation of the New Testament was completed on April 23, 2010 by the best of the public.[2]^img However, when Andy's interpretation of the scriptures is questioned using the Conservative Bible [3]^img Andy will make improvements in order to rectify the matter.[4]^img[5]^img Improvements are also made whenever his next insight[11] requires Biblical verification [6]^img or pet theories lunacies require Biblical proof, for example [7]^img disproving relativity.[8]^img

Where's Ken DeMyer when you need him? he's the biggest critic of Schlalfy's blasphemy, just doesn't have the cahoonies to stand up to the boss (or Satan, or whoever is behind Conservapedia's denying the fundamental Christian precept of the inerrancy of scripture). nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 18:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"Conservative Dictionary Project"

Brad: We should have a Conservative dictionary project to hilight the liberal redefinition!^img which andy agrees to. Wonderful. Now dictionaries, long the fortress of boring unpolitical-ness, is now liberal. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bernie Goldberg beat him to that one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The madness begins...^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Other creationists beat him to it also. I have here an essay written by a fellow named James A. Chapman, arguing that the Merriam-Webster is a nasty humanistic evilutionist dictionary because it lists 20 different pronunciations for the word "berserk," and that one should use the American Heritage Dictionary instead so as to prevent the English language from ever changing. (He is a King James Only man and probably wants English to revert to how it was in Jacobean times.) ListenerX^TalkerX 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, does that mean Mr Chapman will now campaign to get the stupid yanks to spell words like colour correctly and to pronounce things correctly instead of the mangled semi-literate crap we get dribbling out of the mouths of the likes of bush and coulter? If so then I am all for it. Lets get English back to being spoken and spelt as it is by us, the nation who bloody well invented it. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it myself. --Roofus (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the first step in creating a conservative Newspeak AMassiveGay (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It was the next logical step... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We can only hope that Schlafly & co. invent a large number of hilarious neologisms for their dictionary, and then use them enough that their writing becomes completely illegible to strangers, rather like our own Lumenos. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It will like the language of the Smurfs. where instead of verbs and nouns replaced with 'smurf', they will be replaced with 'liberal' and 'conservative'. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I got the feeling liberal will literaly become the word meaning "Bad" and conservative "good.

Brilliant insight! May use as model! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I think I'll fire up a few socks! I got some crackers in to the secularised language heap, perversion=diversity or heresy=scientific theory anyone? (and also clickbotted it to the top of the charts of course) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember fighting against that perversion=diversity shit, that was terrible! --Opcn (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, this isn't going to end well is it? ROFL, this is the most insane idea since... hang on, since the Conservative bibble clusterfuck. Maybe there's a trend here? Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You. Are. Fucking. Shitting. Me. ADK^{...I'll discalceate your Playstation 3!} 18:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very curious about how this will play out. The project seems to be pointless. Does this mean that they start with a dictionary, and just re-write all of the definitions to suit their standards? Or is it exactly the same as the conservative words page? Doesn't Conservapedia itself qualify as being the exact same thing as this idea? - Lardashe

It's a parodist lining andy and the stooges up for another kicking from just about every media and news outlet. The strange thing is andy really doesn't seem to realise. I'm sure karajerk has worked out what is going on but, the 'project' having been given the andy thumbs up before he could anger all over it, can't do anything. kenny doen't give a shit so long as he can carry on spreading his crap everywhere and the others are insignificant. Bizarely andy in banning rob banned the only one who may have produced some sanity on this one. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I had that idea back when secularized language first popped up, maybe I even joked about it. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 19:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'L' page is already up^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"lawn

Date: 14th century

True Conservative meaning - an area of grass in front of one's house"

What's the liberal meaning? --Roofus (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the conservative meaning was "A place you darned kids should get off of!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Andy have some kind of mental defect that prevents him noticing when people are taking the piss out of him? So far this dictionary is genius. Hats off to whoever is running BradleyS. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Secularised Language

Wow, these^img are great. Christ's Mass becomes Christmas and then Xmas? And 'govern' is an 'original word' which has become 'rule,' but 'State' has become 'Government?' These pagans secularists are very inconsistent... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 07:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it's been touched on before, but "abomination" has become "homosexuality/gay." Bigotry knows no bounds... άλφα^Talk 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that a lot of grubby fingers have been stuck in this particular pie and it's probably not as wholesome or authentic as if it had been entirely the work of Professor Schlafly. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It has been a little 'worked over', one thinks. Marvellous article. DogP (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though parody is definitely ingrained in it, said parody receives tacit approval from Andy with every day that he allows it to stay there. Even though he doesn't get all the blame for ideas that aren't his, it is his site, and the only opinions that are allowed to remain are those that conform to his. If he had a problem with an entry, he could remove it; it's not like he hasn't noticed, especially on one of his major pet articles. άλφα^Talk 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's official!

Andy announces^img it to the world... well, us. And adds^img 4... words. Just the words. Andy does know how a dictionary works, right? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

He isn't even trying. Baldrick's attempt at doing "C" was better than Andys'. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's gold in them thar hills. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my contribution to the Best of Public : Commandment: Liberal redefinition: Conservapedia guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lunar

Date: 15th century

True Conservative meaning - of, or relating to, the Moon

Sooo, what is the "liberal" meaning for the word Lunar? My evil dictionary shows it also refers to the Moon, is my evil secular dictionary lying to me and not telling me the true liberal meaning?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

He's probably been called "loony" by them bloody liberals. Pippa (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Social Security Disability Income benefits are sometimes refereed to as a "looney check". That's probably what is meant, looney checks are driving up the deficit. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 18:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Once in a while you run into a fun hidden gem inside Conservapedia... like I just found out that Fidel Castro died in "approximately" 2009 and his manner of death is "unknown". [9]^img --Composure1 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Old news is old. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 18:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but you need to recall that new people are finding RW all the time. Some of us already know about andy's castro is dead fixation but not everyone. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Oldusgitis, for not being a hostile prick. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can do the hostile prick thing as well Senator, normally after a bad week at work coupled with several cans of stella. But I recall when I first turned up here, a complete newb and wet behind my thingys, people weren't always entirely hostile to me when I fucked up. And I did more than once. Tonight I am in a good drunk mood. Tomorrow may be different though :-). Oldusgitus (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To reply to myself though.
However I didn't realise that composure1 has been around since 2009. Pay attention composure will you please. :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Still, I hate it when someone is much more sarcastic and d-baggy than needed because a newby or a lurker brought up something that was discussed seven months ago. It makes me feel like I'm reading Youtube comments. Anyway, thanks again. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's much worse when somebody brings up something at CP that has already been commented upon in previous section of this page because that shows laziness in not reading what has gone immediately before. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It disturbs me when people bring up stuff like this because it makes me realise just how desensitised to Andy's shit I am. To me, it's like "well of course Andy claims Castro has been dead for ages and that relativity is false because Jesus can carry out miracles instantly over long distances, that's just Andy" whereas people who see CP for the first time (or find one of his insights for the first time) are still stuck on the "Wait, so he's re-writing the bible?" part. X Stickman (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle was a homeschool teacher

Evidently^img, when one of the world's greatest philosophers (best of the people?) is paid to instruct the king's son, it is called "homeschooling". Philip was forward that way. While all the other parents were sending their children off to public and private school, he was arranging for homeschooling. Let liberal WP lie all they want ("Mieza [where Aristotle tutored Alexander] was like a boarding school for Alexander and the children of Macedonian nobles.") Andy knows homeschooling when he seesimagines it. Phiwum (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was homeschooled too! My school place were they teached me was only 2 minutes away from home! That counts, right? --★uːʤɱ sinner 22:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course! That means Andy is just like Aristotle, and you're just like Alexander the Great! Phiwum (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just don't start fucking your best male (or same-sex) friend or getting riotously drunk and burning down huge palaces because you feel like it, like Alexander did. Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that be homoscholed then? --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Nero, that great friend of Christians, also home-schooled? By Seneca? --78.43.97.170 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought Andy believed that concepts don't exist until there's a word for them. Since 'homeschool' didn't come around until many centuries after Alexander the Great died, shouldn't that mean he wasn't homeschooled? (No, inconsistency or Andy dropping one of his silly ideas when it's convenient doesen't surprise me.) I guess he'll just claim some Greek word meant 'homsechool', when it clearly didn't. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Andy so wrong, here? It seems weird to say that, but stopped clocks and all that. If you proceed from his assumptions - that there is a fundamental difference between government-sanctioned mass schooling and privately-controlled tutoring - isn't he making a valid point? Obviously this doesn't mean that the one is necessarily better than the other (except to the extent that a homeschooled child's parents are very motivated for their child), but it seems like his classification makes sense.--^talk 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that tutoring of this kind is neither 'public schooling' nor home-schooling. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? The parent brings in a private teacher to give lessons at home. All the relevant elements are there.--01:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me to be more like a (good, small) private "boarding" school than either of the two. As in we have more of a triangle than a line. But then maybe I just don't want to think of Andy as Aristotle... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Aristotle's tutelage was like, aside from the fact that WP said the arrangement was similar to a boarding school. But let's say it wasn't. It is still much more reasonable to say that Philip arranged for Alexander's education under one of the greatest philosophers and wisest men who ever lived than to say he "arranged for homeschooling" as if Phil recognized the superiority of a handful of children learning in the garage over public and private schooling alternatives. Phiwum (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is: can you call it homeschooling when there's no alternative? The point about homeschooling these days is that it's a departure from the "normal" option of going to public school. When there's no public school system, there's no distinction to make. It's like calling Adam and Eve tee-totalers. It's technically true, but disingenuous in that there were no alcoholic drinks for them to imbibe even if they had wanted to. Jesus respected the environment because he never drove a car or took a plane trip anywhere. King Arthur was an early member of Greenpeace, as no nuclear power stations were built anywhere in his kingdom during his reign.

Only someone like Schlafly would take an anachronism and claim it proves one of his inshites. (Oh, and I'm copyrighting the term "inshite" :) ) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy has basically said that everyone who existed before universal public school was implemented was homeschooled, so yeah, a lot of significant historical figures were homeschooled by the definition. DickTurpis (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, he could claim that public schools were a liberal plot to have thought control over the Christian masses all along. Actually, that would probably make one of the greatest fails in CPs history... --★uːʤɱ sinner 14:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My mother was my teacher at a state primary school. Was I homeskooled or not? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Invisible Hand of Marriage

Hadn't seen this one before.^img I found it in the list of Conservative words where Andy says it was "discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman)." --Roofus (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See Conservapedia:The Invisible Hand of Marriage and Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights#The invisible hand of marriage. It was WIGOed back in August 2008 :-) Xyr (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I submitted that "essay" to Fundies Say The Darndest Things (FSTDT) a while back. Andy is a fuckin' Fundie quote gold mine. Anyway, I love the first comment:

"This concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia."

This tells you everything you need to know about it.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus was the Only person to do x

Andy: no other religion has a founder who did healings and put importance in faith^img, and, the only one to die for others salvation, which is slightly more true, since death is not pleasant and i cant think of any examples atm. But well, hes off on two of them.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course Jesus was the only founder of a religion who performed miracles to ease suffering. Other religions' may claim that their founders performed miraculous works, but these are just lies. Duh. Phiwum (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't he also claim somewhere that Christianity is the only religion anyways? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But Christianity isn't a religion, its spirituality! --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Better yet - Christianity is neither religion nor spirituality. It's the irrefutable truth! --Ag Bengip (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're not Christian, you are anti-Christian. Why else wouldn't you be Christian? Vulpius (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How do we know Jesus did any of this since liberals corrupted bible translations until God saw fit to anoint Andy Schlalfy and Conservapedia to fix it? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Superb insight!!!!! Burndall (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because, since andy had god ordained right to retranslate the bible, it cant be wrong, therefor what he puts in/leaves in, is truth. Or do you not understand the basic arguement of divine authorship/seerage>--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is going to love this

[12] Jammy (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hint, fellows: Changing a few letters around is not going to stop those nosy children asking what is supposed to have happened in A.D. 1. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the real inhabitants of what we now call Australia have been around for about 50,000 years telling them in school that history only really began with a supposed birth 2,00 years ago is a bit shitty imo. Call it BCE and CE and let the aboriginals (and the European invaders) celebrate the true history and culture of australia. All imo of course. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Replace "a supposed birth" with "the Common Era" and you have the exact same problem. Changing letters around is not going to accomplish much on that score. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Time for a new calendar altogether then? Any takers for 1957 as year 1? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 08:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? --Xyr (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm mostly with ListenerX there. Simply changing a name while keeping the entire foundation isn't addressing the "problem". So the "Current Era" started with, uh, the birth of Jesus Christ, but that's totally not "offensive" to non-Christians because we swapped the labels? I kinda enjoy Christians throwing a fit (in the interest of fairness, it should be mentioned that I enjoy people throwing fits about silly things in general), but man, talk about pointless PC gestures. --Sid (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it makes a lot of sense. Changing our dating system would be an expensive waste of time, but we can certainly decouple the dating system from the irrelevant mythology. Not to mention that he isn't my lord, nor a hell of a lot of peoples'. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We should follow Asimov and introduce a common calender so god can legally end the world. He may have set a certain date, but not every society uses X calender, so the only way the world can end is if we do. As for the CE/AD debate, i find it pointless. Most people don't even know what AD stands for anyways.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We missed a great chance in 2001. If we'd restarted then at 1NE (New Era, or whatever) then it would have been a lot easier than doing it at any other time. Roll on 3000 CE. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We could always resurrect that weird ass calender france came up with.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, it is time for the conservative calendar project!--Franklin (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, they say the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so perhaps next year can be year 4,540,000,001. What could be more straightforward than that? DickTurpis (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically I'm with ListenerX and Sid. This is political correctness gone mad. --Xyr (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am a fan of the Holocene Calendar myself. That being said, I do agree with ListenerX, Xyr, and Sid and say it is just out of control PC. No matter my personal beliefs, I and no one else can honestly deny the Gregorian Calendar is based on the concept of the birth of Christ is that pivotal moment in history that divides the calendar years. Changing the titles to BCE and CE isn't going to hide that fact that the calendar counts down to one a little more than 2000 years ago and then starts to count back up. If people don't like it, then we need a new calendar. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IT will also never likely change, atleast in the non-metric using world considering our refusal to use the world standard for measurements.--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I went to a Catholic high school, and we were taught the CE/BCE system — it was discussed in the religion textbook! What's the problem?

I like Holocene too, although I don't like sticking a 1 in front, like 11980. Why not make this year 32011? Ultimately, it's just as arbitrary as Holocene is, but it looks nicer to my eyes. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A request from an atheist clown who is an obese flying kitty and does not know it

It's been a while since you've given us any essays Ken. Get cracking! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Ken, do something. A mere conservative dictionary is no substitute for a new Ken satire. A conservative thesaurus wouldn't be a substitute. Seriously, people could write a whole conservative encyclopedia and it wouldn't be the same. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, not only is Ken busy, but he's writing the piece de resistance of his essays,. according to him anyways. plus nobody has mentioned CP for him to write 50 essays on and hoiw much of a coward they are for staring at a giant wildfire.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken who? With conservative dictionary project and Hurlbutt ramping up the crazy, I had forgotten that such gentleman even exists. Vulpius (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't thought about the Ken issue in months. Pimobile (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Ken would like to help, but he's very busy at the moment with many projects in regards to atheism on the internet, and may not be able to contribute in regards to your request for several months into the future. DogP (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How did I miss this?

What a sack of stupid bigotry^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I look at the idiocy, and the only question I can ask is "Arabic is a belief system?". --Sid (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Who created that page? My connections time out most of the time so I can't look it up myself. Also, add capture tags! Otherwise the glory that is CP is mostly lost on the few of us that can't visit the site. άλφα^Talk 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Boy, that's funny. But, it's also just a bit of parody, I'm sure. Not even Andy would suggest avoiding the tainted word "orange" in favor of the etymologically pure "red-yellow" (or avoiding "zero" for "none"). Phiwum (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can manually create a link to the revision history^img and look at it what way once the capture runs. άλφα^Talk 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so Andy isn't the creator. I agree it's a bit extreme, even for him, but it's also just another version of secularised language, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did think up something like that. I see Rob added a few items to it, though; what exactly did he add? άλφα^Talk 18:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To his credit, Rob removed some of the xenophobic crap^img. GrahamB put it back on Aug 25. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yah but Karajou, Ken, TerryH & Andy are having more fun playing cat n' mouse with parodists rather than arriving at a negotiated settlement and the rule of law. Good faith contributors, even of the conservative stripe, they slander and drive off. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I eagerly await they day they begin expressing page views in Roman numerals instead of Arabic ones. Barikada (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear their alternatives for Algebra, Lemon, and Lime. This has to be parody, but Rob even contributed to it. Also when I think of Algebra, I think Islam and not math </sarcasm> I know the page doesn't say Islam, but we all know that is what they are implying with their stupidity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with such a list, if it doesn't express xenophobic fundamentalist bigotry in the preface. Rob Added a few words while taking out the xenophobic fundamentalist bigotry. The original creator (GrahamB) put the bigotry back in. Gauss (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

None of them would have caught this as parody til Brxbrx brought it up here. And there is a need for this type of article, but the whole things risks being nuked. Slowly I'm becoming convinced the label of bigotry is befitting to this group of alleged conservatives -- their hatred is so all consuming that if they (Andy including) are willing to do to me what they did, and allow it to stand, their unrestrained hatred is capable of leading them to do just about any irrational act. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes because doing it to everybody else was perfectly fine, then when it happended to you THATS when they crossed the moral event horizon, right rob? Now stop telling us stuff we already knew.--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Rob - Why is there really a need for this type of article? I understand how the Arabic roots of words could be interesting from a historical and/or linguistic context, but I'm sceptical that's the point you're making. Are you worried that the diverse people that span different cultures, religions, regions, etc. yet speak at least one of numerous dialects and variations of Arabic completely homogenous pinko-Arabs are going to infiltrate the English language? If you're worried about that, you should probably make sure they're not getting into your bodily fluids either... άλφα^Ταλκ 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Next you're going to say that question makes sense to yourself. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I am confused. You said "there is a need for this type of article" and I'm asking you why. As to my other question, since you're someone that, if your edits on CP are any indication, sees communists everywhere, I just assumed you were seeing the reds here too... Surely you know the reference to bodily fluids? άλφα^Ταλκ 19:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. If I chose Rationalwiki over Conservapedia cause I thought it had more interesting intellectual conversation, was I ever wrong. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't dodge the question, Rob. You can ignore my last, obviously facetious question if it helps you focus on the primary one more easily. Why do you feel there is a need for this type of article? If you feel there's a need because of the historical/linguistic/academic information it contains, it's ok to say so. However, it's a simple question. Please answer it. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh, Rob is wrong a lot but this doesn't seem like this is one of those times. He removed the xenophobic crap and is finally recognizing they're bigots over there at CP. Yeah, he's very slow, but he's finally caught on. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just sceptical that anyone at CP would, in good faith, want an article like that. I think the securalised language fiasco has made me cynical to the point that I'm sceptical any time someone on CP mentions the "proper" equivalent of some foreign concept. Hence why I was asking about Rob's reasoning for wanting to keep it. Just a curiosity on my part. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an article on Arabic loan words. Wikipedia has one [13], it is a perfectly valid subject. CPs version is of course ridiculous and bigoted. On the other hand Rob, you didn't choose RW over CP, you got booted from CP and RW being the liberal cesspool that it is took you in despite the fact that you are not ideologically pure. --Marlow (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Alpha: Yup. That's it, historical/linguistic/academic. And Andy's "Conservative words", which I've always had trouble understanding what he means, seems to acknowledge that language is growing and absorbs words from elsewhere. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's it, then it's admirable. (I'm totally serious). Content like that is what an encyclopaedia should aspire to. I'm still not sure where Andy thinks words come from ; sometimes it seems that he thinks they just appear out of nowhere. Who knows. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a great example of what I said here, ". Andy is much more willing to allow parodists to remain active than Karajou or Ken; he knows he needs them." The danger is the whole thing getting nuked by those low level nitwits who have more fun playing cat n' mouse with parodists & socks than building an encyclopedia. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, why do you think CP has so many parodists? Andy's acceptance of parody should have turned you away from the project long ago. That someone would want this outrageous content on a site connected with them is beyond me. --Marlow (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A new crappy idea pulled out of an ass insight: the number English words of Arabic origin is doubling every century (if cherry picked correctly). That means the future is inevitably Arabic! Won't Andy be pleased with this discover? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So TerryH left this bigotted crap in^img, while we were having an ongoing discussion here about it. Now I'm not saying it's not a mistake that any responsible sysop could accidentally or easily overlook, I am saying it is now worth keeping a closer look at some of his editing practices. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

...why?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

AugustO

Tweaks^img some noses again over visitor numbers. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it's kinda lame, but I do always enjoy Andy "show us the data" Schlafly ignoring requests for data. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's like the new Iduan--137.48.201.24 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

andy^img makes a 'joke'. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

CP	Andy and August are right: Aug 2011 was a strong month: more than 12,000 edits were made and 11,000 of these were not deleted! And there have been more editors at CP (521) than at RW (395).
RW	Alas, when you look at editors who are still unblocked, the situation changes: 274 at CP, but 391 at RW.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Four editors out of 400 blocked at RW! I fear those who predicted our descent into fascism were right. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• I made RW's diagrams more ninja-friendly :-)
• USER ANDY, LOOK AT ME, I found out we broke the August 2008 record for page views I don't think that the wigo captures the gist of Andy's and August's communication: for me it seems that August is mocking Andy.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's up to 3.1% from 1.2%; do blocks count as edits? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think blocks count as edits, but Karajou "made" all those bird articles; that probably helped his edit count. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou claims 20,000 edits, but the best count I find says 13,000. With 7,000 blocking edits, he may have 20,000. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Rob may be on to something here LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 23:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If we started counting that way our numbers would go through the roof. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, andy doesn't seem to want newbies anymore

A host of accounts that never got the chance to make an edit (with some vandals mixed in)^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, a fair number of those are Borg and all that. Others, you are right, they don't look fair to me, but maybe he has his reasons I am unaware of. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

idk, he hasnt even given a reason why they are blocked. i would understand if they were, say, a sock of somebody (i.e. User:RobSmith ) or "please recreate your account" but there is no explanation given... LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of blocking an account (take RaymondJ, for example, who followed account username protocols) for one year before making a single edit? Andy, you mean one year from now, when the block expires, you then will allow User:RaymondJ to edit unmolested? Do you just enjoy making more work for yourself? Andy, this is pure insanity. And your mindless sysop thugs follow your lead. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

KhalidM

KhalidM gets block and SkipCapatcha rights by andy^img...when he doesnt even have a user or talk page??? looks like the majority of his contributions is on the politicians who had a real career essay page. I dont get this - is andy desperate or something? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Better then some accounts getting rights after being revealed to be members here ;3--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

*eyeroll* LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, andy has been rather giving of skipcap and block rightsw of late though.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah, your right. looking at the rights log, it definately seems that way LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe KhalidM is another User:CollegeRepublican that we don't know about. Some random person Andy knows in real life. Seems strange, what with it being Andy and all, than someone named Khalid would get rights... CP's inherently suspicious of any name that sounds foreign (Hussein, anyone?). άλφα^Ταλκ 03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought CollegeRepublican was Mr. Schlafly's son. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Schlaflatron has been cycling with some veil-tail on the side. --Opcn (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet More Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge Fun

Andy^img :

“”The Bible is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a Nobel Prize is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?

And^img:

“”You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.

Wow, where to even start? --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What's to argue about? When people lose lots of blood, they die. Science didn't know this until recently, even though the Bible shows the evidence. Because, of course, as everyone knows, bloodletting as a (quack) medical remedy is really exactly the same as being scourged by a whip, so a sensible scientist should have realized that if the latter hastens death, so must the former. Enough with the liberal denialism! Phiwum (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy's definition of "data" is extremely puzzling to say the least... I guess in his eyes, "Humpty Dumpty" published scientific data on gravity? --Sid (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the only scientific insight the Assfly has gleaned from his intense study of the Bible is that relativity is wrong because Jesus did instantaneous miracles from a long way away, I don't think we should hold out too much hope in its potential to revolutionise our lives. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

More like counter-revolutionise… --★uːʤɱ pirate 14:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Andy really knows what "data" means, he just likes using it because it makes him sound smarter than he is. Almost all his uses of "data" could be replaced with "stuff" and the message would remain exactly the same. X Stickman (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

“”The Bible is providing valuable scientific stuff here. Sometimes a Nobel Prize is given based on the observation of stuff, even though th[at] stuff [is] not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing stuff can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?

Pretty much, yeah… --★uːʤɱ digital native 16:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

CP's Newest "Source"

Andy's use of trusworthy sources continues.^img

This highly reliable news source shows it's incredible usefulness by showing photoshopped pictures of Obama in a NASCAR uniform, publishing articles about secret government warehouses, running ancient jokes, and taking submissions from anyone and putting it up to a vote as to whether it's true.

I clicked on all three links, and all of them say "100% of readers think this story is a fact." I guess it's not surprising if your readership is the Andy Schlafly's of the world. άλφα^Ταλκ 13:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy never heard of NASCAR til I gave him the source here on the private list; I wonder how many are NASCAR RINOs? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken hasn't forgotten about Penn

Ken: By the way, when will he debate a prominent christian?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone asked yesterday if CP's main page could go for the trifecta of bigotry. Well, Kendoll doesn't disappoint. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that he will not debate a prominent bible believer if no prominent bible believer ever asks him to debate. Ken doesn't exactly qualify as prominent outside of RW. --Opcn (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken wouldn't actually debate - he'd back out. He's terrified of actual equal confrontation on fair terms. That's why he protesteth too much.--^talk 02:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since when is it Penn responsibility to seek out prominent Christians to debate anyway? None have approached him asking for a debate, so why should he care?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama and Perry

Ken: While that liberal elitist Obama shows his care by playing golf and not leading the country...^img the great caring perry shows his hard working values by going on picnics and riding on a john deere! --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That entire sentence is so awkward... when I was taught grammar in primary school (even in secondary school, for that matter) we always learned about parallel structure, so present tense + perfect tense + present tense again + "bla bla bla AND bla bla bla AND bla bla bla..." etc. just bothers me. Ok no more nitpicking grammar for today... άλφα^Ταλκ 13:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It can happen if you're in a hurry and one of those guys who starts a sentence not knowing how it ends. I'm one of those people, but I normally see it when I read proof. --★uːʤɱ pirate 14:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

the flood entry

thats old as crap.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

He's back on that kick. It was posted today. --Roofus (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy sinks to a new low

[10]^img If that's even possible:

“”A "hate crime" is a liberal invention to try to make some crimes "worse" than others based on the views or beliefs of the person committing the crime, or the victim. The goal of this rewriting of criminal law is to create special advantages for those promoting a homosexual lifestyle and other favored liberal groups. The ultimate goal may be to criminalize the Bible, or at least marginalize it.

Argh! And this man is a lawyer? --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Added to the WIGO about his MPR item on the same topic. Seriously, what a fucking lowlife scumbag - gloating over something like this is repellent. Christian? Not in any way I was brought up to understand. DogP (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalism is sensational. Andy is just trying to push the crazy envelope to get noticed. Very Ann Coulter of him. Aside from that, hate crimes are bullshit anyway. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One kid kills another. GREAT NEWS FOR CONSERVATIVES! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that people like Angry/Ed/Jpatt are living in constant fear not only of all these homosexuals trying to suck their cocks, but that they might be unduly prosecuted for hate crimes when they inevitably have to defend themselves with gun from said cock sucking. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There are reasonable free-speech arguments that are made against the concept of a hate crime, but Andy isn't making them. Oh, and that Onion reference: a cold internet beer for anyone who can get that into one of Ken's "articles". --Simple (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are the free speech arguments against hate crimes? DickTurpis (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, gay-bashing and race-baiting in consecutive MPR entries. Can CP go for a trifecta of bigotry? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the "free-speech arguments" against the concept of a hate crime, Thomas Jefferson said (in the same letter where he coined the term "separation of church and state") "That the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean motives cannot be a factor in a trial or in sentencing? DickTurpis (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Something that I wonder about is, how stupid does the man actually think we from the left are? Does he really think anybody would promote an exclusively homosexual humanity? As for the logic in the above, so is mass murder the same thing as terrorism because the political motif doesn't play a role? If the goals are just irrelevant could any soldier that fights on one sight be convicted for murder after the war? Would a BDSM couple that is into really kinky stuff be as equally responsible for the injuries of each other as in an actual crime? --★uːʤɱ pervert 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern hate crimes all punish actions not opinions, mostly what they do is increase the punishment for certain actions based on the intention/ motive behind the actions. This is not so very dissimilar from the (centuries old) distinction between murder and manslaughter. We punish people much more for intending to kill another person than just for the fact that somebody died and it was their fault. Criminal laws against behaviour which has a speech component aren't new either, threats to kill, incitement to murder, soliciting certain types of criminal behaviour, and so on have been crimes for a long time. In each case there must be more than "idle talk". A person who says off-handedly "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" has committed no crime. But if he's saying this while giving out rifles and bundles of money, it takes on a different character. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring that up, but murder and manslaughter are distinguished by the existence of intent, without having to probe what specific beliefs caused that intent. And I think people would be spitting bullets if someone formalized the old-time practice of giving people lighter sentences when they committed a racially-motivated murder. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with hate crimes legislation, but not for the reasons which Andy gives. I think it just turns into an endless process of adding more and more aggravating factors to sentencing laws. I don't believe the current criminal justice system is very effective, and so I see things like hate crimes legislation as fundamentally conservative, even if presented in a liberal guise. It is about trying to co-opt LGBT people into supporting the current criminal justice system, by bringing them to own part of it; what is truly liberal is to call an end to law-and-order auctions, to the neverending escalation of sentences, and to start treating the causes of crime rather than the symptoms. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear the phrase "root causes of crime" it makes me want to throw something. Even when the phrase is not being used as a code word for "capitalism," the measures proposed by the people who use it mostly involve large "cultural transformations," or something of the kind, which is an excellent way for the authorities to make a lot of enemies and raise the crime rate. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because what's a large cultural transformation ever done for any social problem that the good old free market couldn't? 76.24.103.112 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate crimes should be punished more heavily not because the criminal needs to be taught how to think, but because those crimes have the effect of terrorizing anyone else who shares whatever the victim's offending qualities were. Someone who beats up an immigrant for "taking our jobs" doesn't just commit an assault, they send a message to everyone in the area who looks a bit like that immigrant that they should be nervous walking alone at night. That would be a crime if they committed it by plastering posters to that effect around the neighborhood -- but not if they use the most unmistakable possible method? 76.24.103.112 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If conservative terms double on a regular basis and large earthquakes double on a regular basis...

...does that mean that earthquakes^img are conservative? ;) The really funny thing is that Andy's source--despite being a "Look at all the earthquakes, the end times are upon us!" sort of source--doesn't even come close to saying what he claims. Rather than claiming that earthquakes "double roughly every 40 years," it says that earthquakes between 1970 and 1996 weren't significantly higher than in previous decades, and then a SIXFOLD increase took place.

Seriously--where does he get the claims he makes? You'd think he'd at least quote fellow evangelicals accurately.

--Phentari (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article, I see Andy just looked at the graph and noticed the number of detected earthquakes skyrocketing in the last few decades and made the erroneous conclusion that such an increase in the number of earthquakes has been steady since 4000 BC or whatever. No actual scientist (or really anyone who thinks this through logically and rationally) would make such a stupid assertion based on short term data of the last few decades.

Also, the site itself contradicts Andy's conclusion that the crust is suddenly less stable:

However, this trend needs to be understood in relation to the increase in seismographs. Certainly, in the last 25 years, more lower intensity earthquakes have been noticed because of a general increase in the number of seismograph stations across the world and improved global communications. This increase has helped seismological centres to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier decades.

In short, we see more earthquakes in the last couple decades because our technology for detecting earthquakes has significantly improved.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, this is Andy once again assuming that rates which probably aren't constant, actually remain constant, and vice versa, whenever it's convenient for his ideology. άλφα^Ταλκ 19:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nono, the fact we are detecting/seeing more of x natural force means it IS increasing. How else could we explain the not detecting as many earthquakes, seeing as many hurricanes or tornadoes in the past?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell Cokeeyes. He'll probably think it's the end times, and it's time to kill the infidels. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It another example of Andy looking at the title, the abstract, or the pretty graphics rather than read the article or paper and then use it to prop up his unsupported assumptions.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF - "more than 6.99 on the Richter scale"? I'd be very surprised if any earthquake has been rated at 6.99 because you can't measure magnitude that accurately. Also the Richter scale is now considered obsolete in earthquake assessment but that's not Andy's fault in this case. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How the hell did Andy get into Harvard Law? Seriously, I had an easier time buying that girl from Legally Blonde getting in. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny that you mention the End Times, Jeeves - that's the actual conclusion of Andy's source: The trends in nature here, particularly from 1997 support the wider realisation of prophesy about the "End Times", namely that an increase in earthquake activity is a pre-requisite for the "second coming of Jesus Christ" foretold in the bible. It does not indicate how close we are to this event, but suggests it is not too far away. So Andy actually took one source trying to prove religious nuttery and uses it to prove other religious nuttery. Brilliant! --Sid (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But Andy doesn't believe the bible, he's said so enough times and we have the diffs. The bible was written by liberals to corrupt morality, like the idea that Jesus said adultery could be forgiven. Adultery is a capital offense, the only question remaining is death by lethal injection or stoning. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob that idea falls through when you realize he translated the bible and therefor does beleive in the bible. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Digression on Andy's claim the Bible is a fraud and liberal conspiracy to corrupt morality

Given that Andy is a Catholic - the Catholic viewpoint is that both Scripture and Tradition are important, and you need Tradition to know what is Scripture (i.e. know the bounds of the canon) and to authentically interpret Scripture, and the church hierarchy (the Bishops and the Pope, i.e. the magisterium) are the final authority on how Tradition tells us to interpret Scripture. So this is rather different from the Protestant viewpoint on the Bible. Now, that's the official Catholic view, how much Andy agrees with it I am not sure.

I think Andy's point about that Pericope, is that it is quite clear it is a late addition to the text, and some of the details of it don't really make sense. So, it's a reasonable point that it should be excluded from the Gospel of John, and hence the Bible. However, whether it is authentically part of the original text of John, and whether it is canonical, are two separate questions - so I'd say the official Catholic position here, is that it is part of the Bible, and hence binding, even if it originally was some separate book apart from John. So Andy seems to be going against the official teachings of the Catholic church; I wonder if he is aware of this disconnect, or how he addresses it.

Also, he shouldn't really be publishing his own Bible translation without a Nihil Obstat and Impriatur; although I wonder how those concepts still apply in the Internet age... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is catholic? And leads a website revolving around WASPS? Confusion--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know him personally, so can't claim to know for sure his personal religious views. But WP labels him as a Roman Catholic, and our own article says he went to a Catholic school and got married in the Catholic church. It's always possible his views have evolved in another direction... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy into any of this 'Andy is a Catholic' joukery-papery. I can't recall Andy ever admitting he was a Catholic. Apart from that, he is too whacky to be a Catholic. He thinks the Pope is liberal, then in Andyland, who isnt't? Auld Nick (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"To wacky to be a catholic" uh huh--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There really aren`t too many fundie Catholics. I don`t think I`ve met any since I started going to Catholic schools 8 years ago. --Durbinator^{An armchair calls to you} 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the fact Catholics believe other things equal the bible in terms of importance, its hard to be a fundamentalist--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Maratrrean makes several good observations. Having been raised Roman Catholic myself, I can attest to the low importance & esteem the RC places on scripture. Since biblical interpretation is based upon whatever the current leadership of the RC church claims it means, biblical interpretation is constantly evolving (yes Andy, Catholic scriptural interpretation is constantly evolving). This is really quite the opposite of fundamentalist Protestantism. So if Conservapedia is "Christian", it is Christian-in-name-only (XINO). As to the Pericope, it most likely was left out by some early scribes because the teaching was such a radical departure from earlier, that is, Old Testament understanding. The idea that God himself basically said, "hey, adultery is no big deal, at least not anything to kill somebody over." But then again, this passage is key to understanding Christian love and forgiveness. Jesus says elsewhere, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven" which attests to John chap 7. Also "Forgive others, and you will be forgiven." The adulterous woman was an extreme case used to tests Jesus's doctrine. The scribes in the early texts simply couldn't comprehend, and they left space blank where it could be inserted later if it's veracity could be established. There may have even been a little old fashioned sexism at work here, too. Nonetheless, the story of this section's controversy only adds to gospel understanding -- God's love & forgiveness -- IMO, than any cause to diminish the power of scripture. Denying it, to me, seems quite radical, speaking as a fully converted Protestant. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that would be the special Christian meaning of "most likely" that really means "I made this up, and have no evidence for it, but I'd really like to believe this is true." Yeah, William Lane Craig uses that one too, and he's a phil-os-o-fur. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ah, your missing the point. It was neither scribe error nor omission; the scribes left enough room on the blank paper to insert the disputed passages later. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to know what manuscripts you are referring to. I know some later manuscripts left the verses out with space to include it, but we're talking 9-10th century. Early manuscripts simply don't have them. Seems like wishful thinking to me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

wp:Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history acknowledges they are earlier manuscripts. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, when you're illiterate I guess big blocks of text can be made to say anything you want, eh? Try again, only this time read your source material slowly and carefully. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• all four of these[3rd & 4th century] manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So how does that support your claim that "It was neither scribe error nor omission; the scribes left enough room on the blank paper to insert the disputed passages later"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well duh, here's the text from the 9th century, which obviously is not a scribe error. The earlier manuscripts, with the diacritical marks, are what you asked for. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 00:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Your claim is that these were teachings that were revolutionary, and so were strongly debated by the early church. You need to actually demonstrate that claim, because I think you're just making it up to suit your view of the authorship of the Bible. Leaving a gap is circumstantial evidence that there was a debate to be had that more text should be included at that point, especially in a time when paper was extremely expensive. Putting a diacritic in is not. At best that might go some way to indicate the scribe knew some copies had extra text there and that the scribe considered it spurious. How you get from that to asserting the verses are authentic and original, and that there was debate over whether to include them escapes me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

continuing, with the Wikipedia source cited, "17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews..." nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So a gospel considered at best apocryphal, and probably heretical, and of which none survives today may have contained a version of the same story. How does that support your argument? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You're beginning to sound more and more like Andy Schlafly. Ok, I'm convinced; liberals put forgiving the adulterous woman in to corrupt humanity. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 00:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fucking Christian. I don't give a shit about what Christianity has to say about whether you should or should not stone adulterers to death. I do, however, care that people just make shit up to cover the obvious absurdities in their holy books. That's how we get creationism. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Christian to believe the Bible is a fraud, in fact, many non-Christian's believe exactly that. And your point, " I do, however, care that people just make shit up to cover the obvious absurdities in their holy books" sounds exactly like Andy Schlafly, "Some defend continued inclusion of the passage based on a fear of a "slippery slope," that other passages will be questioned or removed if this one were. ... The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So, your argument now is that yes, you made it all up. But that's OK because the message is nice, and that sort of moral truth deserves a bodyguard of lies? Good one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I telling you both you & Andy Schlafly have said the Bible is a bunch of bullshit, whereas I believe it to be the word of God. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's all right, as long as you admit it's an article of faith you assert with a total lack of evidence, and not something that's "most likely" then we have literally nothing to argue about. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservadictionary just keeps getting better

OK, whoever BradleyS is, I'm awarding you about a billion internets. This is the best way to take the piss out of Andy that has been devised in a long time. Andy thinks "the game of unchecked redefinition of words by liberals is over", but he doesn't seem to have noticed that the conservadictionary project is the brainchild of one of his "liberals" who is using it redefine words to make CP look ridiculous. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean how it Got mass deleted^img because JefferyA was a sock of WalterS?^img, and must first apologize for remarks made to andy?--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've missed Popeye's impotent rage. It really is a thing of beauty, the complete lack of understanding about how IP addresses work. Not to mention the precautionary "nuke everything!!" approach. The site is growing rapidly. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whut? The mass deletion you link to is a mass deletion of butterflies (lepidoptercaust?) from two years ago. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait. The link to Conservapedia links to a mass deletion of dictionary entries. The link to the screencap has the butterflies behind it. Weird. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed that. The cap should now reflect the events properly. --Sid (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It does now, yes. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WalterS^img's comments were mildly amusing and you can see exactly why angry bear thinks WalterS was a parodist but kenny baby is absolutely for real. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

01:14, 4 September 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked JefferyA (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (You will apologize to Aschlafly and Conservative for your remarks as user WalterS before you are permitted to return.) He's allowed to speak again if he apologizes? How's that supposed to work? It would be much easier for all of us if they stopped pretending and just banned with the reason "dissenter" or "thinks for himself". --★uːʤɱ libertarian 14:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I find CP is much funnier when you read Karajou's angry proclamations in a cod German accent. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion Jeeves, CP is now suddenly quite a lot funnier. SJ ^Debaser 15:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I always imagined the sysops angrily blocking with Chaplin's voice from The Great Dictator, but I'm a Chaplin fan, so maybe that's just my own little weird quirk. άλφα^Ταλκ 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The gift that keeps giving

I want to have sex with some of these posts^img

• chair : True Conservative meaning - a seat for a human being to sit in
• cow : True Conservative meaning - a large domesticated bovine

--PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I double-dog dare someone to change the true conservative definition of "liberal" to "evil person" (and watch it stay there for eternity). Junggai (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So what's the liberal definition of "chair?" άλφα^Ταλκ 16:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suppose it's the Chair as a replacement for chair/man/woman/person. Pippa (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

a seat for a being to sit in — because we believe in equality and I've seen dogs sitting on chairs. --★uːʤɱ heretic 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The As^img and Cs^img are coming along nicely. Lol, "acid rain" - the ebil liberal definition: "A reason to limit industry." Now I know exactly what acid rain is. Another Schlafly brainfart turns into rancid slush. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Priceless:

class

Date: 1850-1855

True Conservative meaning - A method of grouping society into sets based on employment.

False liberal redefinition - Different groups within society who are in opposition to one another. See Class warefare.

clueless

Date: 1743

True Conservative meaning - not having any clue; ignorant

--★uːʤɱ pervert 17:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This project will come in handy the next time Andy needs to redefine a word. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

communism

Date: 1840

1840? What is the Paris Commune referenced here, and why does wikibooks cite Rousseau (1761) as "an important figure in the development of socialism and communism? [14] nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the basic ideas of communism are as old as humanity itself, and because socialism predates marx by even more. Hell, we spent a day learning about 4 french socialists whos ideas failed to gain hold in the 1830's/40's, including a guy who wanted everybody to have a different job every day and waited in his apartment for somebody to help his ideas happen--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice Rob, you just committed the same fallacy as Schlalfy does when saying that an idea can't exist without the word to describe it. - π 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

These are two of my personal favorites:

Altruism

True Conservative meaning - Self sacrifice in the model of Jesus.

False liberal redefinition - No definition (Liberals frequently argue that altruism doesn't exist.)

Anarchist

True Conservative meaning - Far left extremists who use terrorism to promote the failed concept of communism.

False liberal redefinition - Someone who supports the free market.

--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My favourite so far is trade union

True Conservative meaning - corrupt leaders supposedly representing worker while secretly supporting Democrats

False liberal redefinition - an organization that provides democratic representation to workers in order for them to have a say in matters in the workplace (e.g, work safety, wages, policies etc.)

On a related note, how do you suppose they are dating when these phrases first originated? Is there a repository of this sort of information floating around the internet? Tielec01 (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the entry on newspeak:

newspeak

Date: 1950

True Conservative meaning - a propaganda language that distorts the true meaning of words for political purposes; coined by George Orwell

A lot of the entries have a Colbertesque feel to them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Doing CP's homework for them

They can crow about this for now, and then whine relentlessly when it gets defeated. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes me both really sad and pissed off. What the hell is wrong with people here in America? Unbelievable. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The fuck. That's really messed up. --Sid (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that these people aren't under the impression that "being discriminated" is not passive and not reflexive? --★uːʤɱ soviet 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Is there any logical difficulty to experiencing Hell once the five senses stop working?^img Aside from the fact that once your five senses stop working, there's great logical difficulty in experiencing much of anything, no. No there isn't. --Roofus (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that might be hell ... --Opcn (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball.... IN hELL! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell is listening to "The Who".--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's better than Helen Keller jokes, I guess. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Helen Keller was given a cheese grater for her birthday. She thought it was the most violent book she'd ever read. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 03:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Derp. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If Helen Keller had ESP, would you say she had a fourth sense? --Roofus (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course humans have at least ten senses. Typical Andy, relying on things he was taught at school rather than opening his mind. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's liberal claptrap. I bet the Bible (or at least Andy's Bible) teaches that humans have five senses and ONLY five senses. Atheists just want to make people read the Bible less, so they invent fictional new senses that have never been proven in independent scientific experiments - at least not in ones that have made all the data available to the Best of the Public for review! --Sid (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)