Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive267

This is an archive page, last updated 21 November 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <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)

God hates asteroids

I hope some brave soul calls Andy out on this gem^img because I'd love to see him explain how all the existing craters don't exist. Yes Andy, God protects the Earth from asteroids... this being the same God who's going to wipe everybody out after the battle of Meggido. I'm guessing he doesn't like competition when it comes to mass extinctions. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out to him that wild chance has resulted in asteroid impacts will simply cause him to talk about the Flood and 6,000 year-old creation. Any evidence that contradicts these two self-evident and well-supported truths can be discounted and ignored. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Andy does say "massive collision." I would assume he'd admit that we've been by asteroids before, just never one big enough to cause catastrophic change. MDB (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Science: "Here look at this cool event, and these 487 pieces of evidence for it!" Andy: " No I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen, we know God exists, and he would stop it." Science: "What?" Time passes... Andy:"Hey look what I figured out, this event doesn't happen but there is all this evidence that it should, must be God!" --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy no doubt doesn't realize that some 37,000 to 78,000 tones of material fall of the earth each any every year. Something is always hitting us, it is that almost all of the material floating in orbit that crosses that of the earth is dust particle in size. Larger than dust size objects do hit us regularly (18,000 to 84,000 meteorites greater than 10 grams hit us every single year, virtually all which burn up in the atmosphere).

When Andy says "Atheists claim it is random chance that asteroids do not harm us with collisions, but pure chance would mean that a massive collision is inevitable." What he is stating is true (although not in the way he thinks), a massive collision is inevitable because we have so much evidence that the earth is regularly impacted from the abundance of great impacts from our past. One kilometer sized asteroids hit us on average every half-million years and collisions with asteroids greater than five kilometers happen on average once every 10 million years. In short, it has happened before (including some really big ones), and it will happen again. The chances of it happening in our lifetime is very, very, very small. Heck the chances it will happen in the next 10,000 years is very tiny, but when you look at the past evidence and deep time, it will happen at some point in the future.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

His argument doesn't even make sense when you accept the things it's based on. So God protects us from asteroids... that he created in the first place and threw in our general direction? Is God up in the sky desperately knocking asteroids out of the way with a tennis racket, only barely keeping up, or did he plan this all out a few thousand years ago? His argument makes more sense if you figure that Andy believes that his God created earth and possibly our solar system, but the rest of the universe was already there. X Stickman (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No doubt Andy would state it is a demonstration of the Judeo-Christian god's power (I can throw huge asteroids the Earth's way without any effort), and benevolence (butttt I won't let any of said asteroids hit the Earth and kill billions). The problem is that such demonstrations would be completely lost of mankind up until a couple hundred years ago, before then we would have been blissfully unaware of any large NEOs hurling precariously close to our world. So what would be the point of them then? God just amusing himself by playing marbles on an interplanetary scale?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Tuesday is the first time since 1976..." He does realize that 35 years is an insignificant amount of time on a cosmic scale, right? Even on a scale of 6,000 years, it's only .6% of the age of the Young Universe. --Roofus (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How many of those do we have by now?

Because those irony singularities are really piling up.^img --★uːʤɱ federalist 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think its a step up from "lamestream media". It shows hes no longer a 1st grader.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, she lived in the same apartment building, and that makes the main page? Really? Just... dear God, Jackie Chan, express my feelings! --Sid (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't be assed to look into gossip, does anyone know if she got a settlement from Cain at the time? Does anyone know how many people lived in the building?--Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the hilarity of that entry just mind numbing: "They are just smearing him! But look here is a little factoid that could be absoulely nothing! Smear them!" It's stuff you normally find on The Daily Show poping up from Fox News just much more neatly wrapped and warped. But here the stupidity and doublethink is pure. --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt, Kara, TerryH - CP's birther squad is still waiting for the REAL birth certificate

This discussion^img is facepalm-inducing gold. Jpatt thinks that the long form birth certificate hasn't been verified yet, and Kara goes one step further and (re-)asserts that the birth certificate was photoshopped.

In the meantime, TerryH quotes^img Peggy Noonan: "Where is the [man now holding office as] president in all this?" Wait, wait... what's with the odd insert in brackets? He is eager to explain in the comments (where Tony Sidaway called him out):

“”What do you think that brackets mean? Brackets are editorial inserts. Now had I left off the brackets, you would have a case. As it is, not. In any event, I reserve the editorial discretion never to give anyone the impression that I accept the bona fides of Barack H. Obama, or his eligibility to the office of President of the United States.

Yep, editorializing in quotes is fine and dandy! And yep, one more passenger on the USS Birtherism! --Sid (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Terry's actual words were "In any event, I reserve the editorial discretion never to give anyone the impression that I accept the bona fides of Barack H. Obama, or his eligibility to the office of President of the United States [because I am a racist child molester with an IQ of 27]." DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Does Kara read this page? Because I still want someone to explain why the president would photoshop up a birth certificate (which is *testable* by experts or someone with some knowledge) rather than just have a "fake" one printed off as standard and scan that in. X Stickman (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't try and look for reason. He's a Democrat, a black guy and one of his parents had the dashed nerve to be a foreigner. They just hate him. All else is waffle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My favorite has to be Jpatt saying we should overturn all of Obamas policys because he hasn't seen the "real" birth certificate. Ya know, I don't recall ever seeing bushy's birth certificate. Lets overturn everything he's done. Or bushy seniors. And what about St. Reagan? Are we sure he was born in the U.S. And are we sure he is even dead. Maybe he faked his death and became the ruler of the Republican party. How else could a "conservative" who raised taxes and gave amnisty to illegal aliens be viewed by Republicans as second to jesus? Think about it...--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's George Washington's birth certificate? REPEAL THE BILL OF RIGHTS! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering jpatt is the one desiring a military coup d'etat, and then this i got from tvtropes, with the claim it was on an essay about obama muslimness: "This is a conservative encyclopedia. Its job is to decry liberals and their ideas at every turn. By promulgating the idea that Obama may be a Muslim we are being good conservatives, because it helps to turn people off him."--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Washington WAS born in a british colony to a british dad. That natural born citizen nonsense is usefull to us in the tinfoil hat comunity. --Thunderstruck (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"No person except a natural born Citizen,or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." 03:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Redphone for Mr. DeMyer...

Porking pets promotes penile cancer. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't distract him. Remember the abortion project hes heading. And lets not forget he needs to write 10 - 15 more articles about the question evolution campaign. --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else get the suspicion that Kenny's the only person who can be arsed with the question evolution campaign any more? I mean it's not exactly setting the world on fire, is it? --Longbow (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It has achieved one lasting result, the Kendoll cancer has totally fucked up shlockofgoat's blog. I mean, look at it now. He's just copy-pasting his CP stuff. The main man hasn't touched it in months, and probably never will again. If we encourage him enough, maybe the Kendoll cancer will metastasise is to Mr. Goat's youtube channel, and that'll be the end of that. Kendoll on video would be a wonder for all to behold. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Its telling that the last time anyone made a comment to a post on that blog was to one made six months ago. If we have to get used to anything it is that no one, not even Christians, give a crap about the "Question Evolution" campaign, and its a total dud who's wheels fell off as soon as you rolled it off the assembly plant Ken.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

JPatt backpedals...

Johnny Sedition was all about "personhood" bills a while ago (see here^img for one example, and here for another^img. Also, it was a new conservative word^img): now that one fails at the polls, they're a "gimmick."^img B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem with people like Jpatt/Andy/etc. - they're willing to backstab any person or cause just to avoid being associated with something negative. No True Scotsman at its finest. --Sid (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Its just as well. Wouldn't the law get between you and you're doctor? What about all that whining about Obamacare getting between you and you're doctor. Typical big government Republicans.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It might have required zygotes to purchase health insurance. DickTurpis (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

YOUR doctor! YOUR doctor! Argh! HULK SMASH!! --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was for the movement before I was against it. That was good enough for some Democrats but it is lock on target for the hypocritical Republicans. Two things, I created the personhood page that I rally against. Second, Aschlafly was instrumental in changing my mind about this group. I was publicly dissing the group after three solid pro-life politicos were defeated in Colorado 2010. They are a detriment to the solid pro-life movement. --208.40.4.94 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Translation: I don't really have any principles; I just want to be on the winning side.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You should be concerned about getting your mind changed by Schlafly. He's not very bright. 2. If the anti-choice crowd can't get a solidly Red state like Mississippi to legally recognize that life begins at conception, then there is zero chance that anyone will. It's game over for overturning Roe v. Wade. You're on the wrong side of history, son. The people have spoken. More to the point, YOUR people have spoken, and they think that your option is full of crap. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This was unexpected

JPatt acknowledged^img that Mississippi's "personhood" law^img was a "gimmick".

I wonder what CP would have said had it passed. MDB (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Look up.DickTurpis (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm a Bear of Very Little Brain sometimes. MDB (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hot parodist on parodist action

Almost reminds me of the days when CP had something bordering on a community spirit^img --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you lie, Sharon? Why you LIE!! ^narchist 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Craigslist Rants and Raves

Do other people notice CP material on their local crazy board? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The return of AugustO.

Quietly^img unblocked by creepy uncle ed. And already taking the piss out of the writing plan requirement. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you could comprehend the rest of that thread you would know that it was CPalmer who unblocked AugustO. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, he is talking to Andy^img. Hasn't August read his own user page?^img larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

MOAR Hitler!

Yes, I know it's added by a parodist, but I want the fact that Adolf Hitler supports Occupy Wall St^img saved for posterity. On a similar note, who was it on CP who equated animal rights to the Nazis, because Hitler was anti animal-cruelty? Rob? --PsyGremlinTal! 14:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Parodist or not, it's still there 3 days later. Sounds like an Andy endorsement to me. DickTurpis (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and SeanS - being a good little arse licker - has now reverted^img. Now I wonder who SeanS could be, because according to his userpage he is still retired from cp? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Our very own Mikalos. At least that's what a BoN (probably Mikalos himself) said. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. What a cock. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't I made it clear I'm SeanS on CP by now? --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know you are. I just wanted others to be aware you are still being a complete cock head over there. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why I love Conservapedia. Just when you think it might be a serious site, BOOM, A man dead for close to 70 years supports an anti capitalist protest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't hitler also gas commies?--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But Thunderstruck, that was an internal conflict between socialists. Try to keep up. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia in Oct 2011: Ken and logged events

logged events per day

In Oct 2011, more than 3,100 actions were logged for User:Conservative at Conservapedia. Is this much?

logged events per month for Ken

There have been six months were Ken caused more log entries. But all of these happened after May 2010. One could argue that in the time before, Ken's activity wasn't that much different from that of his fellow sysops. (BTW: in June 2009 Conservapedia updated to a version of WikiMedia which introduced patrolling: any edit by a sysop is logged as patrolled automatically. Edits by common editors have to be patrolled manually to make the pesky red exclamation marks go away. Conservapedia's sysops don't flog to this task: in Oct 2011, out of more than 5000 edits a total of 15 edits was patrolled manually, 10 by Joaquín Martínez, 5 by Ed Poor.)

monthly logged events since July 2009

In comparison to his fellow sysops, the number is absurdly high - only Aschlafly and Ed Poor had once more than 2,300 logged events in a month - something which Ken achieved not only last month, but eight times in total.

logged events Oct 2011

It's no surprise that Ken dominates the log: more than 55% of all entries last month were generated by him.

logged events Oct 2011

Besides his obsession with Conservapedia, bestiality, etc., there are two main factors which contribute to this dominance:

• He is just not capable to use the preview button.
• His fellow editors can't be bothered to patrol the edits of common editors.
  

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

-looks at the edit pattern, wonders if ken actually leaves his house.---il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's fairly clear from the edits, that apart from grabbing a few hours to kip, Ken never leaves his computer. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's one think I'd like to see, it'd be a density map of Kendoll's edits on Sundays. I bet you wouldn't be able to find so much as one hour that he consistently spends away from his computer at church. He's more in to using Christianity to beat people with than actually worshipping. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Would he pass the Turing test? Can he think outside the box? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering most here believe he is a human, yes. I'm not that impressed, though. Kenning could definitely be done with a computer. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

logged events per day: Oct 2008

For Ken, 15h - 21h GMT may correspond to his morning. In Oct 2008, he generated less than 800 log entries. Most interesting, none of these happened during his morning hours - with only the weekend as an exception. In 2011, there is no such restriction any longer... --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

logged events per day: Aschlafly vs. Conservative

Since May 2010, Ken's cp:Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder can't be overlooked any longer. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The lamestream media again lost credibility!

A crowd of people at the REPUBLICAN debate booed the moderator when she asked a perfectly legitimate question^img, therefor, the mainstream media is again not credible and has lost its influence cause a crowd of people at a rep. debate didnt like that question. (This is why i hate polls that act like x group of random people actually can be used to decide what a population of 300 million think)--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But a remarkably small group of truly randomly selected folk is a reliable predictor of what the entire population thinks. If the poll is properly done, then you can get a small margin of error with a surprisingly small number polled. This isn't some fantasy made up by the media. It's a statistical fact.

Of course, none of this serves to prove that boos at the Republican debate are indicative of national opinion. Phiwum (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering all liberals completely hate america and will always vote for people wanting to destroy it... only the republicans are true Americans so yes they do! And yes I know when it does work, but i'm always skeptical of polls just because --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it a random sample or just a straw poll? If the latter, it is actually worthless (and likely to be overrun by Paulbots). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy^img: A crowd of "Republicans" [dunno why there's quotation marks] isn't necessarily conservative. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't quotation marks, but italics. But yeah, it's fun to watch Andy squirm once he's called out. --Sid (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That debate was the best one by a wide margin. The questions were pertinent, sensible, and the moderators followed up on them in a savvy way. They didn't even let Gingrich do his typical bloviating bullying. Alas, they still had a GOP audience, as you point out.--^talk 11:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kara?

Kara is apparently talking to himself^img--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is his replies to the troll who continually registers and challenges him to a duel. It looks like the karajerk is talking to himself because the very first thing jerk does is to delete any and all references to any challenge and block the troll. Of course noone, least of all the troll, can disprove what kjerk is saying in that little thread as if he were to try to kjerk, or possibly SeanS, would block the troll and revert any answers that was made. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just some immensely unfunny troll (seriously, if it's somebody from here, stop it!) who keeps popping up and poking Kara with a big stick. Kara responds in the only way he knows how - frothing at the mouth and rolling on the floor. --PsyGremlin講話 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That troll is so obvious that only Kara could take him serious.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Skeptics' GTTU

We get a passing mention in the Skeptics' forum, as they have a dip at CP and Ed Poor. --PsyGremlinTala! 09:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I post mainly in the explicit forum there, which disappears over time, but I've been trying to generate some attention for CP on that forum for years. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 11:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This made me laugh

from wikipedia: Ed Poor for the boldness award

On 1 August 2005, Ed Poor, one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, boldly decided to delete the entire VFD deletion process, which briefly disrupted editing sitewide as the servers tried to keep up. The whole episode is described in the Signpost article "Deletion deletion". --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Only a complete idiot would delete a high-traffic page with a lot of links like that. What a massive tool. I can't believe someone could be so stupid. Yeah. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of the word "experienced", normally it implies some sort of expertise or skill but in Ed's case it merely means having been a low-level time-server. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Maxim for the "what does this button do?" award: Who managed, on 3 February 2008, to delete the Main Page, because someone (who is not in the stocks) told him it could not be done." Wow. I think that takes the prize. ^postate 14:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

AugustO calls out Andy for being a crappy teacher.

"You don't know what a nation state is".^img Surprise reply: "I'll check this out, thanks."^img B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite an admission of being wrong, but it's damn close. It is at the very least an admission of the possibility of being wrong, and even that much is rare for Andy. However I suspect this is a desperate attempt at a dismissal: Andy wants AugustO and his concerns to go away, and this is the last trick in the book that isn't a cowardly block. The infamous Andy Ignore Shield just wasn't up to the task. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Flanking. Andy's forces feign a retreat, AugustO advances, then his flanks get attacked and surrounded (sysops) and he gets decimated (banned again). Sundrew Tschlaflu's Art of Wiki-War. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's this Andy you're talking about? --79.40.20.98 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it a little suspicious that, following the crushed Revolution, Andy has a lot of new students who write in the same style?^img Ironclad (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I also find it adorable that, according to the page histories, all homework pages after Student one were created within a couple of hours of each other, and all created with the tagline "Created page with (questions worded exactly the same even though this had never happened before)...". Aww. Isn't it so sweet that Andy can call upon a loyal acolyte to feign on his behalf? Just adorable!! :-) Ironclad (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OHHH, right. Andy is writing his own "student" homework....^img Ironclad (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. It's all the same person. Really. Even by Andy's standards, that's... pretty fucking pathetic. Ironclad (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. It's prolly a shared account for some of his in-the-flesh homeschoolers. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Aww. Shame. Well, I'll just cling to my suspicions. It's what a creationist would want :) Ironclad (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy has no fucking clue and/or he's a giant dick

Andy: Look a kidnapping in a "communist" country! Let's smear some!^img

Jpatt: Actually it's a South American thing.^img

Andy: Great now even Jpatt is cranking my style. Fuck that guy^img, I'll just let it stand there.^img

Really Andy? You didn't know that kidnappings are pretty common in South America? Or did you, but just because is it was Venezuela and not Columbia you used it for a cheap smear? --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 00:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to be either/or? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

^ What that guy said. Andy's response to Jpatt made me laugh. SJ ^Debaser 00:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. --★uːʤɱ pervert 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote both. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed has a buddy?

Here's Burke39.....http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Burke39^img http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophile&action=history^img seems awfully interested in that crap.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with Ameriwiki's web server

As I recall, there are people here who are web server gurus and offered their expertise to help CP fix up some of mind-numbing brokenness of their web software, which help was of course not responded to. As you may know, there is another website made up of CP refugees, Ameriwiki, and it has recently gotten itself hosted on its own server. They (we) could use some help in setting up the math extensions.

I realize many people here have little sympathy for Ameriwiki, mostly because it has the word "conservative" in its mission statement, and because a bunch of CP sysops went over there and attempted to shit all over the place. I can report that they are all inactive, since they don't have bullying power, and aren't ever going to get it. Karajou got banned almost immediately, Ed Poor got stopped in his tracks, and the removal of RobS's commie stuff is proceeding nicely.

Back to the point, does anyone have the expertise and willingness to help set up the LaTeX math extensions on the new web site? Gauss (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried prayer? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your "best of the public" approach. Ace^ace 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well what's the problem? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here and not saloon?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that their new webmaster doesn't have a clue. --Longbow (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you willing to give me server access? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's their own fault for driving away mediawiki experts like Edmund Poor... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing the guy it might be best to talk to is Netherworth Xanthanium. Around here he goes by the moniker "Nx". He seems to know his computery shit. DickTurpis (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a tutorial on how to enable math support. Is that what you were looking to do? Infoseek (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what we were after, thanks. 87.245.52.133 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Good luck over there. Infoseek (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

They're going to need it. Apparently their security leaks like a catholic condom and they've spent the whole day clearing up after a vandalbot. --Longbow (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oklahoma earthquakes

Aschlafly says they are increasing and that is evidence of a young earth. That's enough evidence here. Oklahoma Earthquakes^{img — Unsigned, by: 109.132.182.189 / talk / contribs}

So an obvious parodist said something stupid. Big deal. Phiwum (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's parody, then there is more than one parodist involved. What I find amusing is the fact that they can't seem to figure out where to go to find real data about this. How about the USGS, any university that does seismic studies, google "earthquake frequency", etc.? Of course, finding data still leaves it all open to being twisted, but SOME experts are truly experts in their respective fields, and can SOMETIMES be believed. At least they will present evidence, regardless if you believe it or not. YEC explains nothing, and doesn't try to. If it tries, then it runs up against hard science, and is stymied. Jimaginator (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that others (especially Andy) are being stupid when they ignore USGS data regarding earthquakes, but the material quoted above was added by an obvious parodist. Phiwum (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The one part I find fascinating is how people talk to each other on that site; they all have to pepper their conversations with CP buzzwords and Andy speak; it is if they need to show their fidelity to Andy's vision all the time through CP's own version of Newspeak or be called out as disloyal to the project and banned.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, depending on the personality of the contributor involved, it is easier to go the sychophantic route, than to make real contributions to WP or elsewhere. I guess I just can't believe sometimes that they could be SO sychophantic. Jimaginator (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I read it as sarcasm rather than either parody or sycophancy. Cantabrigian (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy fails at reading comprehension

User: Your headline on Cain is off^img

Andy: Fixed^img

User: Did you even read the fucking thing? "Most" is not the same thing as "one"^img

Andy: Fuck you.^img B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy really was cranky yesterday. --★uːʤɱ soviet 13:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What is it with kids getting raped?

Conservatives seem hell bent on ignoring any and all child abuse scandals. The latest one has Andy written all over it, too: liberals sending their children to football camps (which take time away from the Bible) at liberal colleges and liberal grad students don't report liberal coaches raping the kids. Then liberal college students take out their rage on the lamestream media over the whole thing. What am I missing here? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Too close to home. If they start mentioning this then they will struggle to ignore the hundreds and thousands of children raped by the priests and immams and monks and preachers and all the rest. I've yet to hear of an atheist using their moral position over a child as a humanist to rape one of them. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that and the main characters this time around mostly Republicans (not that it means anything whatsoever, but it probably does to Andy), so harder for him to blame the liberals in his headline. Joepa mostly stays out of local politics, but it's no big secret that he's a conservative. I don't doubt Andy would go for it if Google told him Sandusky was a registered dem. I guess CP could go after Spanier... --MarkGall (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, "football" is teh "all american sport", and is a conservative playground, even if it's at liberal schools. I mean, hell, CU had a coach who won them a title and sponsored MANDITORY jesus prayers even for his jewish players. He went on to found the "men's Movement" of Promise Keepers. oh joy! And no way would you ever even want to hint that there might be GAY things in football. --GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 17:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Andy at some point try to establish a connection between playing MANLY sports like Football and not being gay? --Sid (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason CP isn't covering child abuse

They already have tons of articles on homosexuality, and they're pretty sure that child abuse is the same thing, so why be redundant? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I note...

...that the theoretically fiercely patriotic pro-American Conservapedia has done nothing to acknowledge that today is Veteran's Day.

We had something yesterday, but I don't see it today. So....

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie,

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

MDB (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you already know this.... but that's because they're not fiercely patriotic pro-American. They're just small-minded irrelevant idiots. The question now is are they so small-minded that they couldn't bear to post about it on MPR having been prompted about it here? Jury's out.Ajkgordon (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't be the first time they did something that we shamed them into. But of course, it's never they, it would be just one guy reacting and never Andy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

MDB got there before me. I took a look at CP to see how they're marking Remembrance Day... Worth WIGOing, I think, if only for their hypocrisy. The Real James Brown (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy finally added it.... with the day half over already. MDB (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the WIGO because I didn't get the permanent links to the right versions of the WP and CP main pages right, and I don't know how to get them right. (The point was to contrast the stinkin' lib'ruls at WP who'd put up a set of links to pages about notable acts of courage, self- sacrifice, etc while the stinkin' hypocrites at CP just had their usual rubbish.) If anyone who's better at this interweb malarkey than I am wants to post it again properly, please do so. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been rendered irrelevant, I commented out. Do't remove them, as it buggers up the software. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To be accurate, it's not the software that get's buggered it's the counting tally as the poll numbers get reused. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi

Man, the folks a CP love (loved) themselves some Muammar! [1]^img It's like they hate Obama so much they'll throw their support behind a socialist, arab, muslim dictator if it means being against Obama. Ace-o-spades (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new, move along, move along--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual, the most glowing edits come from Joaquin, including this bizarrely irrelevant quote^img regarding China and a surprising reference^img (rotten.com). Phiwum (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Karajou at Ameriwiki

Real or parodist?^img --Longbow (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleh. Probably a parodist.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, tone and name don't really fit together. Unless Kara on CP somehow verifies his Ameriwiki identity, I'll definitely go with "lame parodist". --Sid (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Way to go teacher Andy

You actually feel a need to explain that today is not really 'veterans day' but is actually the day on which we Europeans^img remember those who died in the first world war, the day on which the armistice was signed. A war 'your' country turned up for on April 6, 1917, a full 3 years after our nations started fighting. Will you tell your ill-educated homskoolers that your country remained officially neutral while hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Asians died fighting for the freedoms you and your kind will so merrily shit on given half a chance?

Sometimes I forget exactly why I despise shite like the assfly. Then he writes something like this which reminds me, something which he has only learnt today from reading a tatty right wing xian site, something I knew when I was 8 after listening to my grandfather - who was there on the first day of the battle of the Somme and was one of the very few who actually made it to the last day. A battle that started and finished a full 2 years before the US could be arsed to actually commit some troops.

And yes, I know I'm being simplistic. But it fucks me off to see chicken hawk wankers like andy telling others to remember veterans when he has no understanding AT ALL of the facts.

Rant over. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good rant. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't get your beef. This is one of the more innocuous statements by Andy, as far as I can tell. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My beef is his comment "Do you know today's connection with Armistice Day?". It is not veterans day. The only connection is that certain people in the US felt they had to hijack it for their own reasons. Today IS ARMISTICE DAY, not veterans day. The fact that some in the US then decided to try to claim it as veterans day is what pisses me off. Particularly when it is chicken hawks liek andy - notice the lower case there by the way. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your own personal opinion might be, it is Veterans' Day, as well as Armistice Day. Sorry if that bothers you. Me? I couldn't give much less of a shit. DickTurpis (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

After a century that saw soldiers kill far more civilians than they did other soldiers, I am still waiting for a day to be put aside for the commemoration of the majority of the war dead of our lifetimes. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well don't let Andy's statement give the impression no Americans know the origin of Armistice Day and how just for this nation, it evolved into a different kind of day of remembrance. I knew the history most of my life as do a lot of people my age; it is possible Andy always knew too, we have no way of telling. Actually you sound resentful American joined the war so late, but you can't blame us for not really wanted to get mixed up in a war that boils down to European imperial powers deciding killing millions was worth it over what was essentially nations wanting to wave their dicks around attempting to prove who was the alpha male of the world.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Remembrance Day here in Canada. Does Oldusgitus have his knickers in a twist about that, as well? And yeah, you can fault the Americans for a lot of things, but not coming to the aid of the British and French Empires (don't try to tell me that those two profoundly racist political entities were at all interested in "freedom" and democracy") was, from the American POV a reasonable move re: national self-interest. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding differs. I was under the impression that it had less to do with europeans and asians fighting for freedoms (which colonists fought and died for, they were not just given) and more to do with a tangled web of alliances and pacts that dragged the countries to war just as one might knock down dominoes. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 23:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct--the outbreak of the war had a lot to do with pacts and alliances. That said, there are still debates over why the war broke out. My point was simply that the idea that the British Empire and the French Empire were fighting for values like "freedom" and "democracy" is risible at best. These were polities in which the overwhelmingly vast majority of people and lands which were under their control were unfree and caught in a vicious and brutal system of oppression which was justified by racism. The people from the colonies who fought for those imperial armies certainly did hope that their service would factor into an improvement in their situations back home. Not only did it not, the Treaty of Versailles moved even more people (from the defunct German and Ottoman Empires) under the control of the French and the British. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What B♭maj7 says about the motivations of the governments in WW1 is largely correct, I think, but that doesn't negate the courage of the men who fought in the war nor the deep sense of loss felt by communities all over the world. But the dead of both world wars (military and civilian - responding to one of his earlier comments) are remembered and, of course, the motivations of the Allies in WW2 are easier for us nowadays to understand. And do bear in mind that Remembrance Day is not at all nationalistic. It's about recalling the sacrifice of all those who died in war of whatever nation and, for most people, resolving to end conflicts in a better way. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the dead both military and civilian being remembered in any formal way on 11 November or any other day--there's a reason why it's called "Veteran's Day" in the US, why the overwhelming number of images used today are those of soldiers, why ceremonies are held at tombs of unknown soldiers or cenotaphs, why the Legion is so involved in shaping the memorialization process, etc. For every example of an 11 November commemoration dedicated expressly to the memory of civilians who died in wartime, I'll find you a hundred for soldiers, at least some of whom killed those civilians. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Remembrance Day in the UK isn't at all the same kind of event as Veteran's Day in the USA. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought B♭maj7 was British. I'm surprised he doesn't know this. I'm probably wrong.

Still, I've never understood how some people can't differentiate the simple act of commemorating the war dead from the politics, empire and racism of these wars.

I also fail to understand how some people can't recognise that the rest of the world has moved on. Very few people, even in the military, would disagree that WW1 was little more than a huge waste of life and a disaster for all the countries involved. They also recognise that the armistice itself was a factor in the rise of Nazi Germany and helped sow the seeds of WW2. None of this is really contentious nor is the understanding that the Empires of the time were abusive towards the vast numbers of people they controlled around the world. Repeatedly using this generally accepted history to somehow beat up people who feel a lot of passion for commemorating the dead is tiresome. "Lest We Forget" is as powerful a deterrent against war as it ever was. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

B♭maj7 is Canadian, but lives elsewhere these days, so I grew up with the Commonwealth tradition of Remebrance Day, not the US one. That said, what irks me is that in remembering the soldiers as people who died for values like democracy and freedom, it overlooks the extent to which Britain and France and the United States were incredibly selective in how they applied those values. That sort of whitewashing is historically unjust. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. I find it helpful when partaking in Remembrance Day to think only of the soldiers, the sacrifices they thought they were making (and in many cases were actually making), and largely ignoring the state rhetoric that inevitably goes along with these events which are of course organised by instruments of the state. As a child of the military I do find that difficult, as patriotism is a strong part of the "sacrificial" part of it. However, when you personally know or are related to those who did make the ultimate sacrifice or, as is the case in Britain, those who have been wounded and maimed, it becomes easier. And while I don't totally agree with your very strong views on the the unjustness of past Empires (not least because I am suspicious of judging the past by today's standards), I can quite understand the sentiment. My take is that the sacrifices can be seen as a deterrent, even though that deterrent is often not heeded. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, several British colonies, mandates or dominions obtained something between full and partial independence in the inter-war years. In fact this was already policy since the mid-19th century. Within a generation of abolishing slavery (in the Empire of course, Britain didn't have the power to abolish slavery in the US where they'd fought for "freedom"), the parliament had set up a committee to investigate what should best be done with all these colonies scattered across the globe, and it concluded that granting them independence would reduce the amount of problems they caused and this process should begin immediately. I'm sure it could have been faster, but probably it's too much to expect it to have been completed by the 1930s.

Also I was reminded by my colleagues (for whom it is of rather more personal importance) that 11 November is Polish independence day, celebrating effectively the same event but for a different reason (Poland restored as an independent nation state after generations of outside rule). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hmm, several British colonies, mandates or dominions obtained something between full and partial independence in the inter-war years." Besides the white settler dominions, name some. The darker people of the world certainly didn't see any improvement in their democratic conditions after the First World War: the British empire only started to shut down after the Second World War--Indian independence in 1948, the African nations starting in 1957 with Ghana, the West Indies in the 1960s. The French followed a vaguely similar schedule. In fact, as I said above, the number of people living under French and British colonial control increased during the inter-war years with the addition of former Ottoman and German colonies. Where did you read that decolonization was an inter-war phenomenon? 'Cause that's totally wrong. If anything, the inter-war years were a time of intense anti-colonial activism on the part of the colonised who were sick of the injustice of living under an imperial system. The schedule foreseen for ceding control to the colonised people was one that the colonisers measured in multiple decades because they were convinced that the darker people were not "ready" for freedom.B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You talked about people from the Empire who fought in the Great War. Lots of those people were from the "white settler" dominions that saw independence (or big steps towards it) in the brief period between wars. What you've done here is move the goalposts. If you want to start looking for "whitewashing" as you're now doing, you can find it everywhere. On the rare occasion that someone's motives actually were whiter than white it's easy to paint them otherwise if you like to. And on the rare occasion that someone's motives were actually blacker than black it's not so hard to squint and find rationalisations for their actions. We should judge our ancestors by the standards of their time, or not judge them at all.

The subsequent history of some ex-colonies is less than convincing when it comes to the matter of how ready they actually were for this freedom you speak of. It's not just all out disasters like Zimbabwe, places like South Africa don't make good adverts for independence either. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"We should judge our ancestors by the standards of their time, or not judge them at all.." Strong disagree. Slavery was always wrong. Colonial domination was always wrong. Genocide and mass displacement of native populations was always wrong. Forced labour regimes are always wrong. Extractive economies are always wrong. Racism and political systems based on the idea that one people is inherently better than another is always wrong. "Lots of those people were from the "white settler" dominions...saw independence (or big steps towards it) in the brief period between wars...." Did the original inhabitants of those dominions--the Australian Aborigines, the Zulu, the Mohawk and Inuit, the Maori--see their political situations improve at the time? Making the argument that "the white colonizers who displaced/killed off/coerced into forced labour regimes got more political independence" hardly moves me, or does anything to convince me that the British and French Empires were acting more humanely to their colonized populations after the war. Sorry. And arguing that "places like South Africa don't make good adverts for independence"? By this do you mean that people were somehow better off under Apartheid? Do you mean to imply that there is no correlation between the fact of having been colonized and the outcomes that post-colonial nations experienced, as though decades or even centuries under the occupation of a foreign power principally concerned with domination and extraction won't have effects that will last for generations? Do you mean to imply that a post-colonial history of being used as a pawn in the Cold War and of continued economic domination by the West have had no effect? or just that the w**s don't know better? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that your standards are wrong. Here's how we know that: Everybody else's standards so far were wrong, they all thought they'd fixed that but they hadn't, for thousands of years. Therefore either we are an extraordinary exception, or our standards are wrong too. Do you feel like an extraordinary exception B♭maj7 ? Because you really shouldn't. On what basis would we use the standards we know to be terribly flawed to judge those who didn't live under them? No reasonable basis at all. Was George Washington a worse person than me because he kept slaves, in a culture were this was commonplace, while I do not keep slaves, in a culture where it is strictly forbidden?

I'm a bit confused on your comments about apartheid. You are aware that apartheid was strictly a creation of the newly free and independent nation of South Africa, right? So I'm not arguing people were better off under apartheid, quite the contrary. Independence went very badly for the majority population of South Africa, who were previously British subjects and now found themselves very much third class citizens. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"You are aware that apartheid was strictly a creation of the newly free and independent nation of South Africa" - you know, that's not even wrong. Firstly, apartheid was the formalisation of laws that had essentially existed since the original Dutch colonisation. If you think that non-whites suddenly lost all their rights when the Nats came into power, you are sadly mistaken. In addition, there was nothing "free" about the independent SA in 1961. And to say the new SA is not a good model of independece shows that you are, quite frankly, a moron. For the country to have transitioned so smoothly, and to have had 4 heads of state since 1994, makes it a model of independence and democracy in Africa. It might not stand up to Western standards, but it works. So please stop talking out of your arse. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is RW not CP. South Africa has been independent for a whole century, you don't get to move its date of independence to 1994 or even 1961 in order to make these ad hoc rationalisations work. The then Union of South Africa was self-governing from 1910 (and had in practice enjoyed considerable autonomy in years prior), and Westminster ceased to even pretend to have residual power over it between the wars. The laws that make up Apartheid were written by South Africans, signed into law by South Africans, and enforced by South Africans. They weren't voted on in Westminster, the Hague or Washington. Those South Africans could have (it's not as if there weren't examples to copy from) broadened the franchise, torn down barriers, integrated communities, but instead they narrowed the franchise (disenfranchising blacks who had a vote under the British for a start) built more barriers and legally prohibited integration. You're right, fast forward to the 21st century and you've got a functioning democracy. Maybe that will do as a success metric, but if so we should probably warn people that after "independence" it may take the best part of a century to reap the benefits. Good luck Zimbabwe, your grandchildren may yet see better times. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right about it taking time, the process of granting independence took the entire latter half of the last century from Ireland and India in the 40s until Hong Kong went back to PR of China in 1997. A key point which prompted the dismantling of the Empire after WW2 was the vitriolic racism of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis - the British and rest of the Allies had just fought 5 and a half years against racism but we were still using racial justification for the Empire.

It depresses me that Remembrance Day and the poppy is seen as a political symbol by some. England vs Spain friendly tonight and we (along with the other Home Nations) are not allowed to wear poppies on our shirts because to FIFA it constitutes a "political, religious or commercial message".[2] Admittedly British teams have since been told they're allowed a poppy on a black armband, but apparently that doesn't work too well.[3] It's seen as a sign of British loyalism in Ireland, even though Irish soldiers (such as my Catholic great grandfather) fought in WW1 too, and yes, it may have been as part of the UK but the poppy is not about nationalism, it's about remembrance. In Ireland it's associated with the perverted interests of the British government, not the memory of the war dead. SJ ^Debaser 11:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the British Empire was not dismantled as an antithesis to Hitler's racism it was because we couldn't afford to run it any more. In fact we were struggling to pay for it since the Great War. (See Andrew Marr's book The Making of Modern Britain.) Also, most empires seem to have a natural life-span of about 400 years and we were coming to the end of that. As for the poppies on football shirts, I agree with FIFA and think they should be kept off. Heck, it's not as if they have always been there. I have always bought and worn a poppy even when it was not particularly popular about thirty years ago, you are probably too young to know or remember but in the days of the Greenham Common protests there was quite a backlash against Remembrance Day from the pacifist left who promoted 'white poppies' instead of red ones. The poppy was originally sold as fund-raiser for the Earl Haig Fund to support ex-servicemen and the sale of poppies is still a big source of income; unfortunately there is now a sort of poppy-fascism along the lines of American flag-fascism where you cannot be seen to be not wearing a poppy and that sense of compulsion is contrary to my sense of individualism which is a keystone of Britishness. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"It depresses me that Remembrance Day and the poppy is seen as a political symbol by some." It IS a political symbol; just like tombs of unknown soldiers, flags, national anthems etc. are political symbols. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only a political symbol if seen as one. Some of us choose not to see it as one, while at the same time understanding that it is to others. I, for one, have found myself in Dublin at this time of year and for obvious reasons chose not to wear a remembrance poppy. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you were in London you would realise how politicised it has become. From the EDF using it as an excuse to plan an attack on the Occupy London protestors, through the fuss about the England team wearing a poppy on their strip tonight and the increasing claiming of the day as a "British" day, to the irony of government and the City stopping to mark the day while taking money from ex-servicemen to subsidise bankers, it is increasingly a Bush-like "you're-either-with-us-or-against-us" event.

Well, yes. T'was ever thus. Things get hikacked shocker. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuckin' Germans

Causing violence at a polish independence day celebration!^img--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I read that and I'm still not sure if this is some "racist" slur against Germans or just an honest fuck-up that makes it sound like a "racist" slur. Andy is an ass enough for the former but also dumb enough for the later. --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that one puzzled me, too. Part of me wants to think that it's just an honest fuck-up where he simply pieced together headline, info from source and his own editorializing without thinking what the result would sound like. On the other hand, the italics really make it look like he's trying to push a point about Germans being enemies of freedom and/or being assholes who hate Poland/patriotism. It's a weird feeling when you're not sure if you're supposed to be offended or not. --Sid (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the Italics, i picked the "Germans hate freedom and poland" route. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing is, if Andy just once or twice in the last months checked the polls I would completely understand the deranged reasoning behind it. Germany becomes more left-wing → Socialism is the enemy of freedom → Germans hate freedom → The Nazis were of German origins → They really just hate freedom don't they? --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, he's going for xenophobia^img. Nothing special about the Germans. --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its xenophobia as much as he's playing off of old anti-communist "they're everywhere," internationalist-type ideas. I think he's trying to link these people with the OWS crowd and other lefty demonstrators. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, seems more like paranoia than xenophobia to me. Besides, Germans can't be all that bad. Everyone knows most great composers are German^img and all others (e.g, Mozart, Vivaldi, Verdi, Tchaikovsky) are obscure or not as good. -Night Jaguar (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mozart was german...--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mozart was german Austrian. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

... don't be a smart ass. and If you want to be specific he was a Salzburgian, which wasn't part of Austria til just after the dissolution of the HRE. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

....well, it certainly wasn't part of fuckin' Germany, now, was it? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 05:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

were the volga germans not german?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Salzburg on the Volga now? Enjoying a brief holiday, perhaps? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 05:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd always had it that the concept of "Austrian people" was newer than the 18th century, that back then they would've mostly considered themselves Germans, in separate political entities. (Stupid American here)--Willfully Wrong (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The concept of an Austrian nation didn't exist before 1871, befor that Austrian would have considered them as much Germans as people from Bavaria and Swabia. But as the Austrians had to construct a nationhod after not being included in the German Empire (comming out of a century-long dichotomy between Austria and Prussia), they claimed cdrtain people for them, but still any felt like they should be part or even lead in a German Empire. This is still visible when Hitler took over Austria, as the vote they held was manipulated but even without the manipulation most Austrians stil would have agreed to join. It was only after WW2 that Austrians constructed themselves a distinct nationhood from Germans. But they still write and speak the same language, just in a dialect. You can take pretty much the same for Luxemberg, Lichtenstein, parts of Belgium and even the Netherlands (Dutch started as a German dialect that didn't went through some linguistic changes many other German dialects did, and with standardization came acceptance as a seperate language). So at the time Mozart lived, he would have probably called himself both a German and an Austrian, because at that time it was not a dichotomy. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 11:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Billy Wilder: The Austrians have completed the feat of turning Beethoven into an Austrian, and Hitler into a German. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point, I don't think Andy actually knows exactly what his point is beyond, "huhuh, look at what teh eb1l lie-berr-uls have done to Yurup!" combined with some vague idea about German commie-nazis being A Bad Thing^TM. -- 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yay!

Roger the Dodger returns to slap Andy around re:Relativity again.^img --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Anyway, wouldn't the folks at CP think that God was above relativity instead of denying it by using Jesus' miracles as counterevidence?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the point of a miracle that it does break the laws of what is considered reality? --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy tells us that he doesn't 'see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature".'[4]

Conservapedia at its absolute worst.

A user who's somehow managed to survive for four and a half years without gaining much attention^img reverts the Trusworthy Encyclopedia's article on HIV-AIDS to reflect the fact that eating beetroot and garlic^img is an effective treatment for the disease that is being suppressed by Big Pharma. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What a throughly despicable comment. Garçon^coffee! 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It also shows how out of touch CP are with reality. The beetroot, garlic and African potato insanity was dropped like a hot iron by our govt, the minute that mad cow Manto Tshabalala-Mtsimang was removed as Minister of Health, and Pres Mbeki recalled from office. It's been dead in the water for 4 years now - just like CP. And it certainly was not effective - thousands of people died who would otherwise have received treatment. Fucking idiots. --PsyGremlin講話 14:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, SeanS!!!!11!!^imgAlways glad to help.^img B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did that because the garlic and beetroot thing was just... yah.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

At least someone cares. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Major articles"

Ken: Once our articles on pro-life stuff are in the top 10 for a certain search engines rankings, we should focus even more on pro-life! Including making MAJOR ARTICLES with 500+ words! :)^img. Also, "Conservative website escape velocity"--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

He needs any pseudo-victory he can get; after all his Question Evolution campaign is completely dead in the water.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy fails at basic teaching.

Nation-states are just really big city-states.^img B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, after once again getting humiliated by AugustO... Urgh, urgh, urgh I don't understand what you are saying^img so I'll claim you aren't being substantive in your detailed description of what I am getting wrong. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy:bluhhhhhh^img

1. August isn't trying to relate it to city-states. You are, you idiot.
2. No, the US would not be a nation-state in the 20th century. Remember that whole melting pot thingy?

(ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually as I see it the Founding Fathers did consciously try and forge the US into a nation. The constitution, the declaration of independence, the pledge of allegiance and so on are all, in part, attempts to give the US people the same feeling of nationhood as was found in European nations like Itay and Germany. Quite successful attempts. So you could argue that the US is a mainly successful attempt to create a nation-state. In their case, being a melting pot is one part of that nation's self-identity.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you there as when the US was founded Germany and Italy were not unified states. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Do Native Americans count as a nation within a nation? If so, then US isn't a nation-state, whatever the intention of Washington, et al. --24.246.11.252 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Italy and Germany weren't unified then, no, but Italians, Germans, Poles and other peoples did identify as nations by that time. And the French, English, Scots and others already had nation-states. So what I'm saying is that the Founding Fathers knew that to make their independence movement successful, they needed to create a narrative that would enable the Americans to identify as a nation like those other peoples did.

As for the Native Americans, well no, the US isn't completely united obviously, and European nation-states have often contained dissenting minorities (like the Catalans in Spain). These things are rarely clear-cut. But the general point stands that the Founding Fathers did a good job of creating a nation rather than merely a country.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How DARE you ask a question!

User: Is CP like the colbert report or serious?^img, Ken's Answer: Your one edit was not to an article therefor unproductive!^img--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

..ummm, that's actually a reasonable block of an obvious troll. Why don't you take a walk, maybe pick up the newspaper and go have a coffee or something? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 15:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on him, if I hadn't found CP through RW I wouldn't have wasted a second thinking it was serious. And even today I'm not all that sure. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it was an obvious troll, i just found the reason funny. Also, who the fuck reads a newspaper?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the first time.^img Really.^img --★uːʤɱ pervert 16:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberals read newspapers, that's who! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been on cp in years -- but is there anyone left who *ISN"T* and obvious troll?--GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 16:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently James and HP, maybe, And august.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Man, it's kinda sad when James Wilson is the only legit guy left. I dunno bout HP; he did some classic parody calling Jon Stewart a racist after the Cain thing.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect AugustO is a concern troll. Karatard may be another Bugler. I don't think Ken is, simply because the amount of time he spends on CP, and Andy himself... Well if it wasn't for the fact he is Phyllis Schlafly's son, I'd be convinced he was a deep cover lie-brul -- 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone should really go put the tumbleweed graphic on CP's community portal. Nice community you have going there Kendoll & co. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect AugustO is a concern troll. I think there is a point were every intelligent editor thinks: OMG, he tries to pass his shit to pupils. At first, those editors are just concerned editors, but after a while of being ignored and/or blocked (and I think that AugustO got his share), they become more and more trollish. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

AugustO wouldn't be a concern troll if the sysops and Andy actually listened and responded in good faith. Just like RonLar (RIP, never forget), they just ignored him until his comments left behind became such an embarrassment they had to ban him. Fortunately for August, he's only managed to stay afloat because of Ed's flippy-floppyness. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How much do we really know about the internal dynamics of the Schlafly family? It must be difficult for a grown man who graduated with honers from Harvard Law to be so thoroughly overshadowed by his second tier "has been" mother. Who knows what a deep pool of seething resentment could produce? Perhaps Andy is one of the greatest deep cover parodists of all time. Infoseek (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But more likely he's just an unintelligent, bigoted cock. --Longbow (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Given Andy's involvement in the tea baggers trying to recall Robert Menendez, it does seem he actually believes all the shit he excretes down teh intertubes. -- 09:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is just so strangely esoteric though. I can understand him going after evolution but relativity? And why is a good Catholic boy producing a conservative version of the bible? How did someone who graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard Law get to be this stupid? Infoseek (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Kendoll echo chamber

Exciting news^img! screams Kendoll. Of course the "internet radio show" he's talking about is just shlockofgoat's babbling. And the exciting news? That "someone" is going FULL TIME! with the question evolution campaign (well, or so I surmised. Mr. Goat didn't seem all that excited. It was however the only thing that qualified as news.) Who would that mystery person be? I'll give you one guess. If you guessed anyone other than Kendoll, go award yourself a kick in the head.

That's the question evolution "campaign" in a nutshell. Two nutters bouncing back and forth between each other. Exciting news! I'm reporting that Goat is reporting that I'll be stepping up my efforts at writing stupid dribble on CP. Evilution will soon be destroyed! Look at the blog that I write! Isn't it awesome? I'm going to quote the blog in full in the articles I write on CP! It's really quite sad. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

He actually slipped up and called CP a blog^img as well. --Longbow (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that's just because he copied his er, I mean "a question evolution campaign activist's" blog post verbatim from the shlockofgoat blog. He's not even trying any more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I just read the full time thing as meaning either Ken is going to try harder to get our attention (because who else is paying attention?) As we been ignoring all his front page postings the last few days, or Shock lost his job. If its the latter, his "commitment" will have to be between all those hours he spends playing Battlefield 3; the latter clearly a higher priority judging from his recent video list.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Animated graphic taken from the blog post Question evolution! campaign volunteer recruitment drive is in gear and it will grind up atheism into a fine pulp.^img Riting skilz, duz he have 'em? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I was reading through the essay and I think it sounds interesting if you flip the script. "On November 12, 2010, a Question creationism! campaign advocate wrote in a blog post entitled Question creationism! campaign volunteer recruitment drive is in gear and it will grind up religion into a fine pulp: We are engaged in a significant recruiting drive for more Question creationism! campaign volunteers. A few days ago two American Question creationism! campaign volunteers were added. One of them is a writer and the other volunteer is extremely enthusiastic and wants to volunteer a whole lot of volunteer hours. Today, we will be working on recruiting two more excellent volunteers. One of our initial goals is that we would like to see the Question creationism! campaign have a very active volunteer in every state/province in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa." How many of you want to volunteer? Infoseek (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kenny Boy and "Magic"

To quote the nutcase: Magic shows are better than atheism. With magic shows it at least takes a hat and a magician to create a rabbit.^img Did nobody break the news about the rabbit in the hat to him? I don't think I ever saw it on one of those "Magics Greatest Secrets Revealed" shows, but still. Maybe he also thinks quarters grow behind his ear?

Also, God vs The Atheist Nerd? Nerd wins by forefit. 8) --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So according to ken the thing that makes atheism so silly compared to Christianity is while atheists have "nothing creating the universe" (despite the big bang being the predominant theory), Christianity has a Deity doing the exact same thing (and is actually creating it from nothing) and therefor its more logical and respectable... what?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. ...aren't you a YEC? Senator Harrison (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Did i say mine made more sense then the alternative of science?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ken's been reading this^img, hi Ken!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Kenny boy likes us mocking his child like belief in magic, he went and deleated the 7 or 8 edits about the rabbit and the hat.--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that Mikalos, but it seems like you have a contradictory position. Like you believe something despite knowing it's dumb. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not teaching science, am I?

Andy is informed that scientists use another definition of nation-state than he. His reply^img:

“”August, the "rest of the scientific world uses an other concept" (emphasis added)?? I didn't think this issue was a matter of science!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

.....wait, is he STILL trying to redefine a technical term of the subject he is supposed to be teaching? *facepalms* --Sid (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well now that the bogeyman "science" has been invoked to define a word, Andy will dig in his heels and resist all attempts to persuade him that his own personal definition is wrong. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Science as in historical science. It isn't a dancing class, is it?^img *LOL* larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"August, after a few days' reflection I think Aschlafly's insights on the matter are logical and sound; the nation-state is an obvious and logical outgrowth of the city-state, working on a larger scale; moreover, ideas like shared language, culture, religion, and collective identity that are central to the divisive and selfish liberal notions about what a "nation" is are less important than a shared love of country, which was obviously the case among the Ukraninans, Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns, Estonians, Belorussians, Georgians, Kazaks, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, and other peoples who all shared a sense of loyalty to the czar and Moscow. Open your mind--we should be trying to do better than to accommodate liberal state schools and professor values here. ScottDG 11:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

Brilliant! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ScottDG cuts through bullshit and shows patience

See this discussion^img the sun being a problem for evolutionists. Perfect example of why Ken wouldn't last two minutes in a serious discussion, and not even Kara's help can save him. Of course, we all know that this can't end well. --Sid (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

lovely! Scream!! (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Superb. Well done Scott. The Real James Brown (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Love that part at the end where he shrugs off ken doll's rant and goes right back to the sun. Rock On Scott.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer the kvestion mister Konservative! It really is ace! Even more so on second reading. Scream!! (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the heart to check how any edits it took Ken to lay that big a shit. Lol he's talking about logical fallacies when he's not just dragging goalposts around but affirmatively misrepresenting the substance of the discussion itself. But I'm sure in his head he's an intellectual heavyweight dispassionately savaging an atheist evolutionist. And eek Karaturd, lay off the ether in the morning. It's even more filled with hate than you are. I know you're disgusted at having been called out on throwing in with another incompetent making bizarre unsupportable claims about shit he apparently knows nothing about. I would be too. How dare they insist on intellectual rigor when your wishful hand waving provides such comforting answers?! I'm outraged right there with you buddy! 14:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I enjoyed that. X Stickman (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is being pretty classic. He's disgusted that Scott isn't scouring journals for evidence for Karajou's unsourced beliefs. And now he's declared the debate over because Scott admitted to not being an evolutionary biologist by trade. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, staying on topic is always a problem. Sometimes, it is the natural drift off of a subject, but sometimes, like with the "sun", it is a deliberate effort to deflect attention from something that someone does not want to talk about. Well done Scott. Keep on truckin' Jimaginator (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I realise it's just a new user who entered the discussion (which Karajou can quickly silence with "I'm suspicious of a new user who joins just to post on a talk page") but this reply^img is great. άλφα^Ταλκ 17:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply by a new user? What reply?^img What new user?^img --Sid (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't they bring in 'The Sun has got his hat on' as part of the discussion? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Karajou isn't going to like this^img. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, a parodist took care of it^img. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Keep it up Scott! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 01:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

One problem with what BiologyGraduate said though: The inverse square law doesn't make a 25% drop in sunlight at Sun into something other than a 25% drop at Earth. The relevant mechanic is the Earth's blackbody radiation, which is quartic with respect to temperature. Therefore, 25% less sunlight would result (to a simple approximation) in Earth's temperature being about 7% (20 degrees C) cooler. That's chilly, but not enough to kill all life. Adding climate dynamics, that's probably enough to put the Earth into a Hoth-like global freeze, but life seems to have survived later deep freezes. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I like how you took a very serious explanation of the inverse square law and blackbody radiation and then at the end threw in Hoth there so we'd all understand you. WeaselNation (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Steve Jobs valued design. ... GOD! GOD! GOD! GOD! GOD!"

Andy is getting more desperate to connect Steve Jobs with God.^img This one seriously came out of left field, given its build-up. --Sid (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

....................(╯°㉨°）╯︵ ˙ʎpuɐ --Dumpling (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

...*is still laughing after a full minute* --Sid (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy's stretching the ID link like a bungee cord. Of course nature itself makes wide use of 'plywood backs' as gilding the lily is a waste of resources. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Its obvious. Steve Jobs is a success, a self-made man, a billionaire who's wealth was built on capitalistic innovation; he has to be A) Conservative and B) Religious (in the right religion of course), otherwise Andy's pet theory that liberals and atheists (or the religious outside of Judeo-Christianity) are all lazy and never bring forth anything worthwhile goes up in smoke. Of course the theory is bunk built solely on bigotry and jealousy, but the #1 rule of Conservapedia is "Andy is never wrong".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's christian capitalism, nothing more. Those who are saved are rich and hard working, because god is with them, while those who arent are poor because gods blessings are not with them--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He is dead so Andy just has to screw up history (which Mr. Nation-State is great at) and he never has to worry about another current event happening which contradicts him. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to tell andy that Jobs is was a buddhist? He didn't believe in any god andy knows... so why the "found god late in life????"GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the same man who says orwell was a conservative--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Jesus, the Founding Fathers, Lincoln and Martin Luther King. --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's Calvinism in a nutshell. Worse, those same people who are not blessed and thus poor will also be tossed into Hell because their were not among "the elect" in accordance to the great cosmic coin flip. I see how such a dogma would appeal to the prideful like Andy, it justifies every arrogant thing he believes about himself and those he deems as "the enemy", even if its contrary to Catholicism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives amuse me.

Yes yes, let's make one of our major points about health care reform being unconstitutional, the fact that obama is not president. Despite that oath he took a few years back. Sure, that argument will go over well, with a USSC trying to maintain some appearance of being non-partisan. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 21:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but they botched the oath, so Obama isn't really president. And Ohio's not really a state, so I don't have to pay taxes! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Muslim-athiest kenyan-indonesian nazi-communistic liars like obama cannot possibly be president!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah-ah-a-a-a-a-a!! But you don't have to have him as a President if you don't want to! ^moral 22:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone got a link?--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

it's in the WGOCp link... near the top. Conservatives say the wrong case is off to the supremes. --GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I had miss read, I thought you were talking about Conservative (singular, not plural). My bad.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No! No! No! They're past the birth certificate. (Read the article.) Obama is not a natural-born citizen even if he were born in Hawaii. Why. Because the "natural" means "born to parents, neither of whom could possibly owe allegiance to The Crown." I know. Your dictionary doesn't define "natural" that way. But the Conservative Christian Founding Fathers used "natural" that way all the time. That's why George III was called an "unnatural sod" by John Quincy Adams, the anti-slavery Conservative Christian Founding Son. Don't you guys read stuff? Whoover (talk)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event the Supremes did decide Obama was ineligible to be President, there is no way in Hades they'd declare the HCRA unconstitutional simply on that basis, because that leads to every act he's done as President being unconstitutional, and that would lead to utter chaos. They're far more likely to say something "he can no longer serve, but the election was held in good faith and duly certified by the Congress, so his actions have legal standing." That' actually one thing to ask a birther Congress-critter, if they were in Congress in 2009 -- why did they vote to certify the electoral college results if Obama's citizenship was in doubt? MDB (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sundrew Tschlaflu

While I like the WIGO, the name just hasn't been working for me, so I'd like to offer a suggestion: "Son Shrew". Didn't realize how appropriate that is until I saw that Merriam Webster considers a shrew to be "an ill-tempered scolding woman". --DinsdaleP (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And-Tzu?--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I fucking loved the name to bits. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think people will 'get' Son Shrew. And-Tsu is better bit still not great. I agree that Sundrew Tschlaflu is a bit of a mouthful but I think that makes it all the more amusing ;) ^{ONE / TALK} 09:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the shitty wigo's people.

Let's get serious please. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there just isn't that much going on at Conservapedia lately. Fallacy (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IP lookup reports this BoN as being from Buffalo NY? Surely it can't be our Kenny? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Shitty WIGO's are better than no WIGO's at all. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I can't see Kenny boy saying "shitty" without his mummy washing his mouth out with soap. --PsyGremlinFale! 08:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats the thing, Kenny boy didn't say it, he TYPED it. That is at best a quick dip in scalding water.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Something sinister afoot

[Warning - Only tangentially related to Conservapedia]

For the past couple of days Karajou* has sat at the very top of my suggested friends list on facebook.

I cannot tell you how disturbing it has been. For a couple of reasons.

First of all, Karajou??? Friends??? Karajou???? and me?????

Secondly, what the hell am I doing on my computer(s) that allows facebook to link my account with his?

(*Note that his facebook account is, of course, in his real name which I have not employed here, although I suspect everyone probably knows it anyway).

On a slightly lighter note, PJR has also appeared there and Uncle Ed.

Please help me. --Horace (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I had LearnTogether pop up in mine yesterday. I've also had Kara and Terry Wobblebottom turn up. And Uncle Ed never accepted my friend request. I'm devastated. It's probably because we're on the same pages - either the CP or RW groups. PsyGremlinSiarad! 03:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

Coming back today, I found that since last night, a lot of the recent ratings for these articles have gone through the floor, the crust, and a bit of the mantle as well. Does that happen often or something? (I'm here all week) --Veni, Vidi, Feci (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the wigos are getting trolled with downvotes. They normally get higher ratings than I would give them, and now they're getting far lower ratings than I would give them. Now I'm no calibrated scientific instrument of humour, but my anecdote gives me reason to believe something sinister is going on. So what shall we do about it? I vote absolutely nothing. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes ago, Nx arranged for an api for the wigos which allows to look on the history of the votes (without identifying the voters, of course). I haven't used it as intentioned yet, but here are some interesting insights:

• for wigo4873 (Sun Tzu) you find some 20 consecutive negative votes on Nov 15, 2011, starting at 2:30h GMT and ending 3:30h GMT. Such a run is quite improbable to happen by the interaction of independent agents, given that there are only 86 votes in total and roughly half of them negative.
• and you find similar runs in other wigos during the same time (have a look at wigo4787 or wigo4788)

Though some of the last wigos weren't really brilliant, they aren't as crappy as it seems by looking on the votes: someone with enough time on his (or her or their - could by a mystery man person) hands probably used a couple of tor-nodes to vote the last wigos down. The timing indicates that this was done not by an automatized process but manually, so it was most likely a rather tedious task.

So what shall we do about it? I vote absolutely nothing. Seconded.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Negative voting

You can see that the voting trend over a time period is linear which indicates a systematic downvoting by one person. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Um what? - π 11:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you naturally stupid or do use chemicals? The regularity of the voting indicates someone repeatedly entering votes with small variations in time because they are doing it manually rather than with a bot. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that sounds rude. I didn't mean to be. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The vertical axis is suppose to represent down votes? - π 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a very odd pattern in the down-voting. The user down-votes the first three wigos on the first IP, then the same three wigos on the second IP, then finishes off the rest of the wigos on the first IP. From then on, the user does the first three wigos on IP n+1 before doing the rest of the wigos on IP n. It's an odd method. But the time differences definitely suggest it was done manually: the order of the wigos being downvoted (and IPs being used) sometimes switches, the gap between downvotes varies wildly, and sometimes he misses and gives a wigo an upvote. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the user did this solidly for 20 minutes with a 30-second break every 6 downvotes, then took a 40 minute rest before downvoting another 20 times. Another attack occurred about 4 hours later on some older wigos, but I can't be arsed to analyse them. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the IP information? Is it something not shown in LArron's links? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't; the best I can do is assume that each wigo can only have one vote per IP and that the user does as many votes with one IP as possible before switching to another. But since some wigos get voted on twice before other wigoes get voted on at all, the IP switch must come first. Not really sure how he's doing it. Multiple tabs in different proxies? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am outraged by this behaviour. Outraged I tells you. I vote we do absolutely nothing. StarFish (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is really bizzare, It's not like this is youtube where a downvote affects search listings, this person is trying to fake a consensus in our community. I agree that the first action we should undergo is to do fuck-all, however if someone gets bored perhaps a second voting system which only accepts votes from logged in editors with X number of edits would solve the stupid problem. It would be the end of blockbuster WIGOs though... --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions - I can think of a person who is (a) suitably motivated and (b) sufficiently RW obsessed to be doing this. Bad Faith (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's dead. ^bomination 13:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC/outdent) Indeed, over the last two weeks someone tried to shatter our fragile egos by voting the wigos down using various IPs (only one vote per IP is allowed...): in the list of votes (which doesn't include the IPs), this shows as a number of negative votes over a very short time each for a different wigo - while a crappy wigo results in a string of negative votes for this wigo alone. We should be aware of this behaviour (does it count as RationalWiki obsessive compulsive disorder?), but as long it is done manually, we can ignore it.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's ego is suitably bruised to care enough, then it's just a case of copy pasting, hiding the originals and moving the numbers all up. Reset the entire lot. ^postate 14:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of the votes? If somebody dislikes the WIGO they tend to bring it up here anyways, or delete it.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there...Ken did it. I base that on absolutly nothing. Now where did I leave the tinfoil...--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My first guess was Ken and it was also based on nothing. However, I guess someone could take a look at his CP edits and compare that to when the down voting occurred. It'd be a bit above nothing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be cabalists who want to see CP eradicated from the site. It's no surprise this comes up around the time of the butthurt from reordering the wigonav. Pi? Stabby? ADK? Nx herself? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I just find it odd that someone would devote this much time an effort to something that isn't really pissing anyone off, more just baffling us. WeaselNation (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My most serious guess would be Jpatt. He has the time and hate and is surely many, many times smarter than Karajou. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should reset the WIGOs just to make this person's time and effort a waste (well, more of a waste). --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My left sock is smarter than Karajou. I'd go for JPatt too, preferably with a cleaver. Scream!! (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Handy edit button #1, aka The Witch Hunt

This is how I see it:

• Kendoll: Obsessed enough, definitely. But this isn't his style of attack, unless it's a new Operation which significantly departs from the usual strategy of spamming the internet with copypasted words. And given how bad he is at operating even the most basic functions of a Wiki, I very much doubt he could operate several proxies so deftly. Given how much time he spends at CP though, there's an opportunity for a little unearthing of evidence: did Kendoll make an edit during the vote-spamming sprees? If he did, it's not him.
• Jpratt: The guy's as dumb as a brick. It ain't him.
• Karajerk: We know from The Birdening of CP that Karajou is more than prepared to spend hours of free time performing a repetitive task for no gain whatsoever. He also hates RW enough to relish the pettiest point-scoring. It's him. It's definitely him.

^{ONE / TALK} 16:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Although... an outstanding question is: Who is the BoN from Buffalo NY who decided to come by and accuse RW of too many shitty wigos? Ken hails from Buffalo, but it's not his style of writing and JPatt is usually the only one willing to make BoN edits here. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PROTIP: Paranoid ramblings about what real people are doing with/about/to a completely inconsequential feature of a completely obscure and unimportant website are the hallmark of sad lonely people with completely bent-out-of-shape priorities. Move along folks. Nothing to see here. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What can I say, speculation is fun :) ^{ONE / TALK} 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to feed the paranoia

a few of the last wigos...

Since Nov 12 a couple of wigos were voted down simultaneously - whether they were crap (wigo 4781: The conservative definition of spamming external links is references), mediocre (wigo 4783: Sundrew Tschlaflu's Art of Wiki-War), or quite good (wigo 4782: If it wasn't for God, we would have been hit by an asteroid by now!) --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to have WIGO voting then it should mean something. I would suggest that it should at least be restricted to registered editors. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I could care less. My only beef is that the best-of WIGOs will be stagnated. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gah. Couldn't. COULDN'T CARE LESS. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I could care less about grammatical correctiveness! I COULD CARE LESS! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not even grammar, it's bloody common sense. It really is one of the most stupid of Americanisms. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you no respect for the WIGO process? Its sanctity is being impugned by these foul attacks. I intend to get in contact with the FBI, these cyber attacks could be considered domestic terrorism. Infoseek (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of getting flamed, why does any of the above matter? Why not just ignore it? The amount of text above suggests that: a. RW editors are behaving like CPers that have gotten punked and b. Isn't ignoring it the best policy anyway? IMHO Jimaginator (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• It's an interesting phenomenon, and should be observed for it's own sake...
• I think most of us are against taking action, however..
• it may discourage editors/IPs when "their" wigos are voted down - OTOH, knowing that this is due to some idiot, they may be not that disappointed.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you make some good points. Jimaginator (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, this is for the Cinncinnati FBI Office. No doubt in my mind. DogP (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's nobody from CP. It's probably some jerk here wanting to stick it to editors he doesn't like by voting down their WIGOs. We can be awful petty sometimes--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Very noble of you to own up like that. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We now have a new form of idle amusement - it seems there's another vote-down spree going on. Hurray! I'm mixing the drinks and pulling up a chair. DogP (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

monthly votes and new wigos

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

ROB! SMITH! RETURNS!

What the shit.^img --Sid (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

After getting walloped on Ameriwiki for being a dick and realizing he gets no respect around here he has to go back to the only place he had any power. Ace^ace 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob is an admin at AW and I am surprised at the fact assfly let him back in.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but he got completely dicked on and received a telling off by the owner for using his bully boy tactics. Ace^ace 21:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and wasn't he banned for 3 days or something? (The owner also told off Uncle Ed.) I bet his CP rebirth will be short lived and he'll bring his ass back to AW.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one AW sysop to another, if he doesn't start contributing I'm going to nominate that he gets busted back to Trusted Editor. - SamC 178.1.100.50 (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "back".^img He just got unblocked, doesn't mean he'll actually edit. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but he must of requested it. Ace^ace 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Because Andy never pulls stuff out of his ass blocking and unblocking? --★uːʤɱ libertarian 21:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking, yes. Ace^ace 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Rob learned his lesson... don't criticize CP sysops. It'd be really funny to see him go back editing after all the shit he's said here about CP. I'm also wondering if Andy realized just how badly he needs minions to do the dirty work. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ken's Andy's bitch again.^img --★uːʤɱ socialist 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know why Ken wants to put aside past differences after all that stuff Rob said about him. If I were Ken I'd tell Rob to go fuck himself. Garçon^coffee! 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Geezuz you guys are slow. [5][6] nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

classic Rob, links that have no meaning to the current conversation and an accusation that we are "slow" (because for some reason we have all been interested in findign out what happened to him). Ace^ace 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say that the only reason he requested to be unblocked at CP is so he can prove he wrote whatever shite he's trying to palm off on wikipedia. Since me and probably most people here don't stalk CP sysops at places other than CP, it isn't terribly surprising we don't know these things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are, you will need to edit your user page at Conservapedia to confirm that you are the sole author of this content that you copied. Otherwise it will be deleted. - Dcoetzee. Please try to read, it isn't all that hard. --★uːʤɱ pervert 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this is all terribly unnecessary (in my eyes) - Rob confirmed his identity eons ago (at latest during the epic clusterfuck last year or so), and said identification was well accepted at the time. Seriously, he could've just pointed at the old record and said "There is your proof - I'm banned at CP because they're idiots, so this will have to do." Alternatively, he could've asked Ed or Geo to verify his identity for him. --Sid (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The risk here was any longterm contributor to Conservapedia risked having all CP article content they created and copy pasted to WP blacklisted -- something I'd think CP critics would seize upon to warn off potential contributors to CP. Fortunately, Andy recognized the seriousness of the situation. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But, CP content is shit, and people should be blacklisted for putting it anywhere else, right? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Some are, but my contribs to WP are good as gold. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 23:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll bet. Not as good as the Flying Kitty, though. THAT was gold. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what you've been doing lately. Attending the Ed Poor school of wiki ego inflation. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? The problem (and connected criticism) still stands, I think: (1) CP's copyright policy is not compatible with WP's policy. (2) You can copypaste your own stuff, but the moment you are banned (which, uh, pretty much everybody except for the Senior Administrators is sooner or later), your user page is nuked, and you cannot verify your identity anymore, making your copypasted stuff open to attack. What exactly did you achieve other than saving your personal pet articles? --Sid (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. And Andy saw that listening to Ken & Karajou has disastrous results for bona fide contributors of both projects. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 00:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a new section for this below because that intrigues me. --Sid (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

He's back! Good luck at CP mon, you're gonna need it.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

From Nobs' WP link - but the inability to see the history of the article is likely to be a deal-killer. Classic! Steven Kavanagh (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In which I say, "Rob, you were right and I was wrong".

Rob, you were right and I was wrong. Have fun. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

fixed--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In which I say, "Rob, you're a massive tool for wanting to associate yourself with emotionally deranged, disgusting mental midgets like Andy, Ken and Karajou, but it doesn't surprise me. Because you ARE a massive tool."

Yes, yes you are. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Kinda funny that you go out of your way to verify that you were indeed a Senior Administrator at a site that is currently known primarily for opposing relativity and for rambling about fat atheists, Rob. If I were you, I would've thanked the heavens for this chance for a cover-up to leave. ;) --Sid (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have links to Rob getting smacked around on A-wiki? I could use some cheap laughs. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure but it was my doing. It felt good. Ace^ace 23:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

His talkpage [7] His ban--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Andy saw that listening to Ken & Karajou has disastrous results for bona fide contributors of both projects"

(Headline taken from Rob's recent reply.) Please do elaborate, Rob! I believe we're all genuinely interested in how Andy plans to turn around the ship! And how will your approach be different from last time? Is anybody backing you now? Did you get Andy's promise to actually do something the next time you call out Ken on his dickishness? You have our interest - now do something with it! --Sid (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't believe it was possible, but if he's seriously going to have another go at reforming CP he's more of an idiot than I'd previously given him credit for. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That part above where I said that you were right and I was wrong? I take it back. You're an idiot, Smith. You're never right. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

he is funny to laugh at. Ace^ace 01:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, if only Rob was TK, he'd have his rights back in a flash. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, they're big on resurrection over there, natch... 173.10.105.29 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's look what happened. Users like RJensen or myself cut and paste our contribs from one wiki to another. Andy listened to Ken and Karajou who resisted sysop reform and initiate reprisal blocks for personal reasons. Wikipedia blacklists content cut and pasted from Conservapedia based on alleged incompatibility between the two wiki's copyright policies. If the user is blocked at CP, he/she can't grant permission to use content they retain some rights to. This is a disincentive to recruiting new editors for Conservapedia -- the fact that they may be blocked anytime arbitrarily by Ken & Karajou because Ken or Karajou's feelings are hurt, and a history of several years of constructive editing is lost not only at Conservapedia, but then blacklisted from Wikipedia, no matter how scholarly or well-researched. Andy now knows this. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 18:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sooooo just so we're all on the same page: You are going to try to initiate sysop and policy reform again? --Sid (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Not on the wiki -- that would be pointless. I'll continue using WIGO, CP related entries at RW, Wikipedia, articles on Conservapedia at Ameriwiki, and the CP private discussion list. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"This is a disincentive to recruiting new editors for Conservapedia." How many good-faith editors producing quality articles on topics other than Elvis showed up this year? Whatever that number is, for CP to create a real encyclopedia, it should probably draw that many in a week, or even in a day. "the fact that they may be blocked anytime arbitrarily by Ken & Karajou because Ken or Karajou's feelings are hurt..." It's been like that since 2007. Nothing to see here. "Andy now knows this." And nothing will change as a result. Because Andy is neither bright enough nor brave enough to do what he needs to do. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

disincentive : ammo for critics pinpointing the problem & need for sysop reform.

nothing to see; add in the fact editors contributions are blacklisted at Wikipedia.

nothing will change; Andy rescinding problematic sysops is a change. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

" Andy rescinding problematic sysops is a change...." Are Karajou or Ken going to lose their rights anytime soon? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have another release of my private emails with TK from the period 4/16-17/10 which is not in Conservaleaks; it began with an email from Trent to Andy over copyright violations on the Schlalfy Brewery article. I am currently redacting Andy &nd Karajou's messages who also were party. I forwarded the thread to Karajou some weeks ago and notified him I would make public the contents that belong to me (which I legally can, Karajou). I've yet to hear back from him. Conservaleaks does not contain a thread Karajou started entitled, "Minor victory", which was part of the thread. This occurred at the time of the Spring Wikipedia Offensive. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Was that meant as a response to my last post? Are you taking your meds? what the fuck are you going on about? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I've been volunteering cleaning up feces and excrement in the park that the Occupy Albuquerque rioters left behind; the smell of dope, alcohol, and mouthwash (here in Albuquerque the winos drink mouthwaah as that's all the can afford) has left me a bit whoozy. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Our Corporate Masters must be so proud of you! Mouthwash is something our (Blessed) CM's tell us we need to be pure, it is a Sacrament, praise Proctor-Gamble! C®ackeЯ

Andy pwned.

capt'ed^{img — Unsigned, by: B♭maj7 / talk / contribs}

Bye Scott. First Kenny Boy, Now Andy Pants? I hear a banhammer winding up.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WIGO'd. MDB (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ptolemy redux

Okay, so earth isn't the center of the universe, and neither is the sun, but we're still remarkably special because our galaxy is the center of the universe^img. Yay! Phiwum (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And, since humans are the object of creation, I would guess we're at the center of the galaxy? Right? RIGHT?? I wonder how long until we get "The Local Group is at the center of all galaxy clusters" and then "The Virgo Supercluster is at the center of all superclusters" and then "Our Universe is at the center of the multiverse".
I think Carl Sagan said it best - "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." Carlaugust (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at those backtracking goalposts! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Read ind the actual post, it isn't as bad as their Moon one. They do backtrack from any actual geocentric belief (the Earth is at the center; the Earth is immovable) to the Milky Way merely being very near the center (not willing to say at the center because they are forced to acknowledge the Milky Way moves) and thus the universe is a galactocentric cosmos. They manage this leap of logic by misunderstanding redshift (which they don't truly accept) in order to massage their pride that somehow we are all special (well those who believe are special, the rest of the human race can go to hell, literally). Sagan correctly points out that no matter where you are in the cosmos, you will see galaxies moving away from you, and thus initially misinterpret yourself as the center; a conclusion built not on science, but on vanity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although the article referred to relates, not simply to red-shift, but to quantised red-shift. A slightly more sophisticated concept (which my reading of the WP article leads me to believe is misguided. Quelle suprise!) --Horace (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Now now, come along chaps. We ARE an important galaxy. After all, we are the future homerealm of the Imperium of Man! "Pro Imperium Hominem in Aeternium", et cetera ad infinitum. Just thought I'd throw that in there. It's on roughly the same level (although slightly more fun) as the logic which currently seems to be employed by Cardinal Schalfly and the American Inquisition... Ironclad (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL Warhammer 40K reference. Anyway what is really annoying about the article is the straw-man astronomer from about 600BC who insists there is only 3000 stars and bases his claim using an argument from authority fallacy with Jeremiah, in who's book says the stars cannot be numbered. The idea is to show the Bible is right (with its vague statement) and the astronomer (and thus mainstream science) is wrong, and thus unreliable and cannot be trusted. Of course they had to make a straw-man because no astronomer back then would have claimed there are only 3000 stars exactly, but state that they have cataloged around 3000 of them, as only 3000 are bright enough to catalog with any accuracy, they knew there were more.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

wigo-enumeration

I'd like to change the text on the top section on recent wigos from

POST NEXT ENTRY HERE. CHECK THE NUMBER OF THE PREVIOUS ONE BEFORE ADDING AN ENTRY. DO NOT REUSE A NUMBER OR LEAVE AN X IN PLACE!

to something like

POST NEXT ENTRY HERE. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE! OTHERWISE_ IF YOU INSIST ON ADDING THE votecp-TAG MANUALLY CHECK THE NUMBER OF THE PREVIOUS ONE BEFORE ADDING AN ENTRY. DO NOT REUSE A NUMBER OR LEAVE AN X IN PLACE!

Background: some of our editors felt compelled to add the tags manually, and of course, they miscalculated the successor of the biggest natural number already present: from wigo4359 we jumped to wigo4560 , and from wigo4679 to wgio4780.

This can be easily avoided by following the instructions on top of the edit page, so this should be made clear.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, I always presumed that RW editors should be able to count (I mean, it's only adding one) but evidently I'm completely wrong. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

perhaps it should be erased altogether? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How about:

HEY YOU! IF YOU FUCK UP THE WIGO NUMBER, YOU WILL BE BANNED FOREVER. YEAH, IT'S THAT IMPORTANT. It doesn't matter if it's a completely idle threat. Incidentally, do we have any stats on how many culprits are BoNs/newbies/oldies etc? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

Seriously, WTF?^img --★uːʤɱ socialist 17:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so strange about it. I think the process shouldn't be something that people need to request - maybe have it automatically turned off after 100 edits or something. -Lardashe

A few days ago we thought AusustO would be blocked and smeared in the usual modus operandi of CP, now he get's captcha rights and told he deserved it even while being a hiant pain in Andy's ass. Just seems weird. --★uːʤɱ pirate 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't that weird. Skipcaptcha is to hinder vandalism, and it's clear AugustO isn't a vandal. He'll get banned for 90/10, sure, but not for vandalism. DickTurpis (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At least he keeps to by annoying^img. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll helps those who help himself.

Further asserting control over Kendollpedia, he performs his own special necromancy on the long defunct blocking review panel^img. Unsurprisingly, the only reform he's interested in is doing away with no pseudonyms policy^img that he's been in violation of since forever. That's apparently the Conservative definition of applying rules consistently and fairly^img, doing away with rules you find personally inconvenient.

Any bets on whether Andy will knuckle under and abolish his long standing rule for the benefit of one lunatic? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is such a convenient rule, they will just continue to apply it unevenly. - π 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh well seeing as he has gone ahead and changed it anyway^img, nobody will give a shit as there is no one left to care. - π 02:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Conservative" always claimed protection by the grandfather clause. But this new "rule" "proposal" simply replaces "Ban all names that aren't first-name-last-initial" with "Ban all names that aren't first-name-last-initial that I don't approve of", turning it into yet another fuzzy and grey non-rule where sysops get to arbitrarily decide on a case-by-case basis without having to justify their reasoning. You know, just like the "trolling" ban excuse. --Sid (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Soaring heights of douchebaggery

Wow^img. That's about all there is to say about that. Yes, Kendoll, what a great accomplishment. You unilaterally made a change to the rules and Andy is too much of a coward to even rubberstamp it. Your "panel" ultimately consisted of you, and made a change that benefited you. Good job showing how much you care about anyone who isn't yourself. I'm sure you'll continue to bask in your acheivement long after everyone else has left Kendollpedia for good. By my count, you've got two sysop underlings left. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that reply caught my eye, too. I think it sums up Ken, Andy and CP's failure in the most concise way: Andy doesn't give a shit about how his blog is policed, Ken doesn't give a shit about people with less power/influence than him, and all of this leads to nobody giving a shit about CP. Yes, savor your victory, Ken; it says a lot more about you and the project than you can imagine. --Sid (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)