Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive268

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 30 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>, <267>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Contents

What the fuck kind of Catholic is Andy?[edit]

And why does he care about the King James Bible?img--68.230.64.189 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The kind of catholic who rewrote the damn bible.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It'd be really funny if we could get the Catholic Church to label Andy a heretic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The kind that honors Reagan more than the Pope. --ʤɱ secularist 01:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Or the kind that thinks George Washington was a saint. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey! That was me who trolled Andy into that!. Good times. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That was one of the most bizarre conversations I've ever read anywhere. First Washington was a saint, then he was only a saint in the church of Satanists... HAW? Senator Harrison (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

He's the kind of catholic whose rich mother is catholic, but who would prefer to be pope in his own church... larronsicut fur in nocte 07:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially given the anniversary was really back in May; way to be six months out of date with that statement Andy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm? There was a fair amount of coverage of its 400th anniversary in the UK at about a week ago. CS Miller (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There's been some debate as to whether Andy is still Catholic. I seem to remember that after the Haitian earthquake, Andy endorsed a tiny relief group that was affiliated with a protestant church located near his home, leading to speculation that's his church.
Plus, several of his stances (contempt for social justice, exteme hostility towards immigration, absolute rejection of evolution) conflict with mainstream Catholic thought. Not enough to make him a heretic or anything, but if he's a practiciing Catholic, he's as much a cafeteria Catholic as one who uses birth control. MDB (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy doesn't care about the KJV except for when he needs to make a cheap jibe. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 15:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I love CP's main page[edit]

It's just such a wonderful mish-mash of misery, gloom, bitchiness, bad language ("Seeking and Knowing God Resources") and inane complaints by Andy. Anybody coming across it for the first time could easily picture the site being run by emo kids, who cut themselves between edits.

There isn't a single positive story on the main page, except maybe for serial womaniser Newt heading Andy's list of Presidential candidates. Talk about a persecution complex. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"the site being run by emo kids, who cut themselves between edits." - Oh man, gigglesnort hard. I can just imagine Ken running to his mom, "Hey, mom! Check out how many edits I made today!" and showing off his arms. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Cutting yourself is for liberals. Conservatives would practice flagellation. As for emo... "I wish my lawn was emo. Then it would cut itself." MDB (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It isn't that they are emo, it is a combination of Endtime desires and hatred for America. The Endtimes desire is an old one, the idea they will be swept to glory, and more importantly, their enemies (real and perceived) are punished everlasting by their God for wronging them. The anti-Americanism comes from their desire to see America punished for the sin of electing Obama. They feel America should be ruined, not only as punishment for the people who dares not listen and elected not only a Muslim (or maybe its an Atheist) but a darkie to the White House, but also in the vain hopes they can rebuild a wrecked America in their image.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy and Relativity[edit]

Wow. Hubris. How must it feel to walk around every day thinking that you're a cutting-edge expert on several different topics. I have one area of expertise and I think I'm kinda okay at it. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy is the archetypal unskilled and unaware of it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 16:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Guys guys guys.... I think something's happening to me... I think, I think I'm having aaaugh, ahghg... I'm having an insight
1. Neutrinos travel faster than light.
2. Jesus healed a person remotely yet instantly.
Hypothesis: Jesus's miracles were mediated by neutrinos.
oh god there it is... quick! get Andy on the phone! ONE / TALK 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
As a good corollary of that theory, if you knew how far away Jesus was from the person he healed, you could calculate the speed of neutrinos (if they're going too fast, the man would have appeared healed before Jesus did it. Too slow, and the man would have appeared healed after Jesus did it.) Calculating the speed of a subatomic particle, all from one line of the Bible - this book really is amazing! Carlaugust (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy's addition to complete rewrite of Jpatt's news item reads so clumsily. "Conservapedia is proven right again: dimwitted liberals mocked Counterexamples to Relativity in August 2010, but once again Conservapedia has been proven right and liberals wrong." Conservapedia is right! Conservapedia is right! You're wrong! Uh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuhhhhh-nuhhhhh! Garçoncoffee! 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From his own goddamn source:

Jacques Martino, director of the French National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, who worked on the second experiment said that while this test was not a full confirmation, it did remove some of the potential systematic errors that may have occurred in the first one. "The search is not over," he said in a statement. "There are more checks of systematics currently under discussion."

Since this doesn't support Andy's bias and the guy saying it is the director of something French, I guess it can be ignored. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Relativity has been disproved, full stop. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Well even if neutrinos are shown conclusively to travel faster than light (which to this "evolutionist" would be so amazingly cool), it wouldn't "disprove relativity", it would falsify one constant in special relativity, that the speed of light is the absolute speed limit of the cosmos. It doesn't mean the entire theory is wrong, it means one part is wrong, that likely a new theory that will supersede special relativity will be developed, just as special relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics (but it didn't disprove all of Newtonian mechanics, most of which are still used in calculations in physics).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait, is Schlafly saying that SR is wrong because neutrinos (which were unknown in 1906) [apparently can ] travel faster than photons? Perhaps just a slight change of semantics is all that has happened? The "comosological constant" is not the speed of light but the speed of neutrinos? [Bonus internets for those who surmise that neutrinos bore through the aether allowing the slower and massless photons to be whisked along the resultant vacuum trails.] 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Well, there are two big problem in fixing relativity just by taking the universal speed limit (let's call it v) to be the speed of neutrinos instead of the speed of light. First off, if something travels with speed v it will experiences no passage of time (its proper time is zero). Since neutrinos undergo oscillation that suggests they do experience time and hence aren't travelling at v. Second, according to relativity, something would travel at v if and only if it is massless. Now, the photon is a spin-1 particle. Massless spin-1 particles have two polarization states (actually, all massless particles with nonzero spin have two states) and massive spin-1 particles have 3 polarization states. What we see is that photons have two states, which suggest they're massless, which would mean they are travelling the speed limit. So if neutrinos are found to travel faster than light (which, again, I doubt is the case) fixing the theory isn't going to be straightforward. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I still say it's probably some systematic error (this second experiment only ruled out some of them). It'd be very interesting if it does turn out that there is a violation of relativity. Also, very weird since we haven't observed neutrinos going faster than c before. Still, I doubt that's what they'll find. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Will Andy's head explode if relativity is proved wrong (and therefore the Bible right) by atheistic liberal Yurop? Ajkgordon (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I like how the relativity page on CP opens with saying it's wrongimg even before it explains what relativity is. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

CP gets trashed in the strangest places...[edit]

Like the Planet Rugby forums. Best comment: "This 'lecture' on WWII is a good example. I would have thought this was a 10 year olds homework essay or something. The guy who runs this site is obviously not too smart (along with batshit crazy)." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy and St. Hoyle[edit]

Apparently encouraged by the whole relativity stuff, Andy has been on a minor binge to rant about the Nobel Prize and to worship his all-time-favorite scientist, Fred Hoyle: "Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) is considered the greatest British physicist of the 20th century"img

See, this is why Wikipedia's rules aren't so stupid: On WP, people would be all over this, going "Citation needed" or "Says who?". On CP, it was added by Andy, so it's absolute and unquestionable truth.

Making things more interesting, googling for greatest British physicist of the 20th century Hoyle gives CP's Homeschooling article as the #1 result, where pretty much the same line had been added...img by Andy. --Sid (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny since the expanding universe of the Big bang is more creationist friendly than Hoyle's Steady State universe, as the former at least says there is a beginning.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the greatest British physicist of the 20th century would be Paul Dirac. He was voted 8th greatest physicist of all time by leading physicists. Of course, his eponymous equation is relativistic, so I guess he can't be great. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Night Jaguar, Paul Dirac was not an evolutionary relativist, and his ideals were in line with those at Conservapedia. There is substantial support for this HERE and HERE.Lagrandbite (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Andy likes Hoyle because he's a converted atheist and he laid the groundwork for modern Intelligent Design. --Roofus (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of Lagrandbite's post. An attempt at humour? Anyway, it brings me to an interesting point. Were he alive today Dirac would be called a "new" atheist, which just goes to show you there's nothing particularly "new" about them. Also, Pauli famously said of Dirac's views on religion: There is no God and Paul Dirac is His prophet. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual, Andy's unfounded assertions are laughed at and curb-stomped in the article's talkpage, expectedly with no result other than Andy showing how far he'll go to push his ideals. Good 2008 lulz. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

JPratt's novel blocking logic[edit]

JPratt seems to have invented something new in blocking people from CP. Now you can not only be blocked for pointing out idiocy, looking at a sysop funny, or just because Ed or Karajou are having a bad day. Now people are being blocked for signing up after midnight in the country where they live. What the hell is it with these people at CP? It seems to have filtered out the worst of the internet all in to one tiny, extremely concentrated group. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if those guys made some offensive posts that have since been oversighted. (Although they were blocked within minutes of account creation.) If not, JPatt's a moron. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh shit approval ratings![edit]

Andy: Obama's approval ratings for a group that is traditional conservative anyways and a term that can mean two different areas (one that is very conservative) is both news worthy and important!img--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well they can't admit that Obama's approval ratings have gone up in the face of those lunatics running for GOP, and the do nothing congress. Lesser of 9 evils I suppose--Thunderstruck (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get my coat.[edit]

I see  K e n  D o l l  is taking us on a whistlestop tour of the solar system. The latest stop is at Saturnimg. Anyone else looking forward to "Why is Uranus a problem for evolutionists"? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary astronomers? Brilliant. Is that going to be the adjective for everything he doesn't like from now on? My God, Ken. Think of the possibilities! Evolutionary geologists. Evolutionary environmentalists. Evolutionary liberals. Evolutionary homosexuals. Evolutionary bestiality. I think he's won, chaps. Turn off the internet. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I've seen YECs use 'evolutionists' to mean 'post-enlightenment scientific revolution scientists, no matter what their speciality is'. CS Miller (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
He is so desperately trying to win our attention, its adorable.. Well not really. I tuned out as soon as I read that same old creationist canard that insists we all in astronomy believe that Saturn's rings are as old as the planet, no one says that except creationist created strawmen. If they can't get that right, why should I or anyone else bother with the rest of the article?-BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That is... just pitiable. Kendoll really does have no idea of basic gravity, orbital dynamics or even basic bloody chemistry does he? I think he makes it up as he goes along. Hey! Kendoll! The universe is OLD. Not 6,000 years old, billions of years old. Yes, I know that large numbers make your brain hurt. Suck it up. Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The source is gold:
The standard evolutionary astronomy model contradicts the Bible in almost every way possible. Therefore, we know that the evolutionary model can’t be true. As the Word of God, the Bible stands on its own authority, contradictory accounts are wrong by definition
And they wonder why most people just shake their head at Creationism... --Sid (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
(emphasis mine) This condemns them automatically. You know that any skepticism they present can never be sincere based on this statement alone. Any science they attempt is automatically suspect because they will obscure, downplay, falsify, and hide any facts that contradicts their dogma no matter how well supported said facts are.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Ken displays the same kind of intellectual sloth that PJR does: "It's on Creation.com/CMI, therefore it must be true! I don't have to think for myself." Then again, expecting Ken to think is taking things a bit too far. That's why the coward won't debate - he won't be allowed to copy/paste drivel from CMI. Countdown to red telephone in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinHable! 13:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Is an 'evolutionary evolutionismist' a thing, I wonder? Use it Ken, use it! Carlaugust (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As everyone knows, Saturn's rings were formed by the flapping of robotic flying unicorn wings. I triple dog dare you to prove me wrong! Jimaginator (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

^Cooler than expected. By the Rule of Wishful Thinking, this suddenly seems plausible. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
That line of reasoning always cracks me up. "The bible says this so that must be wrong because the bible is always right!" Ok. The bible doesn't mention guns, voting, planes, trains, automobiles, television sets, lingerie or sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation. Does that mean that they all should be banned? Argh, I'm going to watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI Darkmind1970 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Pedantic point: the Bible does mention recreational sex, postively. It's what Song of Solomon is about. (Including a passage which I described as saying "why don't we go do it in the garden?") MDB (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That's sloppy thinking Darkmind, no creationist or fundamentalist or theologian makes the claim that if something simply isn't mentioned in the Bible, then such things should not be allowed. What such people claim is if something contradicts the dogma of, or claim within the Bible, then whatever contradicts is wrong because the Bible is automatically 100% true by default. Don't create a strawmen of those you oppose, that is what Creationists do.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed fails physics 101 forever.[edit]

Ed, if you don't know the difference between acceleration and velocityimg then perhaps you shouldn't be editing a science article. Reminds me why we voted him Conservapedia's biggest idiot emeritus. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall Galileo ever claiming CONSTANT acceleration for falling bodies: rather, that their speed kept increasing with time
Wow, that is stupid. And this is coming from somebody who almost failed physics all his life. --ʤɱ libertarian 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Ed, stop talking science. Stick to what you know.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Ed hasn't made a mistake. At least not here. Any positive nonzero acceleration results in speed (OK, velocity, but I'm feeling generous) continually increasing over time. The acceleration could be constant (16 ft/sec^2) or jerky (16 ft/sec^2 for 1 second, then 2 ft/sec^2 for 1 second, then 24ft/sec^2 for one second, etc.) or vary along some smooth function (acceleration at time t is 0.5kt^3). In the real world it turns out that gravitational acceleration is constant, but that's only apparent after experimentation.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2011 (tion: I think that's a fairly generous reading of Ed, it looks far more to me like he actually thinks the acceleration varies. Besides which, you don't have to be Gallileo Galilei to figure out the second derivative of x^2, even if the source didn't explicitly spell out what Gallileo discovered. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't like Galileo at Conservapedia. Ed only knows the most basic results of Galileo's experiments, i.e., that the acceleration of a falling body is independent of his weight (under ideal circumstances). But Galileo didn't stop there: in his Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences he argues that the the acceleration is uniform ( A motion is said to be uniformly accelerated, when starting from rest, it acquires, during equal time-intervals, equal increments of speed. his own - translated - words), and shows this by his experiments with a ramp.
larronsicut fur in nocte 04:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
He's wrong. Galileo did claim that objects fall with constant acceleration. And if Ed is changing an entry he should cite something much more reliable this his ability to recall. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the downward vector for the acceleration of a falling body on earth always 9.8 m/s? He's conflating acceleration and velocity but it's impossible to tell whether it's a mistake or his reference to reading Galileo is dishonest and has him posturing for undeserved attention. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It is 9.8 m/s^2, yes, in text books. In the real world the acceleration due to gravity varies enough to measure, the planet is not in fact a uniform sphere, but it's always somewhere close to 9.8 anywhere on the surface. If you're doing back of the envelope calculations (rather than answering high school physics homework) just use 10 m/s^2. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The concept of non-uniform acceleration is as familiar as putting more or less pressure on a brake or as pedal. my understanding is that Galileo was describing a body falling freely (ie dropped) in a vacuum on any sphere it will experience uniform acceleration regardless of the value of g and application of any additional force. Am I the one who needs to take physics again? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I think your physics is OK, except that you got your units wrong earlier (accelerations are metres-per-second-squared, not metres-per-second). I only mentioned text books because in reality if you're accelerating you will tend to end up getting further away from or closer to something, and that'll change the gravitational force acting on you. In class problems you get to assume this amazing 9.8m/s^2 constant gravitational field, going on forever in all directions, just because that makes the maths simpler. Galileo stops there, which gives excellent answers for firing cannon at people, but you need Newton to get you into orbit. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy: Bible predicted nation-state and US Constitution[edit]

Andy added this whopper in Biblical scientific foreknowledgeimg:

Ancient Israel, as described in the Old Testament, was a nation-state that was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe, and is now the standard nearly worldwide. The separation of powers adopted successfully by the U.S. Constitution in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.

Seems like someone trolled him into adding the first one. Why do I think it was one of you? :P The other one looks like it was all Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait... what?? That is a whole new crazy. And even if it's true, what's to say one of the founding fathers didn't read the Bible and say, "Hey! That looks like a good idea, certainly better than basing the state on religion..." --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy wins another argument[edit]

By playing the "liberals are bad" card.img Seriously, it's his only fall-back position after August handed him his arse on nation-states. Andy has no problem looking like a complete moron. In fact, he'd rather look like a moron, than admit he was wrong. But then we knew that already. If only there was a way to let his home-schoolers' parents know...

Liberal historians who dominate academic departments are in agreement that Ronald Reagan was somehow NOT a great president. What does that mean? Nothing, other than an illustration of academic bias is that so rampant that it can hardly be disputed. Logic is what matters here, not liberal consensus.--Andy Schlafly 11:25, 19 November 2011 (EST)

Too bad Andy has never had any logic... --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think you can have logic, rather one uses it or not…
So as soon as you think that Reagan wasn't the best President ever, you have a bias. Yeah, those liberal academians (that sounds like type of nut, what's the word I'm looking for here?) really are the ones biased. --ʤɱ kant 17:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Academics? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, all my dictionaries came up pretty empty. I think the right term for what I was looking for is "academics and college graduates", damn English not enough words... --ʤɱ heretic 19:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Or "intellectuals." B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I like academians. Or how about academists? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
English has plenty of words. More than French or German. Yet still it's not enough for you europeans. *wink*. Anyhow, Andy has created such a carefully constructed reality that if we found actual documentation that Ronnie under cut the US in favor of Liberal Surrender Monkees, Andy would manage to convince himself it was either "just a lie", or that ronnie was "spying' or something. That's the trouble with argueing with anyone holding deep beliefs. When the beliefs are your reality, and don't just inform your reality, you will do anything to survive. Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
English is the best language ever. Even Jesus spoke it. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This illustrate the core of what is wrong with Conservapedia (well, one of the core reasons). That is Andy can never admit error in his belief or stand on any subject. It does not matter how lacking of knowledge or expertise he has in said subject, it does not matter how wrong he is clearly shown to be, it does not matter how many face contradicts his biases, Andy's pride will not admit error. This alone is a pretty terrible trait to have and a detriment to any collaborative project; but on Conservapedia, Andy is also the absolute monarch and rules by decree, thus what he says goes. No matter how contrary to the facts his pronouncements are, in CP-land Andy's beliefs are gospel truth to be defended to the last.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I still love this old video/Andy's 9/11 lecture[edit]

Did Litigation and Junk Science Help Bring Down the World Trade Center?.I know ive added this before but, always fun to remind people andy ha been doing this for a long while. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no way I can listen to that all the way through. My eardrums would crawl out of my nose. What does he say? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It's his "Liberals did 9/11 because they don't want to die of asbestos-related respiratory disease" spiel. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
EC "Liberals." B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 19:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, Christ. I'm going to have to watch it. He can't claim that surely? Just when I think he couldn't get any more bizarre...... he really is educated beyond his intelligence, isn't he? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
That may be a slight exaggeration, but the gist of it is that "liberal" health and safety laws denuded the WTC of vital fire safety precautions. It's complete bullshit of course, but then so is almost everything Andy believes. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You hardly ever hear the "If only there had been more asbestos" side of the 9/11 argument (censored by the liberal Big Cancer-Fighting lobby). Carlaugust (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hell? How did I not know about this video before? I only knew of his article thingy (which apparently makes the same argument from what I've gathered here). Thanks for (re-?)posting! --Sid (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
But didn't you know that cancer was a tool of GOD? So all people that fight cancer fight GOD and that means they fight for Satan! Why does an omnipotent GOD need a tool? Erm… erm… shut up you fascist preventer of legitimate death! Don't you just love it when you can make stuff up?--ʤɱ soviet 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I thought that the WTC had asbestos in it... --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Is that the speech based on his article in JAPS JPANDS? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy starts 'Conservapedia proven right' article[edit]

Bwahahahaha! His ego knows no bounds. Conservapedia proven rightimg:

Conservapedia content has often been proven right, even with respect to statements that dimwitted liberals have ridiculed.

Are we sure he's not a parodist? Anyway, some examples that have since been addedimg include global warming being false, relativity being wrong and Newt Gingrich being the likely winner of the Republican winner. The first two have not been proven right and though Gingrich is the current frontrunner so were Bachmann, Perry, Cain. At best, 0.5 out of 3. Unusually good for CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The political ones are just bizarre. Apparently they think Newty is going to win but, just like the "lamestream media", Mormon Joe is at the top of their rankings. They apparently predicted that Chris Christie wasn't going to run, but he's in the ranking too. Why list him if they predicted he wouldn't run? Why not add the prediction to the list? All this is is Andy's ego and delusion on display. Whatever the result, Andy will say he predicted it if he approves or deny it if he disapproves. All that shows is he's an arse. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
He might as well start a page called "Andy Schlafly's Greatest Insights". And I just gave the schmuck an idea, didn't I?--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
They already have itimg. Although some of the entries are parody. --Tlaloc (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy put this under 'liberal claptrap':
"Lamestream media insisted that Christie was a contender himself".
Andy must have the memory of a goldfish because he himself thought Christie wasimg a contenderimg for presidentimg. Hell, he's still fucking listed as one of the "Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination"img! --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
What I love about this page is how, over it's five year (well, four year three hundred and sixty four day - it's it's fifth birthday tomorrow) history, it has only ever been proven right four times. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they find what the problem was at CERN and he thinks they're lying.
Now, onto my question. Does anyone else think that a "Times Conservapedia has been proven wrong" page is in order on here? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 10:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It's worse than that: Most of those examples aren't really cases where they're proven right. Take relativity for example: Pretty much all reasons prior to the inclusion of the neutrino thing were complete bullshit. Now they're holding up something they hadn't predicted (neutrinos potentially faster than light) and claim "SEE, WE WERE TOTALLY RIGHT!"
This is like me making a complete bullshit claim like "John McDoe will die because he had so much sex with goats!" and then declare "I am proven right once again!" when Joe McDoe dies peacefully in his sleep - hey, I got the "dying" part right, and that's all that matters! Who cares that my reasoning was completely wrong?
I'm sorry, but Andy and the others are just throwing shit against the wall and hope it sticks. And when it does stick, they claim that their bullshit reasoning that led to their claim is right.
Like the soccer example:
  • Claim: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup" because "of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
  • What happened: "England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."
  • What was proven right: Congratulations, CP guessed correctly.
  • What is completely unproven: That this is because of atheism.
  • Fucks that are given by CP: None.
What they do is basically just making wild guesses with faulty reasoning, so claiming that they are "proven right" is a major stretch in my eyes.
And to answer CameSawShat's question: That list would be long, but most of the evidence has been burnt by CP, so people would have to go through the WIGO/T:WIGO archives. --Sid (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Usually when Conservapedia are 'proven right' it is actually for all the wrong reasons; which is really not being right at all. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually there's another slight problem with that example, but it's probably a problem that CP would miss. England probably were embarrassed by their poor performance. However, that's not necessarily true of the rest of Britain, and there were probably quite a few Scots who even felt a certain amount of schadenfreude towards England. Besides, as I recall, England played the USA in the World Cup, drew 1-1, but it was called a disappointing result for England, and widely regarded as England simply continuing their spell of poor performance. Not only that, the US got knocked out at exactly the same stage as England did. So, if England were playing poorly due to their 'atheism', what's America's excuse? Damn, sorry, I forgot, this is CP we're talking about - it's obviously Obama's fault. 86.147.104.94 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
O...K... You can tell I'm still learning the ropes here, can't you? --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 14:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Actually their "prediction" can be thrown right back in their faces. Spain won the Cup, the Netherlands came in second, Germany came in third and Uruguay fourth. With the Netherlands and Germany having more atheists than England and Spain and Uruguay having more theists than the UK, one can just see that their whole reasoning is bull. By their logic the United States, Mexico and Algeria should be the big guns in sports. Not even that, the most religious countries like Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Iran and India (and those all do have the proper infrastructure for great teams to develope) should be the best damn sports nations in the world, but they are not. Even if one keeps an open mind and looks at the pure numbers, you can just dismiss this crap.
If one really wants to be a dick about it, we could look at the 2008 Summer Olympica medal table and talk about it again: 1. China (clearly atheist and non-Christian) 2. USA (Christian) 3. Russia (Uh, the olden commies!) 4. United Kingdom (the only atheist bastard we understand!) 5. Germany (atheist lefties that elected Hitler!) 6. Australia (somewhere in the middle I guess) 7. South Korea (clearly religious, but not majority Christian) 8. Japan (religiously challenged at best, with weird mixtures of believe and non-believe) 9. Italy (3/4 Christian, but Catholic, which is CINO) 10. France (whaa! to much to say here!). So ehm, what's the scoring here? 2 Christian-3 somewhere in the middle-5 other with profound secular and atheist influence (2-3-5). What does that mean? Religious people waste their time praying for better results intead of training for them! Lazy Christians! /sarcasm --ʤɱ constructivist 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What's interesting is that by using Andy's own sources, it's obvious he's making shit up as he goes along. For example, let's use his English football example. Andy claims "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup" with a reference linking to "News archives for June 2010." Now if we have a look at said archives, there are 3 mentions:

  • Ravaged by atheism, England cannot even field a decent soccer team anymore. They could struggle against the obscure American team in their big match on Saturday. That is so pathetic!
  • Let's hope England is better at soccer than politics: the nation that developed modern soccer takes on a nation that cares little about it, in a World Cup match between England and the U.S. Saturday.
  • Here we go again: atheistic nation under-performs in a big athletic competition, as England embarrasses itself with a tie in its soccer opening. We already knew atheists don't build hospitals. Now this, as we saw with Canada in the Olympics.

Interestingly, Andy only ever refers to England's performance in the opening game and not to the world cup as a whole. Also, the US cares plenty about football, as can be seen by their reaction to Japan wining the Womens' World Cup. This is just another example of Andy stroking his own ego. I'm surprised Lenksi didn't make the list. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My favorite reaction is "winning this wont bring back your cities japan!". Hiroshima currently has 1 million people living in it, Nagasaki has a population of 440k. I'd say they got they're cities back...--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If Andy was a parodist[edit]

then he isn't a very good one, as he would have destroyed his own name along with any of his family (present and future) who might want to become something oneday. And he isnt per the above section about him blaming 9/11 on liberal asbestos policy. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes[edit]

Pure comedy gold.img B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 17:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The only surprise is that it took him so long to include them. But yeah, it's easily one of the crazier entries, and I'm not even sure how to interpret it. "Oh, if only liberals accepted that the Earth is young! Then... the earthquakes would still happen and people would still die because we still couldn't predict where/when earthquakes will happen."??? --Sid (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention that the premise is bullshit. Andy's proof that earthquake frequency is increasing is a scholarly treatment of the End Times. That's why a librul can sleep at night, unconcerned about the seismic deaths he causes. -- Whoover (talk)

Ken[edit]

"BAWWWWW PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEE!img PLEEEEAAAAAAASE! ANYBODYYYYYYYYYYY?img COME OOOOOON!"

Sorry, Ken, you're out-crazied by Andy right now. Why don't you include claims about your debating prowess, Operation Flying Fortress/Ides Of March, or ma-CHEESE-mo in the entry? Maybe then we'll pay you more attention! Come on! Dance for us! --Sid (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I for one would like to see some bestiality in that article. Or obesity. Or obese bestiality. Then I'll have a comment or two. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Dance, puppet, dance!img --Sid (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Ken has completely seized controlimg of the article, pushing a new edit every couple of minutes. Unfortunately(?), his complete inability to be concise bloats up the table like crazy and buries Andy's crazy way at the bottom. --Sid (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It's great that he managed to sneak bestiality in there though. That really adds a touch of class to any article. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, Andy AND Ken masturbating in the same article. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

...and it's the Singularity.img Still can't answer those 15 pesky questions. No we can't. And Conservapedia predicted it. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice to see that (after almost FIVE YEARS of being a wiki admin) Ken still doesn't know how to linkimg toimg a category. --Sid (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
And after however many years of speaking English, he still struggles with writingimg as well. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing: Obama the Muslim and the 'shopped birth certificate[edit]

I wonder if one of CP's resident birthers will add it to the table... --Sid (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chivalry[edit]

Just found this:

American women, she wrote in the Phyllis Schlafly Report, were blessed to live in a country where Christian traditions of chivalry still held—'a man’s first significant purchase (after a car) is a diamond for his bride'—and where free enterprise was continually improving life for the weaker sex.
—(Source: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/07/051107crbo_books) my emphasis
Apparently from 1972 when Andy was about 11. If it's old news, sorry, but it shows what mommy's influence is/was. Scream!! (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy's opinion of women was formed while lying awake listening to his Mummy and Daddy having a "communication problem." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy's grade inflation again[edit]

70/70 for a student who discusses the French revolution, without mentioning the date, causes, leading personalities, etc; who writes 2 sentences in reply to Andy's bizarre "Comment on music or art history" question. Oh yes, and all the students are adding the extra 2 terms instead of writing an essay.

Never mind the parents, do these kids really think they're getting an education? --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think many of them are actually learning from Wikipedia, then adjust for bias and mock Andy with answers like: "He signed peace treaties, reformed taxation, established a national bank, established the Napoleonic Code and set up a public school system. Thus concrete set of organization was just what France needed after such a period of upheaval and unrest." which go so clearly against everything Andy's teaching these kids. It's wonderful to see them give him the finger and Andy think it's a thumbs up. --ʤɱ anti-communist 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
according to this Video they made: Yes. also, since it isn't American history it just is not important psy!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Anybody else noticed the boy wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt? --ʤɱ pirate 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Look closer, it's an anti-Che Guevara shirt. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Oops, maximised that red line just fades away. (240p, really?) --ʤɱ structuralist 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If we had a WIGO CP FAQ, that Che t-shirt thing would be the top question. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Boys vs Girls WIGO[edit]

This one's bugged me, particularly because it's gotten a lot of green votes. Isn't this a case where Andy is right? One of those stopped-clock deals? The issue at hand isn't "boys competing against girls in academia" or "girls aren't as good as boys go bake cookies ho", it's specifically physical competition (swimming), even more specifically it's (according to the source) "the 50-yard freestyle, an event in which strength can trump talent or technique", where boys are competing in a girl's swim team, breaking the girls records.

I hate typing these words but I have to agree with Andy on this one (ignoring his "lol democrats" swipe, at least). Pure physical competitions is probably the one area where males and females *should* be separated, at least when there's an actual competition for real placement going on (rather than just some folk having fun). X Stickman (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. I downvoted this one (and I almost never vote) because like you said, it's just a proven, real thing that men can outperform woman in things like this, just like women outperform men in other things. What grinds my gears is Schlafly's bullshit about math. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Mhh, it reads like the boys have been brought in, but it says nothing about the girls being able to compete in boys teams (the vice versa thing). I am generally against the segragation of sexes in any sport, because it shouldn't matter if you're best athlete has a vagina or a penis, if one can beat the other, great. But I'm also against providing any kind of rates of a specific gender for a team, as that also goes against the "the best may win" philosophy in equal weight. In this particular case maybe creating a new league/division with mixed teams would have been better. --ʤɱ libertarian 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue with gender in sports, or at least some sports (speed / strength stuff), is that men can consistently out perform women. For example in the 100m sprint, the men's world record is 9.69 seconds. The women's world record is 10.49 seconds. The same holds true for any other speed based sport I can find (off the top of my head, at least). To throw men into a women's event and have them able to beat their records is just... silly. X Stickman (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, even I was iffy on this one, and I'm the one who fucking created the WIGO. I'm against the segregation of sexes, but it's an unfortunate fact that men are stronger on average than women, so I'm not really sure what the ideal solution here would be -- especially since I don't know or care about sports. Fuckertalk to me :D 17:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Not every sport needs to be segregated. A mens soccer team can get it's ass kicked by a womens soccer team because it's not all about endurance and speed. Gender doesn't matter when it comes to technique. But when it's just a measure of a trait, it should be segregated. If someone wants to start a league where it isn't, and people want to participate, then great. But records like these shouldn't be upheld. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Moar EdStubble![edit]

Yippie!img--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That article does not make any sense, at all. Flitzertalk to me :D 21:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Never 'eard of the rabbit thing so... who uses that term O.o. As for Stubs, my favorite shall remain his stubbbification of Internet explorer on the grounds Microsoft didnt make it. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Brrrr, don't remind me of the Explorer incident. And re: usage, see Ed's related editimg summary: "In 1962, you could still hear this phrase"... --Sid (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
By who, people alive in the fucking twenties who created it?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Steven Tyler of Aerosmith wasn't alive in the fucking twenties, though he looks like it. The song "Sweet Emotion" contains the line "Can't catch me 'cause the rabbit done died" (which seems to reverse the usual idiom, since it suggests the dead rabbit indicates non-pregnancy).
Honestly, the idiom is perfectly familiar to me, growing up in the US in the 1970s. Phiwum (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Growing up in the 90's and turn of the millennium, i wouldnt know your strange day stuff.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I was born in '86 and I knew what "The rabbit died" meant. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I grew up in the 70s and 80s and have no idea what any of you are talking about. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I just like the way that the idiom of 'the rabbit died' is explained by use of ... another idiom 'bun in the oven' - with no actual explanation. Most people will of heard the phrase of course, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a guessing game. Dick. Worm (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I grew up in the 70s and 80s and I didn't know what it means, but I'm also half Canadian, thus stupid and poorly informed by CP standards. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I grew up in the 90's and I've heard of the phrase, so based on the clear statistical evidence from our random survey anecdotal evidence, some people know it, other's dont, and it's relatively arbitrary. άλφαΤαλκ 14:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I learned about this when I was a teenager reading Neil Gaiman's Sandman. One of the not-so-bright characters is concerned that she might be pregnant and doesn't want to kill a rabbit to find out. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Conservapedia being 5?[edit]

Quick do it now sycophants. - π Moderator 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that would require someone to care. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on, there's no way that the mental age of CP is 5! Get real! Pfffft! Darkmind1970 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Five years of trusworthy spellingimg. Good one, Ed. Also, dance for us little man. Dance for your puppet masters. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Now is the moment to update the screenshot on Wikipedia. - π Moderator 01:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Pic for whoever wants to do it. - π Moderator 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering how long it's going to last. My guess is until Kendoll next looks at this page. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed screenshot on Wikipedia to the newest version. Fuckertalk to me :D 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I love how it was just a typo, which is an honest mistake that everyone makes several times a day. Instead of fixing it though, Andy nukes the edit. But then we know that Andy doesn't consider fixing typos "productive activity." --Roofus (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Won't be long until 5 year blocks start to expire. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You have to wait until August 2012: the five-year-block was first used by TK for cp:Special:Contributions/PortlyMort on Aug 14, 2007! larronsicut fur in nocte 07:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that about when the world is supposed to end according to the Mayan calendar? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
All my blocks from 2007 were infinite but if the EotW is in 2012 then they are effectively no different to a 5-year block. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy: Video game murdered football player[edit]

Andyimg:

Did a video game cause the tragic death of a star college football player on a top-ranked team? He was last seen, in apparent good health, playing a video game at 10:15am Sunday. About an hour later, he was found dead without any suspicious circumstances.

The man is becoming a self-parody. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a library (late hours procrastinating) and I had to clap my hand over my mouth to keep from laughing out loud! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
We all know as soon as the real cause is revealed, Andy's statement on the mainpage right will be memory-holed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I just hope that one day he conducts a deep-burn on his own PC and gets the hell off the Internet. In a few years, obviously, I mean, the joke isn't wearing thin just yet, I don't think. Five years, and still going hilarious. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 08:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the player died of "cardiac arrest"img. So video games caused a healthy young person's heart to stop beating? I'd love to hear his defence. Get to burning socks people.--Night Jaguar (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I could just ask him since my normal account is unbanned for a change again, but it's Nightly Lockdown, and we can emulate Andy's likely answer, anyway: "Blah blah harmful effects of video game blah liberals in denial blah blah prove that video games DIDN'T cause cardiac arrest blah Godspeed." --Sid (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I heard video games being accused of intentionally causing miscarriages. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Does Andy do anything for fun? He definitely hates books and video games. He's no movie or TV fan. His only comments on sports are on the religious beliefs or lack thereof of athletes. I'm sure he finds CP to be personally rewarding, but does he ever do anything just to relax and entertain himself? MDB (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

He reads the funny bits of the bible, the most logical and humorous book ever written. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the humorous parts of the New Testament, since Andy doesn't believe humor existed before Christ. MDB (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget his fondness for gerbilling. DickTurpis (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's a mental picture I didn't need... MDB (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Duh. He waits for people to die so he can dance on their graves or blame their deaths on liberals. And he pulls the wings off flies. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy has very little free time as he mostly occupied with praying before he does anything; or at leas that's the impression I've gathered over the 4.5 years I've been exposed to his inane ramblings. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 14:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Feh, I doubt he spends any time reading the Bible or praying, any more than he own a defensive weapon of gun. It's just a handy club to beat people with. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
^That. I would put money on him being a hypocrite too. He probably gets drunk every night and does that squidward laugh at the handicapped. I heard he also double dips, coughs without covering his mouth, and doesn't wash his hands before cooking. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone points out at CP, using Andy's reasoning CP caused TK's deathimg. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy shrugged[edit]

Is Andy getting sickimg of Terry's spamming and weird Ayn Rand obsession? It's about damn time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Three birds with one stone. Delicious! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That's one of the weird bits that comes along with an extremist reading of your political ideology; in order to get a critical mass of people, he's gotta make strange bedfellows with folks who would normally not appeal to him at all, like the atheist-loving Randroids. I'm sure he has to bite his tongue every time she comes up. PintOfStout (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The classics never die...[edit]

...so Ken decides to deliver some lulz by deleting Ed Poor's talk page,img eradicating years of history. See how much cleaner the historyimg looks now? --Sid (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

He even helpfully preserved what he was trying to eradicate in the logs. Good job, Kendoll, good job. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Traditional marriage?[edit]

Dmorrisimg makes me frown. Sorry, but what branch of Christianity endorses marrying the undead? I know this scenario doesn't come up very often in everyday conversation, but seriously, you'd think that "having a pulse" would be higher on the "traditional marriage" checklist than "not being of the same gender". --Sid (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The churches always liked shiny stuff? --ʤɱ constructivist 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
As for marrying the undead... aren't nuns "married to Jesus"? MDB (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Football player TK killed by...Conservapedia?[edit]

Typical Conservapedia conversation, Andy posts nonsenseimg, User calls him outimg, Andy demands user does the researchimg, so the user does, and SURPRISE SUPRISE, Andy gets ownedimg. But THISimg gave me a damn good chuckle. Specificly, what he links toimg.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cappingimg before this is deleted. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Jpatt, you're such a fucking pussy. Why don't you address the point? 72.204.50.90 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Jpatt, run a checkuser on the IP for AverageJoe and SorryCharlie. That's right. I knew Garrett. He lived two blocks from me. Using this kid's death as a way to make a point about some absurd connection between video games and...I don't know...cardiac arrest? His family hasn't even had a chance to lay his body to rest yet. You people disgust me. TK would be proud. 72.204.50.90 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you... directing this at us? Fuckertalk to me :D 06:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The "Hey JPatt" suggests to me that he's directing it at JPatt. ONE / TALK 11:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Besides we doesn't haz checkuser installed, (offishually). 16:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Why is Camel Toe still around?[edit]

Did they make some sort of deal behind the scenes? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? άλφαΤαλκ 13:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If I had to guess, CamilleT maybe? --Sid (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok. My only real exposure to CP is on this page, so if I don't notice a user mentioned for a while I tend to forget about it. άλφαΤαλκ 13:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
While it seems plausible that CamilleT is not really a female at all, calling any apparent female "Camel Toe" is pretty offensive. Phiwum (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Camille is a common French man's name. Camille is also a regular 'round these parts; pay attention. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 15:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why, Jpatt? Why?[edit]

Why would we give a rat's ass?img

Are you carrying on a bad joke from a site with a very doubtable and not really family-friendly subtitle of "get on your knees & blog" (seriously? do you folks never think about this stuff twice?) about trolling atheists:

But back to the start of Advent. This is a particularly dangerous time for secularism. Many of these religious people will often feel a renewed zeal for their faith. Be especially suspect if anyone in your family wants to bring in an Advent Calendar. These cardboard devices count down to Christmas by opening a little window each day. The little pictures look harmless but are actually secret signals sent to Christians instructing them on such practices as praying, reading the Bible and speaking about religion in public. The latter is meant to undermine the secular order. Remember the aim of anyone religious who dares to speak out loud or want “their place in the public square” is actually working towards a theocracy.

or are you actually too stupid to notice that that blog is not from an atheist (a.k.a. "being a dumb fuck while clutching the last straw")? --ʤɱ constructivist 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well fundamentalist/Calvinist/Objectivist Christians love to tell atheists what they are supposed to believe as atheists. As fundies have a stark black and white view on everything, and all their beliefs and morals are dictated to them, they assume this is true for everyone else. As an atheist you are supposed to hate the holidays! Why? Well because so much of the holidays is religious in origin, so atheists have to hate them because that is surely written as a dogmatic requirement somewhere, right? Right?
Personally I love the holidays; I am a Christmas nut. Advent doesn't disturb me, it is part of the cultural landscape I grew up in. What really bugs people like JPatt is that atheists, agnostics, secularists, and humanists like us can and do love this time of year, and that just sticks in the fundies' craw that we can love the holidays but not have to pay lip service to (or worse, openly defy) the dogma. Sucks to be them!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I had an advent calender every year when I was a kid and I can safely say that the most important part of it was the chocolate under each flap. The images were barely noticed. X Stickman (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh man, I love those. The chocolate in them was so good. And yeah, fuck the pictures -- the only thing anyone cares about is the chocolate. Fartertalk to me :D 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The MPR was not addressed to the Rationals but to other Christians. It had talking points favorable to our side - like Christianity is growing. You already know enough about Christianity that you reject it, so no big deal right? Most of you will attend Christmas parties and that has no effect on your beliefs. So why does it itch your skin so? That's your point, you're trying to tell me that it doesn't. Well, keep on bitching if it makes you a happy camper. Merry Christmas and have a happy 2012, 2012 years since Christ's birth.--99.85.36.212 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
So you knew it isn't like that, although you still wrote it. Isn't that the definition of lying? --ʤɱ pervert 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh I will have a blast this Christmas. I just find it humorous that Christians continue to demand that atheists be miserable and believe life is pointless and be all Scrooge like for the holidays, and when we don't, it just sends you all in a tissy. How dare we love the holidays too! Those are supposed to be Christian holidays! Too bad though, I'll be enjoying my advent calendar with ponies! Oh and my Christmas Tree, yule logs, stockings, lights, presents, candy, wreaths, caroling, holly, candles, and mistletoe, you know, all those traditions of Christmas that's pagan in origin and your dogma demands you shun? Sounds like my holiday is going to be more fun.
Religion growing in numbers on a planet with a positive human population growth? Wow, imagine that. That is supposed to concern me? Hardly, such growth is expected. Yes, I will have a nice year 2012! Too bad it isn't 2012 years since Christ was born as he was born between 4-6 BCE; damn how come I always know more about your religion then you do?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If he was born between 4-6BCE then the bible story about the Roman census is untrue. Of course if he was born later then the story about Herod killing babies is untrue. If he was born in the year 1 then they both are. Sucks to be christian. --Longbow (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I have been an Atheist since I was 8, and celebrated christmas every year regardless. Except the christmas parties at work. I fuckin hate my coworkers.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberals and bestiality[edit]

Trained from childhood. http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/959/Bizar/article/detail/1345809/2011/11/09/Vertederende-dierenliefde.dhtml

Am I reading this wrong?[edit]

or is the MPR bit about Brandon McInerney kinda condoning the murder of a teenager? I'm not getting into debate about what is a 'hate crime', but Brandon McInerney essentially says the victim was asking for it. Page created by Mr Schafly. What vile human being. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly AMassiveGay, CP doesn't recognize gay people as humans beings worthy of basic rights.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the source article, the murder victim was engaging in some rather erratic behavior, viz., "aggressive flirting." Being gay, of course, falls under the category of civil rights; so does wearing makeup to a school without a dress code, if all those Goth-punks are anything to go by. But as to the aggression in flirting, let us just say that if those had been girls he was flirting with, that principal would not have been so eager to pooh-pooh the teachers' concerns using duckspeak about civil rights. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You people are good at maths...[edit]

Help a brother out. I'm trying to figure out if I should be afraid. Remind me, what's double or triple nothing?img. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The total obliteration of atheism as we know it. Everywhere you go you will see endless activity by Shockofgod and his innumerable fans that will amount to finally wiping atheism off the face of God's green earth. Might as well give up your job now and spend all your life's savings. Sam Tally-ho! 23:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Who/what is Shockofgod??. Also, "math" is singular, here in Murrica. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 23:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Shockofgod. - π Moderator 00:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a real wiener winner. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Note to self: Clear out schedule for tomorrow, write angry 10,000 letters essay why Christmas sucks, creationism is bullshit and Christianity is an abomination to common sense. Also clear out schedule for next months and substitute with 2 months of laughter. --ʤɱ sinner 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think Kenny Boy is threatning to write another "Atheism and X" article...--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the shockofgod is a sexual move that involves Jesus cumming on the clouds with great power and glory. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I am supposed to conduct a War on Christmas? Why didn't I get the memo at the last baby BBQ? As for that blog post that Ken wrote on Shock's blog (yeah, Ken wrote it under one of his pseudonyms), it, like every other blog posts there, gets no comments from the dozen or so people who are subscribed. It is just Ken claiming some more vague pledges from people who is sure to put forth an effort, whenever they get around to it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
But don't you guys get it? The 'Question evolution!' campaign is going to cut down atheism by fifty percent with their great scythe of creationist logic and the power of Zeus Allah Buddha? God. Flubbertalk to me :D 02:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gentalmen, I have served 14 tours of duty in the War on Christmas. I have lost friends, and people I fucken hate, but respect. Chirstmas is an evil enemy. Roasting cheastnuts rained down so much that it blocked the sky with its flaming horror. Yule logs rolled down the stairs, alone and in pairs, ran RIGHT over the neighbors dog. And the sugur plums...They were the worst. After the battle, I had to sit down and take it all in, and sat in a puddle of goo that was at one time my best friend. But I will continue to serve until the scourge that is christmas has been defeated. WHO WILL FIGHT WITH ME!!!--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll fight (but only if you continue to sprinkle your posts with Ren and Stimpy references). --Horace (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You have my sword. --Sasayaki (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And MY axe. Tielec01 (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And my bow. Isn't it pretty? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have this ogre slaying sword that does +9 damage against ogres... We will be fighting ogres, right?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Are we allowed to show mercy? I mean, I'd really hate to give up A Charlie Brown Christmas. I get choked up when the little tree becomes beautiful. MDB (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Charlie Brown, My god man you must be carefull.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Had he died straight he wouldn't be going to hell.[edit]

I stand by that statement, having died le gehy is isn't in hell either, because hell is a ridiculous fairy tail. I just wanted to say something provocative, I took a tumble due to the ice today and I'm feeling feisty as a result of the pain, oh also global warming is a myth, otherwise there wouldn't be snow right? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 04:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to repeat that in English? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I will attempt to translate.
Regarding the recent tragic murder of a gay teenager, the fine folk over at Conservapedia are implying that had the poor chap been straight instead he would not be in hell this very second. I stand by that statement, but will clarify by saying that being gay doesn't change the outcome; he wouldn't be in hell either, because hell is not real. I say this because I wanted to say something provocative. Additionally, I fell on some ice today and the pain feels good. Also, the fact I fell on ice heavily implies -- and I use a lot of sarcasm when I imply it, meaning that I don't genuinely believe the claim -- that "global warming is a myth". As Andy might say, "Otherwise there wouldn't be snow, right?" --Sasayaki (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
They seem all cut up about the media calling it a hate crime, too. As Gene Hunt said, "What, as opposed to one of those 'I really, really like you' kind of murders?" --Longbow (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberapedia and Uncyclopedia are more popular than RatWiki[edit]

At least according to Google both have more popular articles on Conservapedia. How in the name of all that's unholy could that happen?? Let's improve our Conservapedia article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not what I can see, we are number 3 following that link. Your milage may vary. Pimobile (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Liberapedia and Uncyclopedia are more popular in the UK. Are you in America, Pimobile? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pi's in Oz. Your link (UK) gives me RW @ 3 after WP & CP. Scream!! (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, also UK. RW third after CP and WP, LP and UP are 5 and 6 respectively. Garçoncoffee! 12:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
So the fuck what?--Brendiggg (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I still get Liberapedia third after CP and Wikipedia, perhaps Google knows that my computer accesses Liberapedia a lot. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proxima: you were making the same mistake over at Iron Chariots. Google presents the rank based on what it thinks you are interested in. The people at CP make the same mistake when they claim they are number one or two on Google for their article showing that flying elephants disprove atheism or whatever. --BobSpring is sprung! 14:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is that link about Harry Potter. On the plus side, there are pics of Hermoine, so if you'll excuse me... --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for not really knowing how search engines work, but i do think it's based on YOUR surfing habbits, than on any generic popularity. I say that cause i've never been to "liberpedia" or "uncyclopedia', and neither comes up when i do your google search. First one after WP for me? ours. Pink mowse.pngGodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Search engines have grown increasingly sophisticated over the years, so they may take into account recent activity as well as your IP, search language and which localised version of the search engine your are using. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and we come third for CP after CP and WP on my Google search. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Way to convert atheists Ken[edit]

Ken's headline about advent, "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays." -Henny Youngman. So he has no better arguments to put on a front page "news" story to convert atheists than "you won't get any Christmas presents from Jesus!!!" said by a Jewish comedian as a joke? Oh, Ken. You make Shockofgod proud. Garçoncoffee! 12:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuckin atheism man, they dont got no holidays, besides secularized Halloween, Easter and Christmas, amongst other ones like mayday and stuff"--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
And, of course, May Day when the Proletariat of the world rest from their labours. Bad Faith (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The best part of it all is that Ken is the worst walking example of Christianity. If becoming a Christian meant I had to be as loathsome (and terminally stupid) as him, I'm glad I'm an atheist. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, we arent all as bad as the group at CP--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that thing passing over you head... it's called a point. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I understood it, i chose not to give a fuck. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
But this raises the question: Would you rather be a "Christian" (in the loosest sense) fundie and get more holidays or be an atheist with no restrictions on your sex life? Basically, my argument here is DM:HS.
Anyway, if Kenny's argument actually does work on anyone, I will happily ingest a tube of acne cream gel stuff. Or at least, if I didn't need it for my acne, I would. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Working in countries like Jordan, Syria and Lebanon which have large communities of two different religions I found that everyone takes both sets of religious holidays as well as secular holidays such as 'Tree day'. Of course not all holidays are religious, in the UK we have Bank Holidays and May Day having largely done away with the religious Whit and Ascension Day holidays that they still celebrate in the Netherlands for example. One of the downsides of Dutch holidays is that they are largely crammed into April and May with nothing else until Christmas. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
South India's good. Diwali, Christmas, Id, etc etc etc, all celebrated indiscriminately by people of all religions. Fundies would have a lot more fun if they shared their fun with other people. Spartacus sum! 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor is still a slovenly rascal failure[edit]

who couldn't even be arsedimg to write his own shitty stub. Yeah, a stolen and unattribute movie review definitely belongs in an "encyclopedia." At least he linked to it. In TK land that means it's not plagiarism. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, this isn't just any ol' unattributed movie review. This review is so well-informed and insightful that it forms the basis of an article on Science and Speculationimg! Phiwum (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I see User188 has such wikifoo that he removed all traces that they were cut'n'pastes. CS Miller (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservative, the Christian gentlemen[edit]

What's the worst thing one could say one day before Thanksgiving? "There's no free lunch"img (but breakfast is included, right?). Guess User:Conservatard won't be working in a soup kitchen any day soon. --ʤɱ soviet 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing that they associate liberals with handouts and entitlement, when (social) conservatives are some of the most entitled people you'll ever meet and they tell people they should rely on charity and not the government for basic human services (am I over-explaining it?). -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
Not one of those in charge of CP would be caught dead anywhere near a soup kitchen.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

TerryH fails geology forever[edit]

In the second part of the "Conservapedia admins fail sciences forever" I give you TerryH.img

Also, the extended director's cut version of the fail.img --ʤɱ kant 15:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, am impressed at his use of the word "sophistry." Somebody must have tossed a thesaurus off of the bridge that he lives beneath. PintOfStout (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Surely that should be TerryH, not Jpatt. DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Crap, put that on record as one of my fails. Those crazy people just bleed into each other after a while... --ʤɱ heretic 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Fuckin' mountains. How do they work? Wobblebottom once again shows he's the craziest CPer around. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of Hurlbutt, I've been wondering how he reconciles his Biblical literalism and his 24/7 muff dive on notorious atheist Ayn Rand, whose ideas are completely incompatible with Christianity. DickTurpis (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I just said pretty much the same thing a section above--it's weird how Andy has to tolerate stuff that he should find intolerable, like Randroids, in order to get a critical mass of sycophants. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 15:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
For such people, it's easier than one might imagine. ... of liberals? (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Where does he get his elevation of 13,000 feet from? The second photo in this story gives a vastly different impression of the altitude. --Horace (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I've not been able to obtain a precise elevation but the site is near the town of Bahia Inglesa which is on the coast. Even half a mile inland is not a big deal if we are considering sea levels 2 million years ago. While the Atacama Desert Plateau may be thousands of feet high The National Geographic Society considers the coastal areas to be part of the Atacama Desert and it is the NGS who are sponsoring the excavation. Terry is just pulling the 13000 feet thing out of his wobbling ass. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Forget the elevation of 13,000 feet - check out Terry's claim that the Atacama desert is just 60 feet wide. He's just doing the 13,000 feet thing because the AP didn't specifically tell him that these whales weren't found at 13,000 feet even though that's obvious. Therefore they're hiding something. But the 60 feet isn't yet part of his insane conspiracy theory, it's just plain sloppy thinking and poor editing. That's how these people start. They get something wrong and then, rather than accept that they were wrong, they start to build on it as their new certainty. Soon they've convinced themselves that the French Foreign legion ordered a team to time travel to 2001 and attack New York using invisible spaceships, thereby distorting the time stream -- because it's that or accept that they really did forget to renew a library book. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I know the 13K feet thing is wrong. This article tells us they were found "on a desert hill, more than half a mile (a kilometer) from the surf..." Unless by "hill" they mean "astonishing vertical wall of rock 4000 metres high" I think we can safely assume Cokeeyes has his facts wrong. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a site, not too far from the "coastal highway" expansion that uncovered the site. Its elevation is 151 feet. "Whale Hill" must be hella steep. OTOH, if the site were at 13,000 that wouldn't hurt "evolutionists'" feelings. Whoover (Whoover)
Yeah, I just arrived at the same conclusion after reading the articles that Terry himself links to. "Fossils found while building a highway half a mile from the coast" doesn't exactly scream "13,000 feet above sea level". Also made the point on Talk:Main just for the lulz. --Sid (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Karajou has now deleted the whales from MPR and sent them back to the desert where they belong. He still won't admit that Terry blew it, though. --Longbow (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd sayimg thisimg is as good as it gets. He agrees about the location, which is uphill, but nowhere near the immense elevation Terry claimed (and before that, his next best argumentimg also implicitly called bullshit on "13,000 feet"). Of course he won't admit that Terry's blog post was intentionally misleading about this and that the summary Terry made on CP was either a blatant lie or extremely badly researched. But who cares? It's nice to see wrong news actually being removed instead of just ignored (like the earthquake issue). --Sid (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
One of my socks actually got Karajou to agree that the earthquake shit was shit once, but Schlafly just ignored it. Pretty much everything at CP is stupid, but some stupid has a casting vote. Depressing, isn't it? --Longbow (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yep, Karajou did the smart thing - the commenters over at Terry's blog are having a field day pointing out the obvious flaws. Terry already fell back to Kara's initial argument (pointing at Copiapo to claim the fossils were found nowhere near sea level), but that's not fooling anybody there, either. Fun times. --Sid (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Why we won't see an apology from Terry[edit]

If you people are wondering why no “retraction” is forthcoming, here’s why: Journalistic ethics do not oblige me to issue a retraction on no person’s word except from a side that already has multiple problems with the truth. Especially when that side can’t get its story straight.

All that's missing is a little foot stamping. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In other news, Terry has either turned off comments or is engaging in conservative censorship, following the above. Posted comments, listed as pending, are now just vanishing. The butt-hurt is strong in this one. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Conservative censorship it is. I made two comments, one to the quote above and a later one about a translation from the Paleontological Research Center of Chile website. The later one has been published but the following was buried:

Still no response to the reference about Bahia Inglesa then Terry? Or the fact that you can see the ocean in the Daily Mail pictures? Or the explanation that Caldera is in the province of Copiapo and that the captions are there to give a people a sense of where the find is rather than being an exact geographical position? Can you not read anything except in a boneheaded literal fashion?

Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 17:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This is actually the more interesting bit - watching Terry throw all credibility away, rather than admit he made a mistake. Not that he had much to start with, mind you. And his piece about "journalistic ethics" made me laugh - it assumes he's a journalist to begin with and is ethical to boot. As the surprisingly uncensored post says "journalists are supposed to report facts, not twist them to suit the story they want to write."--PsyGremlinTala! 17:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Rather sheepishly Terry has issued a clarification, which as expected both blames it on the AP press release and then tries to claim it's still a problem for conventional science. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hee! "your editor" he sez! Scream!! (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Good of Terry to apologise... albeit grudgingly. However, he's pure comedy gold in the comments. User: "Whales beach all the time!" Terry: "Not a kilometer inland, they don't!" User: "Erm... coastlines change over time..." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 07:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reconciling Christianity and Randism[edit]

One of the big things pushed by the Protestant Christian right is the idea of "salvation is by grace alone", as opposed to "works-based salvation", as taught in Catholicism, and at least somewhat wondered about in mainstream Protestant circles.

It really comes down to a debate as to whether or not Christians are expected to do anything other than ask God's forgiveness to be saved and go to Heaven. Now, speaking as a (very lapsed) Christian, I view it as a legitimate debate. There's things in the Bible that give validity to both sides of the issue. (Things like "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" point to "grace alone", while "whatsoever thou do unto the last and the least of these, you do unto Me" point to "works-based.") You're welcome to ask my personal opinion, but it's not relevant here.

There's also an issue of whether it's possible to lose salvation once you've achieved it. I don't understand that one enough to comment it, but suffice it to say that "once you're saved, it's permanent" is also closely tied in with "grace alone."

What's relevant is an argument I've seen: some conservative Protestants vehemently insist on "grace alone", because that gives them moral justification for a "screw the poor" philosophy. After all, if all you have to do is ask God's forgiveness once, and you've got a guaranteed ticket to Heaven, no matter how vile a life you live afterwards, you really don't have to care about anyone else ever again.

Admittedly, that's a harsh description. Many conservative Protestants do good works for the poor. However, that's because they simply feel it's the right thing to do, not because they view it as increasing their chances of a positie outcome after the die. But the argument I've seen is that one of reasons "grace alone" is pushed so strongly is that it allows them to comfortably support policies that would otherwise seem extremely antithetical to Chrisian beliefs. MDB (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Question there; what does "grace" mean in that context? I guess it doesn't mean "walk pretty to look at"... --ʤɱ netlabelist 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
As in "by the grace of God". I don't know if I can define it properly -- it's just one of those "church words" you pick up by osmosis over the years and use it without really deeply understanding the meaning. I think it means "God does it out of love, not because humans deserve it", but don't quote me on that. I'm no theologian, and pretty much only nominally a Christian at this point. MDB (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
In my experience, Randroids tend to be of the opinion that pure capitalism works out better for the poor in the long-run, because any form of regulation, taxation or state-ownership retards economic growth, and economic growth always trickles down to the poor (whether or not this is true, it's what they believe, so it entitles them to the claim of Good Intentions). I would propose that the bigger incompatibility between libertarianism and christianity is the social aspect of libertarianism - i.e. the bit that says you can fuck who you want (no matter what sex or age), marry who you want (no matter how numerous) and stuff your body with all the drugs and drink you could care for. ONE / TALK 16:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The social Darwinism Calvinism of the Protestant Ethic has always been with us. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing the Christian vs Randroid problem is eased somewhat by re writing the bible AMassiveGay (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but what kind of moron would rewrite the Bible to represent his own right wing politica... oh. wait. Nevermind. MDB (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's simpler than that, there's no real theology involved. Christianity for 90% of the church going public means nothing more than being vaguely thankful to god, or at least publicly expressing same if asked. Their parents did it, they do it, they'll train their children to do it, but they never really think deeply about it or do anything that separates them from non-believers. For people like Terry it also tells them they are virtuous for hating gays and being ignorant about science, so that's a plus too. Similarly, Ayn Rand tells Terry he's virtuous for being a selfish prick, so he likes the idea. He's never going to be a proper Randroid who goes in to all the "pure reason" "A=A" codswallop that defines the true believers, any more than he's going to be going to be devoting his life to feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned as Christianity would suggest.. He just likes the idea that greed is good. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, it's simple system justification theory. Upper classes have always attempted to "prove" the inherent inferiority of the lower classes. People just pick up whatever ideas are laying around at the time (or invent new ones and get a spot on the bestseller list for telling people what they want to hear). After the Calvinism of the Protestant work ethic got old, they cooked up the new and improved rationalization of eugenics to "scientifically" demonstrate the genetic inferiority of the rabble. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It is true that the sysops of Conservapedia do pay homage to the Judeo-Christian god and claim loyalty to the words of the Bible. Despite all that is justifies for them, Christianity has one gnawing requirement that they wish wasn't there, that is the requirement both as individuals and through the church, every Christian is expected to help provide for the poor and needy. We have seen every time there is a major disaster, Andy comes up with excuses why every charity isn't "pure enough" and thus he can't donate (but, he really would like to!), to hide the fact he and his cohorts simply despise the poor and chafe under their god's command to provide for them. Of course one way out is to rewrite the very book they claim is holy to downplay the importance of charity and sharing. Another is to partially embrace Objectiveism and its dismissal of charity for the "virtue" of selfishness. For Andy and company it is mixing the bests of both worlds, they take the parts of Christianity they like, and substitute the rest with Objectiveism, thus they can still claim holy righteousness about their dislike of gays and atheists, while callously dismissing any notions of Christian-charity for Objectiveist Capitalism. In effect, creating their own heterodox denomination.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but as a former pastor of mine liked to say, "every Christian has parts of the Bible they ignore. Some of us are just honest about it." MDB (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

JoMar and TK[edit]

This was kind of a random thing to doimg. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... OFFICIAL RECOGNITION TK DIED? --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not official recognition until Andy acknowledges it.--Spud (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
That quote at the top of his talk page is in a rather tasteless position, I must say. ONE / TALK 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is Kendoll so eager for the apocalypse?[edit]

I can't work it out. As little demand as there is today for basement-dwelling loons who delude themselves in to thinking they're SEO magnates, the market is going to drop through the floor once we're all squatting in the ruins of civilisation, cooking our cockroach meal pancakes over wild dog turd fires. At that point, his only use will be as a walking source of tasty, tasty protein. He certainly doesn't have any gold, I sincerely hope he isn't allowed within half a mile of any guns, and I can only imagine his escape plan involves sending ShockOfGod a carrier pigeon to come pick him up on his motorbike so he can be Shock's Mad Max-style biker bitch.

So why is it he almost every day posts new ravings looking lovingly forward to the day the money in our banks isn't worth the price of paper it's printed on? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, 'cause he'll be Raptured into God's loving arms while the rest of us live out scenes from that Cormack McCarthy novel? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 04:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Is  K e n  D o l l  a dispensational premillennialist? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe? He has a very confused concept of religion going on. Beyond that, three theories: The rapture thing | He hates the people in power so shit fucking up = they won't be in power so yay! | fit in with the crowd. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
parable of the talents (I take it you didn't grow up in a church or I'd expect you to recognize it). Ken unfortunately isn't making anything, he just boasts to himself how many tallents he would make if he were in charge of some, in reality he is the slave who buried his charge, but dreams that he is not. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andy, Ed, Kara, Jpatt... anybody left who actually cares...[edit]

It's all well and fine to let Ken crap all over your front page,img but you could at least wipe his bum for him when he's done. I know none of you care about CP, outside of your own little circles of expertise ignorance, but at least try and not let CP be the laughing stock it is. case in point, from Ken's latest maim page dribble:

  • the launching of a Question evolution! campaign online community was launched
  • a former agnostic and evolutionists with a degree in biology

Still, it is kinda cute that you let the mentally challenged work on your blog. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleh, I don't think they care what Ken does, anyway. His drivel is what gets them their coveted "page-views", anyway. I don't think the history lectures, Ayn Rand, Elvis the Pelvis, or anything else anyone does there even gets 1/28th as many views. Ken runs the show, to say.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I think we found the Holy Grail of redundancy: "The 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer will continue to remain unsatisfactorily answered." --ʤɱ pervert 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Yeah, the headline here is contradicting itself: Andy, Ed, Kara and Jpatt don't care. They're all happy to just use CP as a platform to push their little schemes and don't give a shit about things like site reputation or other people's pet projects. Fuck, they can barely be arsed to care about their own shit. --Sid (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
That's CP for ya, a blog of semi-organized chaos. Crappy history lectures, MPR, Atlas Shrugged, Elvis, Birds, what more does the conservative version of Wikipedia need?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget half the Civil War battles and every US warship... as long as their names start with A or B... --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course. Not to mention the texts of random documents and liberal obese atheists screwing goats!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry UHM but the Holy Grail of redundancy has already been located
Evolutionists, the unveiling of the PowerPoint presentation combined with the proliferation of Question evolution conference room presentations via free PowerPoint presentations and via free web conferencing rooms will cause a whole new geologic era to commence and it is not going to be hospitable to evolutionism. ONE / TALK 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's official - Andy doesn't give a fuck.img --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's just that Ken's turd doesn't warrant a fuck bigger than Andy is willing to spare. Andy has been known to trim, but Ken really has to pull out all the stops to invite that. ONE / TALK 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I really don't like Psy's diff so let's captureimg that in its onscreen glory. I must say that if there's just one thing which really shows that Conservapedia is an online learning resource, then it is a million miles away from Ken's constipated drivel. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 17:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What was TK's last word on CP?[edit]

I think it may have been "account".— Unsigned, by: 75.197.205.158 / talk / contribs

"Run." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what Conservapedia's last word will be? My guess: Godspeed. ONE / TALK 13:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed's got bigger balls than FCapra![edit]

Ed creates a lameass stub of an article entitled Science and speculationimg, consisting of a quote from a movie review on an obscure physics nerd site (not that there's anything wrong with physics nerds!). FCapra takes the time to write something semi-sensibleimg and then does the unpardonable: deletesimg the quote.

This cannot stand! Ed has been dissed! Backimg to the original lameass stub with the added warningimg:

You are too junior a contributor to replace an entire article.

An entire article? A fucking quote from a movie review now counts as an entire article?

Good God, but Ed's a scared little asshole. FCapra wrote an article, whereas Ed simply bookmarked a quote he liked. Amazing.

Someone with a talent for writing dialogue could put this on WIGO. Phiwum (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX already did... 9 hours ago :P Edit- I hope he doesn't mind me completely rewriting it ONE / TALK 14:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah good old user188. This is the guy who claims that he's the guy who made all the hey-let's-work-together-in-harmony groups on WP. Cuddly Uncle Ed (just don't take any sweeties from it). The man is a prize douche. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, do I look stupid. Phiwum (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Ed tipping us the winkimg or is he just a total moron? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just pose the question "is Ed just a total moron" in a non-rhetorical manner? DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I know the days are getting shorter, but this is ridiculous...[edit]

And here I thought I got the hang of this whole Nightly Lockdown thing: Around ~2pm German time, the lockdown is lifted, and it stays that way until well into the night. But now it's 7pm, and I find myself staring at the familiar "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit" error message. Don't tell me that the four sillyname-users who signed up today drove the sysops into such a frenzy that they saw it fit to hit the lockdown switch... --Sid (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting weirder, the lockdown apparently wasn't hit until recently: Half an hour ago, PatternOfPersona and StoryMaker edited, and neither of them has edit rights. --Sid (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a holiday here in US-America. The assumption, I guess, is that nobody will be around to police things? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
.........that is stupid enough to be likely. =| --Sid (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
But its on during sunday mornings and we all know ken doesn't have anybody to celebrate fuck with (aswell as sleep, hang out or eat) so theres always atleast ken to keep the site from being nuked. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, he probably has a bit of family/somewhere to go. It's my experience that if you're alone on Thanksgiving, you're really trying to be alone. People will invite total strangers to their house. I'm sure he's doing fine. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ken has absolutely no reason to turn on general editing, he's just content posting his own drivel. The others are probably stuffing their faces. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Presumably Ken's looks match his personality to a degree (doughy, soft, weak, greasy, Doritos crumbs everywhere). People invite total strangers that look good over, or at least that look pleasant. Imagine what Ken looks like then imagine if you would invite him over? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Stay classy. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Nah, if Ken were a nice person, I would never think of making fun of his defficiencies, but he's an asshole, a spiteful asshole, so he gets no love from me. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ken is really bad at metaphor[edit]

Creationism is like an ocean wave in landlocked Tennesseeimg and to back it up he posts an oil tanker, the most ridiculously seaworthy vessels imaginable, with hydrostatic support from their cargo, and buoyancy, and a great low center of gravity. There are a ton of pictures of tankers going through waves, or in bad weather because so many tankers just plunge through bad weather because they know that they can easily and safely. Perhaps not as bad as Christian wildfire destroys homes of atheist firefighters, but still really bad. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 07:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, unfortunately there's little chance of the great wave of reality smashing in to the HMS Kendoll and stoving in its gopherwood hull. Perhaps we should have a contest to come up with some more apt metaphors for Tennessee. Something about whiskey and being liquored up on the juice of creationism perhaps. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
"Nashville has over 700 churches" - its interesting that if churches represent religious worthiness, by quick google maps count my ultra-liberal godless hippy town of Berkeley, CA has almost 100 churches - matching that of Nashville , TN by churches/population. If we go by area, Berkeley (at 11 Mi^2) is nearly 50 times smaller than Nashville (500 mi^2) which means that ultra liberal godless Berkeley has nearly 10x the density of churches than Nashville. Just some food for thought ken. Ateafish (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The only part possibly worth mentioning is that he felt he had to make an essay out of this. Remember when the essays were meaningful (back in 2007)? Anyway he is doing this for our attention, which he craves.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
What century is Ken living in? "SS" is steamship - which was the catch-all prefix for ships that couldn't use another prefix. Now the catch-all is MV - motor vessel. BTW Jeeves, HMS is His/Her Majesty's Ship, which should only be used for Royal Navy ships. CS Miller (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. The metaphor is almost brilliantly absurd because a wave couldn't topple a steamship in Tennessee without magic or lies. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad...[edit]

... to know just how much the US constitutionimg means to the Assfly. I guess exporting freedom around the world only extends to the freedom of commerce. All those other freedoms, the petty ones in the first amendment, the president shouldn't try and export those. Especially when it might benefit people Jesus hates. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose Mr. Schlafly does not consider speech directed at children to be covered under the First Amendment, unless of course he is the one doing the speaking. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
What? This isn't news!
This is the difference between a fundie and a liberal (the other 95% to 80% of the population). A real liberal — no matter if classical or modern — wants freedom of speech for everybody, not just those he agrees with. While a fundie just wants his opinion spread, if others are allowed to speak up against it that is not unwanted. But to abstract the picture the liberals get thrown in their face that they censor people that don't get the same chance to spread their own opinion, while it is clear to everybody else that there is a difference between spreading an opinion and allowing it to be spread. That's fundies right there for you — and it doesn't even matter if Christian, Jewish or Muslim fundie. --ʤɱ pervert 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Kendoll jams the cultural relativism with a bit of stereotyping.img --ʤɱ digital native 11:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
"Nancy boys". Wow. What an asshole. Phiwum (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ken and Andy both flunk logic (forever)[edit]

Because it isn't clear if an exoplanet exists or not, evolution is wrong.img Let me help 'ya both there. --ʤɱ socialist 11:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's something about one dimwitted researcher claiming a 100% chance of life on the alien planet given evolution. The kenandy machine was just unable to process the detail that would have tied the points in the headline together. ONE / TALK 11:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It all makes sense when you realise that the various iterations of "evolution" is just another snarl word, like "liberals." Any science Andy, and especially Ken, doesn't like or understand (i.e. all of it) can be written off as being "evolutionist" and therefore ignored. That's why you end up with the situation of evolutionists being worried about the age of the sun. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Before Peak 15 was discovered, the highest mountain in the world was Peak 15 (now called Everest). By Kenny and Andy's logic, if indeed logic has decided to pay a long-overdue visit to their place, it would not have been. Just because we haven't found something yet doesn't... Come to that, how the hell are we supposed to check? The nearest star is four light years away, and the telescopes we've got at the moment are a bit crap when it comes to that kind of distance. Meh, I'm not going to make assumptions based off insufficient evidence. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And keep in mind that investing in such scientific gear is a waste of money anyway — 'cause the Bible never mentioned aliens and humans are the best the best thing EVA!! --ʤɱ socialist 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Like all their other articles, they attack a strawman. Because some researcher states that he believes there is a 100% chance of life on Gliese 581g doesn't mean for one second that is some sort of scientific statement or claim. Scientists, like everyone else can believe what they want outside of their research. I guarantee there is no science paper or statement that even attempts to calculate the probability of life on Gliese 581g simply for the fact we still know so little about the planet. We do not even know if its a large rocky world or one made up of mostly water/ice (although evidence leans towards the former). The world is most likely tidally locked, given its distance from its parent star, so even though it has the mass to hold a thick atmosphere (of which we have no idea what the composition of is, or even if it exists), it could be difficult for life to form there (although a thick atmosphere would somewhat mitigate the extremes of a tidal locking). All we can say for the planet is it has potential, we can't even say how much.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Old methods die hard[edit]

Andy: Not knowing shit about foreign countries is the same thing as not memorizing whole speeches.img

A few days or a week ago we had a link to a speech of Andy's about how somehow the liberals caused 9/11 to be worse. It would be great if someone with a faster connection then me could look up if Andy used anything to help himself there. I do remember him criticising Obama for having to use a teleprompter, if he used any kind of paper in that video he just legitimately called himself a moron. --ʤɱ structuralist 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That MPR item is idiotic. I wanted to comment on it over there, but it's truly a "WHERE SHOULD I EVEN BEGIN?" case. Let's see... (1) The entire interview thing apparently blew over already. (2) Focusing on the linked story anyway, it looks like Cain's damage control team rolled a natural 1 there. Yet Andy seems to completely overlook this while shielding a poor widdle TRUE CONSERVATIVE who wants to be President of the United States without being filmed during interviews - something no other candidate seems to have a problem with. Oooookayyyyy? Not the best strategy when dealing with the image that Cain is afraid to show his non-knowledge on tape. (3) You can't use a teleprompter during such an open interview, and I thiiink that Obama handled his interviews just fine. (4) Andy makes it clear that no matter how bad Cain's PR/damage-control team is, he could do a worse job. --Sid (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And to answer your question: I just skimmed the video, but yes, he approaches the podium with a folder of sorts, and he is pretty obviously reading from his notes. To be fair, he did go into that interview with Colbert without notes, and that went rather smooth-... oh, wait. --Sid (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

someone should rewrite the WIGO[edit]

It should be polling harder than that by now, especially since so many of us have the day off, the only explanation is my wigo writing chronic fail. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How about "Andy: Speaking from a teleprompter is worse than thinking the Taliban is in charge of Libya/getting your tax plan from Sim City/thinking an "agreement is different from a "settlement"/not knowing who the President of Ubekibekibekistanstan is." Take your pick. --Roofus (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Popeye[edit]

Without you, I would never have known that Obama is president of Egyptimg. How the hell is that anything to do with Obama? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

He didn't bomb people wanting to be free. Also he is Obama, so if a sack of rice falls on a cat in China, it is his fault. --ʤɱ socialist 01:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"...the novel chronicles the first steps of the heroine's journey into bisexuality from age 11 through her junior year in high school."[edit]

Guess who.img PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant quoted review, too. "A young black lesbian coming of age in South Chicago during the heyday of the civil rights movement. (Dallas Public Library)" That's a review, is it? Phiwum (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Presumably "synopsis" has too many syllables for Uncle Ed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Ed was revered on WP and he produces this crap?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Ed Poor was revered on Wikipedia by Ed Poor. Everyone else thought he was a shitforbrains. DickTurpis (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
He's busy on Wikipedia too. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
"The officer then kicked the body of the American soldier over into the field, and all of the Japanese soldiers laughed merrily and walked away". Complete loss of words. I have it. Dendlai (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
On wikipedia ed has any respect simply because he has been there a long time(a few days short of a decade actually). beyond that, he is the guy who deleted the deletion page. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
And he is at it again.img Aceace 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
How the FUCK is that a constructive edit to an encyclopedia? It doesn't even say a song by the Police. And a lyrical reference to "that book by Nabokob"? Seriously? Garçoncoffee! 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed it for you. --Longbow (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
What's the problem? Ed's focused on the bit about a young girl and older guy. As far as he's concerned, he's covered the important bits. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
One day we're going to read about Ed in the news, in a story about buggered Sunday School children. He makes my skin crawl. --Longbow (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that whatever teaching Ed does is most likely in some creepy, culty, Moonie environment, I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Although I wonder if he has to use a holy handkerchief then too? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Relatitivity and black holes[edit]

I was just watching a show on The Science Channel about black holes. From what I gather, relativity just doesn't seem to apply to black holes and there's a scientist working on networking together hundreds of radio telescopes together so he can get a clear picture of the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Apparently, if he can get a good enough picture, it'll go a long way towards proving or disproving relativity (at least when it comes to black holes.)
While I was watching it, I was thinking about the Conservapedia coverage if his observations end up disproving relativity. It would drive Andy crazy. On the one hand, relativity is disproven (that's good!) On the other hand, black holes did it (They cause people to read the bible less!) I bet he'd ignore it until AugustO or someone goads him into putting something up. --Roofus (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the point was more that (1) per relativity a black hole is a singularity, a point at which the maths break down - thus there is an inherent limitation in general relativity's ability to describe black holes (2) most physicists expect quantum theory to play an important role here, and to predict phenomena one would not expect per GR by itself (e.g. the evaporation of black holes by Hawking radation), but (3) there are way too many possible theories of quantum gravity, and we don't know which (if any of them) is correct. Of course, further astronomical study of black holes *might* help us to solve some of these quandries, but who can say what will happen. (Personally, I don't believe the laws of physics fully exist until they are discovered, so I think it likely that in different branch-universes descending from here, different laws of physics will be found to hold, as different universes seek to fulfil the desires of different mathematical physicists as to what the laws of physics are.) (((Zack Martin))) 09:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
At this point I think if we just want to find out what's actually true, we should just ask you and then believe the exact opposite of whatever you say. Different universes seek to fulfil the desires of different physicists? Were you high when you wrote that? Are you just constantly high? Oh, and go fix your fucking bible. Your goddess can't fucking count in binary. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that at a black hole, the point at which light can't excape (the mass of the Earth, 5.98x1024 kilograms, would have to be compressed to about 8mm across to have this effect), all the laws of physics break down. I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it. It's got to be weird for light getting caught in that kind of gravity - it'd hit the 8mm-wide ball of mass, bounce off, then come right back down at it. Fucking red matter.... Incidentally, relativity and quantum theory are incompatible anyway. Relativity's good at a HUEG scale, and quantum's good at a...well, quantum scale, but they don't work at the opposite end. Bring on the Theory of Everything! --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 10:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
People often seem to forget that the laws of nature never break down, they just become indescribable with the tools of description we have. --ʤɱ digital native 13:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
@UHM, yes you are right. @Jeeves, she "can't count in binary"? What are you referring to? The discussion of numbers at CTCV 53? That is not meant to be binary; in fact, it is a more efficient representation than binary, since it maps every element of the Kleene star of {0,1} to a distinct natural number, while binary wastefully provides no mapping for the empty string, and it does not map "0", "00", "000", etc., or "1", "01", "001", etc., to distinct natural numbers. (((Zack Martin))) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no atheism is in trouble now![edit]

some guy in Tennessee, which is a well known stronghold of liberal atheist evolutionism, is going to go around bothering people about QE!imgwhat now atheists? --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ken...[edit]

for continuing a discussion that ended half a year agoimg in your attempt to justify christianity as the wildfire destroying a home--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nightly Lockdown, Extreme Edition[edit]

Soooo! The regular Nightly Lockdown is finally over, let's check CP! Ohhh, a stupid vandalimg is on the loose. Let's revert him and-... "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators."

...what? In the middle of reverting vandalism, the Lockdown kicked in again already?

..........wait, this isn't just the regular Lockdown: Not even edit-right users can edit anymore!

Of course, the vandalism stays because whoever hit the switch was too lazy to clean up, meaning that the Westboro Baptist Church is now a conservative organization and that Fred Phelps was the inspiration for Conservapedia.img

And in the middle of this all, TerryH is merrily editing one of his Atlas Shrugged articles. *sigh* --Sid (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RC snapshotimg --Sid (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
How, exactly, did you get that URL to work like that? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
CaptureBot won't re-capture a URL like thisimg (check the image - it will be old), so you can feed it a "new" URL for capture by manually adding some unique string after the "#" character. --Sid (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This must be a popular trend: I pokedimg Jpatt about why he oversighted somebody's edits from my castle (user talk page), he gave me a hilarious answerimg for an anti-government Tea Party type, I askedimg if it maybe was for mentioning AmeriWiki (the only other MUST NOT BE MENTIONED site I'm aware of), and suddenly, Extreme Nightly Lockdown is in effect again. The fuck. --Sid (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently it's now called the Sam-Wiki Show. --Longbow (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what he's talking about, but since CP is currently the Sysop-Only-Wiki Show, I can't ask. Is he talking about AmeriWiki? --Sid (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
And now it's back again. Seriously, at this point I can't even tell if some sysop is trolling or if the server is badly configured and about to crash. --Sid (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume he's talking about Ameriwiki. Sam Coulter seems to be running it these days, and I suspect SamRSC was one of his socks. Could be he's trying to steal the remaining apparently sane editors from CP. --Longbow (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, AW is largely run by SamCoulter, myself, Colonel Sanders (same as the Colonel Sanders here, right?) SharonW (same as here and CP, right?) and George Fitzgerald. Jpatt may think SamCoulter and SamHB are the same person. We aren't. And I'm not SamRSC. Jpatt is really stupid. SamHB (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Look on the bright side. You've attracted quality editors like James Wilson. --Longbow (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
James Wilson? Not any more. SamHB (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the same Colonel Sanders on AW, RW, Illogicopedia, aSK, CreationWiki, wherever else. JimmyWanker is far from a quality editor.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be the best shot at Andy in the past little while.[edit]

Capra lets him have it with both barrelsimg. There's no arguing any of his points. Excellent work, sir. Excellent work. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe he's bringing this up again after it was pointed out to him that TK died soon after contributing to CP. So is being a sysop on CP potentially fatal? According to Assfly's logic it is. What an asshole. PACODOGwoof, bitches 02:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
He's out of his league, here. --"Shut up, Brx." 02:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
My head is starting to hurt from slamming it onto my desk repeatedly. No more CP for me, or I'll end up proving him right in some twisted form of irony. I give up. I'm gonna play some Wii golf to relax. PACODOGwoof, bitches 02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
For those without academic library access, the paper Andy cited from 2004 was of 22 Italian males between the ages of 20 and 29 who were habitual computer gamers. Playing 'Unreal Tournament' raised systolic blood pressure compared to playing 'Puzzle Bobble'. During Unreal, SBP went from ~122 to ~126 mm Hg, while the same players stayed at ~121 during Puzzle Bobble. Diastolic blood pressure for both groups was lower than starting levels after playing, and systolic blood pressure levels equalized after playing. The study authors point out that the increase may have been the result of more motor activity during Unreal (exercise!). Anyway, that's less of a jump than you'll get from under five minutes of aerobic activity, and it's a helluva lot less than you get from shit like weightlifting (scary numbers here: seriously - 320/250 during a double leg press?). And the 'stress cardiomyopathy' that he brings up - a condition associated most with postmenopausal women who receive some devestating news - is a short-term functional defect (akin to a leg falling asleep) that wouldn't produce scarring or cardiomegaly, both of which the football player had. Andy must not run these things past his wife before he posts.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Run stuff past his wife? Are you kidding? More likely Andy makes his wife run all her medical diagnoses past him. DickTurpis (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Surely Andy just prescribes leeches? --PsyGremlinTal! 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to Carpa. It's a shame that he's probably got banned. It'd be interesting to see Andy get into an argument like that on live TV where he can't ban people, walk out claiming he's got better things to do with his time without looking like a complete arse, and his sysops won't come to his rescue leaving a trail of glorious fire in the sky. That way, he'd be royally fucked. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 16:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
So far, (s)he's unbanned. Andy's flailing wildly, and Kara now joined in for some reason, but from a somewhat different angle. --Sid (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I got boredimg, so I'm sure as hell banned now. Do you guys need editors? I think I'm reformed now. TheIronGoat (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that it's really you: Welcome on board. :) --Sid (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy is losing it[edit]

He's now moving away from violent games and cardiomyopathy and instead frantically posts every possible video-game related health issue he can find, including Dance Dance Revolution and games causing an epileptic fit. --Sid (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The best way to describe what he is doing is having an hysterical fit. And there we go: SSSSSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANCE!img but only for two hours as you are pretty much the only people that at least try anymore… --ʤɱ structuralist 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that, too. I mean, I was pretty muchimg asking for it, but FCapra's block was an obvious case of "I HAVE HAMMER, I WIN ARGUMENT". --Sid (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This entire conversation deserves a captureimg άλφαΤαλκ 20:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
90/10 epically backfires and turns the discussion into a shitfest: FCapra loses itimg (2 year ban), and JimmyRa points outimg the obvious. --Sid (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
And of course: Revert,img revert.img --Sid (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
FCapra blocked by Ken for incivility. Was that an ironic coincidence, or did they actually ask amongst themselves, "Who here can make FCapra's block the most ironic and with the greatest hypocrisy?" AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 22:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit, he almost had me going when he posted that study, but thankfully there're people with access to it that cleared it up. Freedom of information destroys all lies.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)