Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive27

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. 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>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Wonder if Crocoite got a look at this[edit]

An editor calling Rommney non-christian[1]. The odd bit is that no sysops have chastised the user for making such a claim. Even Crocoite hasn't stood up to defend his faith there. --Shagie 19:49, 7 February 2008 (EST)

That's because C-pedia doesn't consider Mormons Christian. Pinto's5150 Talk 20:17, 7 February 2008 (EST)
The mighty SSchultz called them on it. --Gulik 04:05, 8 February 2008 (EST)


I'm not sure if I should feel pity for Bethany, or be genuinely concerned about her mental well-being. It's almost like she's a crazed cult follower, what with her dogmatic and simplistic approach to problems, her refusal to even speak of RW (let alone visit it), and her unwavering loyalty to Andy. --Hojidie! 23:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Gotta be something wrong with her if she won't come by for a visit. Lurker 23:34, 7 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah really. I mean, look at the "What It's Like to Be Andy Schlafly." section above. She's really missing out. Locke 23:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)
  • Your criticism of her is dishonest. She says she wouldn't mind if people "bowdlerize" (criticize) her page, not that she wouldn't mind someone vandalizing it. People are free to criticize when its protected. Whats the issue? Locke 23:40, 7 February 2008 (EST)
    • Also, the guy's castle is still a castle. Bethany never actually changed anything. Lurker 23:42, 7 February 2008 (EST)

bowd·ler·ize /ˈboʊdləˌraɪz, ˈbaʊd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bohd-luh-rahyz, boud-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing. to expurgate (a written work) by removing or modifying passages considered vulgar or objectionable.

The castle thing is true however. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 23:59, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Well, you certainly proved me wrong. I assumed it meant criticize because that's all she did. You see An RW sock told her she "bowlderized" his caslte. She never touched the page. How could she "bowlderize" a page she didn't touch? That means that one of your socks was lying. Shame. Locke 00:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)
You assume a bit too much. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 08:08, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I am amused that Shanon calls Bethany on the block[2] and that Bethany has the 'sysop pledge' on her user page[3] that proclaims "As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines." With her quote of "True. I'm not saying that he was rightly blocked (though I would have blocked him for other reasons) but it still is ridiculous to grouse about it. There's nothing he can do. :P I just think he is being immature."[4] it is obvious she is taking lessons from the other sysops on hypocrite and blocking when loosing an argument. --Shagie 14:40, 8 February 2008 (EST)

To be briefly petty, is anyone else fantastically annoyed that Bethany ends a great deal of her talk page comments with ":P"? --Linus(plot evil tech) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Everything about Bethany annoys me. humanUser talk:Human 15:00, 8 February 2008 (EST)

If you want facts....[edit]

It means you're a hate-filled Liberal. --Gulik 03:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)

"What is going on with the "skepics" [snip] Looking at Emkay's user page I see something akin to assistance with the "attrocious spelling and grammar" on this site [snip]" ... pfffthahaha Barikada 04:53, 8 February 2008 (EST)
What I loved about that one was KooKoo's claim that he did not misquote Emkay (it was m'kay, right?), when he obviously and clearly did exactly that. humanUser talk:Human 14:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)

1000 autmobiles are more efficient than 1 commuter train?[edit]

(Liberal Denial) One here I've not met before:
10: that private transport is more efficient than public transport.- [5]
Where @ CP, if anywhere, is this expanded/expounded? I've never read anything more ridiculous (apart from everything else @ CP, that is). SusanMiouw 04:22, 8 February 2008 (EST)

You're in denial. Remember, these are all "facts that are plainly true".--WJThomas 08:48, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I think this might be the most egregious Conservapedia lie ever. Like, seriously, ever. I can't wait to see their "cite" about how much more expensive public transport is?-αmεσ (ninja) 11:24, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Be careful what you wish for. There are plenty of examples where public transport is more expensive than the private alternative. At least the cost to the traveller. It is always cheaper, for example, for me to take the family in the car for any distance than it is to take the train. (UK, BTW). Ajkgordon 11:51, 8 February 2008 (EST)
It say: "more efficient", not: "cheaper" SusanMiouw 13:19, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Public transport in the UK is rubbish, especially the trains. They're never on time, don't get you where you want/need to be at the time you need to be there and they are expensive. I spent 10 years travelling to work from Wolverton to Northampton. The last monthly season ticket I bought (in 2003) cost me £ 600. For a 13 mile journey. And I couldn't get to work for 0730 on a Sunday morning because the trains stopped running at 0400 and didn't start again until 0845. I also had to wait an hour in the evening for a train because they only ran every hour. Yeah public transport is great. *NOT*. Spica 13:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)

One thing to keep in mind are "hidden" costs. Here in the US, auto use is heavily subsidized (free roads, low fuel taxes, etc.) and a lot of public trans. is not. And we have precious few useful systems outside of major cities. But if I want to go to Boston, I would burn about $7.50 in fuel alone to drive (one way), then I would have to park (which can be free if you are wily and know your way around, but can easily cost $10, and much higher when "events" are going on - $25 is a good deal to park near a Red Sox game, for instance). Amtrak runs five trains a day, one way cost is $12. Then the T (underground/subway) will get you anywhere in the city for about a dollar each way. And they actually run the T fairly well - for instance, they try to make sure last train runs come after the clubs, etc. close. humanUser talk:Human 15:08, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I forgot to mention that passenger car efficiency, of course, gets much better when there are more people in the car. 25 mpg becomes 100 passenger mpg with four peeps on board... humanUser talk:Human 17:25, 8 February 2008 (EST)
For a point of data, an 8 car heavy rail passenger train gets about 25 gallons to the mile. A 45 mile trip is 1125 gallons of diesel. Anyone know the efficiency conversion for diesel to unleaded (I know that 1 gallon of unleaded has a different amount of potential energy and processing done to it compared to diesel)?
I went cold turkey on driving back in September... My commute is 10 miles one way for 1/3 of a gallon ($3.30 currently) compared to the light rail cost of $1.75. Going up to San Francisco, its $12 round trip for 90 miles. Thats about $10 for gas alone... not to mention the hassle of driving, and the train is actually faster if there is anything resembling traffic on 101. Don't even mention the $20 parking if you can find it cheap (I once found a $5/day weekend lot, but they locked my car in when I left late one day which added a motel stay to the night and a weekday morning commute). On weekends, caltrain runs every hour... weekdays is several times an hour.
Now, thats for one person in a car. If you get a family, its cheaper to drive than pay $50 for the family (and you have the option of leaving when the kids get tired rather than when the next train leaves). --Shagie 17:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Fox[edit]

He kindly referenced WIGO (last paragraph). Whose sock should go and ask him what does WIGO stand for? Innocent readers want to now. Editor at CPBring TK back 10:10, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Maybe I missed the post on here, but which WIGO example is he referring to, or was it just a shoutout to his favorite site? Jrssr5 11:13, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I think he's just bitching. It doesn't matter that there is/isn't a pertinent WIGO entry, he's just saying, "you damn lib'ruls and your making fun of us! don't you know that's a violation of 124 U.S.C. § 555!?!?!"-αmεσ (ninja) 11:22, 8 February 2008 (EST)
He's just bitching, but wasn't every mention of RW strictly forbidden? Editor at CPBring TK back 11:25, 8 February 2008 (EST)
That left me scratching my head for a bit, too. My theory is that he meant CP's "broken breaking news" section, but reads here so much he had absorbed the "wigo" acronym into his brain. is it a particularly common usage? humanUser talk:Human 13:56, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I gotta say, Fox makes some pretty poor arguments (well, I suppose they're not his, he's just citing them). If the problem is caused by extended pub hours, it should only have an effect in the hours from after 11 PM until the wee hours of the morning. I'm not sure how this makes town centers into no-go areas except in the hours when the vast majority of people aren't up and about anyway. The rest of the hours the pubs were open and people were drinking before the new law. Though my favorite bit is his quote "Under Labour the number of people cautioned or found guilty of selling alcohol to youngsters under 18 has fallen by half," which, of course illustrates that the liberal government isn't doing anything, whereas if it had been "Under the Conservatives the number of people cautioned or found guilty of selling alcohol to youngsters under 18 has fallen by half" it would show how the Tories had tackled the problem and reduced it by 50%. Gotta love statistics. -DickTurpis 11:22, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Night editing[edit]

There was a WIGO entry about a relatively obscure User:Alexander asking for and receiving night editing (later withdrawn). Helpjazz tried to jump on the bandwagon - again, to no avail. Will our heroes, Helpjazz and Iduan, ever get their Sysopship? Editor at CPBring TK back 11:48, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Alexander may have gotten night rights because s/he mentioned s/he was a member of a "campus conservative organization". So clearly, off-wiki "credentials" matter more than on-wiki credentials. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:56, 8 February 2008 (EST)
"Credentials", eh? Say no more, say no more, know whatahmean, nudge nudge? Speaking of which, was there ever any further activity from Andy's last promotion (whose name I've completely forgotten--CollegeConservative, or somesuch)?--WJThomas 13:49, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Nope. --Sid 15:25, 8 February 2008 (EST)

So, what's this "Guard Dog" thing they've got?[edit]

A new autoblocker, because the sysops just couldn't keep up? --Gulik 17:06, 8 February 2008 (EST)

A gun would have protected Iduan from that dog! (Sorry, really couldn't resist in the light of Iduan getting mauled by CP's "Guard Dog". ;))
I can't seem to find an extension with that name, so it's possibly been renamed or it's a self-created script. It doesn't seem to be listed in their Special:Version page, either.
Speculation about the rules? So far, it appears that this is the first block ever with Doggy Power, so the data is limited (and I seriously hope that the rules will be tweaked). My guess: "10 edits in 5 minutes that remove data" since that's one pattern that would fit Iduan's pre-block behavior. --Sid 17:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Can weze get a "Guard Goat" that automatically unblocks users for no good reason? Or blocks random users for short random amounts of pi seconds? humanUser talk:Human 17:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I'm pretty sure that you could code a bot... probably easier to maintain (and to stop once it turns against its masters like all good robots should do) than an extension, but I'm not speaking from experience. --Sid 17:35, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Oh wow that's going reak havoc on the multitudes of editors who just go around changing spelling, categories, and whatnot. Lurker 17:37, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Seems to be a PJR creation.--WJThomas 17:41, 8 February 2008 (EST)

What, so they're autoblocking with bots? Hmm ... --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
I'm waiting for the version that automatically enforces 90/10 and starts blocking everyone and the version that detects reality liberal edits and blocks the user. To error is human, to forgive is divine, to really screw things up takes a computer. --Shagie 17:46, 8 February 2008 (EST)
It would actually be funny if they decided to only enforce 90/10 by the bot. Andy "The bot's not working!" Someone who can count to 10: "Uh... yeah it is." Lurker 17:49, 8 February 2008 (EST)
It's not a bot, but apparently a sort of monitoring wiki extension. Note how Iduan apparently blocked himself via Guard Dog Autoblock. --Sid 17:52, 8 February 2008 (EST)
By the way, shouldn't PJR be banhammered for creating multiple socks? Editor at CPBring TK back 17:48, 8 February 2008 (EST)
He's a lousy

, lousy

liberal.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 17:53, 8 February 2008 (EST)
No, he's a lousy

, lousy , lousy

liberal, who should Kiss me

. Pinto's5150 Talk 18:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Mmmmm, roasted goat with plums dressed with barbed wire! Do you prefer yours galvanized or plain? humanUser talk:Human 18:34, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I'm actually quite surprised how much praise the Guard Dog gets (on Iduan's talk page]). So far, it blocked exactly one user - Iduan. That's a success quote of ZERO. --Sid 23:15, 8 February 2008 (EST)

"Sweet! That will be awesome...except then we don't get to block them ourselves. :/ ~BCSTalk2ME" This is why I hate Bethany, the proto-fascist. She actually likes janitorial work? I dunno if she's old enough to be allowed to be called this, but... eh, forget it. Can someone please sue teh assfly for endangering/corrupting a minor? humanUser talk:Human 23:22, 8 February 2008 (EST)
And PHR saith thusly: "there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to block editors!". Wow. Like that's the fun part of working on CP? humanUser talk:Human 23:24, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I'd guess that's the only fun they get. --Gulik 01:40, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Guard dog just blocked MakeTomorrow, probably for undeadening a few too many pages (although it might be for having the effrontery to assume that Wikipedia formatting was the seriously considered at CP). So assuming the test account "PJR" was blocked as part of successful test, its success rate is now 33.3%, and still zero when test cases are dismissed. Wow. -DickTurpis 13:20, 9 February 2008 (EST)

I just had a fantastic thought: Contest #6. Woof woof. UchihaKATON! 14:22, 9 February 2008 (EST)

TerryH and Iduan bite the dust. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 17:13, 9 February 2008 (EST)

note to helpjazz etc[edit]

I have to reply here since I am banned at CP:

"Regardless, in no normal circumstances should users make that many edits in a short period of time. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a page, make decide what edit needs to be made, make said edit, and save the page all in under 6 seconds. Even when you go through and fix categories you can't go that fast. I would say that anyone who makes that many edits in 1 minute should be slowed down. HelpJazz 13:32, 9 February 2008 (EST)"

It is really easy to do during routine "maintenance" work. For example, say an article is renamed. Then I check what links to the old name to bypass the redirect. Say there are ten files. I click on my mouse wheel to open them all in new tabs. Then I cruise across them clicking "edit". (Doing it this way is more efficient, during wiki-loading time I always have something else to "do"). In the first one I make the change, then copy it. Hit save, copy into next file, save, etc. So I would be making ten identical edits in probably under 20 seconds. You should make the robot "slow down" such an editor, not block them - ie, force a captcha screen or something. make them do some simple arithmetic, the way they have to if they are saving something with an EL. humanUser talk:Human 15:27, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Wait... so the idea of this "Guard Dog" is essentially "Shut up, you're making us look slow"? Barikada 16:07, 9 February 2008 (EST)

My favorite bit is from Conservapedia Commandments:

  • The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

With a footnote to:

  • Search engine and read only bots are exempt from this Commandment. To get authorization please post a note on User_talk:Aschlafly, stating what the bot will do, what username it will be under, and whether you have a working prototype. Bot owners are responsible for their bots' actions.

Isn't guard dog an unauthorized bot that is not search nor read only and should PJR be held accountable for blocking uses as if he did it himself? It would have been so funny if it was Andy in one of his C&P spews that caused it or if Conservative got it while on one of his homosexual edit fests. --Shagie 18:00, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Well, my inside source (*wink* *nudge*) told me that the bot has indeed been authorized. A "semi-Duh" case when you think about it, really. First of all, PJR is among the more careful and rule-cautious sysops, and he's on thin ice with Andy anyway, so he'd triple-check anything like that. Then there's the likely possibility that the bot is actually an extension running on the server (note how "Iduan autoblocked himself" for five years, which was likely not his own doing, unless he decided to give himself a permanent timeout... again), so it would've been approved by Andy by default.
And CP sysops are above the rules, so duh. :P Plus, they develop bots in their free time with Andy's knowledge, anyway (I think Ed openly admitted that he was working on a CopyPaste bot once...). --Sid 14:35, 10 February 2008 (EST)
I just realized - the "Iduan blocked Iduan" was not the bot. When the bot does it, it says "PJR blocked...". Iduan unblocked himself to say something to PJR and then reblocked himself to stay outof trouble while the dust settled. I think. humanUser talk:Human 15:07, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Hmmmmmmm, looking at the logs, you're likely right, actually. The messages are the same, but Iduan's block didn't link to the Guard Dog page. But then why 5 years? Also, what's the point? It's pure mockery - he gets thrown into a cell, opens the door again to do something outside, and then goes into a cell again? If he really honored such a ban, he would've done what everybody else has to do in the case of a block - send a mail and pray that the Mighty Sysops react to it. --Sid 15:41, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Crocoite's been extra grumpy lately[edit]

Maybe it's because his wife joined, saw he was a crazy man, and left him. :'( Lurker 19:39, 8 February 2008 (EST)

I think you meant Patricia? humanUser talk:Human 19:43, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Um yeah kinda. Not sure how that happened. (It took me four tries to get the spelling of "happened" right. Sadly, I don't have mind-altering substances to blame). Lurker 19:45, 8 February 2008 (EST)
She must've run off with a librul. --Robledo 19:55, 8 February 2008 (EST)
She says she's a teacher. Based on her user profile, I hope she ain't learning them kids no english. And she says she is "a wife to Crocoite", not the; I wonder if that means they're doing that whole Mormon polygamy thing... --WJThomas 21:04, 8 February 2008 (EST)
She says she's "a wife of Crocoite", ain't he LDS? I wonder if'n he's old order LDS than has those new-fangled poly-gymus relationshipnesses. CЯacke® 21:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Speaking of poly-adry...--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 21:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I don't need no religion to practice it. CЯacke® 21:45, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I love my wife dearly...but more than one?!?! Jeebxs!!--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 21:46, 8 February 2008 (EST)

<--Yeah, in case something should ah, er "happen" to wife #1, think of it as insurance for your sex life. CЯacke® 21:50, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Wow...a whole new perspective...I'm gonna fetch a scotch.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 21:51, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I'm goin to IRC. CЯacke®
What is this "IRC" thing of which you speak? Is it funnier than the wiki and the fora combined? Do they have good goat? Will it work on my P4/WinXP/Mozilla crashform? humanUser talk:Human 22:57, 8 February 2008 (EST)
IRC Intertube Relay Chat. Should oughta work fine I use [ mIRC] but you could use another client.
The network is freenode doing it manually it'd be
then afer the MOTD and stuff type in
/join #rationalwiki
CЯacke® 23:03, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Is this whore gonna pretend I need to close all my RW winoze & tabs? (I'll ignore it if it does) humanUser talk:Human 23:11, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Copyright infrigements[edit]

Could someone chase down who to contact at to tell them that CP is using their image without paying the licensing fees (no, thats not fair use) --Shagie 02:32, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Dear Shagie. CP claims "fair use" for any image due to their edumacational status. They steal their textbooks, and any text they can, in order to assert the primacy of completely ignorant so-called "homskolling".
Anyway, the trick regarding any of their multitudinous copyright violations is to get the owner of the copyright to give a shit. And email teh assfly. humanUser talk:Human 03:03, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Also, do you expect Jokin' Martiniz to understand US copyright law? He can't even place, or caption, the image in an intelligent way in the article! humanUser talk:Human 03:05, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, the site says all their images are right-free (Libre de Derechos), including that one. This doesn't explain why the image itself in that link says its copyrighted or why is it being sold though.
That is likely the translation of royalty free which is very common in stock photography companies (I am a hobbiest photographer and have looked at selling my images to such companies - it is important to many that it is royalty free). The image is still copyright and use of it needs a license, but if you bought the license you could put it in an advertisement without paying additional money. --Shagie 12:44, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks, it makes more sense now. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 13:42, 9 February 2008 (EST)
I wonder how feasible it would be to send DMCA takedown requests with Andy and his ISP or bring the images to the attention of the holders. The challenge with this one is trying to get in touch with the copyright holder or stock agency (I've got trouble navigating that site and don't intend to call a 1 900 number). The DMCA page on CP suggests that you can file it on behalf of someone else. --Shagie 13:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)
They have a British site as well - I assume it's the same company, anyway. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:55, 9 February 2008 (EST)
I think it is, yup. humanUser talk:Human 15:33, 9 February 2008 (EST)
I've narced on CP copy violations about a half-dozen times. Only once was there an obvious result. I don't know if I sent the info to the wrong person, if it got lost in the shuffle, or if the big corporations don't much give a whit about CP. CP uses a ton of stuff from WikiMedia in violation of even their trouble-free rules, and I wonder if hitting that avenue might yield more results.--WJThomas 15:54, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Here's another one for you from

  • Removal of copyright/credit information is specifically prohibited by DMCA
  • Cannot release an deritive work under less restrictive copyright than the original work (NASA still holds the copyright, just it can be used without restrictions)

Quite simply, Andy is almost asking for lawsuits on images. --Shagie 19:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)

racial imagery[edit]

What does the Assfly mean by racial imagery? I liked the reliance on deception (to exaggerate and sell the news... isn't that exactly what the Assfly does with his broken news section? Bold headlines and claims that usually have nothing to do with the quoted article. May the madness continue. Goatfeed Auld Nick 12:09, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I think he's saying that he doesn't like it when the media says good things about colored folk and bad things about white folk. Or, more specifically, the media has the gall to run stories about racist things that conservatives say and do--WJThomas 15:30, 10 February 2008 (EST)
I wonder how much this type of complaint will emerge if Barack starts to emerge as the probable Democratic nominee. Andy's already harped about an "affirmative action presidency" or some such garbage. CP probably already has about a million reasons to despise Hillary, but they can't have too much dirt on Obama yet. CP painting him as a part of a liberal media "racial imagery" campaign, and other similar crap, is probably on the horizon if Obama beats out Clinton.--Bayesupdate 15:32, 10 February 2008 (EST)
I think it all boils down to Andy hates us black folk.... Maybe he's allergic to chicken and his jealousy causes hate...Oh well....I also love how traveling is now a liberal trait. If you go on vacation, you're a LIBERAL. Take that Miami Beach, you Liberal Haven SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 18:20, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Its because cuban music make the hips move, and that makes teh assfly think of teh buttsehks.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 18:26, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Probably true.... But I mean, what if you're going on a religious mission or something? or visiting some holy sight... That would make you a liberal SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 18:35, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Hey Chuck, do you have a link for that lieberal = teh travellers thing? humanUser talk:Human 18:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Its in Auld Nick's link. "with the [liberally biased] media's reliance on [...] constant travel (which is the antithesis of family life)" NightFlareSpeak, mortal 18:55, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Ah, ok, yes I read that. Didn't teh assfly suckle at his mothers bitter teat while she was on speaking tours? humanUser talk:Human 19:06, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Andy's mother wasn't a true conservative, but most likely liberal. She was not just liberal, but she didn't even homeschool Andy. Tohuvavohu
I'm wondering about Andy's claim regarding the media's "dependence on obscenity", 'cuz the papers I read and the tv news I watch have an appalling lack of obscenity. --WJThomas 20:56, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Most major newspapers I see relieve the boredom with full page underwear ads from major retail outlets. Sometimes you can almost see... humanUser talk:Human 21:10, 10 February 2008 (EST)
and if I remember correctly, a lot of papers covered the Starr report.... I couldn't even read mine... the pages kept sticking together SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 22:10, 10 February 2008 (EST)


Ho! Man the battlestations: Pooftah sighted off the port bow! [6] SusanMiouw

Wow. The last item seems a little "non-CP". I better link it now or it will vanish! humanUser talk:Human 23:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)
And better [7] SusanMiouw 23:42, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Someone's having fun injecting a little truth into CP. And a suppository into Kendoll. humanUser talk:Human 23:47, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Hard astern? (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 00:06, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Going, going, gone SusanMiouw 00:10, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Jeeves: Some years ago there was a gay pub in Sheffield, (just near the lower end of Howard street) the road was under repair & a notice outside requested "Will patrons please use the rear entrance" (It's still shown on google maps at:53.378341 -1.465495. though it's gone now.) SusanMiouw 00:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Dinosoars (sic) how long gone?[edit]

The lovely Bethany is queried by PJR [8] SusanMiouw 01:16, 11 February 2008 (EST)

"They went extinct a few thousand years ago!" Get a clue, Susan! Oh, that future fascists of our world don't even know "recent" history. OK, and you're mocking her for a typo. But, proto-fascist that she is, she deserves the rip. Anyone know when she turns 18, or whatever, so we can take off the kid gloves and describe her disgusting "relationship" with teh assfly? humanUser talk:Human 01:28, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Susan, have you been socking up at CP, you naughty, naughty girl? humanUser talk:Human 01:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)


Crocodile puts an opinion column in front page news. SusanMiouw 07:52, 11 February 2008 (EST)

An opinion column that I went to read and wholeheartedly suggest to others. It is, well, (un)funny. Editor at CPBring TK back 08:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)
It's the "intellectual" bit of the title that I really like. SusanMiouw 09:11, 11 February 2008 (EST)
"For example, why are men – at least some men – attracted to women with slim waists and flaring hips? Well, because it indicates the ability to pop out babies. Preservation of the species, you know." - ROFL Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:38, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I love how it only took him a few short paragraphs to conflate the big bang with evolution. At least he conserved his intellect while writing this piece... humanUser talk:Human 14:06, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Check out the comments on the "Intellectual Conservative"'s column. A lot of "intellectuals" called him on his bullshit. --Gulik 16:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)
What I thought was a riot was the relatively "neutral" Dr. skeptical of science guy - he had me going there for a bit until I remember the utter garbage nature of the post that started the convo. And then the Dr. guy started defending the ad homs and crassness of the poster, and ignored that the poster conflated BB with evo, and showed no idea of any abiogenesis concepts (a cell pops up out of nowhere.... must have "learned to reproduce" quickly...) Much hilarity. humanUser talk:Human 16:45, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Dawkins retires[edit]

It seems like Dawkins retired from his "post"[9]. I wonder who Andy will use this news to finally prove that Dawkins was never a professor to begin with. Looking forward in anticipation. Tohuvavohu 08:21, 11 February 2008 (EST)

This one will be tough for Andy, the advertisement posted by Oxford calls Dawkins a professor. I look forward to many lulz. Jrssr5 09:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Here you go, mate.
I learned today that "atheistic love" was like margarine or diet Coke - not quite as good as the real, theist love! My girlfriend will no doubt appreciate it when I declare that I am to become a Jain in order to love her properly. Bondurant 09:04, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I also saw an article today saying fake sugars and diet sodas may be worse for you than the real thing. Does this prove that atheistic love is bad? Jrssr5 09:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)
But full fat cream and real sugar are also bad for you. Does this meant that theistic love is bad too? Maybe we should all just learn to hate each other equally, just like Andy. Bondurant 09:12, 11 February 2008 (EST)

At least he's not (yet) trying to take the credit for forcing him to retire by exposing him, as he did for the "decline" of wikipedia. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 09:10, 11 February 2008 (EST)

That was my first thought. Dawkins is retiring because he couldn't take the heat from Andy and his fellow bloggers. humanUser talk:Human 14:19, 11 February 2008 (EST)
He will ... He will... SusanMiouw 09:17, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Haven't had a chance to parse the diet pop story yet...I'll get back to you. I still think atheism is OK, but regular coke tastes better. User:PalMD

Exactly! SusanMiouw 12:11, 11 February 2008 (EST)

The talk page on the "atheist love" topic is particularly amusing. Even Andy faithfuls like MexMax are a little disturbed by this one. Go Andy go! Alienate those allies! UchihaKATON! 20:58, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Oxford *STILL* don't talk good English[edit]

In the advert for the Simony professorship, under "Duties", "The standard duties of the post".
CЯacke® 14:03, 11 February 2008 (EST)

CP on Alexa[edit]

CP seems to have made a bit of a spike on alexa recently (not a huge one, but noticeable), though its reach and views are still pretty flat. Anyone have any idea why this might be? Also, I just noticed that CP ranks higher than Citizendium, which is pretty sad. I mean, it doesn't say much for CP, but it shows Citizendium is failing pretty spectacularly. That's too bad, as I think it isn't a bad idea; I'm just not convinced it would ever be enough better than Wikipedia to make up for being a tiny fraction as complete. It's also a bit too much like Nupedia, which was an enormous failure in itself. DickTurpis 10:00, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Hard to compete with CP for entertainment. PoorEd 12:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)
The problem with Citizendium is that while it produces a few very nice, quality articles, it's too slow and deliberate to get anywhere near to what Wikipedia can do. It's a nice idea, but in the time it takes them to write a single approved article, Wikipedia will have probably written a few dozen featured articles of equal or nearly equal quality. assume a=a 14:05, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, thanks for bringing up CZ. I see we often have more pageviews than them. Imagine a crew of our size trying to build a friggin' encyclopedia in our spare time...
I went there a month or so ago as was quite disappointed. Very few articles, and some embarrassments like a redlink-filled Beatles article obviously ported over from WP. humanUser talk:Human 14:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
It is too bad they're not doing better, as it theoretically improves most of Wikipedia's flaws. A better idea, I suppose, would be whatever that project was which took Wikipedia articles that had demonstrated quality, and copied them in their current static form. Not a bad idea at all. I forget what it was called, but I remember it was ironically Andy who pointed out it. His point (as always demonstrating the all the logic abilities of a retarded fruit fly) was that since it only had a few thousand articles or whatever, Wikipedia must only have that many quality articles, not that the project was new and obviously not able to handle the sheer volume of Wikipedia. I'd be all for a Wikipedia without the trivial crap, and with articles locked to general editing once the get to a reasonably "complete" and "accurate" state. DickTurpis 14:55, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, Wikipedia often forgets that the ultimate goal of a professional-grade article is not to be dynamic, but static. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:58, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I still think that the best model for an online encyclopedia is h2g2. I'm still surprised that Andy hasn't complained about it - it was inspired by a personal friend of Dawkins. <tangent>What honest geek wouldn't want to be at the parties where Lalla Ward (ahh... adolescent male memories of Dr Who[10][11][12]) was at parties with Douglas Adams, Richard Dawkins, and Tom Baker... </tangent> --Shagie 15:46, 11 February 2008 (EST)
What's h2g2? I've never heard of it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:49, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Jrssr5 15:56, 11 February 2008 (EST)
DON'T PANIC. Ajkgordon 15:58, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Just a quick aside... Tom Baker cooked me lunch the other day. What an extraordinarily larger-than-life but absolutely charming chap he is. Ex-monk as it happens. Just thought you ought to know, like. Ajkgordon 16:00, 11 February 2008 (EST)
H2G2 - . The model they use works much better (in my opinion) for an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia article gives a good rundown of how it works. You've got your fun and your real stuff, and the real stuff goes through a review process before it is given a stamp of approval. --Shagie 16:35, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Reporter suspensions[edit]

Regarding this breaking news item, in which CP seems to be upset that the "F Jesus" comment didn't warrant an indefinite suspension: According to the links provided, the F-bomb comments (referring to the University of Notre Dame, the US college football equivalent of the evil empire New York Yankees/Manchester United/insert arrogant polarizing successful team from your favorite sport) were dropped off-air at a celebrity roast and the reporter STILL got a 1-week suspension. The Chelsea Clinton pimping comments were on-air. Of course the on-air comments are going to have bigger fallout. Sheesh. We could almost have a subsection of WIGO devoted entirely to the breaking news section.--Bayesupdate 11:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Is DrSandstone ours?[edit]

See?-αmεσ (ninja) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Is BethanyS "ours"? ;-) Editor at CPBring TK back 15:26, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Please, Bethany is Andy's. And, by extension, Bohdan's.-αmεσ (ninja) 15:27, 11 February 2008 (EST)
IF the enemy of our enemy were our friend, who would be our friend, TK or Bethany? Or Andy? Editor at CPBring TK back 15:30, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Check out Betheny's User page for her Political Compass, she nearly falls off of the upper right hand corner! CЯacke® 16:46, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Since Andy and TK are both confirmed misanthropes, they're incapable of feeling friendship or love, just the conservative substitutes for love, right?-αmεσ (ninja) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Racism, Ignorance, Plain Stupidity, or What?[edit]

HelpJazz calls Nelson Mandela an "African American." Is this an extension of the "they all look alike" mentality? Does he think The Transkei is near Cleveland? Does accuracy not matter when you're talkin' 'bout a brother? Or is he just a fuckin' moron? PFoster 20:59, 11 February 2008 (EST)

They made a similar error months ago - I think the AA page listed some non-Americans of African descent. Truly bizarre. humanUser talk:Human 21:03, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Actually, one of us made a similar error last month, when CP called rightly referred to someone as an African-American, and someone here used it as as synonym for "black". It happens, and it just goes to show how people often use words without thinking much about them. "Fuckin' moron" is a bit strong. DickTurpis 21:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I disagree.... F***in moron is pretty good... African American was a term created to describe us Negros a little more politely... But African didn't work, because a lot of black people (like me) have no desire to ever visit Africa. Just because someone is black, it doesn't mean they're African Americans... Nelson (he and I are on first name basis) is an African... Specifically, he's a Black African. You have to be pretty supid to use African American on a non-american. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 21:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I admit it is a dumb mistake, but I see it made all the time, so if HelpJazz is a fuckin moron then so are many, many others, including some of the cirriculum-developers at my former high school. The problem with the term is that it is almost universally used in this country as a race, when it is not a race, it is a nationality as well. But a combination of trying to use a non-controversial term and American-centrism make it used in cases where it shouldn't be. DickTurpis 21:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)

And he's changed it. Think maybe they monitor here? If so, hi, HelpJazz. *waves* Zmidponk 21:17, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Eh, sorry Chuck, but it is quite a common mistake (one that I've probably made myself). Sometimes efforts at over-political correctness are misguided/thoughtless and end up even more racist than otherwise. It's stupid, yeah, but I don't really blame HelpJazz for this one. *waves as well* UchihaKATON! 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I gotta agree, the expression is a bit undeserved. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 00:53, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Fetus trumps woman[edit]

I see CPAdmin and the Schlafly-Jugend twins are of the opinion that you cannot abort a zygote in order to save the life of a fully developed woman. [13]. Stupid or morally bankrupt? Both? DickTurpis 21:10, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Stupid? yes. Morally bankrupt? no. It's an opinion that flows logically from their principles. If you believe as they do that an embryo is a human from the very point of conception, with all the rights and privileges that come with that distinction then it's a well established moral principle that you shouldn't kill one to save another regardless of their relative worth.
This of course leaves some interesting questions for their moral code. Can an exception be made for an ectopic pregnancy? The "child" has zero chance of surviving, so is it acceptable to kill it early to save the mother? Having a hard and fast principle in this case seems counter productive.
Of course anyone sane sees the fallacy in their reasoning. A zygote is not a human. You kill more complex organisms with a fly swatter, with no qualms at all. Unless, I suppose, you happen to be a Jain of something and take elaborate precautions to avoid killing anything non-microscopic. --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 21:36, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I only kill things I plan on eating. Or that might eat me. Or that try to eat my food. Or that poop on the counter where I make my food. Or that inconvenience me. humanUser talk:Human 21:44, 11 February 2008 (EST)

I've always wanted to run a scenario by these life-begins-at-conception-and-a-fertilized-egg-is-as-much-a-human-as-me-or-you nitwits: A building is on fire, and you have a chance to run in and try to save someone before the building is entirely enveloped in flames. Inside is a person (let's even say it's your own mother, sibling, child, etc.) and a petri dish of a thousand fertilized human eggs. Which do you rescue first (a second successful attempt would be unlikely, if not impossible)? Keeping in mind that it is much easier to grab a petri dish than a full grown person, and you'd be saving a thousand people instead of just one. Would anyone take the dish? DickTurpis 21:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

What are the fertilized eggs doing in a petri dish in the first place? -- 22:22, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I dunno, preparing for stem cell harvest? DickTurpis 22:23, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Makin' Christian babies that God sought to prevent via incompatible biology? humanUser talk:Human 23:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)
This illustrates one of my biggest complaints with the "Right To Life" crowd--for all their hot air about the "sanctity of life", they act like the "Right To Life" begins at conception and ends at birth. --Gulik 23:32, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Also the closer you are to death means that you must be prevented from accelerating the process to avoid pain, indignity and being a burden to others, no matter what the cost. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 03:17, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Are you implying I'm a burden to others, Genghis? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:36, 14 February 2008 (EST)

How does this square with lack of gun control?[edit]

Don't think it's quite WIGO-worthy, but anyone noticed the 'Historical Quote'? Seems to me CP feels everyone is entitled to 'bear arms', except, of course, the government. Zmidponk 21:43, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, I don't know who posted that, but I agree with the little twerps for once. Imagine that! humanUser talk:Human 21:46, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Not surprisingly it was Joaquin. This seems too liberal for the front page. Think Andy will change it (using the rationale that there is a second one on the page already)? DickTurpis 21:49, 11 February 2008 (EST)
Isn't that the American way? If the Denizens of Conservapedia were real conservatives they wouldn't be supporting the troops, they'd be calling for the abolition of the standing army. Hell, who was that crazy nutcase politician who was spamming Conservapedia? Letters of marque. That's the time honoured instrument of American foreign policy. Never let the government do what can be accomplished by private enterprise. You know, I don't think the republican party would be half as bad as it actually is if their principles weren't so hugely muddied by a web of corporate and religious interests. --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 21:53, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I like that their MLK page quotes a clear justification by MLK for (OMGZ!) affirmative action. And is linked to twice from the main page right now ;) humanUser talk:Human 21:53, 11 February 2008 (EST)
So, question... Is Joaquin an affirmative action CP sysop? (hides) --JeɚvsYour signature uses all my CPU time... 22:44, 11 February 2008 (EST)
I think this says it all... DickTurpis 22:46, 11 February 2008 (EST)

WMD claims[edit]

"Piro was able to get Hussein to admit that while he did not have active WMD programs in 2003, he wanted to reconstitute all of them -- chemical, biological, and even nuclear."

Doesn't that statement in the article pretty much say "Iraq did not have and was not in the process of making WMDs?" Yeesh.Shangrala 23:32, 11 February 2008 (EST)

It's the thought that counts, neh? Barikada 00:26, 12 February 2008 (EST)
"Pre-emptive Self Defense", remember? (Meanwhile, North Korea really DID get Weapons. 1/21/2009 can't get here fast enough.) --SockOfGulik 16:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Removed Item[edit]

I got rid of the last Update on the love thing.... It was already given it's own section, and has a few votes for Best of, so I figured it was better to just remove the update instead of the repeated post...... SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 00:41, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Just don't get rid of a "voting" number. Sometimes the "updates" irritate me - I vote something up or down, then it drastically changes. Then again, they are part of the soul of wigo... humanUser talk:Human 00:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)
Uh, speaking of WRONG... this item: "CP finally posted something that was interesting..." doesn't even link to CP!. Someone is missing the point here... shouldn't there be a CP news item or something linked? humanUser talk:Human 00:45, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Fiddling with the code[edit]

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false; ?>

Sometimes they just can't leave things alone. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 02:22, 12 February 2008 (EST)

...Not being a bureaucrat, I have no idea what this means. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:13, 12 February 2008 (EST)

That's what appears at the top of all CP's pages at the moment. Plus the font is enormous. Andy probably changed something before he went to bed and didn't check it properly. LOL. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 05:42, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Small font now, but the message was duplicated:

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false;?>#$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false;?>

I'd guess that Andy wanted to fiddle with user rights again and messed up (forgot a ";" maybe). --Sid 08:41, 12 February 2008 (EST)

PHP is not that hard… --Linus(plot evil tech) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Andy's not that bright… humanUser talk:Human 19:53, 12 February 2008 (EST)
Aargh! He's done it again! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 05:45, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Considering the timing, it looks like it might related to the nightly lockdown... --Sid 06:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)
By the way, has its end time been anticipated, or has it been completely removed? I don't think that all the contributors in the last few hours have night editing rights. Editor at CPBring TK back 06:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Andy's not that bright? How dare you! Editor at CPBring TK back 10:13, 13 February 2008 (EST)

A vile campaign of hatred[edit]

05:24, 12 February 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Rational Wiki" (moronic)

Atheists, love and free-will[edit]

This irritates me. I know that some atheists believe that everything is pre-determined so free-will is a big no-no and I know that some Christians believe that love is more than the materialist's collection of chemical reactions Christian love is superior to the chemical reaction that atheists call love. But it's irritating when the likes of PJR repeatedly use this essentially minority view on both sides as a stick to beat atheists as if all atheists and all Christians believed this. Is there a good resource on the 'nerd that puts forward the consensus or controversy on the scientific view of free-will? I know there is plenty of deeper stuff that delves into quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principal and all that, but is there anything a little more layman and succinct? Nothing that will change PJR's mind (obviously) but to help demonstrate that he is misrepresenting the atheist viewpoint. He is sometimes quite good at defending evolution from misrepresentation. Ajkgordon 05:06, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I doubt it. I think the issue of free will is one of those really sticky philosophical things that scientists try not to delve too deep into. Of course, I just needed the excuse to talk, so you can discount whatever I'm saying anyways. : ) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:12, 12 February 2008 (EST)
It seems to me as if everyone on CP is lining up to disagree with Andy, even PJR to a certain extent (as much as that despicable anti-science zealot can do). Bondurant 05:28, 12 February 2008 (EST)
What I've noticed is that when people disagree with Aschlafly, he becomes more entrenched. Most interesting are the occasions, more and more common, when someone disagrees with a fairly minor uncontentious issue and Aschlafly will then edit it more and more to make the original pale in comparison to the now completely loonified position he is then forced to defend. The Dawkins page is a good example of how he defends his position by making his original claim more and more contentious to the point where it is laughable. I wonder if he uses that technique in court and, if so, what his success rate is. Ajkgordon 05:36, 12 February 2008 (EST)
I think I OD'd on the "more and more"s. Ajkgordon 05:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
Well, as I recall, ASchlafly is the legal counsel to the crackpot Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. His legal counsel probably consists of "I tell you how to not get sued." Do we know if he has even set foot in a courtroom? Beyond to file for his baby shaking license, I mean. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)
I get the impression most of what he does is write amicus curiae briefs and long rants essays about "patients' rights" and such. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:51, 12 February 2008 (EST)
My suspicion is the position is basically a "wingnut welfare" situation, where he actually doesn't do anything more than attend an occasional board meeting and write an brief here or there, but not actually do any legal work to speak of. I expect whoever runs AAPS is probably a friend of his mom's, so he got the job because she wanted something cushy for her sprog. --Kels 06:56, 12 February 2008 (EST)
Kels (if that is your real name), I can tell with a 93% certainty that you support welfare for black people. We also do not tolerate inappropriate usage of slang here. "S***g" reveals just how vulgar and liberal you are. Come back when you stop engaging in deceit. Godspeed --ASchlafly 07:07, 12 February 2008 (EST)
ASchlafly, I am reviewing your contributions at the moment, and it is clear that you are in violation of our 27719/642 decree. Please consider making valuable contributions to this non-encyclopedic project instead of more talk, talk, talk. Goatspeed. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 07:30, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Oh, PJR's contributions rock. "Falling in love" is not true love. You must decide to love, for it to be real love, see his latest. Wasn't he married with children? Let's hope that his family is full of liberal love. Editor at CPBring TK back 08:39, 12 February 2008 (EST)

That is truly awful. He makes choosing to love sound like choosing a mortgage. What does he do, write a list of pros and cons before deciding? Who said romance is dead. Pfffttt. Further words fail me. Ajkgordon 08:48, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Philip J. Rayment seems to be confused. 21% of Atheists have been divorced, and 37% of Born again Christians have been divorced. I've noticed that every religious wedding I've been to has specified that God/Jesus is responsible for the relationship between the people getting married - something along the lines of "God has brought these people together, and God will keep them together." Lardashe

Yeah, but it's 95% certain that those statistics are atheist and liberal and 98% certain they were made up on the spot. Ajkgordon 05:22, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Besides, those 37 % Born Again Christians are Liberals in Denial. A true Conservative doesn't divorce. Thus, 100 % of Conservatives are better don't divorce, this is plainly evident even to Liberals. Editor at CPBring TK back 05:42, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Add: True Conservatives get an annulment instead. Editor at CPBring TK back 05:45, 13 February 2008 (EST)
(sorry for the evil link, strangely there is no Conservapedia article on Annulment)
"God has brought these people together, and God will keep them together." yeah but "Love Will Tear Us Apart (Again)" Spica 07:11, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Nancy Reagan was Blessed Saint Ronnie's second wife, remember. Engage cognitive dissance.... --SockOfGulik 16:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Poor PJR. I really hope for him to have a happy family life full of love, but I have my doubts, which this reinforces. And no, I'm not mocking him (my situation is probably worse, and I can't wait for this day to be over). Editor at CPBring TK back 05:19, 14 February 2008 (EST)

A new side of PJR[edit]

Philip added some text at the end of this edit of Australian Aborigines, which I'd call controversial.

On a side note, guess before looking: which one article is so importantly related to the Aborigines one, to be mentioned in the See Also section? Editor at CPBring TK back 07:58, 12 February 2008 (EST)

*Guesses* *looks* Hah! I knew it. Anyway, I expect Australia will be going through a cultural struggle of their own in the near future, as the new government cleans up after 11 years with John Howard. PJR's edit should probably be seen in that light. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 08:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)
The most surprising thing about this article is that the first-paragraph comment about Aborigines being in Australia for over 40,000 years has been not been censored. Bondurant 08:25, 12 February 2008 (EST)
You have a good readership. Editor at CPBring TK back 10:20, 12 February 2008 (EST)

More affirmative action[edit]

I see Hillary's new campaign manager is an affirmative action campaign manager. Assfly must be tickled pink. DickTurpis 17:54, 12 February 2008 (EST)

  • Cough* Condoleeza Rice *Kaffkaff*....sorry, I had some blaring hypocrisy stuck in my throat. --Gulik 03:42, 13 February 2008 (EST)
likewise Clarinet Thomas... yow, suckorz for all us lib'ralz!!! humanUser talk:Human 03:58, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Revenge of the Homeschoolers[edit]

Will this make Main Page News? Will the Homeschoolers conquer us or can we stop them before it's too late? Editor at CPBring TK back 05:15, 13 February 2008 (EST)

And will Homeschoolers find this article too easy to be worth studying? Editor at CPBring TK back 05:18, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, it did make Main Page news. "Latest (of many) examples" he said, I'd like to know about the many others. Editor at CPBring TK back 08:31, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yes, it's the latest of many examples, but somehow, I haven't had enough to put it in here until now ...-- 08:34, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Go is such a liberal game. Now, if they won at Monopoly, we'd have a different story.Shangrala 08:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Yah, because everyone knows, only public school teachers can teach Go adequately. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:55, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Only a typo but ...[edit]

I know it's only a typo, but - bragging about homeschooling & getting the name of the Religion wrong - god bless me for an athitse atieths aithest unbeliever. SusanMiouw 09:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Where? Editor at CPBring TK back 09:38, 13 February 2008 (EST)
oops! Silly me. (own petard anyone?) SusanMiouw 09:45, 13 February 2008 (EST)
And - insult -> injury, if I follow the rather concise (!) link I get shunted to a mobile version which is having difficulties and won't display! SusanMiouw 10:14, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Are you insinuating something?[edit]

Iz this done by one of us? SusanMiouw 11:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)

I like this one. --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 13:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)
If I remember rightly he got banned shortly thereafter. SusanMiouw 13:59, 13 February 2008 (EST)
It's still there though :) Lurker 14:02, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, every time that guy edits, Andy slaps him with the 3 day glove. And like it. 16:36, 13 February 2008 (EST)
This guy took them to task for it nicely. (Then there's this doof)... --SockOfGulik 16:10, 13 February 2008 (EST)