Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive286

This is an archive page, last updated 16 October 2017. 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>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Santorum "mystery"

Did anybody else notice the somewhat conspicuous absence of the fact that Santorum's daughter is in poor health from Andy's mystery? Also, while I'm thinking about it, why has he taken to putting up these mysteries, and why exactly does Santorum suspending his campaign qualify as one? I mean, how does a Pennsylvania senator suspending one poxy campaign rank up there with whether or not God has a sense of humour?

Finally, why am I actually expecting any kind of logical reasoning here? -- 15:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I brought it up. And Ken joined in.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Other explanations: God spoke to Sandtorum, Satan influenced Santorum, The archangel Gabriel spoke to Santorum, Santorum had a vision, The Holy Spirit told Santorum to withdraw, Jesus suggested Santorum pull out of the race, After reading the bible Santorum knew what to do, A particularly stirring sermon influenced Santorum, A quiet voice spoke to Santorum, A waking dream of Joseph Smith said that Romney has been chosen for President, Demons are influencing Santorum, Santorum's family had the same dream about him withdrawing. All of these, and many more, are plausible, logical, reasonable explanations, and should be taken into account. Jimaginator (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Secret Service

So I see that CP has blamed the recent secret service scandal on Obama, as we all knew they would. Now the secret service are not political appointees, so am I right in thinking that many of the people who have protected Obama also probably protected Bush, and that the Obama administration has little to do directly with who the service hires? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup--"Shut up, Brx." 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but I have some trouble believing that Secret Service people who were hired within the last three years are already out there, organizing security for the President. I admit I don't know what the proving times are, but I would expect such a job to be done by more senior agents (who probably also protected Bush, as you said). --Sid (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, the top guys were all hired during the Clinton administration. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So, I read The Republican Brain...

And it sure gives Andy, and later Mumsy Dearest, the righteous kicking they deserve. It even captures the best of his most recent insanities, that Jesus' faster than light miracles disprove relativity. The rest of it is a bit meh to be though. The central thesis is that "liberal" brains are different than "conservative" brains in things like startle and fear reflexes and such like. I don't think it does a terribly good job of establishing that this is cause rather than effect though. The old saw that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged comes to mind. Seems more likely to me at least that environmental factors caused both the changes in the brain, so the "conservative" patterns of thought precede the observed structural changes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that...thing is out now? Frankly, I don't even trust actual cognitive scientists to do political neuroscience (see Lakoff, George), so I sure as hell don't trust a journalist with it. It's too close to finals for a good fisking of an entire book, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a truly awful book. Phiwum (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

CP is a great representation of the Republican take on science, Just look how many Republicans frequent it... Oh I mean how many conservatives frequent it ... okay,k so there are a dozen people on the internet who like it. Not that I'm inclined to expect more from Mooney. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 07:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Quantum FTL Jesus is still alive and kicking? Awesome! =D With that out of the way, yeah, if your summary of the book is accurate (and until I find vastly differing ones, I have no reason to doubt it), it sounds fairly meh. Pity, really. --Sid (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Andy teach history?

One would think he'd know it was a bit more than Patton's homeschooling that led to the German defeat.^img

Still, it's fun to watch Andy shoehorn all his personal crazy into unrelated articles. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy runs many classes in many subjects. I wouldn't say he actually teaches anything. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy has announced classes on many subjects but only some of them seem to have actually happened. I'm aware that he likes "American History" for example and I'm sure he'd feel comfortable providing students with his bizarre insights about politics, maybe even economics, but did the Writing class happen? The mathematics class went nowhere. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

'Rommel was considered the most feared general of the war until homeschooled American George Patton arrived and routed the German troops' I suspect the people who feared Rommel were quite differet from the people who feared Patton. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, he's not saying that the people who feared Rommel started fearing someone else. If Rommel was the most feared and then, because he was defeated or something, became less feared than another general (whose fear index may have been rising), then Andy's observation is sensible.

Not only that, but I've also shown that it is possible to write something even more awkwardly than Andy. Phiwum (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It might not be what he means but that is how it reads. Anyhow, wasn't it Montgomery who went up against Rommel and beat him? What does that do to Monty's fear rating? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read it that way at all. The above quote does not suggest to me that Patton became the most-feared, but only that Rommel was no longer the most feared after Patton came. As far as Monty, I have no opinion, aside from the obvious observation that (per Andy), it was Patton who kicked Rommel's butt and Monty's effort is not particularly noteworthy. Duh.

In any case, I always feel a bit dirty after this much Schlafly exegesis. Phiwum (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I do teaching history! Aschlafly (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ron Paul actually matters!"

according to Terry, conservative leaning ron paul^img actually has more delegates then anybody wants to admit. question is, who are these mystery admins men? --il'Dictator Mikal 19:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It says a lot about how bad Mitt Romney is that they're trying this hard to deny reality. Wait. What am I saying? They're creationists. They're pre-trained in reality denial. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Justice Society of America? 85.182.145.82 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have followed the Ron Paul exploits now for 3 presidential cycles. The whole stealth delegate thing is what most of the paulbot movement is hanging their hopes on. Of course the problem is that Romney has 550 or so bound delegates that are autovotes at the convention. The remaining states have something close to a 1000 bound delegates as well. Paul would have to win 50 percent or greater in like NY, TX and CA to even have a chance at a brokered convention. Only then would his stealth delegates even matter. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul's supports often claim to have essentially rigged the election. Even though the majority of Republicans disagree with Paul, allegedly his supports have voted in the caucuses in such a way that they get a disproportionately high amount of delagates. As much as I would love to see Romney embarrassed at the convention, I wouldn't blame the GOP for getting hella pissed if Paul does get a significant chunk of the delegates. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So which one of you....

...installed the trolltop/trollbottom template^img over there? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I kinda want to shake his/her hand.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It'll never take. Real conservatives don't censor like this. They simply delete unneeded comments from the Wiki. Only liberals censor. Phiwum (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He's ba-a-ack!

Smeg Ed returns after nearly a month away. Did he get shouted at on WP? Is he here to take his butthurt out on innocent CP editors?

Either way, let's celebrate with another classic Ed stub, perfect for the family friendly encyclopaedia.^img "Self-pleasure" Ed? From the man who thinks "prostitutes" is "too lurid."^img --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The real victory for parodists and vandals was TK's massive erection...

er, of defences to keep them out. So that the perverts and lunatics might be observed without any distracting noise. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at recent additions to Ed's Wikipedi talk page, I see that things haven't been going to well for him over there but he should be use to that by now. It's about time he learnt the difference between CP and WP. On CP, nobody else is going to expand your stub. On WP, you can't create an article called "War on babies" that consists of three quotes and not expect it to be deleted.--Spud (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The stub is very poor. It does not mention any of the same-sex, beastiality, kiddie porn, furrie, hentai and other assorted filth that us atheists and liberals enjoy. Has he not read any of ken's masterpieces? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Grumblejaws (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We knew it was coming....

Let the deification^img of Mitt Romney^img as a conservative hero^img commence! Ace^Moderator 04:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RW CP proven right again! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 04:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What Andy needs is a nickname synonymous with "Multiple Choice Mitt", but that maintains the A alliteration. Ideas? -- 07:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Adaptable Authority Andy.--^talk 07:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Adept At Any Argument Andy. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Always Absolutely Accurate Andy. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Alterable Adherence Andy. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 18:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's like this stuff is scripted. Groupthink at its finest, eh? Q0 (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Former RINO." Priceless. We have always been at war with Eurasia. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant Ass Andy --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 04:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Columbia wigo

Not to be a stickler, but technically Colombia is part of Columbia. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not according to Conservapedia's definition — they say it is only the U.S. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is also Ken's 8-edit typo, not Andy's. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, if you follow the link you'll find out the scandal took place in a goddess. Flare^Talk 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Get drunk enough and they all look like goddesses. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That explains a lot

Moved Here 09:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything you need to know about CP in one template.

Asking for references is to be a slave to hearsay.^img Who needs evidence when you have insights? P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 14:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Still, nice trolling work from CPalmer there. Conservapedia, the encyclopaedia with insights, not facts. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy loves it.^img P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Holy fuck! I thought it was lame trolling, so transparent that he was bound to get called out. I underestimated Andy's looniness. Phiwum (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer is a strange bird. Seemingly genuine, but with interspersions of parody. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the dumbest fucking concepts I've ever seen produced by Conservapedia. A wigo of this should get +1,000,000 votes. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If CPalmer can trick Andy (who is a fucking lawyer) into using hearsay and defending it with something called a "no hearsay" template, he should win some sort of prize. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget you're talking about a man who thinks dreams are created by God for shits and giggles. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 15:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It takes balls and determination to keep flying under the radar. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And it's first use is in Stolen Concept Fallacy. First thing that came to mind when using it on that fallacy is to protect Andy from his E=MC² bullshit. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To Occasional: CPalmer has always appeared transparently parodist to me. He games the 90/10 rule by adding categories to everything he can find, while his substantial contributions often hint at sarcasm (when they aren't blatant, like this template). Phiwum (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And now, JPatt joins the bandwagon by protecting this gem. Golly! (No link, since I don't know how to link protection events. Phiwum (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I had email conversations with CPalmer. Obvious parodist. Ace^Moderator 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Wikipedia is based entirely on hearsay^img! Citations? They don't mean squat!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer doubles down

Behold! The "Evident" template.^img How long until Andy uses it? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is not Conservative

This is probably true of much of today's Conservative movement, but on CP it's the basis of the Bizarro Universe. "Conservatism" once meant the support of existing institutions and traditions. Now it means a hodgepodge of anti-gay, no-tax, pro-guns, kill-people-not-embryos at all costs, using whatever means necessary. "Conservatives" is a synonym for "the good guys," regardless of context. Thus, the Tories during the American Revolution were the liberals and the Patriots were the conservatives. The party, now known as the Conservative Party, supporting the existing monarchy and believing that the status quo was best for societal stability were the liberals, and the guys who wanted a revolution were the conservatives, solely because Patriots were the good guys. Today, Obama's a conservative and Andy in Wonderland is a reactionary radical. What will history make of this hash? Whoover (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hash brownies, surely. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately nothing, because no one is going to take Conservapedia seriously, at least no one with any real influence. They are so far out of the Conservative "mainstream" that no conservative advocacy group gives them any attention. They have zero influence in the conservative moment, socially or politically, and even manage to alienate the religious fundamentalists, the one group who otherwise may have given them some consideration.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mooney takes them seriously. They are basically a straw man for the left. Like WBC, tiny tiny following, huge negative image. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 03:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's argument there is something like the "big government Tories" vs the "free-market Whigs", but he just doesn't know how to express it. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle

Mr. "I do teaching writing" gets on Obama for a trivial error^img in off the cuff speech. Andy, you can't even write a clear sentence when you have time to check and edit it. I don't think you're in a position to be criticising others. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy is the Kim Jong-il of Conservapedia, there he can do no wrong so of course he is qualified to criticize the grammar skills of the POTUS.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got to admit, Andy's grammar in that particular sentence fragment news article is flawless. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 13:49, 17 April 2012

Check the talk page. Andy's (and Karajou's) response to this is priceless. I mean, seriously... using his own censored version of the Bible as evidence of the Adulteress story being "apocryphal" (and, consequentially, of the validity of his hypocrisy) ? That goes beyond delusions of grandeur. It's as if he thinks of himself as a god. 143.215.97.26 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have seen "Colombia" spelled many ways: "Columbia", "Colimbia", "Colymbia", and "Colembia". Leave Andru Alone! He's doing the best he can. It's not like he's a teacher or anything...Jimaginator (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Where the hell have you seen it spelled "Colymbia"? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Public schools? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Atheystic, Librul, Gogaphy-Hatyng, Publyc Schools, that is. Jimaginator (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

MORE MONKEYS

In places that require you to be stuck in a traffic jam to see WTF they say. I mean LOOK AT THEM. So small. All I see is a monkey.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 01:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This one's over the top. You want me to get hit by a car or in a car accident, Ken? How is that a funny or cute analogy to whatever inane point you think you're making. Wishing violence on your ideological enemies is a bad idea. I will teach you if necessary. 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is from the guy who was rooting for the fire, and not the fireman, don't forget. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And the chain yanking continues. Ken, you really are as stupid as you...are. Brendiggg (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So people on the Westgate Freeway are being subjected to more chimp signs? The only thing they.are probably contemplating is the road toll. Pi 3:14 (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, the angle of those photos leads me to believe that they're 'shopped. You're looking straight down a road, with the posters squeezed into the corner at hubcap level. I'm also wondering if they got permission to plaster those all over the place (on the 1,000,000 to 1 chance they are genuine). You can't stick posters up, that's littering at best and vandalism at worst. Good example your boys are showing, Ken. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the lighting on the blue post in the first picture doesn't seem to match the lighting elsewhere, so it could well be a GIMP job. On the other hand, who cares? If it's real, then we can conclude there is at least one person hanging posters and taking photos of them. Well, it's lights out for atheism then, iddin it? Phiwum (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they're photoshopped. They look genuine to me. I'm... i'm scared. I'm on literally the opposite side of the planet, but these posters... they could change everything. Ken's long-awaiting "operations" are finally taking on physical form, and the world of atheism is crumbling. This isn't good, people. Ken's starting to turn the tide. If the number of posters exceeds 7, the run-away effect could ruin Richard Dawkins' chance of ever getting a asian lady. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh give the guy a break, this vandalism of light poles and traffic barriers with monkey posters are the only "victories" they have; why else would they be so talked up? There campaign doesn't have anything else, no other successes, no "great victories" over evolution, maybe we should just let them have this, out of pity.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, with this sticker campaign, QE has the media visibility of a self-published cd. Vulpius (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pippa and her gun toting friend

Andy can't seem to understand why it might not be a good idea to drive around waving and pointing guns^img at people. Ace^Moderator

A classic case of Andy skimming a headline and deciding what the story ought to be about. Nate puts him right, but has a rather shaky grasp of how the hereditary principle works: "Pippa Middleton is in line to be queen"? Well, I suppose if she married Harry, and William died without issue.. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't she be princess consort anyway, rather than queen consort on account of not being a proper toff? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

They can decide to be either. In general, the wife of the King is the Queen Consort, but (for instance) I think they've said that IF Charles ended up being King, then Camilla Parker-Thingy would be 'Princess Consort'. Notably, the husband of a reigning Queen isn't usually King, but 'Prince Consort' (ie. Albert, Philip etc.) Doesn't really matter does it? Pippa is no more in line to throne than I am. Worm (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we can add the differnce between "gun safety" and "gun control" to the list of things Andy doesn't understand. Also, how many Christian conservative Yanks are going to know who "Pippa" is? They probably think she's one of the Kardashians. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the yanks were more taken with Wills and Kate than us Brits were. Once you've seen one royal wedding, you've pretty much seen 'em all. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought Andy was talking about a hobbit if not for this thread. Then again, I don't recognize any of those other names either...should I watch more TV? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I'd rather hear about Pippa the hobbit than celebrities. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy cites Einstein's liberal claptrap!

As we all know, Andy has been carrying on ad nauseam about some paper Laurence Tribe once wrote in which he made some silly and inappropriate connection between relativity (curved spacetime, or whatever) and some social point. And that he had been assisted by our favorite atheist muslim socialist President-to-be. Well, look at page 11 of this. "Expressed in mathematical terms, 'commerce' is Euclid’s line between two points or Einstein’s interval between two points on an ideal rigid body...", citing Albert Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity 4 (5th ed. 1956) (posthumously)".

Shocking to see Andy's name on a paper citing Einstein, but if I understand it correctly (likely not), he's only saying that two parties are required for commerce to happen, as two distinct points define a line and as, erm, something that Einstein said which involves the number two. Phiwum (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything Andy writes eventually turns into something involving the number two. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

From The Meaning of Relativity:

“”It is assumed in pre-relativity physics that the laws of the orientation of ideal rigid bodies are consistent with Euclidean geometry. What this means may be expressed as follows: Two points marked on a rigid body form an interval.

No real reason to cite Einstein here. Euclid already seems excessive for what is at best a strained metaphor. Seems like he's just invoking Einstein's name to sound smart and gain credibility.

Slightly on topic: rigid bodies can't exist under relativity because then information could be transmitted faster than the speed of light. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Schafly still identify as a Catholic?

If so does really not mind Ken codemning him and other christians not of Ken's particular demonination to hell on talk: main page? I guess the hits to CP that Ken apparently draws in makes him not care to much about the fires of hell AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy is more Catholic than the Pope, which explains why he has his own ideas and understandings of the church's doctrines. To Andy, being "Catholic" is like being "conservative". It means whatever the hell Andy says it means. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of like on the South Park episode "Fantastic Easter Special," where Bill Donahue calls Jesus a Jew and seizes the papacy--"Shut up, Brx." 18:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And why not? If the Bible and the nature of Christ are whatever Andy says they are, in which case the Bible is not the Bible and Christ is not Christ, then theologically, what could possibly not be up for grabs? ... of liberals? (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge theological divide between Ken and Karajou on the one side, and Andy on the other (incidentally, Karajou probably has a better understanding of the bible than Ken or Andy). But they all come together under the rubric of Christian (ecumenicalism, the liberal theological movement of the 1960s, wins over conservative Protestant & Catholic orthodoxy). That's why by divorcing Obama as a Christian sets up welcoming Mormons into the Christian fold. Real change you can believe in. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Mrs. Schlafly identifies as Catholic. She certainly did in the 70s when she was embraced by working class parishes like mine. I cannot place Andy Schlafly. YEC is not a very common belief in the Catholic Church so honestly I am confused and genuinely curious what he believes. He behaves like a charismatic but has a different notion of Biblical literalism than I have ever seen in those camps. Does anyone actually know? Nate Keaton (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There are various levels in Catholic laity, from top down it goes something like -- daily communicant, devout, practicing, traditional, and catholic in name only (CINO). Practicing Catholics attend Mass on Sunday and regularly take Communion; traditional catholics would be like TK described himself, "a lapsed Catholic"; catholic-in-name-only have no understanding of church doctrine, do not attend at all, and only consider themselves catholic because their parents or grandparents had been. Andy's somewhere between a lapsed and practicing, probably just traditional. That means he was raised Catholic, understands Church doctrine, but doesn't necessarily practice it regularly. His "Christian" stuff is basically socio/political/secular. It's a voting block, so he mouths Christian buzzwords & phrases, but seriously has little, or limited understanding of scripture. And to the extent he has any at all, it's more more scholastic than spiritual. He certainly could not extrapolate and expand on in any spiritual sense, So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically you don't know what he identifies as then. Your hierarchy in putting TK over Mr. Schlafly is weird. TK's behavior shows that he does not confess and do penance for what may be mortal sins. The Catechism (1857) suggests "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." The Catechism (1858) defines grave matter by Jesus' instructions in Mark 10:18 : "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." TK's intentional libel of his enemies may be bearing false witness. Probably not because of the stakes and context of Christ's admonition but who knows. Mr. Schlafly does seem to know little of the authorship and canon of the Bible, the problems introduced by rewriting a "Conservative Bible" without anyone seeming to even know how to read Greek etc. Neither of us knows what is in his heart and unlike "Conservative" believes he is entitled to do to those he treats as enemies, we have no business judging his faith. We do not doubt he is Christian and I do not think he intentionally sins. Aside from the obvious required beliefs, I think the only other that is required of Catholics is according to the Nicene Creed they "believe that the Church is 'holy' and 'catholic,' and that she is 'one' and 'apostolic' (as the Nicene Creed adds), is inseparable from belief in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Look at wikipedia - I'm no expert. I doubt he's ever commented on this. I was only asking you guys what he says he believes, not for a made-up list based on things you can't ever know unless a man tells you. Nate Keaton (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nate, "Mr. Schlafly" argues that the central doctrine of Christianity--the idea of forgiveness--is "apocryphal" and was based on a part of the Bible that was added after the fact by "liberals." The question of whether or not he identifies as Catholic is less interesting to me than the question of what it means when someone's conception of Christianity ignores the main idea behind the religion. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with ToP in this. Schalfly told us what's in his heart right here: "The Mosaic laws clearly state death as a punishment for sin,"which negates passages such as "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law", and "Ye are not under Law but under Grace". He denies in that Essay, by repudiating John 8:3-11 as part of Scripture, the core teachings of Christian faith. As to TK and Andy, while both are traditional, I suspect Andy probably attends Church and takes Communion more often than TK did, but have no way of knowing. If true, this puts him a hair higher on the plane of both being lapsed traditional Catholics. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Atheists have weak memes

Holy cow. CP actually has an article on memes^img. Of course, they don't mention the originator of the idea (potentially obese atheist Richard Dawkins) nor explain that the concept is an application of Darwinist concepts to the realm of ideas. No, instead the main point seems to be that atheist memes are weak and puny^img compared to the robust memes of Jesus Christ and Tim Tebow, and so Christians win! Yay!

Look, I know that this is Conservative, who is almost certainly mentally ill and an attention hound, but it is still funny that the latest victory of YEC Christianity is in the Darwinian realm of ideas. Phiwum (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I see we now have "meme", "Memetics"... how long until "Obese atheists and memes", "bestiality and memes", "the meme of Christianity burning down the atheist house" etc, etc. In other news, the talk page brings back memories. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Weird. CP also has an article on memetics^img, and there they explicitly discuss its relation to Darwin and that Dawkins popularized the term (in The God Delusion). As far as I know, Dawkins actually originated the term in The Selfish Gene, but this fact is omitted. Still, at least this (redundant) article is more complete. Phiwum (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job they haven't read Susan Blackmore, who describes religion as a memeplex... --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes. "The Meme Machine". I found that very persuasive when I read it but the idea doesn't seem to have developed much since then. --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The article literally calls Atheism and secularism a meme. Kenny clearly didn't read the first part of the article when he decided to take a dump all over it, as meme doesn't mean what he thinks it means. By his definition, Christianity is nothing but a meme also.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I can hear the buffolo now "Yeah, well christianity is bigger".--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 14:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the good Christian meme factory that is 4chan. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to be a Christian but then I took an arrow... oh, never mind. Bob Soles (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ooh look! It's St Sebastian. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins now weighs over 800 SIs, whatever they are. Sounds obese to me. Jimaginator (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the biggest difference between "religious" memes and "atheist" memes: religious memes involve religions, religious figures and religious people (Tebow) being made fun of, whereas most atheist memes involve...well, religions, religious figures and religious people being made fun of. NDGT's meme (which, I admit, I misinterpreted originally), seems appropriate here when referencing Andy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Somehow a religious set of ideas, passed mindlessly passed from parent to child en masse the world over seems to me to be an apt description of the post powerful meme on the planet. So yes, Andy is right that Christians have far larger, more socially accepted, and more powerful (as in, people acting on behest of the ideas within are in positions able to change the world) memes. However, whether or not those ideas that are passed down as memes are good ideas is another question entirely. Yes! You have a much larger, more prominent exhibit in the collective human museum of ideas! Too bad the content of your exhibit is simply one massive stinking poo. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 16:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean Ken, not Andy. It's Ken who's claiming that Christianity's meme is totally superior to Atheism's meme. (Mind, I've never been keen on the idea of memes as an analogue to natural selection to begin with. It is, at best, a very loose analogy.) Phiwum (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I like how our meme article has more criticism of the idea than CP's. (Not that I had anything to do with it, nothing at all. ) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh goddess...

We're already all obese. How long until we're all weaklings too?^img --PsyGremlin講話 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I really ought to break out into the National Anthem of the USSR more often... Ironclad (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken seems to be excited by this. First of, your mate Mariano Grinbank doesn't look that strong. Second does he get paid to shill for supplement companies like that? He does know those things are fucking useless? Mind you he his a creationist so bro-science is not a huge leap. Also all you fat, weak atheists should join our fitocracy group: http://ftcy.co/ti5uOc - π 09:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not exactly an appropriate figurehead for a campaign asserting that Christian males are excessively fit. And supplements do work, if you use them as they are designed to be used - i.e: as additions to eke a little more out of an already highly disciplined nutrition and exercise regimen, and not as magic bullets. You can't just pop a creatine pill and end up looking like Serge Nubret. But for a Christian fundamentalist apologist to be shilling for bodybuilding manufacturers is rather odd. Bodybuilders tend to be a bit prideful. What happened to Proverbs 16:18? Ironclad (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your body can't absorb more than 20g of protein in an hour after working out any way, so unless you use less than the recommended amount it is a waste. 625g (607ml) of cow's milk or 370g of sheep's milk will do the same job. - π 12:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is why you divide up your daily protein intake into six small meals every three hours, not in one huge gulp. Otherwise, precisely as you say, you're simply shitting your money away. Supplements do work. You can see bodybuilders in real life, and they don't get the size they are without carefully time-managed intake of appropriate proteins. You're right that other foods will do exactly the same job. But the volume of meat or milk you have to consume to get the same amount of protein is often too much to be convenient. You can't sit down to a chicken dinner every three hours. Supplements are nothing more than concentrated protein to make the whole thing more convenient. But supplements don't work for most people because they don't discipline themselves, don't follow a proper diet or proper exercising, and just end up sending their hard-earned cash down the U-Bend. It's not "Broscience". It's poor discipline. Ironclad (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But how many people do you see double dose, drinking during and after a work out? Supp companies make most of their money on people using it wrong which is why their directions are poor. - π 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Corporations are corporations, out to make maximum profits. And indeed they make their millions by flogging stuff to gullible people who think that protein shakes alone will turn them into Phil Heath. But each bar, tub, pill, or sachet does have the correct instructions for use. The corporations aren't to blame - they genuinely do give the right advice. And the products do really work, if you have a realistic regimen and are very disciplined. But the boys at MaxiMuscle and MuscleTech know that people are lazy, half-arsed, and lack the ridiculous discipline needed to carry you onto a posing stage. Hence they earn their crust not because they deceive all those guys in the weights room, but because they know that if there's one thing in life you can guarantee, it's human stupidity. Ironclad (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that Ken's endgame in all this is for some atheists to come along and "prove Ken wrong" by posting pictures of their rock hard bods. Fap, fap, fap. Ken wins. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Occasional. Now no amount of scrubbing with formaldehyde and petrol will make me feel clean again.... Ironclad (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming policy at CP

Look, am I imagining things, or wasn't there an overturning of the name policy at CP back during the whole Rob Smith kerfluffle? As I recall it, Conservative used his unanimity of one to conclude that names like "Conservative" were acceptable. Yet once again, CP is deleting any account which doesn't consist of a first name and last initial, even prior to a first edit.

So much for Ken's power, I suppose. Phiwum (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Username policy, like all other rules at CP, is enforced selectively by each admin. Ken's personal excuse was the "grandfather clause" - beyond that, he just offered an opinion, which doesn't mean jack over there. --Sid (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? I thought that the policy was changed as a result of Ken's decree on, er, whatever useless page Rob created. Oh, sure, I know that policies don't mean anything, but it seemed like for a little while, no one was being busted for usernames. :: Can anyone cleverer than me find evidence confirming my vague memories, or is it my own private li'l hallucination? Phiwum (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a function of the impotent rage of the admin. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming policy was a proposed reform but Andy stood by existing policy. The only major changes to written guidelines Andy consented to were these which, of course, have yet to be implemented. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that you still haven't worked out how CP works, but trolls and simpletons have. To change the rules, you just make a unilateral declaration and Andy will be too spineless to oppose you. That's exactly what Kendoll did. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Written rules mean nothing. Private discussion groups mean nothing. It's all Andy's gut feeling at the moment. The sysops that survive and prosper are best at guessing what it is. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That is how the game is played; correctly deduce what new idea would please Il Duce and pitch it, all while remaining absolutely loyal to all his crazy "insights", and harassing any dissenters to his ideology.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He's got an agenda. It's basically wp:nativist-wp:isolationist, or paleoconservative, which is a tiny minority in the conservative movement and the Republican party. He really tries more to gain influence among the broader conservative movement, or convert other conservatives to his cause, then to persuade moderates or convert liberals. It's a hopeless cause and position. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's unique mix of extreme ideology and conspiracy is different enough from even the most ardent conservative or Christian fundamentalist that it should have it's own title, "Andyism". The only follows though he attracts are those desperate to cling to any power, no matter how transitory, and parodists.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's gotten so crazy now that it's almost a fool-proof metric that anyone who agrees with him is a parodist. He's so crazy that even his hired thugs struggle to agree with what he says these days. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He's his mother's son, and she kept the faith of conservative isolationism throughout the New Deal right up to A Choice, Not an Echo. Her views were probably shaped by Elizabeth Dilling. But Andy, like Phyllis & Dilling, has become so accustomed to the loosing side of everything, it becomes impossible for a person to not only see when they're wrong, but even when they got it right. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That was actually coherent and as far as I know right on. Good on you Rob. 02:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Its a great assessment, except what does Andy actually get right? His implicit belief the universe is only 12,000 light years across, or that Black Holes are a conspiracy to sell magazine, or perhaps the Theory of Relativity is a fraud designed to keep kids from reading their Bibles? Or his belief E=mc² is just made up, or that there is such thing as "conservative mathematics", or that mathematics physics is an oxymoron? Maybe its that yellow, orange, and red autumn foliage somehow disproves evolution? Or that because some men become bald young it is a somehow a counterexample to an Old Earth? Or heck, the idea of conservative shrimp? Seriously, what is he right about? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of that could be attributed to an attack on public education and teachers unions. He's reaching in most instances to find an example that conflicts with traditional, 19th century, one room school curriculum. But it is a good question how a traditional catholic gets mixed up in the YEC movement; perhaps he found an ally in Phillip Rayment at one time and now is moreless wedded to it. Or perhaps all this "anti-science" is more of a reaction against the politicization of science and the "cult of science" (something I myself am not entirely comfortable with, either). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If he has a gripe with the politicization of science, whatever that might mean to him, he's be better served to take it out on the politics, and not the science. He might look a bit less like an idiot that way. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much how the view is dissected; there are elements in society who feel science & scientists got to much clout in politics, the courts, and media, against "traditional values". Public school teachers & unions "brainwash" children into believing all this crap, and the property owners gets stuck with the bill for educating children and gangbangers who are gonna break into your house. So since teachers and scientists reject everything the tax paying citizen stands for and believes in, they just stick it in your face and throw it back at you by rejecting everything you stand for and believe in, as well. And who has to pay for the cops & prisons these ill-educated kids the teacher unions turn out on the street to break into your house? ....That's pretty much the reasoning. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That girls are no good at math? That boys and girls should write separate exams? That Castro is dead? That the Republicans will have a brokered convention and Jeb Bush will be the next president? That Santorum will campaign for Romney against Gingrich? That Romney is a RINO true conservative? That earthquakes are growing more frequent? That the frequency of earthquakes is evidence of a young earth? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That abortion causes breast cancer? That waving a gun around in a convertible is reasonable behavior? That vaccines cause autism? That there was no Triangular Trade? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That England is "atheistic"? That Tim Tebow is a good quarterback? That the liberal media has poisoned America against Tebow? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

that the eastern front didnt happen, that the nazis pretty much won the north africa campaign, that it was liberals who kept the liberation of east europe into democracy from happening during ww2... and thats the stuff he's teaching kids--il'Dictator Mikal 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights: that George Orwell was a secret conservative, that Jesus's healing powers disproves relativity, that conservative words are increasing at a geometric rate, that The Social Network not winning the Oscar for best film that means Sarah Palin won't be president, that Obama's supposed lack of dancing proves he's a Muslim, that humour didn't exist before Christianity, that the greatest works in history were produced by teenagers, that the Bible foretold modern science. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That Conservapedia is the leading cause of America's creep to the right, that George Washington's heartfelt letter to his nephew trumps the Constitution, that hand-washing is an "irrational phobia", that YMCA is a good conservative song, that atheism is the reason England lost in the World Cup. Vulpius (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Going back to Rob's last statement, if they honestly believe that; believe that somehow scientists are controlling public policy and have all this influence (and I really did wish they had more say in the government beyond having to beg and plead for funding, and that politicians take their recommendations seriously), then Andy and those like him are even bigger morons then I thought.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In Inherit the Wind, a fictionalized version of the Scopes trial, the defendant's wish to call a zoologist is overruled because he's an "agnostic scientist". That would never happen today. I just watched it last night, and it's revealing of the time warp CP is in. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A truly important article

Ever wondered how marriage is viewed by the Moonies? Well let ol' Uncle Ed to tell you a bedtime story. For those who do not wish to endure that, the short version is as follows: Marriage is the way it is because all the bad in the world was caused by a woman who had "spiritual sex" with Satan. Also you need to "apply for a spouse" and get Rev. Moon's stamp of approval to marry because he is the crotchety Korean version of Jesus, or something. Ed even manages to shoehorn a bit about people challenging senior staff on a website and equating it to sin. Enjoy!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the most amazing things about CP to me is that Andy's Christian zealotry is strong enough that Islam, a religion that grew out of the same Abrahamic tradition and in which Jesus is recognized as a prophet is totally unwelcome, but that a guy who shills for a cult like the Moonies is given the keys to the place. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Moon must find it hard to do this shit without breaking out laughing. It's astonishing how successful he's been at duping people, even if they are people as dumb as Uncle Ed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So, Eve got her fallen nature by having sex with Lucifer and then gave it to Adam. Original sin is like venereal disease, apparently. Still, it's less crazy than believing in talking snakes. Godspeed (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on Ed. How you have an article on Moonie Marriage and not mention the Holy Handkerchief. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I...

I...

I just don't know anymore.^img -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Is this lulz inducing?} 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Ken... just go to bed. --Revolverman (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, WHAT THE SAM HILL IS THAT? Are shrimp conservative? Are seahorses Nazis? Are dandelion seeds pro abortion? Do gingerbread houses cause botulism? In all cases, these statements make no damn sense. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally we have to ignore ken for a while before the crazy kicks in...--il'Dictator Mikal 03:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Are shrimp conservatives?! ARE THEY?! ARE THEY?! THE BIBLE FORBIDS EATING THEM, SO PERHAPS THEY ARE A SACRED BEAST! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 03:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what Ken looks like when he's off his meds. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that shrimp were an abomination. I guess I didn't get the memo. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that part was mis-translated? Maybe god wants us to eat ONLY conservative shrimp?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The next step has got to be Ken calling aardvarks "liberal atheists" and then writing twenty identical essays about how aardvarks aren't as good as shrimp.--Spud (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He's absolutely unhinged and you'd never know from miserable writing devoid of intellectual rigor that he's not mentally retarded. CMI posted this shrimp joke a few days ago (with an earnestly straight face and/or clenched anti-evolutionist teeth). All Ken did was retweet it. You might consider the possibility that y'all just done got trolled. Or he's serious. It's a corollary to Poe's law that God permits no insight into whether one has actually taken trollbait from a Poe or wily creatard. 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that if ken is indeed a Poe; he's far to dedicated to it for so little gains--il'Dictator Mikal 14:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the corollary was sound. 15:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you transfer genes between shrimps, pigs 'and other such beasts as the Bible condemns' could you create the Beast of the Apocalypse? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And would it make a good Conservapedia admin? - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And would it be delicious and kosher? 04:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is all true, then Ken must REALLY be upset about the mutated shrimp and fish caused by the Deepwater Horizon spill. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp can't be conservative; they're more likely co-conspirators with environmental wackos to shut down the nuclear wp:Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, all invertebrates are conservatives. Just look at Newt Gingrich. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Romney a RINO or not?

As seen above, Andy scrubbed the R-word from his Romney article--but he called Romney out as a RINO on MPR. He must be in a transitional phase. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The cognitive dissidence he's currently experiencing must itch something fierce. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gather round while I sing you of Willard Mitt Romney

A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience

Call him a RINO, he won't even frowny

"RINO, schmino," says Willard Mitt Romney

Don't say that he's hypocritical

Say rather that he's political

....anyway, Romney will believe X if it's convenient now and not X if it's convenient later. Schlafly will believe X and not X simultaneously. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the only way he can justify Jesus' FTL healing powers. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse: Randroid In Name Only?

Poor old Chuckarse^img. It must be hard when your pope calls your religion a protection racket that makes life on earth unbearable. Still, at least Christianity has taught him excellent selective reading skills. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I find Hurlbut's take on his religion to be disturbing. The ability that man has to warp and twist the truth into something he likes easily rivals Schlafly's--"Shut up, Brx." 19:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if he ever played Bioshock. --Revolverman (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Like most objectivists that have played that game, he would see it as praise of his ideals. Objectivist Bioshock players seem to think that the entirety of the blame for Rapture's fall lies on Fontaine--"Shut up, Brx." 21:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a contact who worked on that game, and I can feel his facepalm from here. Ugh... ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 21:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I ask, because Fontaine's big sin (at least to Ryan) was bringing in Bibles and Crosses. I'd just love to know who he'd support in that hypothetical (Or would he just get fucked up on Plasmids?) --Revolverman (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably the plasmids. Your average CP regular is already pretty damn similar to the raving religious splicers in the games. But yeah, it's scary just how many people I personally know who identify as libertarian and think Bioshock is nothing short of a stirring endorsement. Q0 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fontaine's big sin, according to Ryan, was cornering the Plasmid business and thus becoming too influential. Can't do that in Ryan's private aquarium. Vulpius (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

An Objectisit friend of mine said that proves Ryan wasn't really an Objectivist, because a real one would have let Fontaine take over.AKA, No True Objectivist argument. --Revolverman (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Fontaine was a mobster and a smuggler. *spoiler alert* He later agitated the disenfranchised masses of Rapture under the alias of Atlas.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bah, you don't have a real objectivist friend. Objectivists don't have friends, just people they haven't exploited yet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We need the article! - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What was that about Spock?

Yeah. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Followed by McCoy's riposte "Well, thank pitchforks and pointed ears".--WickerGuy (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not worth a WIGO....

...actually nothing Rob does is worth a pinch of shit, but his pissing all over the grave of the millions killed by Stalin should be noted. Because a little government regulation of commerce is EXACTLY like starving the Ukrainians and sending people to the Gulag. What an unbelievable little prick. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Also not worth a WIGO, or: Johnny Sedition has less of a clue about Marxism and communism than Rob

JPatt, have you actually read any Marx? 'Cause a quick skim through Capital or the Grundrisse might convince you that Pelosi isn't a Marxist.Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nancy might not be a Marxist, but it becomes more and more obvious that you are either blind or illiterate.

Why Does Andy Do This?

He corrects a typo^img he made on MPR, but then he redirects the misspelled link^img. He's done this for other typos in the past, too. And it's not like it's a common misspelling. Does he nevertheless think that because he made this mistake, plenty of others must make it too, and it is therefore redirect worthy? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't make mistakes, just creates more conservative spellings. Mark my words, if CP goes on another couple of years he'll be writing a conservadictionary to purge the liberal bias from the English language. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "a conservadictionary to purge the liberal bias from the English language"??? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I really wish the Conservative Constitution idea had gained some legs. I think that would have provided considerably more insight into Andy's mind than these other projects. -Lardashe

I remember trying to bait Andy into that. There were a couple of problems. First, he didn't come up with it. Second, he wanted to try and claim that the lawspeak was perfectly clear with all it's wheretofores and heretoafters. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't gove up hope, who knows where andy will go in the future. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am underwhelmed

I mean, I expected to be disappointed with Ken's long trumpeted "piece de resistance," but the reality is even more pathetic.^img 15 questions translated into French? Maybe a few Canadians will get a hard on but the overwhelming majority of France won't give three shits about creationist drivel. At best, your 15 questions campaign will appear as part of a montage on why Americans are stupid on channel 4. --"Shut up, Brx." 15:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And the majority of Switzerland won't care because only one fifth of them actually speak French as a first language. They're mostly German speakers in that direction. -- 16:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Ken invented his own "what does that have to do with the price of fish?" non sequitur. I might have to try that. The next time I have to listen to birther nonsense, or a rant about how geneticists are stupid because they don't realize mitochondrial Eve proves all humans are descended from Noah, I'll just sigh and say, "The St. Bernard is the Swiss national dog". -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Give me 15 minutes, google translate, and access to my trilingual friend who I enjoy annoying, and I can have them translated into German and Danish. I'm better at questioning evolution than Question Evolution. X Stickman (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the truth is all scientists question evolution, and to a much deeper and more meaningful level than these trivial questions. Everything from the overall theory to the nitty gritty specifics is questioned, but with the motivation of making progress, not with the motivation of halting all progress and if possible bringing on an age of scientific regression. I don't know why I'm telling you this. Jaxe (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And that's why scientists aren't making bank on their bumper stickers and t-shirts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

[1] --24.212.154.38 (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Liberal bias in dictionaries???

Probably older news to some folks here than it is to me, but just discovered Conservapedia's "liberal bias in dictionaries" article. Contrary to AS's claims, most of AS's "conservative words" ARE in fact in dictionaries (such as "aerobics" evidently a conservative word because it was coined by a Christian. Conservapedia fails to explain why "diva" is a liberal word.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Because Liberals.--il'Dictator Mikal 19:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Liberal additions to the Bible

It's fun to compare Wikipedia and CP:

Wikipedia (Jesus and the woman taken in adultery): "Bishop J.B. Lightfoot wrote that absence of the passage from the earliest manuscripts, combined with the occurrence of stylistic characteristics atypical of John, together implied that the passage was an interpolation."

Conservapedia (added by Andy himself^img): "The story was almost certainly added for the purpose of liberal ideology".

--Night Jaguar (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What Andy doesn't see is, that a true blue orthodox, traditional conservative Christian would view his interpretation as of scripture as quite liberal. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Heresy isn't "liberal." 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In Christian Apologetics, the inerrancy of scripture is generally considered the conservative position, and denying inerrrancy is considered liberal. Look at cp:Biblical inerrancy, for example -- a page Andy has never edited (probably never read or doesn't know exists, because he certainly shows no sign of ever having heard of the subject). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Inerrancy is considered the traditional position today but in the High Middle Ages, allegorical interpretations were quite well-accepted. Even that crusty conservative Saint Augustine was quite happy with this. Literal inerrancy became a traditionalist opinion in the late 19th/early 20th century.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC

Andy takes the position of the Roman Catholic Church in denying inerrancy, as the article states, but he even denies the adulterous woman is a "metaphor or allegory" for a spiritual truth about forgiveness. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, Oct 2009 (from Conservaleaks):

“”By 2012 the conservative movement could be disrupted with internal religious battles. For example, in 2012 Mitt Romney, a Mormon, will run against Mike Huckabee, an evangelical. Newt Gingrich, a Catholic convert, and Sarah Palin, a Catholic-turned-evangelical, could run too. Jeb Bush, a Catholic convert, could run also though he may await 2016. These religious differences run deep, particularly among older conservatives. It flared up some in 2008. As we've seen with the CBP [Conservative Bible Project], liberals know about these differences and try as hard as they can to inflame them. The CBP could build a foundation of unity. It could address and patch up differences to "make way" for a more unified conservative movement in the future. If everyone accepts a particular Bible, then it's awfully hard for them to engage in religious conflicts with each other.

The CBP did kinda act as a "foundation of unity" for the conservative movement, but by almost all conservatives who heard about it declaring it an insane heresy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahha! It's right here! Liberal Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy ...liberal Christians tend to reject Biblical inerrancy in all forms, since certain passages clash with their liberal ideology ...by rejecting the Bible or passages therein as inspired, due to them being contrary to a desired meaning or practice, then the authority of the Bible itself loses its authority ...

Andy's a liberal, according to Conservapedia. Anybody, in a not so smug or confrontational manner, wanna go over to CP and tell him? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go over and tell him he's a liberal if your so keen on it happening? --il'Dictator Mikal 04:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

He, like you, is afraid to engage in intellectual discourse with me publicly cause, like you, he knows he'll get his ass handed to him. I'd have to do it as a sock, and Karajou would just block me. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody wants to debate you because its an exercise in arguing with a brick wall rob. And so? You told us to go point it out, NOT debate him, if you want it pointed out, go over and tell him. You obviously hate the man and the website so who cares if you get blocked, unless you are still afraid of losing access to a site where they actually agree with you. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you're being a dumbass. How does personal feelings, like hate toward somebody, figure in showing a misguided soul he erred in understanding Christian forgiveness? Jesus fuck, are you dumb. Does every discussion have to motivated by hate or likability toward the protagonists? Are you incapable of dispassionate analysis about anything? It's Friday nite, go get yourself a girl or something and stop making a fool of yourself. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well this is all news to me, I always thought that the only christians who didn't believe in biblical inerrancy were the so-called "liberal christians" (how I detest labeling everything liberal/conservative Andy-style) around me who just try to combine their modern western way of thinking ("it's probably a stupid idea to kill someone for eating shellfish or being gay") with their christian upbringing. I always considered the "real" christians to be the one who believed in biblical inerrancy, since they don't pick and choose according to their lifestyle. I think the real lesson from this though is just that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are still retarded. They didn't mean the same thing in olden time as they do now in America, hell, they don't even mean the same thing outside of America. --GTac (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the most unfortunate things about some delusions are their foundations in truth (e.g. that the adulteress story was likely an interpolation). It's like a grain of sand in an oyster, constantly being shellacked with yet another layer of crazy until it erupts from the mouth of Andy in the form of a beautiful pearl for us to gaze upon. In fact, most of Andy's delusions start this way. Someone did at one time relate relativity and relativism. Scientists are forever going to find anomalies and make errors. It's going to be cold somewhere at some point in time. Andy just fucking runs wild with it. And this will never stop until Andy gets help. There is always going to be another grain of sand. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You guys nailed it. Andy denying the words attributed to Jesus and invoking the Mosaic law under the doctrine of inerrancy would apply not just to adultery, but eating shellfish as well. And he goes beyond the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church that the Bible is still inerrant as a source of spiritual truth, "but is more appropriately interpreted as metaphor or allegory in certain places" by denying its textural authenticity. And this is done in several place, the Essay, CBP, Woman caught in adultery (even Ed the Moonie understands the passage better then Andy). If the CBP was supposed to be "a foundation of unity...for a more unified conservative movement in the future", it does more to re-ignite the underlying causes of the wp:European wars of religion and places Andy outside, what is now, the official teachings of the Catholic Church. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out rob, that all protestants already denied BI (in a way) when they said the extra books in the bible weren't supposed to be there. what makes that any different from what andy did? (Serious question, i want your opinion)--il'Dictator Mikal 13:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Andy did come close to succeeding in unifying the factions... opposition to the CBP was universal. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos, Inerrancy is a fundamental Protestant doctrine; the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) recognizes the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, who then interprets what the Bible means for the rest of us. So the Pope is the Word of God at any given time, not the Bible. And the RCC doesn't deny texts the Protestants deem inerrant, they only add to it. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't change the fact they (The Protestants) decided some parts of the bible weren't actually part of the bible, which fundamentally is what andy did with the CBP as well. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly how the recognized canon of scripture came about; after the Protestants formulated their Canon, the Pope added a bunch of stuff to screw em up. The 66 books of the Protestant Canon are deemed inerrant by Catholic & Protestant alike, albeit some passages allegorically by Catholics & "liberals", as CP's BI article states. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, and the history courses i took (although they didnt specifically mention by name since it wasn't relevant), atleast parts of the apocrypha was in place in official biblical canon by 400.--il'Dictator Mikal 14:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This may contradict what you just said. wp:Biblical_canon#Evangelical-Protestant_canon. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC) "In practice, most Protestants — and all Evangelicals — hold to the Jewish canon for the Old Testament and the Catholic canon for the New Testament."

Rob, literalism and inerrancy are very different things. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

True; but the debate as it pertains to Andy is his striking certain NT passages and not even allowing for allegory by interpolation. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the Pericope one way or the other as far as I know so how does inerrancy keep him from excluding something he doesn't think is part of the original scripture? What is allegory by interpolation? Nate Keaton (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Council of Trent (Catholic) [2][3] held to the "pericopes" and accepted them as Canon (which could be deemed as the conservative position); Protestant confessions and the Sola scriptura left the issue unresolved until they were rediscovered by Higher Criticism in Germany in the early 19th century ("rationalists" and "liberals" who questioned the authenticity of wp:Pericope Adulterae). Allegory by interpolation would be accepting the pericope as divinely inspired and revealing a spiritual truth while simultaneously recognizing it is outside the "received text". [4] nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Main Page Left

Coming to his senses, or clearing the ground for Operation Carburetors and Sasquatches?^img Only his stylist knows for sure. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's the perfect opportunity for User:Conservative, a devout, loving Christian narrow-minded zealot, to make fun of another man's faith. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite, why is AugustO still around?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 13:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A few weeks ago he saved Andy's ass and Andy took it as a sign from God. I am not making this up. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't explain how he managed to make it to a few weeks ago; I've been suspecting he's either a friend of one of the sysops somehow, or a sock of one of them. He never shoulda survived this long when he questioned andy himself. He could also be the token dissenter, kept for show purposes. --il'Dictator Mikal 13:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In CP terms, he's been quite successful. The only way to measuring "winning" is when Andy gets pwned and walks away, which August has made him do a few times. You've got to keep boiling it down and boiling it down until there is just one question he has to ignore. It's like some masochistic puzzle that you can never finish. I can sympathize with playing. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I admire AugustO's tenacity and integrity and you cannot hold him responsible for another man's behavior, but nobody wins when "Conservative" puts pen to paper. It should be alarming to his parents or caretakers and it brings the website into disrepute. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also on Talk: Main Page, Ken says "I've never said I was American". (I can't be arsed to link to it, but it's there in the section "Viva la biblical creationism".) That's a new one from the International Man/Woman/Collective of Mystery. Maybe next he'll say, "I've never said I was a Christian". --Spud (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

He's said "iI/We may or may not be American" before actually. il'Dictator Mikal 15:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, Ken even refuses to confirm he's male, even though his sweetness on a Conservapedian of the female persuasion combined with the Summa Homosexualita would make him the world's biggest hypocrite if he were a woman. Godspeed (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe his recent edits are hinting towards the fact that User:Conservative is actually a colony of shrimp. Vulpius (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In which Rob says something completely irrelevant to the edits on MPL which are the topic of this section

ToP, Coming to his senses...or following discussions here (minus the Coop wars). [5][6][7][8] nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy does a magic trick

Conservative^img. Not Conservative^img. Oh, Andy. It's like you're the walking, talking personification of No True Scotsman. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In Andy's defense, one's opinions about various topics and personalities are subject to change. Yet what's great about Andy is there is no subtle shift in those positions. You know, most people go through "Jack is awesome!" to "Jack is pretty good." to "I like Jack but..." to "Despite some good things Jack has done...." and so on. Nope, not Andy. He doesn't believe in evolution so strongly that he has completely stricken it from his own thought processes. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not his changes of opinion that make Andy so reprehensible, it is how he is willing to change his opinion of someone based on their success or failure. Sarkozy wins, he's a conservative, give it up liberals, Sarkozy loses, he's a "neo con." Santorum is a conservative hero until he gives up at which point he was merely stalking horse for Romney. --Marlow (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy is not conservative because he was getting chummy with Obama--"Shut up, Brx." 00:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy the fact that Andy is classifying Sarkozy as a "neo-con" given it is entirely an American political term meant to define a particular set of American political beliefs, and doesn't neatly apply to any European political party or politician.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney, no longer a PLINO

The scrubbing continues^img. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia in March 2012

• To release RationalWiki from the burden of being cluttered with Conservapedia-related pics, I tried something different: have a look at my blog.
• I try to automatize the updating of the numbers of active users (Conservapedia:Active users, RationalWiki:Active users, active users at Citizendium) even more, and will introduce a couple of tags into the articles. That shouldn't distract anyone.
• I'll come up with some RationalWiki and Citizendium related pics at the aforelinked blog, too.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about people complaining about your awesome graphs. If they do, it's because they're mean-spirited losers who've never had sex. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

*LOL*You are too kind - especially as some will say that these graphs are the results of not having enough sex :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sex. I remember that. Good times. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't count if you were by yourself. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Graphs are what happens when tables of data have sex. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• some pics on Citizendium --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps throw a "sticky" on this so it doesn't get archived? ħuman 04:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I didn't want to appear to presumptuous larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• some pics on RationalWiki --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I posted the wrong entry. The link should work now, and you find a few of the usual pics on RationalWiki in Mar 2012 over there. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Chuckarse Medical Plan

Chucky has a wonderful plan for your life^img, it's that you should die not get sick. And for those mooching poor who do happen to fall ill, there's alternative medicine practitioners who the government now prevents from practising due to their dangerous incompetence burdensome regulations. I suppose with all the other bullshit he's in favour of, it shouldn't be any great surprise he's in to medical woo too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That link you posted actually brings you to a diff of JoMar celebrating the socialist lead in the upcoming French elections. I'd correct it for you, but at some point I swore I wouldn't edit the content of people's posts for any reason--"Shut up, Brx." 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

He's a doctor with a COI bitching about Medicaid below market reimbursements. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading Terry's posts about how he thinks Ayn Rand world would be, it all boils down to "I'm not paying for things I don't use, and screw all those less successful than me." He really is a vile human being. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know if it's "successful", more like "less fortunate" and why should universal healthcare be "charity" but not say, national defense?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Because "support our troops!" you un-American piece of crap!--"Shut up, Brx." 11:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Little fucking gobshite.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you made $300,000 a year in the ree market, youd love America, too. And if the gubmint only reimbursed you $160,000 for $$300K fair market value, you'd use Ann Landers ideological arguments as a smoke screen for your own greed, as well. You guys just can't empathize with another human being. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't start that "I'm so in touch with the common man" shit again, Rob. Remember where it got you last time. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And he calls you....an idiot!!

Remember that kid in school who couldn't tell the difference between when the other kids were laughing with him and laughing at him?^img Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Any press is good press, I guess... It's like with Stephen Colbert. I can't believe I used to think he was just being a good sport.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it paints an unflattering picture. Ace^Moderator 01:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the only thing in the world that's not liberal/conservative to Andy is attention whoring web traffic. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy redoubles on his Castro is dead bet

This is long past sad^img. Why is Andy so wedded to this bullshit he just plucked from the air one rainy Thursday? Once it kinda sorta made sense that they'd do the weekend at Bernie's thing to have Castro bless the line of succession, but why would they continue the charade for many years after and have the fake Castro wander around the world meeting people at big public events? It's insane. Is this really the kind of thing Andy thinks goes on in the world? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This really reduces CP to nothing more than a 9/11 Truther, We Never Landed on the Moon, Chemtrails, or The Rosicrucians Killed JFK kind of site. No need to pay attention anymore. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 15:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, at least its conspiracy ground that's unploughed! --Revolverman (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised it took almost two months for Conservapedia Proven Wrong to lose all pretense of being anything other than Conservapedia Proven Right 2.0 Vulpius (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is Andy also now implying that the Pope was not actually there? Or am I just reading that with an odd interpretation? Ayzmo (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See Andy's comments at the cited link, cp:Talk:Fidel_Castro#Castro_Dead.3F. He's got a hard on for the Castro-commie-New York Times connection, probably gleaned from here, (scroll down to concluding paragraphs beginning with, Let us proceed carefully and examine for meaning what we have just read in the New York Times.... nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It would seem Andy implied the Pope was also a double if you read his alteration.

"No lamestream media source is willing to admit that the communist news agency is lying about Castro. Many liberals, including the New York Times, were fooled by the staged meeting of a stand-in for Fidel Castro and Pope Benedict XVI" - Aschlafly (emphasis mine)

So the crazy has been doubled!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what he meant. You don't have to add to the crazy - there's plenty to go round. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. After all, "stand-in" was singular. That's a more relevant clue to Andy's meaning. Real pope, fake Castro. Phiwum (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The point Andy is making is the New York Times echos commie agitprop - a long held belief on the right, only this time he extends it to Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This might be supremely behind the issue, but why does he think Castro is dead? What led him to believe this? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 19:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Castro stopped answering his phone calls. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It just seems like a very strange thing to believe. Most conspiracy theories have conclusions that pander to an insecurity or suspicion or affirm the believers as super clever geniuses above the sheeple. I've never known many goofballs to believe in a conspiracy that would change nothing in the context of their lives. When people feel scared they invent scary new world order conspiracies to make them feel better and make their fears feel confirmed (otherwise they'd be wrong, and that makes them feel bad), and when people are angry but don't understand the cause of their problems they're all too happy to invent something to take the blame. What would Castro being dead or not change in the context of Andy's life? The only thing I can think of is that he's angry that Bin Laden was taken down on Obama's watch, so he's trying to rewrite history that Bush took down some other dictator in order to keep Obama from looking superior. The fact that Bush was so gung-ho about getting the guy and then this icky liberal does it instead, taking all of Bush's (perceived) manly republican glory for the entire war would probably make Andy a little more than unhinged. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if you notice the common thread is blaming the "lamestream media," and in particular the "liberal" New York Times, for uncritically reporting the subterfuge, which to Andy is obvious to everyone. 19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's almost masochistic how willing Andy is to marginalize himself. "No lamestream media source is willing to admit that the communist news agency is lying about Castro." CBS News published a piece expounding the same theory Andy does, State Secret: Is Castro Dead? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What an awfully strange world to live in where the entire "liberal" media has to conspire to lie and misrepresent any number of things for your twisted worldview to cohere. 20:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it's simpler in my mind. Castro is a goddamn commie liberal, and an evil one at that, who has been dictatorising Cuba for decades. Then he voluntarily gives up power because he's ill. Andy can't comprehend that Castro (who has been a communist bogeyman forever) would voluntarily give up his power, because in Andy's mind, he's in it for the evil. Therefore, he died, and it's being covered up. The media are helping cover it up because liberals. X Stickman (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stickman hit the nail on the head. Andy's repeatedly said Pinochet wasn't a dictator because he voluntarily gave up power, which dictators don't do, therefore if Castro gave up power voluntarily he wouldn't be a dictator, which Andy can't accept, so it must be he didn't stand down. Either he's still ruling or he's dead. I sort of think the former might be easier to believe, but Andy went with the latter, so our delight. You see, once someone steps down they shed the epithet "dictator" regardless of what they did under their rule, and all is forgiven. The murders and disappearings under Pinochet don't matter; he's a good guy now. Also, Rob, that CBS item you cited is 3 years old and dates back to when Castro first got ill and stepped down, well before his multiple public appearances and state meetings, so, no, it's not the same theory as Andy at all. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Dictators who stepped down: Castro, Pinochet, Jerry Rawlings, Mubarak, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, José Santos Zelaya. Any others? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mubarak and Ben Ali didn't go voluntarily. If you count them you'd have to include every dictator who fled an uprising rather than get lynched. The Argentine junta resigned in 1983 and Brazil's military government handed over to civilian rule in the eighties. Sophie^{because liberals} 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia falls off Wikimedia's list of 200 largest wikis

...and currently getting beat out by the Portuguese Unencyclopedia. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Link fail. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 04:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But... but I thought Conswervapedia was growing expediently and was going to make TV obsolete!? --Revolverman (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It hovered in the top 150 for it's first four years because there were only about a dozen English language wikis in the top 150. But now things like Baseball Reference Bullpen wiki and the Alfred Hitchcock DVD Wiki (with one Administrator) got it beat. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Where was Wookipedia and Memory alpha in relation to this?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Did not place It seems. WoW's Wiki made it though.--Revolverman (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rankings are determined by articles ("Good" column). Number 200 currently has 39649 and CP has 38460. It'll never get back on the list. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WOOKIPEDIA didn't make it on this list. Bullshit, it's one of the most dedicated fandoms with a universe where everything has atleast a 5 sentence backstory, name and list of appearances--il'Dictator Mikal 05:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it did. No. 119. 91000 articles. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

<eant a ? after the first sentence fragment. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wookiepedia's URL is starwars.wikia- look there--"Shut up, Brx." 12:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that list, there are only 5985 Admins ruling the planet for 168,671,199 users. And considering some are Admins on more than one wiki, it really is a small world. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this list is reliable. Where's Maratrean Wiki?--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in the scheme of things, Rob. One day soon, the list will be comprised of Wikipedia properties only. Then they can change how they measure others to remain relevant. --99.155.92.231 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's Mainly Just Dishonest

He's not crazy. He knows what he's doing. And it's all about the ends justifying the means. The latest Conservapedia Proven Right^img is the "remarkable increase" in quake activity (proving the Young Earth because the earth can't take this sort of thing for long). No mention that the headline of his cited article is "Human-made earthquakes reported in central U.S." It's the damned headline. It's about how fracking for oil and gas extraction causes small earthquakes. He didn't "miss" the headline. Or the clear thesis of the article. Liberals deceive and conservatives lie big. Whoover (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? He seems to be a Genius in France. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

He'll just justify it by claiming that it shows how unstable the Earth is geologically as humans can cause quakes, yet cannot affect the climate.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy will say that an increase in earthquakes is a fact and the notion that humans looking for oil caused them is the opinion of the liberal and untrustworthy Reuters.

Anyway, does he have to be either crazy or dishonest? Can't he be both?--Spud (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nailed it! Phiwum (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So Andy proves the claim that earthquakes of magnitude 7 and up are increasing with... a source that says that earthquakes of magnitude 3 and up are increasing? That's hilarious! And dishonest! But mostly hilarious. And kinda sad. So... CP in a nutshell, really. --Sid (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

At Conservapedia, we report and you decide (on whether or not you want to read the article to know what it's actually about). Occasionaluse (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this must be what happens when you absolutely believe that the Bible is the only source of morals (rather than say just being a decent person). Because in the end they know that, having accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior, they will be forgiven their sins. So why not lie?

Logical fallacy poster

We should make a version of this poster where all the examples come from Conservapedia. I am pretty sure there is an example (probably many) for each of the fallacies. --Composure1 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy speaks, Wikipedia acts.

Wikipedia changed their licence after being criticized by Conservapedia.^img Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically Andy is correct, Conservapedia made criticisms prior to Wikipedia adopting the CC license in 2009, but to phrase it the way he did and suggest that Conservapedia had anything to do with the change is deliberately misleading and/or delusional. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

technically correct is all a man like andrew could ever hope for....remember, he has a law degree....:-D--Dorianin (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the fun part is that nobody knows what the hell Conservapedia's license terms mean. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In which Rob engages in a bit of pedantry

Is it a license or not? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a license. Why on earth would you think otherwise based off of that Google search? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Commons Deed is not a License" And Rob knows all he needs to know. RachelW (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So Google links to the deed, not the license. Andy's got a point. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

doesnt google just go for key terms? if so, assfly's results would be because he knew that that wording would score more hits. I'm thinking bluff.....--Dorianin (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Commons Deed is not a license, it's a useful summary of the actual license. The top links in your Google search, such as this one for the 3.0 license, include a link to the text of the actual license at the top of the page. I don't see what the problem is. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the deed ruins the "it's too hard to understand" argument by telling laymen what the license means for them, while offering a link to the fine details for those interested or their lawyers. But the "Google found X" arguments are nonsensical because Google's results change in response to who is querying (and where from) and when (and what is happening meanwhile). Meaning that if you comment on someone's Google link by assuming that they saw exactly the same thing as you then you tend to end up looking like an idiot. Not that this is anything new for Rob. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I hate/love when Andy writes about sports.

Hate because base stupidity pisses me off, love because I get to laugh at his base stupidity. Hey, Andy: it's called a "perfect game"^img because it's perfect. By definition, one perfect thing cannot be better than another perfect thing. Because they are both perfect. Also, the Bruins are losing to the Capitals. Haven't seen you run your mouth about Tim Thomas lately. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As an ardent sports fan I totally agree. Isn't it funny how Andy only has something good to say about Tim Thomas when the Bruins win? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As a non-sports fan I disagree. Something can be perfect in one aspect but sorely lacking in another. As I understand it those 7 pitches were balls, so when Andy says that the one however many years ago was better he is also implying what is a true fact that "perfect game" isn't necessarily a perfect game, instead it's a game with one perfect aspect (no hits) and the potential for many non-perfect aspects. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 06:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is just an argument about terms of art. In this particular sport "Perfect game" means a specific thing. In mathematics a "Triangular number" means 1, 3, 6, 10 etc. You might argue that the numeral 4 "looks pretty triangular" well, that's nice, but it's not what the term of art means, and likewise 10 isn't "more triangular" than 3 or "less triangular" than 6, numbers either are or are not "triangular", and games are or are not "perfect". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Bruins lost, I'm not happy about it. I'm just glad I don't have to listen andy yap about a team he clearly knows nothing about. Oh heres an idea andy, name the Bruins head coach WITHOUT a search engine. Also, I looked it up, Addie Joss threw a 74 pitch perfect game, and he was a journalist on the side. Thats right, he was a member of the liberal lamestream media.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 14:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank christ that he likely will never talk about the Habs, being in an evil, french soviet canuckistan sector, and I bet dollars to donuts, he's never even heard of the CFL. --Revolverman (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

sweet Jesus, but the Habs aren't very good at hockey, and won't be for a while. Also, Habs fans suck. rioting over a hockey series is one thing. Rioting in the first round of the playoffs is just pathetic. Shitty team. Shitty fans. Full disclosure: I lived there for more than 40 years. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 15:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh you --Revolverman (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is called a "prefect" game doesn't mean it is perfect; it's just a term. The only "perfect game" I suppose would be 81 pitches, all strikes. Or maybe 27 pitches, all caught fly balls. Hard to say, but the idea that one perfect game can be "better" than another isn't a ridiculous notion.Trying to measure the impact of conservatism on those games, however, is. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To be pedantic:

1. A shutout is when the opposing team scores no runs.
2. A no-hitter is when the opposing team gets no hits (but could still reach base through walks/errors)
3. A perfect game is when no player on the opposing team reaches base.

Technically, a pitcher is credited with #2 and #3 IFF they throw the last pitch, which is something of a rarity in the MLB (relievers usually finish the game...otherwise, the term "no hitter" or "perfect game" is credited to the team...but I don't think any coach has ever had the balls to relieve a pitcher when they are on a roll like that). No-hitters are rare (Nolan Ryan had seven) but still extremely noteworthy (White Sox pitcher Wilson Alvarez had one on his second start, and Mark Buehrle had a no-hitter and a perfect game)—furthermore, a no-hitter does not guarantee a shutout or even a win (25 of the 273 recorded MLB games had runs, and 2 ended up with losses for the no-hitter pitcher). Perfect games are inherently both a shutout and a no-hitter, and are super rare...but Andy is still wrong: according to Wikipedia and MLB.com, there have been 21 perfect games (Andy: learn to fucking read already). If anything, he should be excited because it would be "golden" (the 21st perfect game occurred on the 21st of April). But more to the point: ANY of these three games are fucking exciting to the fans—even if you aren't a fan of the team, it's still an amazing thing to watch, and that's what's important—not whether they pray to God or invoke a superstitious belief before the game. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for CP

Like it or not, CP is a lol factory. It's run by Andy and he runs on attention. We've got plenty of Andy, he just needs more attention. Anyone interested in trying to help him? Things might include:

• Letters to the editors of scientific publications in regards to any number of articles telling the authors all about how they're wrong and Andy Schlafly is a science god.
• Call-ins to NPR and the like when they discuss science/Castro/earthquakes/cryptomuslims/warming

CP has done so much for you, it's time you return the favor. Remember, the more attention Andy receives, the lulzier he becomes. I'm talking Taitz-level attention whoring. I think we can help. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/ww?--il'Dictator Mikal 16:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That, my friend, is an AWESOME idea. I for one cannot wait for the next time that Dianne Rehm talks about Castro or Ira Flato does a show on relativity. I'll be there for you, man. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, as it justifies their paranoia and gives them a "I told you so" claim about vandalism, and really they are doing a fine job of constantly shooting themselves in the foot. Andy is able to create the hilarity without help and that is what makes it especially funny.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Andy can't be, say, a Charles Krauthammer analog on a show like Red Eye. It justifies their paranoia, but so what? It's like teaching creationism alongside evolution in public highschools. On the surface, it sounds like a terrible idea, and for a very few unfortunate souls, it would be. However, the vast majority would be science teachers lambasting creationism. Stupid needs sunshine, for reason's sake. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's Andy's reasoning (as expressed on the private discussion list to the group when I got de-sysoped): The Nobel Prize is communist bullshit, but it's unfair no anti-evolutionist ever was awarded a Nobel Prize. What's the name for that type of fallacy? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's almost a post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is if not rewarding a prize to creationists is one of the reasons it's communist bullshit. It could also be an if-by-whiskey, where Andy's (de)valuation of the prize is determined by the context. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Far too many science teachers already fail to warn kids off of creationism. I support getting attention for CP but don't like it's at all like creotardism in the classroom. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 21:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This says it all.

Aschlafly to group
8/1/11
I have not had as much time as I would have liked to review and respond recently to issues here and on Conservapedia.

But perhaps that's just as well, because open, robust debate is refreshing and often worthwhile. Many of us at Conservapedia dislike the tendencies of liberals to censor open debate. Jesus told the parable of the wheat and the chaff, which is a persuasive metaphor for the value of letting debate run its course.

That said, I recently responded to Rob privately about how liberals do not accept a middle ground for conservatives. There is no classroom prayer in any public school; there are no Nobel Prizes given to any critics of evolution. I don't think the model is two sides to an issue. I think the more accurate model today is one of real truth amid endless efforts to censor that truth. Trying to find middle ground can result in censoring the truth.

I'm fine with Rob's unblocking of the range blocks. But there are ongoing efforts by others to censor Conservapedia, and I don't think that helps anyone.

Afterwards he bowed to mob rule. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"But there are ongoing efforts by others to censor Conservapedia..." Really, Andy? By who? Last I checked, the only efforts to "censor" CP were on the part of CP admins themselves, who blocked people with dissenting viewpoints, and more importantly, dropped blocks on some ranges that prevented them from even accessing the site. Let us know when ISPs start "censoring" your stupid and hateful conspiracy-mongering drivel by not allowing you to host your site or something. Until then, saying that makes you look like a paranoid and self-important prick. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 12:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just this. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy doesn't take rejection well

Andy getting his hopes up... and then being rejected.

Remember how in early March, people posted on Andy's talk page regarding spotlighting CP as part of a student project?

...yeah, they rejected him.

...no, Andy doesn't take it well. ;)

(No diff links - it's a conversation in progress anyway, so you can just head over to cp:User:Aschlafly to follow it. The cropped screenshot is based on the current version^img of the page, which has the hope part at the top and the rejection at the bottom. --Sid (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC) )

I gotta assume that this "project" is entirely made up and this guy had a long-term plan for some first-rate trolling of Andy. Well played, sir. Well played. You even got him to link to the "hearsay society,.." That's a trolling two-fer, right there. What an idiot. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 'trolling' is nothing more than "our class decided to do a project on someone else." Andy is just, well, ..."incredibly insecure" doesn't even begin to cover it. Godspeed (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I like how it's unfathomable that an internal wiki at the largest Jesuit university in the US has more than Conservapedia's handful of active editors. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there is a "class project" in the first place. For starters, the semester is almost over--ain't nobody starting a class project now. This is somebody with time on his hands setting Andy up to feel self-important and then get crushed. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's great when Andy takes the bait from fake students... Ironclad (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy: "very, very few system outrages..."; he probably meant to say "outages". Quite the Freudian slip. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Andy had a big dose of the sulks there. Whoever was behind that, congratulations on playing him like a cheap fiddle. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. The subsequent responses make clear it was trolling. I only disagree with ToP on one thing. A week before classes end is exactly when students start semester-long projects. Godspeed (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you guys so obsessed with Conservapedia?

It's clear that only five random guys really edit this site, with most of the guys besides Andy Schlafly being real nobodies. Mr. Schlafly's only claim to notability is his mother and his somewhat remarkable academic pedigree. FlamingModerate (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have no clue why. I think CP occupies a disproportionately large place in our navigation framework and main page. That's just me. Blue (is useful) 03:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the higher you fly, the fewer. Ace^Moderator 03:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly sure the people that follow CP do so because CP is a steady pump of hilariously wrong ideas that are amusing, yet are beyond notability such that there's no actual action that has to be done in response other than sniggering. Sort of like going to a zoo to gawk at the animals, I suppose? More important and visible cranks are actual threats that people seek to debunk or combat, but Andy's shenanigans are just unthreateningly goofy and stupid. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

CP is like EastEnders; you know it's crap, but you just have to know what happens next.

Because its funny, and fun to talk about. I don't see why we need any other reason. --Revolverman (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that when our other WIGOs start scoring as high as CP's - or it scores as low as the others - then CP can be seen as no longer relevant to this site. PsyGremlin말하십시오 04:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This site grew out of CP, so wiki inertia? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the number of people following one single guy, Christian Weston Chandler. A wiki with 1,200+ articles. Hundreds of active users even after a year long dry spell. Forums. Message boards. Troper pages, the works. Why? Broken, insane, egotistical people and their babblings are amusing to people; it's entertainment, that's all. Just like a reality TV show. Chris, Andy, Ken... They dance for our amusement for free, taking their payment in attention. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia is for me like television is for many people (and also for us). It's entertaining. Everyone has their hobbies.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And of course, not everybody here is interested in CP. For many it's an irrelevance.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's obsession. Judging by this page a lot of people, myself included, found Conservapædia first, couldn't believe it was genuine, searched around and then found this place. Once here it's only natural to talk to other people with the same experience. Chatting a bit with people about a mutual interest isn't obsession Prodigal (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As a moderate Republican places like CP are used to straw man me at every turn. I work to marginalize them. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 06:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The door swings both ways. Andy, Ken and Karajou are obsessed with RW. They repeatedly take the most absurd positions cause Rationalwiki is their only source of their page views & edit counts. They're like a battered woman who keeps returning to her abuser. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What? RW is not like an abusive domestic partner. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Andy really obsessed with RW? I was under the impression that it's mostly just Ken, Karajou, and JPatt who follow this page regularly, and that Andy pays little attention to RW. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's what Andy doesn't say...

...that's illuminating.

He screams on MPR "The Washington Times Communities quotes our entry explaining judicial activism," which sounds impressive until you go to the page.

Right at the top it says: "This is the Communities at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times."

So yeah, Andy, a blogger quoted you. Wow! Hold the presses. Ken has competition! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Shush, he feels special. To him being quoted on the internet might be like winning an award or a teacher putting your crayon scribble up on the pinboard with a gold star. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The man knows pretty much everything, so why would he bother reading anything? I wonder how Andy even saw the quote, as it's halfway through the article. You'd think maybe he has a google alert, but that story is weeks old. I guess he heard it through the grapevine. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

index.php

The last couple of days, when I try to open a CP diff I get a popup which then tells me to search the web which then takes me to Microsoft which then links to Microsoft Picture It! Document which then links to a page saying its discontinued. Anybody else have this problem? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No.--il'Dictator Mikal 16:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Another no, have you tried it from a different computer? Maybe swing by your local library and see.--Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no trouble opening an index.php from any other wiki, only CP. But I'll try what you suggest. It started shortly after I posted this in RW. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha, maybe you've been 403'd for sleeping with the enemy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I purged my CP cookies and it's working now. What do you make of that? CP has no techheads AFAIK. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations = Hearsay

The hearsay WIGO misses the greater point: only liberals use citations. Why? Because great truths are self-evident^img. Wikipedia is like all socialist and liberal institutions: it respects authority. The Enlightenment taught us to make up shit.

Liberals are the ones with an authoritarian streak? Citing facts is "un-American."? All references are hearsay? The Entry of the Week^img is indeed a fine offering. Whoover (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As the author of the WIGO, I have no shame in admitting I'm not exactly sure what Andy is talking about. I thought he was claiming that CP only includes factual citations. Or is he saying they don't include any citations? Or just hearsay citations? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We don' need no steenkin citations. It's all about people like AugustO asking him to back up stuff he pulls out of his ass. Like GPS doesn't have relativistic corrections, only corrections. Or Castro is dead. Whoover (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This Hearsay Society stuff seems awfully similar to The Colbert Report's concept of truthiness. Good parody, CPalmer. It's hilarious (but not terribly surprising) how Andy whole-heartily embraces it. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Like everyhting else, the Hearsay Society is going to mean whatever Andy wants it to mean. I think that from now on, any time somebody cites a reference that proves Andy wrong, he'll just retort by saying, "Your nothinhg but a part of the Hearsay Society." I hope that Andy's not going to stop citing references altogether. I'd hate to see the end of him citing newspaper articles that support his "facts', provided that you ignore the "liberal opinions' in them, and which praise anti-abortion films for their "gauzy cinematography".--Spud (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, his god, and that mysterious humor about the NFL

Saw this weird post on the Mainpage Right by Andy, stating perhaps his god has a sense of humor because the Indianapolis Colts are planning to pick Andrew Luck in the first round of tomorrow's NFL Draft. For those not in the know, the Colts were the team that released Peyton Manning, who later signed with the Denver Broncos, prompting them to trade Andy's sports idol, Tim Tebow, to the New York Jets. I am not sure how Andy views this as his god having a sense of humor. The Colts have the first pick in the NFL Draft, Andrew Luck is the best quarterback prospect coming out of college and consensus pick for #1, so why wouldn't they pick "the next Peyton Manning"? It's not a mystery, its logical and common sense. This is where Andy once again comments on something he doesn't understand. Peyton is reaching the end of his career and the Colts team is depleted of talent, so naturally they would let him go (instead of playing around $100 million to keep him for another 5 years and hope he doesn't retire or is permanently injured), and start over with the rebuilding process, and that means getting the next franchise quarterback to build around first. So what is strangely humorous or ironic about this to Andy again? Someone explain. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was because his name was "Luck," and he's obviously "lucky" to be the #1 pick. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the mystery is whether Andy has a sense of humor. Or knows what one is. Phiwum (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's not even an NFL fan (37% including many Conservapedians will not watch today's Super Bowl). I think he actually may be a closet wp:Pinko after seeing that post. He just loves being in the minority and on the losing side on everything. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have never understood a single post you've made. Do you ever post sober? Phiwum (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's either Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or his mother dropped him on the head at a young age. We can't quite figure out which. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You guys obviously aren't loyal 'Merkins, if 'Merkin at all. The first clue in routing out communists is when they are not loyal American Football fans. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm from Québec. Sorry. Wanna talk about hockey? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer real football, you know, the sport that actually is related to it's name and itsn't a ripped off version of rugby.--il'Dictator Mikal 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I am an NFL (and college football) nut, but I'm cool with people not having an interest in the sport, what I am not cool with is people like Andy trying to use the NFL for his political or religious quips without remotely understanding how the sport works.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen, bro. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you all, CFL is where its at. --Revolverman (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob?

Do you remember over the fall/winter, when you said that by the summer you would be back at CP because Andy needed you to write MPR stories about the election? Do you?^img You suck, Smith. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 20:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. Anger Bear has no respect for your headline writing skills. As soon as you got peonised you were pretty much done at CP. No peon lasts long. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Anger Bear is busy at this very moment trying to resurrect a diff I supposedly made to this page in Wikipedia, which was deleted as an Attack page after WP User:Karajou evaded an indefinite block. Karajou took his case to Jimbo Wales and I supported removing the defamatory information, but struck my comments after realizing they had been removed. But now (yes, I'm still involved in CP private sysop discussions) Karajou is blaming me for something or other after he was blocked and confined to his WP user page during the 2010 RW/CP Spring offensive. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the price of fish? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What "offensive" are you talking about, Smith? Also, you still suck. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The offensive where nobhead and TK wikilawyered widely, incessantly and unsuccessfully to get all mention of RationalWiki removed from the CP article. The bit where rob though the talk page had been censored when it had merely been archived was the funniest bit. I'm surprised Rob wishes to remind us of his epic fail. As a dog returns to its vomit... Sophie^{because liberals} 21:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The narrative at TK's bio does not reflect how both TK and Karajou were restricted to their user pages, which did not help CP's case. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/Cool--il'Dictator Mikal 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what really doesn't help CP's case? The fact that Andy Schlafly is the smartest guy in the room. The fact that Karajou is a hateful bully. The fact that nobody there can tell when they are being trolled. The fact that USER:Conservative is mentally ill and nobody in the "community" shows him any concern. The fact that nobody who edits there seriously is a decent human being. That really hurts CP's case. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick question, what did doornobs do to piss kara off now?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 22:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Exist? Possibly all the statements he's ben making here insulting cp?--il'Dictator Mikal 22:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever it was, HE IS CEASING HIS ACTIONS! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I generally don't support intentionally aggravating people or "trolling" (of any sort) in general, but honestly, Karajou's way of writing just makes me want to see him pissed off as much as possible. There's something so charmingly ineffective about his mannerisms. X Stickman (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Breaking News. Maybe this is why I can't write headlines. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)\

Thats breaking news?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow, you really do suck. Done by User:Conservative, done by Anger Bear. Do you ever win, Robbie? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Andys stripping and 90/10 block on Rob, and the other... what, 4 "secret admins" who supported Ken in removing Robs rights. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Karajou's got me on the spam block list, so anything I got to say has to be here. Karajou, lay off the 'shrooms. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

With someone like Brian, it was only about "right and wrong" for a short time. After that, it became about him being in power and dominating you. Do you know what he does IRL? I imagine it doesn't involve any sort of management, bcause he seems to pursue illusions of power. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

IRL? Karajou's a convenience store clerk, seriously. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Rob, you've made a useful post. Don't it feel great? I notice he says "my store" there. Any chance he owns or manages it? It does seem like his talents would limit him to clerk, admittedly. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be a liquor store. See 18 Sep 2007 09:39:51 -0700: and [Dumbest kids and the Democrat Party, 5/23/08] which isn't accessible from conservaleaks right now but a string is here. There is more. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)