Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive287

This is an archive page, last updated 5 May 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <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)

Jomar supports undocumented immigrants, craps all over the Border Patrol folks, cites PBS....

It's a Trifecta^img of signs that he really doesn't understand CP. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 15:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very tempted to ask him his opinion of gay rights. I figure he's at least a social conservative, but I have to wonder...--"Shut up, Brx." 16:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I figure Joaquin's only in CP for the free web hosting. Wikipedia wouldn't let him put up his galleries of nicked artwork. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Joaquin is the man! (there's are earlier emails from me pushing Joaquin for sysop not included in Conservaleaks from a group called ConservAdmins which TK was never part of). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.}

Oh, and Jouaquin understands Obama's stromtrooper thugs on the border scapegoating and tasering Mexicans trying to cross will steer Hispanics to the GOP. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/Cool--il'Dictator Mikal 13:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess Andy doesn't go to church too often.

How's this for grade inflation^img? It doesn't matter if you actually go to church regularly, so long as you try to. Everyone's a winner! Phiwum (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh hell, who cares about that. Today's the day that Andy announces Obama is not actually president^img. (Literally and explicitly. See the Early Life section. That wasn't there previously, was it?) Phiwum (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First time he's outright said it; however the entire consequences of birthirism is that obama is not President. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Church, smerch. Sunday is the day for worshipping at the altar of the holy Tebow. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To Mikal: it's that extra step of explicitly stating (in a Trustworthy Encyclopedia article) that Obama is not President that makes it so exciting.

To Jeeves: Please. I honestly doubt that Andy has watched a football game in years. Phiwum (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Andyisms translated: (a) Romney is no longer a RINO; (b) Mormons are Christian. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wherein an attempt is made to enumerate everything Rob does not understand

You really don't understand conversations, do you? Phiwum (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You really don't understand Andy, do you? Andy's on the Obama's a Muslim kick to make Romney the only Christian in the race. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Things User:Phiwum doesn't understand:

Andy Schlafly

Things Rob doesn't understand:

Reading

Writing

Understanding

Abstract thought

New Zealand

ANZAC day

The difference between communism and social democracy

The UN development index

User:Conservative

Himself

add more!

Ace^Moderator 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference between public and private universities.

The difference between pictures of commie atrocities and his barely-legal porn stash.

Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What JSTOR is. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How to explain what he means. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Staying on topic

Producing relevant responses to comments that precede his own

Understanding the difference between free healthcare and communist atrocities

Politics

The whole "pants first, then shoes" thing.

Ace^Moderator 04:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How to merge global accounts. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Coherent thought process --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The price of fish! 72.188.79.96 (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And then there was one

Hey. Did you know that the writing course was still going on? Me either. Apparently it's limping along with one student^img now. I'd really love to know the attrition rates for Andy's physical students. I really hope they all demand their money back. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that there's a pretty high drop-out rate for all online courses. For Andy, though, I don't think anyone would take his classes if they weren't already neck far up his asshole. If you do even the slightest bit of research you'll quickly realize what Andy is. I imagine most of his students are children of friends or people he met through his mother, and most of Andy's teachings are already the kind of kool-aid tea they're drinking (excepting the CBP).--"Shut up, Brx." 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if they're acquaintances of his mother as they live in different locations. Most likely it's related to his church as he runs his classes in a church basement. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is some Wingnut welfare waiting for these kids, I really feel sorry for them when they enter the Job market. --Revolverman (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's been a few of Andy's courses that have died a quiet death recently. I'm pretty sure one of them was touted as the world's biggest class for what ever it was for teenagers (taught in a basement by a crazy man). --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The caveat here is that we don't know anything about the offline parts of his classes, which were always the more significant aspects. I doubt he ever had one earnest online student, and that might eventually have dawned on him, so he sticks with the classroom kids, as he knows they're not parodists, and, more importantly, they pay. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The beautiful, evolution-disproving dawn of a new day on CP

From the WIGO, for me it's like the first day of spring. I'm so excited! Andy's going to reach new levels of crazy this election cycle, and the harvest will be bountiful. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, this will be fun. I also like how all Andy's comments are tantamount to hearsay. (As are all Ken's articles for that matter) --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a good chance he doesn't actually understand the concept of hearsay, which in a way is pretty fucking impressive. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's hearsay so much as just making shit up, which may or may not be all that different in the sense that hearsay is a no-no precisely because the person whose statement you're repeating isn't available to be examined (and doesn't exist in this instance). But yeah. I love this kind of stuff. Seeing that diff alone would cause a responsible mainstream conservative to relegate Schlafly to the crank file. 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk reminds me of the ASK days when PJR would take an informal quote like "probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: ... creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience" and then vigorously defend it as evidence of absence. At one point in time, a guy who is now dead did not know such a scholar. lolgic. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The recent exchange with MaxFletcher is even more dishonest. Guy's a creep. 17:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

links or GTFO.Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't even fucking bother reading this shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"most likely a fabrication... this means actually.... Andy thinks atheism and bestiality have made America so fucking stupid they'll believe any line of shit. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Um...

Koward is quoting^img this blogger and they're howling about how WP is planning to change the meaning of "pro-life", or something.

Except if you look at the WP page, it's nothing of the sort. They's trying to find the best name for the pro and anti lobby. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, he mentions CP - Conservapedia (which itself reveals bias and incomplete information) lists a handful of examples that only scratch the surface of Wiki’s glaringly evident pro-abortion advocacy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pro-death. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I am pro-death. Or at least, I support the right-to-die. I have a dear friend who works closely with the elderly, and she's miserable from time to time with some of her twilight friends not being able to draw their lives to a pleasant, meaningful close as they see fit.±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 15:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really make you pro death, any more than I'm pro abortion. It means you are pro-choice, or something like pro-right to die.

I think they should call the positions "anti-choice" and "anti-life". --65.101.119.25 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is "pro abortion"??? really?? lol. --Godot 15:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Kendoll dead?

I think this might be the first time in five years he hasn't edited CP at all in a day. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As Ken has alluded to being more than one person Ken has probably died many times. In fact, I just have this image of a guy at a screen typing until death and then the next in line just brushes the corpse aside and carries on. Ace^Moderator 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Somthing like this?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 00:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Kendoll is a secret society that has existed down the ages. Inbreeding would certainly help explain his behaviour. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I now have an image of there being an endless sequence of Kendolls à la Moon but it's far more likely that he's been temporarily admitted to some care home suffering from burnout. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken is really The Jack of Blades? --Revolverman (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think at 7 days we should set up a Kendoll watch. At 14 days we should start checking the obituaries. --Sasayaki (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is OK. He is back at it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Still Alive

Brain dead, but alive. Also, I see a span of 13 hours where he didn't edit at all. Maybe he has a job or a hobby after all?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 01:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Weren't you here when we had a little widget that tracked his editing sprees and breaks? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably. You gotta understand, sometimes, lights are on, but no ones home. Its like "Weekend at Bernies" over here.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mean ol' universities use capitalist pricing

Universities decide to price courses according to their costs. Socialists like Andy naturally disapprove^img. Phiwum (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism involves supply and demand. The problem is that demand has been artificially inflated. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 17:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Demand of what?

The article is about the fact that certain courses (math, science and business (?)) cost more to teach and schools are charging more because of that fact. Now, maybe demand is also higher for these courses than for, say, medieval Philosophy, but that wasn't mentioned in the article as far as I skimmed it. If demand is higher for these courses, all the more reason a good capitalist would charge more for 'em! Phiwum (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Demand for education. It has been driven up by altering the pricing structure. The increased volume rewards schools who increase volume rather than schools that increase efficiency. This drives up prices. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, okay. Whatever. Not sure that I get your point in this context, but okay. Phiwum (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's only liberal colleges. The article mentions one in Nebraska and three in South Dakota. Whoover (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the article says "more than 140 public universities now use 'differential tuition' plans", and all universities are "liberal colleges". Duh. Phiwum (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a weird list. Mathematics should be incredibly cheap to teach. It's not even expensive to do mathematics research (a mathematics building basically consists of perfectly ordinary offices, with far more blackboard or whiteboards than usual). Back when I worked in university finance the expensive courses were Medicine (and allied disciplines), then a bunch of lab-based sciences like Chemistry, and then some engineering disciplines (e.g. EE is pretty expensive) most courses were pretty cheap to run because students mostly sit in big rooms while someone talks to them and that just doesn't cost very much.

The price lists for these US universities appear to be basically set up like a diploma mill. Pay us more money, get a "better" degree. Generally that's not good news for quality. After all, if I paid $500 extra, I want my value for money, and that means you'd better grant me a degree, I didn't pay to be taught stuff, I paid for the valuable certificate. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Very true. So what you need is a European system, where society pays you to get a degree and assumes you'll pay it back through the taxes on the highly paid job you'll end up in.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 11:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How important is Conservapedia for RationalWiki?

Three pics larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are really interesting. Thank you. Prodigal (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff. Useful. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse the revelator

Oh goody, Flingbooty is starting a new series on the book of revelation. Anyone want in on the antichrist betting pool? Who will be the beast? The Pope? Ban Ki-Moon? Obama? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the Pope, at least not on Andy's watch. Obama seems like the best choice. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Biden for Anti-Christ 2016! nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Legitimately funny Rob. however I don't think Biden has the charisma for the task. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Andy hate America?

Idle speculation, but curious as to what folks think. In the past few days, we've seen Andy clearly state that the democratically-elected president of his country is actually a fraud and not really the president, and he's doubled down on the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, which should mean nothing to a reasonable person, but coming from a hate-filled bigot speaks volumes. He discounts everybody who does not conform to his narroy ideological view as a "liberal," which is, to him, an epithet. Probably less than a few percent of the people believe all the necessary things involved in toeing the Andy line, and the country is so corrupt and the system so broken as to allow, from his POV, a fraud/liar/member-of-the-Muslim-horde to become its leader. Does Andy hate enough about America that we can say he actually hates America? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course Andy hates America. Peering into his warped version of history, we can deduce that his ideal state is a twelfth-century fascist theocracy wherein men toil without respite, women are pregnant chattel chained to the kitchen sink, the working classes are brutalised and disenfranchised, non-Fundamentalist "Christianity" religions are prohibited (enforced by a bloodstained Inquisition), foreigners are somewhere between "banned" and "bombed", gays are eradicated, and darkies are consigned to grovellingly shine shoes for top-hatted, lily-white capitalists counting coins in Detroit, MI. That bears no resemblance whatsoever to the reality of the contemporary United States; ergo Andy hates the USA. Because it doesn't conform with his vision of perfection. Ironclad (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are we talking about Andy or Santorum here?

Oh, and for what it's worth I don't really like where this is going. It's one thing to point out hypocrisy, but I like to stay away from disturbingly nationalist ideas like worrying about what America is and who hates it and who doesn't. Q0 (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I see where your unease come from, but I can't help wonder about a guy who has such an Americo-centric orientation, but who seems to spend most of his time and effort crapping all over the country, and hating on the attitudes and opinions of most of the people that live in it. I actually don't care if he hates America--I think nationalism and patriotism are pretty regressive forces most of the time--I just think it's odd that for a guy who's all about how great the USA is, he rarely says anything good about it. Of course, he rarely says much good about anything or anyone. Haters gonna hate. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm a sensitive sort, but Ironclad's comment about Andy's desire for subservient darkies went too far for me. I don't think Andy believes that's the natural role for dark-skinned folk. I'm sure he has some racist tendencies, but nothing so explicit. Phiwum (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Schlafly is undoubtably racist. This is a man who defended the Southern Strategy, and calls a former fellow classmate of his and President of the United States a "Muslim" and "Kenyan", both of which are only due to his skin color. Schlafly goes farther than all other fellow sysops on this; not even Ed Poor and Ken back him up much here. He called Obama an "affirmative action president" and has defended racist politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, for the past little while, when the topic has come up. I've argued that Andy was less of a racist as a guy who was totally ignorant of the white privilege that he enjoys. But the "Affirmative Action President" crack makes me reconsider that. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia...

...a place where an article called "Conservapedia Proven Wrong"^img is actually a list of how Conservapedia was proven correct. Seriously, the guy is an intolerable turd who can never, ever admit that he's wrong, no matter what. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Breaking News: Conservapedia still stupid. More after the cut.±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways. If, say, Castro dies in the future and his death is independently confirmed by the International Red Cross through DNA, then CP can argue they were correct in being wrong; OTOH, if Castro is burried by party loyalists and outside identification denied, CP can move the page and say they were correct all along. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

With regards to Castro's death, I think it's pretty obvious that Andy will just claim he's been dead since CP said he was dead, and the liberals in charge of the con are only now admitting it. Maybe he'll throw in something about conservapedia's dogged perseverance being the spanner in the works of the coverup. X Stickman (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Or he can say CP was correct in proposing a plausible theory which the mainstream media didn't have the courage and later was proven wrong. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same andy here?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Substitute the word "ridiculous" with the word "plausible" and "courage" with "idiocy" and you might be on to something there, Rob. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It really is a fucking awesome article to watch grow. It should by titled "why Andy can never, ever be wrong". Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Magic Man in the Sky

Kenny (after 10 revisions) claimed that the apologetics book called "The Magic Man In The Sky" was #1 in the Religion category, #2 in New Releases and in the top 5% of all books on Amazon. Of course he doesn't link to any Amazon listing but a promotional video on Youtube. That sends up red flags in itself, especially when the video simply states it in the title without any evidence to back it up. So I decided to look around Amazon myself it see how truthful Kenny was, because if Creationists are anything, it is that they are truthful, right? I first looked in Best Sellers in Books on Amazon, no dice in the top 20. Then tried looking at Amazon's "Religion & Spirituality" listing of best sellers, it isn't in the top 20 here either. So I tried Christian Books & Bibles, still not in the top 20. So I looked further into the book itself and found that it isn't even released yet, (coming out on May 15th). Well then, let's look at the top books that are "Coming Soon", well definitely not in the top 50. No dice in the top 20 paperbacks either. How about Coming Soon in the subcategory of Christian Books? Oh there it is, at #22.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I figured as much. However, Facts are for liberals, you should know this. --il'Dictator Mikal 12:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember hearing a bit about how Amazon's sales rankings work. The problem is that a person doesn't need to actually sell many copies, the span of time also figures into it. So if someone sells 30 copies in a day, but then never sells another copy for the rest of the month, they still will be listed at the top of the list. On the other hand, a second book selling 3 copies a day for the entire month will have outsold the other, but it wouldn't make it onto the list. -Lardashe

Now it's down to #53. What a hit! Cow...Hammer^time! 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Amazon = Women who wouldnt be in their place = liberal. Amazon = named after them therefor = Liberal. IT's all a Evolutionist Atheist scheme to hide the truth. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I for one, often enjoy reading books that haven't come out yet. It keeps me sharp, for when someone points to the invisible purple unicorn over there...not there...there. I always see it when others often don't. Jimaginator (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else feel that "The Magic Man In The Sky" sounds more like a title that's making fun of religion? Vulpius (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely. I've just watched the YouTube video and if the book weren't written by Carl Gallups, identified here on RationalWiki as a notorious Internet Kristian Kook, I'd just think that the whole thing was a massive piss-take.--Spud (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Maratrean's "new" fallacy

Maratrean's "Name-a-Fallacy"^img sounds remarkably similar to the the Argument from fallacy which creationist Philip J. Rayment (and other creationists I might add) are far more guilty than atheists. He is probably just trolling again. Ace^Moderator 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. But if it's the same thing, why can't he just USE THE STANDARD NAME FOR IT, rather than making something up? I just noticed he's spammed the same crap on some other websites too (asshole of knowledge, MerkinWiki, Maraspam wiki). It's like an idea pops into his head (did his Goddess tell him) and then he has to spam it on as many websites as he can. Where does he get the time to do all this shit? Obviously "becoming the next Steve Jobs" isn't panning out for him. SteveQuigibo (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously its part of becoming the next steve jobs. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's part of being a spiteful mentally ill crank. 21:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We've already got this one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really help the case when the single cited example on the RW article is a questionable (at best) one regarding The God Delusion. Q0 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Ace, it's bad enough that Maratrean posts here. Do we have to track his behavior elsewhere? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, someone else wrote the WIGO. I just commented it. Ace^Moderator 00:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody better go and change Maratrean's copyrighted work! RachelW (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"John Roc"'s edit showed that he didn't understand the issue. See the talk page. So Karajou was right to revert him (as to then banning him, I am not endorsing that.) Also, nice to see that some people here have taken the idea seriously - LX created Catchy fallacy name fallacy. Which is the same thing, just under the name some LessWrongian cooked up. I don't care about that, a name is a name. The concept is original to me, in the sense that I thought it up unaided, but it is obvious enough that it is surely not original to the world - that LessWrongian had the same idea before me, and I'm sure he's not the first to ever think of it either. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? I think that John understood it just fine. It's not wrong to point out that someone's argument is a logical fallacy, if it is indeed a logical fallacy. The "atheist" in your "example" didn't say anything about the overall argument of God's existence, only that the particular argument you made was a clear case of special pleading. Maybe you're just tired of people pointing out the various ways you abuse logic and want a nice, easy comeback to throw at them!

And no, I'm not defending him just because he was banned for being me. I seem to REALLY get around CP these days, don't I? RachelW (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a strawman. <=== See I did it. Maybe you did commit one, maybe you didn't, but without any explanation of why I think you did, it's really hard to say. If I gave you some explanation of why I think that, it'd be far easier to evaluate if I'm right or not. That's the point. John Roc didn't get the point. But some people here seem to get it (ListenerX, possibly David Gerard, Syndicalism). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, I don't think you realize what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a statement that uses logic improperly. Pointing out someone else's logical errors is not a fallacy in itself, and the atheist in your example did not commit a fallacy by correctly pointing out that your argument was special pleading. If the Christian in your example needed an explanation about what "special pleading" is, he should've asked, but the only one committing a logical fallacy here is the one who thinks that everything has to be created, except for his favorite diety. RachelW (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the distinction between formal and informal fallacies? "P implies Q, Q, therefore P" is a formal fallacy because it misuses logic. Ad hominems are informal fallacies - they don't abuse logic, but they are wrong for other reasons. Obviously the fallacy at issue here is informal rather than formal. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So explain to me again how correctly pointing out the use of a logical fallacy is itself fallacious? I highly doubt that failing to explain one's argument fully counts as a failure of logic. And I fail to see why a term invented by one poster on Less Wrong and mentioned on one blog, here and CP needs an article of its own. RachelW (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. It's hokum. 03:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You can be correct in your conclusion but still fallacious in your arguments. An argument by assertion is still a fallacy even if your conclusion is right. "failing to explain one's argument fully counts" is not necessarily a failure of logic (especially when one is willing to explain it more when challenged), but if one scarcely explains it at all, and will not expand when challenged, how is that different from an argument by assertion? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But of course that didn't happen in your little article, did it? Your Christian makes a textbook logical fallacy, the atheist correctly points it out, and BOOM, fallacy on his part. Besides, if it's an argument by assertion, then we certainly don't need your article anymore, do we? RachelW (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How well will Romney do?

Andy: Polls closed, how well did romney do?. According to my source (google) Romney was at 57%, while Conservative Gingrich was doing worse then Paul (he also lost to paul in Connecticut, Rhode Island (by 20%) and New york) with a sweep for the librul Romney in all 5 states.--il'Dictator Mikal 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's still pretty bad. Gingrich is hardly even campaigning, and Paul is ignored by the media. Romney has spent big this campaign, and if this is the best he can do, then that is pretty sad. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice that the article for the Gingrich administration is now in the speculative past tense?Czolgolz (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't stand it the way it was and did Andy a favor. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually in 3 of the 5 he was somewhere in the 60's, two in the 50's. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, his opponents are Ron Paul and Gingrich, the latter of which is hardly even campaigning. Romney is spending ridiculous amounts of money for each vote, and though it is working it hardly unites the party. John McCain was getting in the 70's and 80's after he was guaranteed the nomination. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney is spending big buck, but he is now campaigning against Obama. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, Romney got 67% in Connecticut, 57% in Delaware, 62% in New York, 58% in Pennsylvania, and 63% in Rhode Island. Santorum still managed 18% in PA, Gingrich got 27% in Delaware and Paul 24% in RI. So it still looks like around 1/3 of the GOP won't vote for Romney. Prodigal (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, just because they won't vote for him in the primaries doesn't mean they won't vote for him in the presidential. Andy won't even mention through gritted teeth that people like himself might hate Romney now but will happily vote for him in the presidential, simply because he isn't Obama. And if that's the best that Romney can do, (the I'm not Obama vote) then that's a pretty poor campaigning stance. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 08:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're still voting for Romney's opponents at this stage, when it's clear the race is over, is it really likely you'll be out campaigning for him during the General? This isn't like '08, where it wasn't clear who was going to win until very close to the end. Prodigal (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You might not go out campaigning, but you'll certainly be out there voting against Obama. And if people do campaign (ie, the entire of Conservapedia), it'll be likewise campaigning against Obama rather than glorifying the holy Mitt. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 11:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you aren't going to get all those people voting for Romney, especially once he starts shaking the Etcha-Sketch and switching to moderate positions - which he's already started doing. Such people will stay at home or vote for whatever other 3rd party candidate they have if there's one suitably right wing. On sites like Conservapedia I think we'll see more focus on Senate and House elections than in the past, because Schlafly really doesn't like Romney. Prodigal (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama the incumbent is in a similar position as Carter was in 1980 with rising gas prices, etc.; Reagan the Conservative won handily without a very serious 3rd Party challenge from the Libertarian party -- its best performance ever (something li8ke 2 million votes).] Ron Paul was the 1988 candidate and got only half as many votes. It's unlikely a 3rd party will siphon a margin of victory in these circumstances. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not relevant. All I'm pointing out is that the assumption that the 1/3 of the GOP membership voting against Romney will all change their minds and vote for him in the General is overly simplistic. Third parties won't matter because Obama will win fairly easily - 5-6 points would be my guess at the moment. Prodigal (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine that Paul is the only one Obama could siphon a significant percent of. With the rest, it really is that simplistic. For instance, there are precisely zero Gingrich backers who are going to vote for Obama in the general. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said they would, but it's still not that simplistic. They can always stay at home. They can vote for minor parties. In a tight election (remember Missouri last time or Florida in 2000) that can prove critical. Prodigal (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got a point, but I think you underestimate Gingrich/Santoroum supporters. Chances are, if you support Gingrich/Santorum, you think Obama is the great satan and you must do everything in your power to stop him from destroying our country. Few, if any, will stay home or "throw away" their vote when the future of 'Merica hanging in the balance. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I strangely read that as "Mercia"; been reading too much Anglo-Saxon history.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No he isn't since no one is seriously challenging him for the nomination. Personally, as long as there aren't any major upheavals or a independent candidates, I see this election as a repeat of the one in 2004. A not-so-popular sitting president versus a rich and distant Massachusetts flip-flopper. Vulpius (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm pretty sure I've yet to see a poll that shows more support for Romney than for Obama. All the Dems have to do is make sure more of their people get their asses to the polls on polling day than do the Republicans in a few key states and they have this in the bag. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 15:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The theory that disillusioned Christian Right voters will stay home is a distinct possibility, as happened in the 1996 election when GOP totals were flat from 1992. But that was in boom times. This disillusionment is offset but demoralized Obama youth supporters -- two years out of high school or college and two years unemployed already. As well as the bad news on the Social Security Trust fund which angers seniors, and only promises young voters higher tax increases because of how the Trust Fund has been mismanaged, according to the Associated Press. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been a few polls (mainly from Rasmussen, so basically rubbish) that have shown Romney ahead by a couple of points. National polls are largely a waste of time, however. Polls are showing Obama ahead in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, and even in a tie in Arizona. Conventional wisdom has been saying that Missouri and Iowa will definitely go Republican this year, but even there, polls have shown tight races. It's too early for serious predictions, but it's quite possible that Obama's share of the national vote will drop but he'll end up with more electoral votes. Unlikely, but possible. Prodigal (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And right on cue, here's Nate Silver on predictions based on early polls. Prodigal (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to go against the grain here and, at least for now, call this Romney's election to win and he'll actually get the victory based on people's general views towards the economy, debt,and gas prices combined with some on the right's view of Obama as "illegitimate".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're over-valuing the legitimacy claims. They may run deep among people who hold them, but they won't be a factor in the election because the kind of people who believe that would never ever ever ever ever vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right, they will never vote Democratic, but it is probably enough for them to vote Republican rather than "sit this one out" because they didn't get their conservative primary candidate.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Birtherism was a gift from the Hillary Clinton crowd to the right. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 17:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Whoever wins Ohio wins the election. Even Rasmussen has Obama ahead, but the demographics on this 5 point spread are the key. On balance economic conditions & performance work against Obama across the board -- all age groups. You can bet Obama is secretly engineering an October surprise with an Iranian or N. Korean nuke crisis, cause Americans generally rally round the Comamander-in-Chief in times of foreign crisis. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

People said then president Bush would manufacture or bring to a head a foreign or terrorist crisis in 2004 so that he could win re-election and it didn't happen. They said it again in 2008 so Bush could cancel the elections, and that didn't happen. Now here we are again in 2012 with you claiming Obama will pull the same stunt for his election. When has they ever proven true in the past for a president?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FDR 1940 (despite weak economy; see Roosevelt Recession); Nixon 1972, "Peace is at hand" despite corruption charges; Lincoln 1864, despite a war of his own making. Other examples. The foreign crisis Carter proved inept at handling (Iranian hostage crisis) was a big factor in him getting the boot. If it occurred a little less than a year later, the people would have rallied to him as the did when it frst erupted. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FDR in 1940 ran on the issue of not going into WWII. Learn your facts. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said. Read his famous "fool's gold" speech, and the American people rallied to him. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And Carter did not create the crisis. In fact, he is vastly underrated there. He lost re-election because he didn't negotiate the hostages in time. Regardless, he did his job and continued negotiating until the last day of his term, when he got the hostages freed. And Lincoln's re-election also happens to be due to the fact that most of the states left in the Union had already voted for him in 1860. Learn your facts. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I didn't say he created the crisis, I said the America people rallied to him when the crisis erupted in Oct-Nov 1979; if you can dig up approval ratings from then, it will bare me out. But the people grew tired of it as it dragged out 444 days. Had the Iranian Revolution & hostage taking occurred weeks before the 1980 election, the conservative nature of the American public would have stuck with C-i-C in a time of crisis. Reagan was viewed as something of an untested extremist. Only Carter's incompetence proven over time led people to support a tuff line from Reagan. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob never lets facts get in the way of making a partisan political point. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See JSTOR, Revised Models of the "Rally Phenomenon": The Case of the Carter Presidency. On a somewhat related note regarding competency, see USNews Obama's Job Approval Drops Below Carter's, but this is more related to economic performance, which wasn't Carter's strong suit, either. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/Cool--il'Dictator Mikal 03:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You will when you got a North Korean missile stuck up your asshole. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean those missiles that always fall right apart after take off? Will they have to do it by hand? --Revolverman (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, but see that is an example of a successful intelligence operation. You only hear about the fuck ups & disasters, like the Bay of Pigs or Iran-Contra. The successes, like the meltdown of the Iranian nuke program with a computer worm, or destroying a North Korean missile with a particle beam, you never hear about until decades afterword. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"like the meltdown of the Iranian nuke program with a computer worm" I only heard about this on Coast to Coast AM. Not the most credible place for info. "destroying a North Korean missile with a particle beam" Wat. --Revolverman (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Did you see wp:Particle_beam_weapon#Modern_experiments? I know an oldtimer who worked on and participated in a test at Kirtland using a particle beam mounted on a DC-10 to shoot down a cruise missile, in 1968 (I read some of the technical manuals he pilfered working on the project), you know, the technology commie-libs called fantasy during Reagan's Star Wars program? The US has been able to shoot down a moving target from a vehicle in motion with a particle beam for more than 40 years. How do you suppose New Zealand's program to defend itself with that kinda technology is coming along? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite, why would the US have basicly laser cannons since the late 60s, and proceed to do FUCK ALL with them? --Revolverman (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As the oldtimer explained it, it was another advanced high tech Vietnam era wasteful Pentagon spending program that was mouthballed after the field test (which several Congressman, Senators, and top level Pentagon types attended). It was probably resurrected and attached to space, satellite, and naval programs later. But nothing compares to a real life chance to test it ("combat testing" after "field testing"). Weapons development is a fascinating subject, especially for the economics involved. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But as to the question, "do FUCK all with it?", while you wanna stay ahead in weapons development, you never want to use it til you have to. Once it's introduced, your enemies can copy it as seen here only 3 days ago.. Then you have to develop a technology to counter the technology you just developed. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Particle beam, particle beam.

Blowing stuff up to try to be seen.

How's he do it? It's not important.

Particle beam.

Is he neutral, mixed ions, or positive throughout?

When he's underwater, does he short out?

Or is he unstable all on his own?

Nobody knows. Particle beam.

Atmosphere screen, Atmosphere screen.

Atmosphere screen hates particle beam.

They have a fight, Atmosphere wins.

Atmosphere screen.

184.61.193.172 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, why has no-one picked up on this obvious lie Rob has been telling? Particle beams Robbo? Really? Tell you what, you can prove it by furnishing us all with copies of these "technical manuals" this "old timer" "pilfered". I've built a tesla coil, a coil gun and a rail gun, particle beams can't be that hard to do as a next project.

Now to save Rob from responding, his next reply says we can't have copies because it's all classified. Which leads to the obvious question of where the hell did Rob get security clearance from? Of course you can't get security clearance working at a mall, which means Robbo was breaking federal law by having his hands on the documents. And this is the point where his lie really breaks down, Robbo - The Commie Hunter, allowed some old befuddled idiot to show him classified documents and didn't (ironically) call the FBI? If he showed you Rob, how many other people could have gotten their hands on this stuff? Those KGB agents aren't like cops, they don't have to identify themselves if you ask a direct question.

Ergo, Rob's a lying fucker. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's clarify what this really means: the allegation Obama ordered the shoot down of the North Korean missile test with secret advanced technology is in fact an argument for Obama's re-election. He did the right thing. And even more, he did the right thing (this time) in not taking credit for it (unlike the bin Laden snuff job). True "deep purple conservatives" (in contrast to Reds & Pinkos) will tell you it was the right thing to do. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This was in 1991 and the guy was in his 60s then. Here in NM it is not unusual to run into people who work at the labs (Sandia & Los Alamos); hell, even people who worked under Oppie though they are fewer and fewer. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Another poll shows that it's going to be a close race in Arizona. If, and at the moment it's still a big "if", Obama is picking up states, it's almost impossible for Romney to win. Prodigal (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Before every comment does Rob hit 'random page' on Conservapedia and incorporates whatever pops up into his comment? Seriously, the most random things seem to come out from him. Particle beam weapons? --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Duh I think that's a Wikipedia link, duh? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert, you are an idiot

Did you really just write "See JSTOR:Followed by the title of some article"? Do you even know what JSTOR is, dummy? Do you? I'll give you a hint, pinhead. It doesn't publish articles. It's a database of journals. The article you mentioned was published in The Journal of Politics (1993), 55 : pp 756-764. To say "see JSTOR," followed by a title, is pretty much akin to saying "see the Springfield Public Library," or "see Barnes and Noble," followed by a title. Christ, you're stupid. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Duh, I was corroborating Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, the only external link used in that section about finding good sources for historical writing. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, TOP, Rob was not exactly trying to make a formal academic citation there; a better comparison is with a statement like "See Wikipedia." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Stay Klassy, Karajou.

Breivik didn't kill a bunch of kids because he was a right wing nut who hated Muslims, just like the CP crowd. He did it because Darwin^img. There's just no low that either Creation Ministries International, Conservapedia or Popeye himself will ever consider too low to sink to. You win the race to the bottom, guys, you win. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I read that creation article myself. It was fucking awful. No mention that Brevik was anti-multiculturalism, identified himself and his orgainsation (whether real or imagined) using overtly religious terms and was viciously anti-immigration. No, it was DARWIN!!! Ace^Moderator 00:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What kills me is that just because some asshole presumably shares your ideology and does horrible shit, doesn't mean you're a horrible shit by association. If I tattooed a US flag on my ass, said gay marriage was evil, and insisted that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory that should be taught to the exclusion of natural selection, that wouldn't mean Karajou's "good name" would be shamed if I started raping kittens, would it? People really need to own up to the mistakes of their peers. Hey, I'm a communist, and I think Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, and even Lenin and Che Guevarra are murderous assholes. But I'm not. Not murdering, at least.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

just because some asshole presumably shares your ideology and does horrible shit, doesn't mean you're a horrible shit by association

brx makes sense. Karajou is a worthless piece of shit (Yah you karajou, punk-ass motherfucker. Wanna step outside? You're a disgrace to conservatism, and the conservative movement, and God knows what else. I read your racist anti-illegal immigrant rants, and if Obama wins re-election, I'm gonna blame twisted mutherfuckers such as yourself for destroying the Republi8can Party, conservative movement, and America as well with your ignorance, hate, and drivel. By their fruits ye shall know them; look at the marginalized, segregated, unholy and unfunny cesspit you turned Conservapedia into. Your alleged "conservatism" is like the third servant in the parable of the talents, [1] "Thou wicked and vile servant. Depart from me, I never knew ye." Think I'm joking? look at the increase of Wikipedia & Rationalwiki compared to you labors). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Breivik's manifesto has a fucking big red cross on the front, did they miss that? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

yeah his actions are not consistent with Christianity but they are consistent with an evolutionist worldview. Ace^Moderator 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

CMI is revolting, but what would you expect from an organization that makes its stock and trade out of lying. I can forgive the credulous fundie, but those CMI creeps are beyond evil. 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Karajou seems to have missed the bit where Breivik said that he prayed: "Questioned by his own lawyers as to how he was able to carry out the attacks which killed 77 in Norway last summer, Breivik described a "meditation" technique he had developed which mixed "Christian prayer" and Japanese "Bushido warrior codex" practised by Samurai fighters." That doesn't mean all Christians are mass murderers. Prodigal (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing new - those lovely people over at WND were calling him a Darwinist back in July last year ("Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible"). Funnily enough, I did a word search in his manifesto for 'Darwin' and here's what I found (6 matches in total):

• Pg 57: He urges us to remember how unique some elements of our culture are: “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena. They were never produced by Confucian or Hindu culture.” “But without this concept, the world would not be as it is today. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Darwin."
• Pg 349: The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
• Pg 1227: People who are familiar with “the game”; the socio-economic rat race where looks, culture and economy are the deciding factors know how the unwritten rules work. We say something, some politically correct BS like it’s the inside that counts, or that all ethnic groups are equal, but we don’t really mean it. The only reason lie publicly and even to our friends is because our countries are ruled by a Marxist entity and we are not allowed to say the truth. Social-darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist. Many people I know who supports mass-Muslim immigration (by voting on political parties in support of multiculturalism) deliberately avoids living with Muslims, simply because they don’t like them. But they still support mass-Muslim immigration.
• Pg 1232: Segregation in combination with a complete halt in aid and facilitating the African governments to implement nationalistic doctrines are in fact the best African strategy. Policies like these are in fact the most anti-racist approach of all as it clearly defines the new responsibilities and limitations. Because with responsibilities and limitations, comes opportunity. Nevertheless, people who are very short sighted will consider these policies quite cynical or darwinistic. However, long term, it is the most humanistic and responsible approach.
• Pg 1386: (In response to the self-posed question: What should be our civilisational objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?) “Logic” and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level. Because, if a woman was purely rational, she would choose to not have babies at all, and instead live her life in a purely egotistical manner. We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives. Instead, we would focus much more of our resources to better ourselves and our communities by channelling at least 20% of the budget to research, science and technology.
• Pg 1407: He's read The origin of Species. And the Bible. And Dante. And War & Peace.

So perhaps Koward would care to enlighten us as just what part of Breivik's manifesto was inspired by Darwin. Fire up your Texan plain, down that bottle of Mad Dog and explain to us how Darwin is involved. ^{— Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs}

Page 30 : Cultural Marxist stalwarts apparently know exactly what they want to do and how they plan to do it. They have actually already succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.

How did this situation come about in European universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed that it slipped past traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so “quietly” that when they “looked up”, postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. “They were surrounded by such a tidal wave of multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses” which undermine the perpetuation of Western civilisation. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned – a quiet revolution propagating a European hate ideology with the goal of destroying Western civilisation and which was: anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition, and anti-morality.

Right, I think we know where Breivik's really coming from - exactly the same place as these guys who accuse him of worshipping Darwin. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I count 61 mentions of Jesus v 6 of Darwin. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bruins Lost

You know who was in goal, and I fuckin hate andy. The bruins lost, but he dosn't care. They were only of use when thomas basicly gave the big F U to Obama. And Thunderstruck is sad...--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As a Habs fan, I can only force out "How do you like it now?" --Revolverman (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's going to feel good to be able to root against the Caps again now that the Bruins are done. One thing about Tim Thomas that always escapes me is how he manages to remain so happy on the ice, not getting too involved in the emotions that go with the sport. I guess maybe for him it is all about the money - who knows. Q0 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

He's too sane to be a truly great Goaltender.--Revolverman (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

@Revolverman, Hey, how are those Habs doing. Oh, right. Sorry.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting a great draft pick and not having a goaltender that is so egotistical that he turned a non-partisan dinner into a media circus is something to be sorry over?--Revolverman (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As a Vancouver fan I...still feel nothing but disappointment and shame! =( --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 10:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about that last night; Thomas, the staunch conservative Obama-hater, gets beat by a black man playing in Washington D.C. for a goal in OT, and I was wondering what Andy's reaction, if any, would be. And since my Penguins are out now, I'll take any team in the West to win. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 11:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To note, having read what I typed, i am not claiming that Tim Thomas is a racist. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 11:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

God cried when the Pens got knocked out. By the friggin' Flyers, no less. Phiwum (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no more bitter pill to swallow than to be ousted by Philadelphia. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My season ended when the Hawks laid down and died in game six to those 'Yotes.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, it wasn't Thomas' fault the Bruins lost. It was a "missed referee call"^img. (Which means the Caps absolutely don't deserve to move on.) --Tabrcg23 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess Andy is unaware that NHL play offs are Best of 7 affairs? --Revolverman (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand goaltender interference, as it is called on the ice, is if the puck precedes the player into the crease there is no goaltender interference. It is rarely called as such. And in typical Andy fashion, he doesn't report anything until the news potentially benefits him or his conservabuddies. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

More stuff re: Star Trek

Thinking about CP's hard-on for Star Trek (specifically Spock) and wanting to claim it as their own...found this while surfing imgur (again).

Also, isn't Star Wars the perfect argument against the separation of church and state? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek was so far ahead of it's time it was scary. I would like to known what it would have been like watching some of the very secular episodes in the sixties. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It was OK. I never gave them a second thought. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy has some bizarre love for Star Trek that won't let him admit to it being liberal. I really don't know what it is. Ayzmo (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. If Andy likes something, it's conservative. Period. If he doesn't like something (or more accurately, doesn't understand something) then it's liberal. Now how exactly a universe that contains no money, rarely portrays religion in a positive light, preaches multiculturalism, and believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy is conservative... that's for Andy to know and you to find out. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

They use money all the time, it's just that the federation doesn't use it internally. But yeah, I really wouldn't describe Star Trek as "conservative", Andy just happens to like it and for some reason can't deal with liking something that doesn't line up with his political beliefs, which is weird. I think Rush Limbaugh is a cunt, for example, but I enjoyed his appearances on Family Guy. I wouldn't then go on to describe him as a liberal. X Stickman (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to bet the only episode of Star Trek Andy saw was "The Omega Glory"? --Revolverman (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy is a moral relativist if there ever was one. Mitt Romney was a RINO and ungodly cultist until the need to make him a conservative Christian arose. Neo-cons are part of a Jewish/Satanic new world order conspiracy, except they bare the name "conservative" and tend to vote Republican. Nixon was a RINO who imposed New Deal-style wage and price controls and hired Henry Kissinger; Reagan was another RINO and Republican anti-isolationist internationalist who promised to destroy the Dept. of Education, balance the budget, and a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, but failed to deliver. There's not a single GOP office holder of national stature that shares any of Andy alleged sacred cows, other than moral relativist arguments and rhetoric. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to be highly relevant to the discussions at hand, but dammit Rob I'm really enjoying your posts this morning! Hey I'll be through ABQ in the next few weeks. You and me and Trent should get a beer. This is like the 3rd time I've mentioned it with no response so Trent and I will probably just end up drowning our sorrows alone. Whatever. 15:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yah yah, I'm on board. Let me know where & when. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Fuck?

JoMars latest MPR post not only dosn't bash Obama or democrats/liberals, but links to a website called clickgreen.uk. A global warming site from atheistic england. Are CP admins geting slow in their old age?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 21:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted a few days ago about JoMar crapping all over the Border Patrol and sticking up for undocumented migrants all the while citing PBS. Hey Rob--a good-faith question: has Andy ever commented on JoMar not quite getting it? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No. While he subscribes to the mailing list, I don't think he ever posted. He alone applauded the creation of the Community Portal, but never participated. He's the model how to survive: observe 90/10 which means stay off talk pages, and don't disagree with other sysops. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick, Chuckarse, do something! Agenda 21 is infiltrating CP! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, they basically admitted he was more liberal than most, but as long as he stuck to the articles relating to art it was fine. This seems like he's overstepping those very specific boundaries. I have to think this entry will be edited in some way to seem less liberal. As it reads now, it makes it seem like perhaps laxed regulations are harmful to our health. We all know that's bullshit because liberals. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And Martinez used the godless commie British English word "lorries' in his posting instead of the good ol' jesus-loving American word "trucks". Wake up, CP sysops! He's obviously trying to bring down your project from the inside. Kick his ass outta there!--Spud (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I want not approve on this. I think maybe polite post. Refugee^{talk page} 06:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What?--Spud (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Old RW meme. RWW Refugee^{talk page} 07:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see.--Spud (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Whats worse the emissions? ABORTION

Obvious troll is obvious.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 18:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but what's worse is that Andy ate that shit up^img.

Do you know why few people name their children "Adolf"?

Because evolution.^img--Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather was named Adolph. During WWII his buddies refused to utter the name and took to calling him "Jerry" (a derogatory term for "German"). He changed his name to Abe. Whoover (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A pity that Hitler had to go and bring such shame on a fine old German name. I wish his parents had named him John or something like that. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Crap hitler Ruined: A salute, a last name and First name, a facial hair style, a religious symbol, the title Fuhrer, Germany, German Pride, the German conscious, German Nationalism, , The entire Jewish Cultural base, faith in Humanity, the idea of "fourth Reich", scandanivian pride, scandanavia...--il'Dictator Mikal 05:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I always thought you were stupid, Mikalos. And I mean really stupid. Wow. 06:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

He did ruin the moustache of Charlie Chaplin and Ollie Hardy. Richard Herring wore it a couple of years ago as part of a show to see if it could be rehabilitated. When he appeared with it on HIGNFY, his fellow contestants were visibly shocked, such is Hitler's legacy. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jordan wore the moustache and had a similar result. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

now that was just mean nutty. --il'Dictator Mikal 11:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nutty Roux is an ogre. I'm a nice guy. 12:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of having sex in a canoe, both the originators of Budweiser (Busch family) and Coors were named Adolf or Adolphus. Used to be a common name. So was "Ralph" until The Honeymooners became popular, and I doubt many young girls are being named "Monica" in America anymore. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just glad Hitler picked such a dumb moustache/hair combo. What if he had a mohawk and a goatee. Then two of the world's coolest hair styles would've been off-limits forever. X Stickman (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the Germans are known for their weird facial hair, so I'd have preferred if he'd adopted one of these and a mullet. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Sex in a canoe" - I love that term. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess this moron is not a beer drinker. Whoover (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki Proven Right Again!

Andy's completely lost it.Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand why he doesn't even name the model. Really. Phiwum (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All I can think is: "It snowed - Global Warming is a farce!" Q0 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He got called out and relented in naming the model. He then humbly went on to compare his unreferenced "insights" to those of Jesus.--Brendiggg (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Andy HAS to be abusing painkillers or something. --Revolverman (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what, Andy Schlafly, you didn't go prematurely grey and you're not bald, therefore you must be living proof that the Earth is not 6,000 years old but actually 4.5 billion years old. Now excuse me while I think about slapping Andy repeatedly about the face.--Spud (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With the large sample size of one person I find Andy's analysis very convincing personally. Jaxe (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I love conservapedian logic. I don't think I'd give a damn about conservapedia if their logic was at least internally consistent, I'd just dismiss it as people being wrong on the internet, but it's so hilariously wrong that I am consistently entertained by it. If x, then elephant, therefore liberals. X Stickman (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's Messianic complex knows no bounds. That said, somebody should point out that jesus was telling a story, and thus doesn't need citations, whereas Andy is pulling so-called facts out of his arse. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ken's "predictions"

I couldn't figure out how to work it into the WIGO, so it can be Saved here for posterity^img --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 06:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the "by 2020 there will be a worse Great Recession" prediction; given 2020 is also the year ken is claiming will amount to victory in the great Christianity-Everybdy else war. Also; ken, you =claimed on the block policy change discussion you'd be busy for... "the next few years", and earlier stated you'd stop posting on MPR/MPL as much, whered those predictions go and why should i consider you trustworthy for predictions? --il'Dictator Mikal 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Between Ken, with his...problem and Andy's Jesus complex, CP is looking more pitiful than ever. I hope those guys get genuine professional assistance at some stage.--Brendiggg (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay it's a list of 12 predictions that's actually 10 entries consisting of greatly duplicative material. I love this guy's writing in terms of his writing. 13:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Having multiple steams of income is good? Fuck me I never thought of that before. More money at lower risk, Ken is a savant. His revelation might revolutionise personal finance for generations to come . Pi 3:14 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how "it's good to have multiple sources of income" could possible be considered a prediction. More like an observation. No wonder it somehow "came true". Is that supposed to mean that at some point, having multiple sources of income was not good? Omar (gibber) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this our Andy?

Transcript of a debate on "When it comes to politics, the Internet is closing our minds." I'd almost hazard a guess that this is Schlafly speaking on pg 39:

“”My name is Andy, so I have a question about confirmation bias. This is -- I really don’t know the answer, which is, do you think now, or before the internet, it was harder to avoid, whatever your ideology, information that would challenge your belief, be it the nightly news or an encyclopedia or the newspaper, whereas now, you mentioned Wikipedia. But that might be, there might be an analogue to the encyclopedia of old, but now you could just go to Conservapedia and find out that wow, Paul Revere actually, the ride was consistent with what it was described as. And so it’s a lot easier to find that information that’s going to confirm your biases and that would contribute to the closing of the mind.

--PsyGremlinSermā! 12:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

On the wider point, there are some interesting dynamics. What the effects of the internet as an information source have on politics can be debated at length. What is clear is that close-minded people find it much easier to find their comfortable confirmation biases. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have this covered. C®ackeЯ 16:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Without having looked at the link in question, it is clear that this is not our Andy by the words "I really don’t know the answer". Andy has never said such thing. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The guy had a normal voice Visually too he's more appealing. See about 1:17:00 C®ackeЯ 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Very clearly not Schlafly. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That has got to be one of the most long-winded questions I have ever read. Also doesn't really contain a question. 0 points for style. Worm (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an Andy trifecta!

Still basking in the warm glow of having had CPalmer stroke his ego, And hauls two more old nuts out to polish. Behold! Who needs experts anyway?^img I'd still love to know who Andy goes to see when he's not well. Clearly, it has to be some guy off the street, because we know that the best of the public is better than all these highly trained doctors.

And we have some stroking of the conservative words, so that the data fits Andy's worldview.^img --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there's over 150,000 words in the English language (over 1 million if you include "unofficial" words) and there are estimated to be 2500-20000 new words per year, it must hurt Andy to have to speak in a predominantly liberal fashion.Palmetto72^Whaaaaa? 19:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. First Edit ever, Yay me!Palmetto72^Whaaaaa? 19:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You know how the wingnuts make up shit and then give themselves coronaries screaming about the supposed reality they just invented? (I think Andy thinks this is called algorithm). The hearsay society (formerly known as reality) is where you can't do this. While at it, Andy made up some metashit about the hearsay society: it (we) won't allow citing some Biblical works because Andy doesn't know who wrote them. Of course, Andy has met the authors of most of the Bible (Moses, Ezra, Jesus's drinking buddies, etc.) but since he says Hebrews is author unknown, the hearsay society will have none of it. How dare they?! Whoover (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Stepping up to bat...

IS Ron Paul! Who, bhy sheer virtue of not being Romney or Obama, is now MPR anti-romney of the day, atleast in Terry land. Why on earth you want to compare anybody to Harding is beyond me, but ok. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He is the candidate of choice for the Objectivist set.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OMFG, TerryH's webshite is even more insane than Conservapedia! I hadn't bothered with it before, but just spent several minutes reading it. I only stopped when my jaw finally reached my desk. He's got birtherism, YEC, Ayn Rand worship, some kind of Agenda 21 paranoia, and every other insane idea going. How can people believe all this crap without their brains crawling out of their ears? Prodigal (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Old news. CNV has long been an outlet for people who think Conservapedia is not bat shit nuts enough for them.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It was CNV that inspired me to finally register... as far as I'm concerned, it's a far superior source of entertainment than CP because it doesn't have the influx of parodists and Terry and "pastor emeritus" Bickel are at least willing to engage commenters (for the most part. I appear to be unwelcome as none of my comments have been approved in quite some time.) Omar (gibber) 15:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what is Terry's website? Andy Frankinson (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Abandon all intellect, all ye who enter here. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Always wondered...

I keep seeing sexy graphs and charts, but I like simple numbers, too. Like, how many average edits on Wikipedia as compared to average total edits per day on Conservapedia. Basically saying, Wikipedia makes more edits in X seconds than Conservapedia's total activity in one day. It would be interesting to see a milestone in stagnation at CP while Wikipedia just keeps going and the ratio is so lopsided, where in the time that X number of edits are made at Wikipedia, only 1 edit was made at Conservapedia (based on averages). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A day? When you look at wikipedia compared to any wiki ever, it's a year vs a hour.--il'Dictator Mikal 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If this data still holds (edits/day may be a bit lower than 2011), WP receives a bit under 200,000 edits per day. CP has received 1m edits ever. So, 5 days of WP = all of CP. 1 day of WP = something like a year of CP. However, CP has slowed down alot, to something like 100k edits/year, so a day of WP may be currently 2 years of CP. 15:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Another fun fact, en.WP has 500 million edits. That's a nice 500:1 ratio. 15:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

what about the other billion xx.wikipedia's?--il'Dictator Mikal 15:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For purposes of this comparison, the English Wikipedia is the only one that counts. None of the CP sysops would be bothered about edits made by people who can't even speak American.--Spud (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's just because liberals keep changing their minds. Good christians like Andy know that the truth is static and only needs to be spoken once. X Stickman (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A good encyclopedia only needs like 10,000 articles, anyway. But Conservapedia will continue to grow at a geometric rate, even though conciseness is key. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Spud, the other wikipedias DO count, by sheer fact that conservapedia wants to be the conservative, christian alternative; but isnt going to be able to do that if its only in english; whether they give a damn about the non-american speakers doesn't matter when comparing WP and CP size; one wiki has millions of artiles in multiple languages, the other has a fraction of that in one. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the edit count is more like 1.5 billion, though that may include all wikimedia projects. 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, if LArron or somebody counts the numbers, please keep it to Mainspace edits. Even with CP's 90/10 rule, something like 80% of all edits are blocks & reverts, if memory serves. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

An interesting thing to examine is the new pages at CP. Only a few are created every day, and most are either a sentence or two, or quite unencyclopedic. And it isn't as if CP, unlike WP, has complete articles on most topics already. They have a long way to go and are doing almost nothing to fill the large holes in their coverage. Yesterday saw the creation of 3 new articles, one is spam with a speedy delete tag, one is a two sentence stub on a newspaper by Andy, and one is an pretty insignificant computer term which doesn't even explain itself well at all. The previous day we had one new article, a single sentence on Dick Lugar's Super PAC. And the day before that saw 3 new articles: a dicdef on "treasurer", a debate edited solely by 1 person, and mroe undeleted spam. Yes, this site is growing rapidly indeed. Andy needs a new contest; it's been too long. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia gets spam? Like people trying to sell knock-off viagra and that kind of thing? Maybe I should click on "random article' a few times and see if I get any.

I see your point, Mikalos. I think it's self-evident that, as far as Andy is concerned, the USA is the world and it's barely worth acknowledging that other countries and other languages exist. But if Andy had any chance of achieving his ambitions for CP's domination of all media, he'd need versions in other languages. I remember once reading something in the Spanish Wikipedia article on CP about an unofficial copy of Conservapedia in Spanish but, if that website ever really existed, I wasn't able to find it.--Spud (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

I updated RationalWiki:Active users, Conservapedia:Active users and Active users at Citizendium. I'm afraid that n a couple of month, the last one has to be moved to Active user at Citizendium... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it odd that seeing myself with no posts makes me the tiniest bit sad? :P Ayzmo (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy compares himself to Jesus.

Like Jesus^img I don't need citations. Those who doubt me^img are like the Pharisees. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE. Dude's on a tear. The Pharisees, were, of course, liberal members of the Hearsay Society^img. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Terry must have go0tten to him. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say full marks to CPalmer. He might have just outdone Bugler in getting Andy to embrace a crazy concept and smear it all over CP. I think we have 2012's answer to "best of the public." --PsyGremlinTal! 14:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's actually a good candidate for being the Antichrist. He's a wealthy white male from an influential family in the world's most powerful country. He's already rewritten the Bible to his own agenda and now he claims to be on par with Jesus. Are you sure you are backing the right horse, Ken and Brian?--Brendiggg (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, the Andychrist! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And it makes the front page. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy the lawyer should try this line of reasoning in court: Dismiss any precedents that his opponents cite as hearsay. Hammingweight (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

After Andy's latest edit, the CP article on Pharisees now says, "They rejected anything that was not based in (sic) authority, and defined themselves as the sole authority". If they defined themselves as the sole authority, they weren't much like members of the "Hearsay society" shouting "Citation needed!" That description sounds more like someone who says, "I'm right because I'm always right'. That description sounds more like Andy Schlafly describing himself.--Spud (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus told the parable as a true story. Except Andy defines a parable as a fictional narrative. Andy must be a circus performer with all these contortions! Jared (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried asking him to back off this absurd prideful boasting. I do not question the sayings of Christ. I do question the assertions of a man if they make no sense. He keeps talking about prematuring greying without any evidence. It's ridiculous. The part that gets me is that he is comparing his statement to Christ's parable. And then he goes off about this insulting "hearsay society" nonsense he made up as if to compare me to the Pharisees for questioning him. Honestly I do not know what to think other than that this is a heresy. I don't know what to do. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "I don't know what to do." What do you do when you see some crazy guy on the corner screaming about the aliens coming to get him? What do you do when you meet a birther, or a 9/11 truther, or a moon-landing denialist, or a Holocaust denier? You can laugh at them, you can ignore them, you can argue with them, you can simply move on. Andy is no different from any of those other cases. He has constructed his own version of reality and refuses to engage with the possibility that he might be wrong. Any evidence that contradicts him must be tainted. He REWROTE THE BIBLE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT HIS POLITICS. You can ignore him for that, or laugh at him, but there's nothing to "do" about it, unless he decides to undergo a serious period of self-evaluation, except thank Christ he's just some guy on the internet, and not your father or teacher. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 20:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am slowly coming to realize that he is not really cast in his mother's mold. She was a very productive and important conservative when I was growing up. He doesn't seem to share any ideas that I would call conservative in any real sense. Does his family know he acts like this? It's just so strange! Nate Keaton (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Roger does. He comes over to Andy's little blog every so often to attempt to beat him with the cluebat. Roger's kind of crazy too, but nowhere near to the same extent as Andy. Andy is just what happens when you bring a kid up in a household where they're constantly being told some large group of society is evil. He's a lot more like his mother than perhaps you realise. Just take her recent "don't date feminists, but watch out because they're not all ugly" speech for example. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy's grasp of the scientific method is breathtaking. Geez, people, I've listed several celebrities with prematurely gray hair. What more do you want from me? If that doesn't prove the earth is young, I just don't know what will! Phiwum (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's simple. Anything that decreases is seen as being proof of a young Earth, anything that increases (at a perfect geometric rate) is either a) Good, therefore Conservative, or b) Bad, and therefore by definition due to Liberal influence. The head of the GOP could personally shoot him and his whole family in the face with a shotgun and with his dying grasp he'd shout, "This is all the fault of Liberals, but the perfectly increasing geometric rate of bullet consumption is unsustainable and proves a young Earth!" Sasayaki (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In which Brendigg says that all Christians are idiots, and the hive mind bites back

Nate, despite your religious convictions, you come across as being intelligent, balanced and a thorough gentleman. Much like AugustO. Why do you persist there? It's a fascinating trainwreck, to be sure (that's why this forum exists). But it's well beyond repair.--Brendiggg (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he seems reasonably intelligent even though he's a Christian. You, on the other hand, come off as a bigoted moron. Phiwum (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. "You seem intelligent, despite being a Christian". Would it be any less offensive to say, "You seem intelligent, despite being a white man," or "You seem intelligent, despite being a Jew," or "You seem intelligent, despite being gay," etc. Where in the fuck do you people and your naked bigotry come from? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, Rob, that's one poster who said that. The next called him on it. As I will now. There are no "you people". Ajkgordon (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree the comment was crass. I don't agree with it, and I'll explain why in a second. Firstly, though... being white isn't a choice and doesn't effect intelligence. Being gay isn't a choice and doesn't effect intelligence. Being a Christian, well... it's something of a choice, but not really. The thing is, religious thinking relies on emotion, which in itself is not "stupid" or bad. Emotions are good. I love my cats. I lust for hot naked women. I cry when I read The Milestone Tapes. That's fine. The problem is, that it's not rational. It's not logical. There's no logical way you can convince someone to believe in the bible and accordingly no logical way to convince someone you can't, because they work in two different spheres of the mind. You can be extremely gifted and be religious. You can be extremely dull and be an atheist. This is possible... except that the same part of the brain that "fuels" religion, emotion, isn't used in rational and logical thinking... that's all he was trying to say. I think. I hope. Sasayaki (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that true among blacks, since a scientific Gallup poll found blacks the most religious group in America? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ajkgordon (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bigoted moron for making a passing comment on the kind of thing that is routinely debunked right here on a website dedicated to skeptical scrutiny?--Brendiggg (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, indeed. You're a bigoted moron because you believe that religious belief is something which can be debunked and because you think that religious belief is an indication of basic intelligence. In other words, there is something likely wrong with folks who don't share your opinions. This is a pretty obvious form of bigotry. Phiwum (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed religious belief can be debunked and I made NO connection between belief and intelligence except in your own pus-filled little brain. You are the fucking moron and you are at the wrong fucking website. Go and play with Maratrean or some shit and fuck off.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're attacking somebody's intelligence based on your perception of his belief system. It's not the same as calling Rob a moron, for example, because he's demonstrated that fact beyond count. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To Brendiggg: You wrote, "despite your religious convictions, you come across as being intelligent." Now you say, "I made NO connection between belief and intelligence." I think your words speak for themselves. We may as well let it drop here. Phiwum (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "despite" is a word steeped in meaning. Nuances. Fuck, I was trying to say this: Although you and I are perfectly aware that this website is committed to debunking unsubstantiated beliefs, and your beliefs fall into this category, I'd like to say...etc. So you have to write a fucking essay before addressing somebody in case you tread on toes?--Brendiggg (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're a Christian, you're some form of idiot. Get over it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Personally, I view religious beliefs as something akin to phobias. Phobias are an irrational fear of something. For example, despite the fact that millions of people take flights all over the world without the slightest problem happening, and crashes are sufficiently rare to make flying statistically the safest form of travel, you still get people who are afraid to fly. Even though spiders are, by and large, small, harmless creatures, easily squashed and killed (at least, in the UK, where I'm from) I still know plenty of people who are afraid of spiders. Even though I may shake my head at how bizarre some of these phobias are, I don't think these people are 'idiots' for having them. Similarly, even though there's mountains of evidence disproving certain religiously-motivated claims (a young earth, for example), some people still cling to them. As such, I will shake my head at the bizarre nature of some of these claims and beliefs, but I do not regard them as 'idiots' for simply having those beliefs or making those claims. Of course, trying to argue that this evidence doesn't exist, or this evidence doesn't mean what it plainly does mean, or trying to get these religiously motivated claims or beliefs taught as 'science' does make them an idiot, but simply holding the belief itself does not. 86.162.89.33 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fear of death and oblivion aren't unfounded. It's how you deal with the fears that matters. If you have to deal with your fear of spiders/airplanes by believing in mystical histories and magic interventions, you're probably an idiot. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to see that the same people who called a man crazy, stupid and an idiot for making up his own religion are now quick as the speed of light to jump into Offendedville because somebody said that people who believe that there's a god and that that god had son who died for all our sins even though he could have easily prevented that. Nice with the consistency there. --84.158.62.122 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC3)There's a big difference. I suffer from virtigo - I really suffer, I have trouble going up a set of steps. However, I am fully aware that this irrational fear is... irrational. Much as my whole brain screams in fear I know that what I'm fearing isn't actually true, isn't actually dangerous. Compare and contrast religious beliefs. Those that beleive in an interventionist deity don't say "I know it's irrational - but I believe it anyway" - they flatly belive it.

However, it is a grave mistake to equate religious beliefs with stupidity - even the more bizarre ones. There are plenty of examples of very intelegent, and wise, people who hold strong religious beleifs, ones that we here poke fun at. How does this work? Partially by compartmentalising. People, intelegent and fully functioning people, are quite capapble of holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.

So, let us take, for a moment, Andy. There are many, many aspects of what he does and how he does it that make me wonder but, stupid? Don't forget that the guy got a Harvard degree and, even with mommy pulling strings, they don't give those out to all and sundry. To my mind he's let his religious convictions, and a staggering level of self confidence, override any common sense he might of had but don't call the guy stupid, he's not.

But the really stupid thing about calling your "opponent" stupid is that it's not going to win you any arguments. It brings the debate down to mudslinging and alienates any who might want to listen to what you say. Calling all Christians stupid is exactly why atheists have a reputation for being arrogant tossers and, in the conversation above, that's what comes across. Bad Faith (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there are brilliant people who believe that Joseph Smith found magic plates and read them with a hat. That doesn't mean they're not some form of idiot as well. It's not all or nothing. And with people who believe in ridiculous things like Christ, it's definitely something. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What a load of old bollocks. And comparing Christianity to Maratrean's bullshit is about as puerile an argument as you can get. FFS people, grow up and get rational. This is about as rational as people who say atheists can't have any morals. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is comparing Christianity and Maratreanism puerile? Both are religions. 84.158.62.122 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cuz Christianity iz reel!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's common knowledge that a religion's stupidity is inversely proportional to how many believers it has. So Maratreanism has one adherent, thus it's fine to take the piss out of its rock dropping terror bats and such like, but Mormonism has eleventy billion adherents so if you call it a nutball cult then you get in trouble. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's fine to take the piss out of any and all religions. And so we should. But that is not the same as simply stating that anyone who believes in Christianity are idiots. Is Desmond Tutu an idiot? Was Monsignor Georges Lamaitre an idiot when he helped formulate the Big Bang theory? No, of course not. We might be able to produce devastating rational arguments that refute the existence of God. And to us they might be very convincing. But you think those two examples and many other like them have either never bothered to listen to those arguments? Seriously, you think they're all like Ken or Terry? As far as Maratreanism is concerned, it was pulled out of some guy's arse five minutes ago. It does not compare to credibility, the history and the culture of a religion like Christianity even if you think it's bullshit. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The historic and cultural claim is pretty irrelevant concerning the question if a religion is crazy or not. Just because an idea has a lot of history, doesn't mean it's more legit than anything I pulled out of my butt 2 seconds ago. It's relation to facts is what makes something crazy/irrational or sane/rational. When I say religion I mean the actual belief system behind it (a.k.a. "that which most people calling themselves it actually belief in"). If one wants to look at the importance of a religion in the world's history, or how much it influenced historical actors than the history and culture of a religion come into play, but not in the question wether it is more related to the facts of the actual world. --84.158.62.122 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the question was about the idiocy or otherwise of believers in Christianity, not the craziness of the religion itself. Why its weight of culture and history is important to that question is because of the huge impact it has on a person's formative years and therefore his or her religious belief system. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So... the intellectual laziness of some not to completely remove themselves from cultural thinking has to be factored in? That's a crass way of justifying why your religion is slightly better than one you think poorly of. The craziness of an idea and the stupidity of people that believe in it are kind of related. Example? Belief No. 1: "The moon is made out of suisse cheese, that's how the craters got in there." Belief No. 2: "The earth is flat". Both believes are exactly the same amount of wrong (not coming anywhere near the truth), but that the moon is made out suisse cheese seems to be much crazier. --84.158.62.122 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a practising Christian so I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm giving reasons why believers in an old established faith are less likely to be idiots than those who believe in one shitted out last week. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume that anyone is capable of completely removing themselves from cultural thinking. Omar (gibber) 17:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, I'd think believing in a brand-spanking-new religion would be the least idiotic. If you're messiah is alive and "performing miracles" in your fucking face, it's a lot easier to believe than 2,000 year old stories of some guy doing the same thing. Think about which guy sounds like a bigger idiot:

• I just saw this guy turn one fish into twenty!!! He must be god!!!!!!
• I just read about this guy who turned one fish into twenty two thousand years ago!!! He must be god!!!!!!

Either way, some part of you is an idiot for believing in an organized religion. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, right! Although the only thing miraculous about Maratrean is that he can put his trousers on the right way round. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But srsly, if WP:David Blaine went to some remote tribe, he could totally convince them he is god. And the villagers would be, in my opinion, less stupid for believing him than a book about someone like him. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well possibly. But the vast majority of Christians are not newly converted by some evangelist for some religion they've never heard about. Most of the Christians I know are Christians by default. Much like the Muslims and Jews I know. Default because they were brought up by Christians in a largely Christian environment. They also find the whole ritual to be a useful moral framework - admitting sins, asking for forgiveness, listening to the sermon. It's also a useful framework in other ways. As a social and cultural framework for births (Christenings), marriages, and deaths, for example. Or as a social "club". Even as a ready made tool for charitable works they want to get involved in. I'm sure most have never deeply questioned their faith but I'm also sure there are plenty who have, are actually agnostic or even atheist, but continue to "be Christians" because it's part of who they are. Does that make them idiotic? I can't see how. Maybe it applies more to the fundies more prevalent in the US. But I don't know any of those. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There are presumably many kinds of idiocy. Believing in Christianity (or almost any religion) probably qualifies you for one or more. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

^{[Citation needed]} Ajkgordon (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That said, let's point out the obvious: who other than RobSmith on this website shares with Barack Obama a belief in Christianity and a belief (some) Christian's can be rational and intelligent? In that regard, many users here share the same irrational delusions Andy Schlafly holds. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course Christians are capable of being rational and intelligent. I know lots of really intelligent people who are fucking idiots when it comes to something. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm not allowed to change Rob's dishonest strawman header, I'd like to say this in my defense: I don't think Christians are any more stupid than whiny thin-skinned dicks who get offended at the drop of a hanky.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure sure, some of my best friends are christian too. Oh, and it ain't my header. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 11:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a point people are missing is that there's a difference between being a generic Christian and being a CP-style YEC fundie. The former puts you in a population with 2/3 of the country or more, and has you believing some things that aren't rational, but aren't easily disproven; the latter makes you a genuine crackpot who rejects some elements of nearly every field of science. If you want to say the latter group is by and large less intelligent, I won't argue with you. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but that's not what's being discussed. The comment was not directed at CP heretics & demonic operatives, it was directed at generic Christians. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was directed specifically at Nate. I don't know Nate's specific religious convictions, but if he's an editor at CP it might not too too presumptuous to assume a degree of batshit fundieism. Then again it might be. In any case that could make Brendigg guilty of making a presumption about someone he doesn't know, rather than calling Christians stupid, which I imagine people would have less of a problem with. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, Dick, you're starting to sound like Karajou. Just cause somebody's active at another site warrant's all kind of abuse, regardless of their contributions there. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh get off it, none of this is Karajou levels of abuse. Brendigg gave Nate a bit of a backhanded compliment and caught flak for it. I'm just pointing out that Brendigg may have assumed Nate had a foot in the looney camp, as those who don't often tend not to survive terribly long over there. It looks like Brendigg committed the transgression of either implying religious people (not necessarily Christians only) are generally not as smart as the non-religious, or presuming Nate had more far-out religious views than he had reason to. Before jumping down his throat it might behoove us to know which it was. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm Catholic, Dick. I don't usually begrudge atheists making general claims about what they think they know about my faith because, at the end of the day, they know nothing. Without characterizing it in any specific Catholic theological terms that will probably just cause you to ridicule me, I think the part you'll understand most is that my family and I live lives devoted to emulating Christ through service. I spend a lot of my free time studying the Church, the Bible, and other people's theological perspectives. You might say I'm "very Catholic" but I am not charismatic and don't buy into the protestant end times, dominionism, and nationalism junk they do. I'm not going to get into whether or not you think my religious perspectives are "batshit insane" or whatever you people say about people that have the least faith at all here. I'm happy to have the discussion elsewhere. Just thought I'd offer you that perspective on me.

I do, however take offensive at specific claims people make in order to defame my Church or impugn my faith. There is one particular individual at Conservapedia who does it so regularly that I am just appalled that none of the others there who I now understand include Catholics will do anything about the shameful behavior. If you all keep off of the insults and want to ask good questions that start a discussion rather than a fight we will do great. I am glad to be able to ask questions about Conservapedia to a mostly pretty nice crowd. Thanks. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you reject "protestant end times, dominionism, and nationalism junk" then you've got a better head on your shoulders than most of the big wheels over at CP (though that might be what they call damning with faint praise). I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on transubstantiation, as that is one element which places Catholics on the loonier side of Protestants. If you believe that Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins, well, fine, I get that. It's believed by a hell of a lot of people, it would appear, and I of course can't disprove it. If you believe that the Earth was formed 6000 years ago then you're basically calling bullshit on just about every major scientific discovery since the Enlightenment, and you lose a deal of credibility with this crowd. Oh, and actually, plenty of atheists know a great deal about yours and other religions. Many others are utterly ignorant. The same thing goes for plenty of people who adhere to (or at least claim to adhere to) religions; they often know little about them. I'll take your word for it that you're well versed in Catholicism. There are enough versions of Christianity and differing beliefs that it's understandable that people, particularly non-believers, won't get all of it right. What's fucked up is when believers misunderstand atheists, because it's so simple. Atheists believe there is no god. That's all there is to it. How they fuck that it up consistently is beyond me. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see one question in there but it looks like you're very sensitive about something. I'm sure a lot of people here think they know a lot about the Catholic Church. I was saying that I don't usually hold it against atheists like Brnedigg who say nasty things about me because they know nothing of my life in faith. As for transsubstantiation, I witness the miracle of the Eucharist nearly every day. Perhaps you'll call me mentally ill for communing with God. That will be nice. I don't believe Moses intended to describe 24 hour solar days in the Genesis creation stories. I am a "literalist" and do read Genesis and the rest of the Bible in such a manner as to determine which prose is narrative, allegorical, etc. I believe that to most fundamentalists this project becomes one of selectively choosing to read "literally" that which will reinforce their biases. Unfortunately those biases sometimes include hatred of all kinds of people and that they use the Bible to justify unChristian behavior. If you're talking about how badly some "believers" misunderstand atheism, I hope it's not because I got something wrong. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I almost feel I should bullet point responses here, but I guess I'll just use awkward prose instead. Now, I'm curious what you think I'm so sensitive about, because I don't think I am, but I guess I can't really respond without knowing the specifics. As for transsubstantiation, reading carefully I notice you give what seems to me to be a weaselly response. I basically asked "do you believe that the eucharist cracker literally becomes the flesh of Christ during the Eucharist?" to which you responded "I witness the miracle of the Eucharist nearly every day." That doesn't entirely answer the question, and I could see a Protestant saying the same thing (I think you may have the makings of a good politician). If that's as much of an answer as you wish to give, fair enough. I'm also a bit confused when you call yourself a literalist, but deny 24 hour creation days. I have to wonder where that leaves you standing on issues such as the Flood; do you read that as allegorical? I think you hit the nail on the head when you mention how fundamentalists selectively choose what to take literally. Finally, no, when I made my comment about theists misunderstanding atheists, it had nothing to do with you. I was thinking more of Ken and his crowd - the types of people who say "atheism is a religion!" or "atheists worship Darwin [or Dawkins, the Devil, etc.]" or "atheists reject morality". Atheist = don't believe in any gods. After that there's not really any other defining characteristics. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

BURN HIM! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"There is one particular individual at Conservapedia who does it so regularly that I am just appalled that none of the others there who I now understand include Catholics will do anything about the shameful behavior."

Nate, you seem to stilol be labouring under the impression that CP is a place for people of similar political and religious viewpoints to engage in some sort of productive intellectual exchange. It's not. It's a vanity project put together by a mean-spirited and extremely narrow-minded man who has allowed profoundly unintelligent and emotionally unbalanced people to run parts of the show for him. Why would you bother with such a thing? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Nate Keaton (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This individual's name wouldn't by any chance start with a "c" and end with a "onservative" would it? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Several people emailed me information about this individual. I pity him. More pointedly everyone at Conservapedia who has his phone number or knows who his parents are is guilty of turning his back on a man in desperate need of help. My sister is also schizophrenic. Since she was in her early to mid 20s has been going off on days long episodes powered by rocket fuel and otherwise acting similarly to this "Conservative". Living in a group home was the best option for her too because she needed supervision we couldn't give her and when she refuses to comply with her med still loses a week of her life while she gets back to normal and becomes herself again. Nate Keaton (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal details much?--il'Dictator Mikal 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So we are talking about our Mr. DeMyer here, eh? A little while back someone here did a little snooping and allegedly uncovered evidence that he is in some sort of group home/institution, which, if true, should put various minds at ease that he is getting some sort of help (while simultaneously explaining a lot). Is that completely untrue, as far as you know? Conventional wisdom here says that he's in his 40s or 50s or something, and therefore a bit out of his parents' supervision. We don't want to get too much into personal details here, but then again, after this site figured out his real name and spread it all over the place it's kind of hard to suddenly decide we need to take a hard line on privacy. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if it's true. Someone here showed me some information that looked alright. Yes, I'm pleased he seems to be getting some help, but it's not on Conservapedia from the people who observe him at his worst. Nate Keaton (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In 2009 Ken wrote, "As far as Conservapedia attracting high profile conservatives, I think that would happen if Conservapedia reaches out more to mid level conservatives. I think the conservative bloggers would be a good start." Three years into his proposal, we not only see how effective it was, we see by precedent, how true blue conservative internet users are treated by User:Conservative and the support given him by other sysops. So, who want's their credibility and reputation associated with one of Ken's Main Page Essay's on "Dog fuckers in the UK & socialism"? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Closer than ever

We've always joked about Andy's "cult", but I think it's actually on the horizon. Does anyone know what the next step is to making a cult? How can we guide Andy into it? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a cult leader requires followers which in turn require charisma. The only thing following Andy is a string of failures. Vulpius (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a handy dandy cult making guide!--il'Dictator Mikal 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) But not to his believers. The CBP was a huge success. CP is a huge success. Conservapedia is constantly being proved right, even when it's wrong. Andy needs to start taking donations or provide some sort of paid "liberal bias detection service" to get his foot in the door. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides the sysops (Terry and Ed in particular), the only people who follow Andy, do so out of morbid curiosity. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And Ed's already in a cult. They probably wouldn't like him joining another. If Andy started his own cult, the worst part would be that it would give Kendoll another shot at being the voice of reason. Kendoll isn't a big fan of heresy, even if he is too spineless to directly challenge the heretic CPians. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Although he's been challenging the RCC a lot recently implying that it's heretical. . Ajkgordon (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If it was just him, Conservative and JPatt, it would still be a flourishing cult compared to Maratreanism.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

People aren't loyal to Andy because of cult-like devotion; people there follow Andy only to maintain their own fiefdoms and lean on the regular users, or in hopes someday to be given that level of authority on CP. Its all about gaining that small piece of absolute power where one can finally be that righteous bully on the Internet without all them pesky people successfully pointing out how wrong your weird beliefs and views are. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...you're right. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the most important features of a cult is insulating the member from family members and friends who aren't in the cult. Usually, this involves a physical separation. I wonder if it's really possible to have a cult-like group online rather than in real life. Surely, that would be challenging for the up-and-coming cult leader. (Of course, I'm just talking out my ass here, and have no real expertise in how cults work, but what's wrong with armchair pontificating?) Phiwum (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, it would be no different - just not physical. It's pretty easy to exhort separation and to block those who refuse to cut off undesirable connections. Omar (gibber) 18:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The only time Andy could ever muster himself a cult is in the aftermath of some apocalyptic event like a nuclear war, viral pandemic, or a zombie plague. He would appoint himself either the new Pope/Patriarch/President and then try to wage a bloody crusade against the godless librulz who caused the apocalypse Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 19:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Even in that scenerio he couldn't muster a cult. Cult leaders tend to have a whole lot more charisma AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

CPalmer coming out of his shell?

Has he finally decided that he's been playing the long game for long enough? From somebody who spent 99% of his time adding categories, he's suddenly really wrangling himself into Andy's good books. Fiirstly, the whole hearsay thing was his suggestion, with that original template and now suddenly, he's speaking fluent Andyese...^img with a dash of Ken's "Look! Links!" thrown in. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that links to XKCD are really in keeping with the CP spirit. Phiwum (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Andy (and by extension, CP) has no consistency or interest in the larger picture. If something or somebody pokes fun at or even criticizes Wikipedia/liberals/evolution/atheism/etc., it's perfectly okay to post it.

What amuses me much more is that CPalmer criticizes Wikipedia with this XKCD comic about how it's bad that we trust statements because they have the classic citation markers... when he is the one who made a template that inserts a citation (and thus a soothing blue number in brackets) that essentially says that this statement is intentionally unsourced (as can be seen here^img with the #3 footnote). --Sid (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha thanks for that obscure Simpsons reference, CPalmer. I laughed. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)