Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 September 2008. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <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>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)

It's an old debate[edit]

But this whole thing amuses me greatly. When all is said and done, you've got Ed and crew basically arguing for R&J's appropriateness based on little more than "I want it to be". An interesting mirror on Conservative morals as a whole ("I oppose this for others, but it's okay for me because I like it) --Kels 13:53, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I wish I could point out that life spans were much shorter way back in the day, so getting married at 13 could be equated to a modern age of 25-30 for marriage. It has nothing to do with making informed decisions or whatever, it was a matter of survival. And having sex. Jrssr5 13:58, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Looks like someone there posted a similar argument. I predict much banning in their future. ;-P (And BTW, I believe lifespans weren't THAT much shorter. The _average_ lifespan was shorter, due to a hideous child-mortality rate, but people could live into their 60s if they made it through childhood.) And now someone's asking if Mary stayed a virgin her whole life--seeing how Jesus is generally said to have had siblings (Well, HALF-siblings), I don't think she did. -- 14:04, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
And, given mother/child mortality rates back then, most likely that thirteen-year-old would be pregnant at fourteen and dead at fifteen.--Edgerunner76 14:07, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
People actually lived into their 70's, 80's and beyond (at least on occasion) even in the Middle Ages. Anyway, I believe Porthos started this threat, and I do sort of suspect that's he's doing it to make a point, rather than to actually suggest R & J is inappropriate for CP. Someone probably should point out that if girls start having their menstrual cycles at 13, then it seems like God's way of telling them they are old enough to bear children; I'm not sure how he could spell it out any more clearly. They probably wouldn't like that, though. DickTurpis 14:13, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Now why would you go and threaten to use logic on them? You know it's a waste of breath. Jrssr5 14:30, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Too true, too true. Though I would be curious to see how RobS would work "paedophile peacekeepers" into an article about 13 year-olds having sex in the 16th century. Maybe he'd have better luck with "Marxism". DickTurpis 14:42, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

<-- Maybe R&J was written by the UN ... apparently they like that kinda thing. Jrssr5 14:57, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I rather expect something like this.
RobS: "Romeo and Juliet were Italians... and Italians are Europeans... and we all know what a festering wound of Liberalism Europe is. Further, paedophilia is bad, and everything bad is Liberal, and vice-versa. Hence it follows that Romeo and Juliet are simply early manifestations of a long European tradition of subversive Marxist Liberalism, which today manifests itself in the Marxist UN paedophile peacekeepers that Europe uses to subvert the power and influence of our wonderful nation so they can further their devious plans of COMMUNIST WORLD DOMINATION! Trus me. I'm a qualified historian."
--AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:58, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
If anybody has an active sock at CP they could throw in Mohamed getting married to a child of something like 7. That should wind them up nicely. (or confirm their prejudices) --Bob_M (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Nicely done, AKj. You captured Rob's "logic" very well, however, you used too many words to capture his style. He'd say something much shorter and much less easy to follow. "The Italian Marxist Liberalism later manifested by mass-murderer Mussolini is clearly exhibited by these characters, whose torch of paedophilia is carried today by the UN. No promotion totalitarian democide here, I'm afraid." Hmmmm... even that isn't quite short and crzy enough, really. DickTurpis 15:24, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
I know, but accurately channeling RobS is such a traumatizing experience. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:27, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
True. I feel like I need a bath. DickTurpis 15:29, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Hey, anyone got a spare sock? It'd be hilarious to have that quote added to the discussion with a fake RobS sig. It'd be worth the ban, but I'd have to run the the library or something. DickTurpis 15:31, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Somebody _did_ put that up, Someone else removed it, then Conservative put it back, then removed it. I don't say this often, but... LOL --Gulik 20:40, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Twas me. I knew it wouldn't last, but I greatly enjoyed doing it. I couldn't believe Conserv put it back (albeit only for a second), but I can only assume he saw the sig and thought he had made a mistake and reverted the exhaulted one. Perhaps the parody was a bit mroe realistic than I thought? I think I may make this a hobby of mine, though I fear I will quickly run out of IPs. The odd thing was that was my first real act of wandalism at CP, though I've been banned for a while and brought in a few socks before. (Actually my first act of wandalism was capitalizing the "h" when someone referred to Andy as "him", but that's too minor to even really count.) DickTurpis 00:27, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
Hilariously enough, Conservative put it back with his own signature. Jesus, today's batch of "What's going on" made my day! XD --Sid 07:38, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of feeling dirty, thanks a lot, Anti-Cons. I just re-read the talk page to CP's deceit article, and now my soul hurts. --Kels 16:15, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Should somebody tell 'em that R&J weren't Italian - they were characters in an English play? Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 20:53, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Given the way they read the Bible, I wouldn't put much faith in their ability to identify fictional characters... --Kels 21:00, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, but weren't the English play set in ole' Italy? Like Hamlet wuz Denmarkish? humanbe in 00:04, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I could write a story about aliens in alpha centauri being cannibals but that wouldn't make it so.Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 00:16, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

The story is originally Italian, like many of W.S.'s other works. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 02:40, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
Haha, alien cannibals on a planet orbiting A. Centauri. Yeah, beam me up, Scotty, there's no intellingent life down here! I'm sure their teenagers want to fuck each other really badly in spite of family traditions, too. Or whatever it is that A.C.-3 occupants do to reproduce themselves... humanbe in

How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Schlafly (Second edition)[edit]

[1] "Reason For Creating The Second Edition

Before the first edition of this essay appeared the Atheist Moderator at Conservapedia (TK) dressed his talk page with scripture quotations. Now he has erased the false sheeps clothing. TK advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent. Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two contradict. Andy was shown that TK was a double agent but he did nothing. By erasing the Biblical verses TK is basically admitting his secular status and his previous status as a double agent."

RM: I am vindicated. In addition, during the war over the editing of the Charles Darwin article at Conservapedia, TK initially used a website that is undisputably pro-Atheist and liberal as his source for Darwin to have been an Agnostic.

Here is the history page showing that TK used this source:


The source:[3] and [4]

Why has allegedly conservative Conservapedia allowed this type of person to have free reign?

Hats off to the L.A. Times. They have shown us what a little false brown nosing can do for their cause. Andy Schlafly is a disgrace to betray his cause for a phony endorsement and an admitted double agent (TK) all because he hasn't the backbone to ban TK and blast the L.A. Times on his Front page.

Ray Martinez 17:48, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Ray, in fairness, isn't it possible that TK was simply slapping in a reference to the first website he googled that had a definition of 'agnostic'? I'm not sure it makes sense to use his choice of references to claim that he is secretly an atheist? Your argument is an odd one - since you're really making a complaint that should be recorded over there, not here - but it's an interesting observation nevertheless, and I wish you the best. DogP 18:03, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

There is no fairness in Rayworld. Those that disagree with Ray are atheists or Darwinists. Those that disagree with Ray and quote scripture are wolves in sheeps' clothing. As big a douchebag as he is, I doubt TK is an atheist.Stile4aly 21:35, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Sydney Morning Herald and Wikipedia?[edit]

Okay, it's past 1am, so my reading comprehension is kinda low, but WTF is up with this thing about the SHM and WP?

Andy presents the SHM as a WP victim, but to me, the article reads like a frontal assault on SHM for falsely accusing some department of editing WP. While it certainly doesn't use velvet gloves for WP (judging by the last paragraphs, this harshness is based on personal bias because of one inaccurate article), it seems to be mostly about sloppy journalism, and not even about "reporter read it on WP" sloppiness for a change.

Can anybody tell me if I just read things in a weird way or if Andy did? I'm honestly puzzled at the moment. --Sid 18:18, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Andy happened to it. It's what, only 10:00 in America, and he's already deviated from English syntax and meaning as we really know it? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

CP protected pages[edit]

That CP protetced pages by duration is a hoot. Articles deleted and protected for longer than 90 days include Darth Vader and The Dubliners. The latter particularly confuses me. The article, as it stood when deleted, wasn't even bad by CP standards. What are they thinking over there? DickTurpis 08:23, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Now you're being too generous - it's entirely likely that they're not thinking at all. In this case, however, I suspect it has something to do with Andy's irrational aversion to "pop culture" stuff. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 08:34, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
By the way, I just added a thing about the CP abortion page being "permanently protected", and now I'm wondering what that really means. It is technically impossible for anyone, even a sysop, to turn it off? Andy doesn't even trust himself to unprotect his own page? Can God, or Andy, create a rock, or protection, so heavy that he can't lift it? Inquiring minds want to know. SJIHAS 08:59, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
(Briefly noted in the entry, but better here) No, Andy just removed the banner because it's a banner. This isn't about "Evil WP locks articles", it's about "Evil WP has many distracting boxes" (as noted on the "Differences with WP" page). Andy has absolutely no interest in actually unprotecting the article (Keep in mind: Andy offers his lawyer services to women under the assertion that abortions cause breast cancer: "Had an abortion? Call an attorney").
Technically, it's ALWAYS possible to unprotect an article. In the worst case, he can just poke the database directly, but it's also possible to (for example) delete the article and then restore it to the point just before the protection. Or he could delete it and start from scratch (deletion unprotects by default). But the normal interface is good enough - any article that can somehow be accessed can also be (un-)protected. --Sid 13:38, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
You know, I hate to admit it, but Andy's a little bit right: WP does have too many distrating templates. Well, maybe not too many, but they can be way overused. You get editors over there who instead of having the mindset "this page has a problem, what template (if any) is best suited to address this," will think "what templates can I add to this article?" The ironic thing is that CP is growing more boxes all the time, abnd their utilization is terribly inconsistent. And, of course, there's his insistence that a brief "this article is a stub. You can help Wikiepdia by expanding it" at the bottom has all sorts of problems, and is a major flaw, but a big colorful box saying "This article has been identified as having problems with length, content and/or style, and is therefore classified as a Very Short Article (VSA). You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. Please add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non problematic, or make this article more grammatically correct. Please remember to abide by The Conservapedia Commandments in your actions, though" is just super. DickTurpis 12:00, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Former Yugoslavia[edit]

Whoa. Just whoa. Shall we hook Andy up with Pilger, Pinter, Chomsky and Living Marxism, so they can all have a lovely 'let's deny Genocide in former Yugoslavia'. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Simple! Christians don't do Ethnic cleansing. The bit about Romania is great too. Enjoy. WhatIsG0ing0n 13:03, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
The bit about GI New not wearing a U.N. uniform is cool too. He disobeyed 10 U.S.C. § 892(2) (any person who, “having knowledge of any ... lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order ... shall be punished as a court-martial may direct”). He argued in his defense that the order was unlawful and unconstitutional. Specifically, U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9 prohibits any person’s acceptance of any emolument from a foreign state without congressional consent. The Assfly failed to mention that the U.N. isn't a foreign state. What would happen if the poor GI had to wear NATO insignia on his uniform and, heaven forbid, be put under the command of someone from a foreign NATO country. I take it Assfly's variety of patriots don't serve in the armed forces themselves: they would know such things otherwise. They are generous Christians who let others do the dying for them. WhatIsG0ing0n 13:27, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Impending shitstorm[edit]

Someone better invite Ursus over here _quick_.... --Gulik 12:14, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I've sent a mail. Not sure if others did so, too, but eh. Better more than none :P --Sid 12:52, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
Look at this. Ed has decided to use some "speak softly" Rooseveltism. Shitstorm averted, assuming Ursus knows enough to keep his trap shut and do as he's told. DickTurpis 13:44, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
I dunno... it could be the Bush Praise Effect. (Right before firing someone, GWB makes sure to say something nice about them in public. "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie." being one of the most famous examples.) -- 13:59, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, we all know Ed's a lying little shit in any case. I guess he's caught up in the arms race to be as execrable as TK, since he seems to be the de facto biggest power right now. Ed's nothing if not opportunistic. --Kels 14:33, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Ed "self-fellatio" Poor looks like he might drop the "self". tmtoulouse persecute 14:38, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
Probably what happened elsewhere was that TK decided to let the other shoe drop, and Ed got caught flat-footed, not knowing whose ass to kiss. He's just getting used to planting his lips elsewhere now, is all. --Kels 14:48, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't believe they're still at it[edit]

How much longer can it last? [5] DickTurpis 16:19, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps Jazzman is actually one of the voices Rob Smith hears? CЯacke® 16:57, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
Woah. That changes everything. It's all Sixth Sense and Fight Club now. I have to read through the entire dialogue again. DickTurpis 17:00, 31 August 2007 (CDT)
It's getting worse. It's spreading to other pages 15:31, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Laura Ingraham[edit]

I cannot believe how Photoshopped that photo of Laura Ingraham is. That is all, we now return you to your normal programming. DogP 18:40, 31 August 2007 (CDT)


OK it's really just a passive sentence that allows ambiguity to reign supreme like a house of cards up the creek, as Ed Poor would (probably) say. Here tis: The Rehnquist Court consists of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court between October 1986, when William Rehnquist began serving as the Chief Justice, and October 2005, when he was replaced by John Roberts after his death.

Who is this, and what did they do with the real TK?[edit]

...and do they need any help disposing of the evidence? :D

It saddens me that some are only guided by the mistaken notion that they, and they alone, will be the "salvation" of this encyclopedia, that their judgment is better than anyone else's because, in their thinking, everyone who disagrees with them is a heathen, atheist or perhaps even a demon.

[6] (He left out "Or a Liberal...)

If we as Christians and Conservatives are given a fair platform to state our case, if it is God's will be done! We do not need to attack others, indeed if we do so, we have crossed from God's intended path.


Nice sentiments. I wonder what it feels like to live a life totally devoid of any self-awareness like that? --Gulik 03:47, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Here's another quote for him:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -Matthew 7:3-5

--Gulik 03:47, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Looks like classic TK to me. He's got Conservative's number and fully intends to break him or get rid of him, but no way is he going to put up with someone opposing him. So he tailors his approach to attack the things Ken's most proud of, his hit counts and citations. Internal consistency, self awareness and other trivia has no place in it. --Kels 05:42, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Mystery photo[edit]

Rationalwikians make a point at a recent trial.

Shall we have a bet on who those mystery conservapedians in that photo are? I'm quite curious, actually. It would be nice to have a face to associate. DickTurpis 09:07, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Now if we had a CSI lab we'd be able to read those name badges (sic)Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 09:14, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Enhance! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Listen Grissom - some things are just not possible Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 09:24, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Photoshop to the rescue. Guy's name is Kevin, last name could be Hoffman or something, but not certain. Can't get anything from the other's badge. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 09:36, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Keyser Söze? --Kels 09:44, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, there is/was a Kevin in one of Andy's economics classes: Search for "Kevin" (multiple mentions) --Sid 09:58, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
Darn, I was going to deface it and upload it, but it's copyrighted! humanbe in 18:20, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
No trouble. As long as it's good and funny defacement, it should fall under fair use. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:27, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Anyone else think it's hilarious that the image is still unexplained? When it first was mentioned at what's going on, I thought it might be a bit unfair, that someone had put it up as it was a work in progress, and an expansion/explanation would soon be forthcoming. But it's been days and still nothing. Do they somehow think the context and relevence is self-evident? DickTurpis 10:15, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Well it seems I wasn't the only one to enhance the mystery photo, I also picked out Kevin Hoffman as the name. However, it would appear that the Kevin in Andy's Economics class is Kevin Fritz. I think the point that this Conservapedian is making is that conservative Christians have a horrible taste in clothes. From what I can make out, the girl's name is possibly Donna B. Genghis Khant 11:10, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

When I first enhanced the picture I took a first guess that the girl was cp:User:DeborahB., and just by sheer luck her talk page happens to mention some sort of going-on in Washington on the day that picture was taken. Sandman 11:19, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, the photo appears to have been uploaded by Andy, and since it's clearly not him, I wonder how many Conservapedians he personally knows. Does he know any of the sysops, or are they just a bunch of people who've come together in cyberspace? I'd guess these are some of his 120 homeschool kids, who may well be incidental Conservapedians, not some of the big wheels. You really think he would offer some sort of explanation, or not bother with the picture at all. DickTurpis 11:26, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
TK seems to have decided that further information pertaining to the photo is more secret than the FBI investigation. One poor soul who asked got deleted and blocked. Apparently an inquiring mind is trolling, ingnorance is truely bliss! WhatIsG0ing0n 06:31, 4 September 2007 (CDT)


Wow, it's getting to be crazy over there. RobS bans one guy for totally spurious grounds when he just tried to make a sensible suggestion, then TK gives Iduan a 1-day timeout for daring to call him on it. And then schooling him, rather than the much more insulting RobS, on calling people names. Great fun. --Kels 15:32, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Vaccine? What vaccine?[edit]

I just came across this link from the Wikipedia talk page on Conservapedia - [8]. In the neverending quest to deny that it is actually a vaccine, they have the sentence: "Hepatitis B is not contagious in the school setting and is not required of school teachers." I, for one, am very happy for those school teachers. Kirkburn 15:48, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

It is required that all teachers have herpes however. 15:52, 2 September 2007 (CDT)


According to my dictionary widget, phobia means an extreme or irrational fear. So what's the point of that one? 15:52, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Saying that everybody with an irrational fear is irrational is pushing things. It's like saying that people who make an irrational decision are irrational. And I don't know about you, but I wouldn't like being called irrational just because I made one irrational decision or had an irrational fear.
I admit it's a fine distinction, and I had second thoughts about adding it, but this subtle fuzziness is suddenly turned into an argument to make gay rights activists look worse than they most likely are (Or, if the activists actually use the same reasoning, it should be explained and not parroted).
Another place where semantics were twisted in a similar way was the case of the cp:Evolutionism article, where an innocent remark like "I believe that evolution is correct" was suddenly twisted into something along the lines of "Evolutionists merely have faith in their theory and see it as their religion, so they shouldn't poke creationism for being based on religion!" (the article has been toned down a bit, but feel free to check the history). Since that issue, I have been a bit careful when sysops are playing with semantics. --Sid 16:27, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
That makes more sense. However, I feel as if that subtlety might not be caught by some people (see: idiots like me). ThunderkatzHo! 16:31, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
Hardly idiots; it is a very subtle point (even in my view - others might see it as non-existent, who knows? Like I said, I had second thoughts myself a few seconds after posting it, too.), especially without the explanation of reasoning. I might rephrase it, although I'm not really sure how to properly do so in one (if possible) short paragraph.
Suggestion (open for discussion) (edit: the diff link should be around "is being irrational", but the template spazzes if I put it in):

Either a cheap (but subtle) shot to make the activists look bad, or Ed accidentally parroting propaganda: Anybody with a phobia (irrational fear of something) is being irrational. I guess this over-generalization also means that everybody who ever acted in an irrational way is being irrational, too.

It's not perfect, but I guess it's a bit clearer than the current entry... --Sid 16:47, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
It's much clearer. I'd say to change "is being irrational" to "is an irrational person" to make it clearer, but "is being irrational" is his actual wording, and we shouldn't change that. ThunderkatzHo! 16:55, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
I've changed the entry. Thanks for pointing out / reminding me that the entry was lacking much-needed clarity! :) --Sid 17:58, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

New hobby/game[edit]

So I've got a new hobby I just started, and would like to encourage others to take it up. Maybe we can make it some sort of game or unofficial contest. It consists of posting comments on CP talk pages that purport to be from RobS. The idea is to make outrageous statements that no one in the world would make (no one, that is, except RobS) followed by a fake RobS signature. The only examples I've done so far are this and this. These are quickly discovered and reverted, with an IP block to follow. I can only use so many IPs, but if everyone got involved we could have quite a good time with it. The idea is to make comments in Rob's unique style, only slightly more outrageously ridiculous than Rob himself would make (it's tough, I realize, out Robbing Rob). Maybe, if enough people do it, we can get a few to stick for more than a few minutes. In any case, we've got a lot of creative minds here, and I'm curious to see what people can come up with. I'm anxious to see what we can come up with in terms of stylistic accuracy, ridiculousness, longevity, and creativity. The Good Lord has truly blessed us with a mind of the caliber of Rob Smith's to mock relentlessly, it would be an affront for us not to take advantage of it. DickTurpis 18:22, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Sounds fun, but you have to be more subtle. Mentioning the FBI is a pretty sure sign that you are a vandal. 18:31, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
I'm afraid to say that someone's gone one better. Way back in the day, two cunning vandals registered the accounts 'Aschlafly' and 'Conservative' - the catch? They registered them using different versions of 'a' (looked exactly the same) from different places on the unicode chart. They wreaked havoc for quite a while, because, besides looking at their contributions, there was no way of telling them apart (they had transcluded the user and talk pages). -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Ah, the good ol' days of April... Sterileblah, blah, blah 19:20, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
Ah, yes, some good old fashioned cloning. The old capital "i" lower-case ""L" switcheroo used to fool people in some forums, and there are some others as well. the problem is CP does watch all their edits too carefully to get away with much these days. And they have few enough edits that they can monitor them in a way that Wikipedia, for instance, just cannot do. With the database locked through the night, and with the diligent gatekeepers watching all other times, all new accounts are immediately suspect and examnined; it would be nearly impossible to register any derivitives of any such user names (though I was tempted to try to fool some potentially dylsexic editors with a User:RodS; I was sure I would be banned before I could even finish a single snarky comment). No, the purpose isn't necessarily to fool people, because edits from new users are watched to closely, but to have some fun, and mock Rob, maybe not so much as to have our comments believed, but to perhaps have people start to question Rob's actual comments, thinking that those might be parodies, when they are his actual thoughts. I seriously doubt any sysops would be fooled for more than a second, but it's still fun, and I'm sure it has to annoy them. DickTurpis 19:56, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
Oh, and as for the FBI thing, it was a bit of a giveaway I know (and I never really thoguht I'd fool them) but sysops are allowed to mention the FBI, it's for everyone else that the subject is verboten. DickTurpis 19:59, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I have a problem with this game. It interferes with Rob's insanity. We will no longer be able to point to things and say "Look how insane Rob (TK/Ed/etc.) is." It will be "Look how insane our forgery is." We should only make fun of things these people actually say. For God's sake, there's plenty of that.

This is part of a more general ethical concern that I have. We watch them; they watch us. We can bang on the hornet's nest and then report on what happens. I think it would be a good idea for everyone to observe this principle: Do not report on something that you yourself caused. Let others report on it. Avoid conflict of interest with your socks. SJIHAS 20:47, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

An example just showed up: [9]. Utterly insane; I was about to post it. How could Rob turn "You ought to mention Marx" into "We don't allow murderers such as you to voice opinions on conservapedia. Another outburst such as that will result in your name and IP being submitted to the FBI." Incredible!!!! But a forgery. SJIHAS 20:57, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Sijhas- this kind of wandalism isn't very clever, and it takes away from what I see as one of the fundamental mandates of this site: Allowing the right, with its own idiocy, mendacity and hypocrisy, to hang itself with its own words and to allow its own work to expose it for what it is - a bigoted, racist, classist, sexist movement...PFoster 21:12, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

You guys have a point, but I'm not saying we should post fake Rob comments and report them as real. That certainly would be lame. And it should certainly not interfere with the daily watching and reporting of the real stuff Rob does say, which, I'm sure, will continue unabated. I was just hoping to get just enough of these that guys like TK and Ed will be on the lookout for especially nutty things Rob says, checking to see if they're parodies. I'm imagining them looking at another batshit crazy comment and thinking to themselves "...another parody to revert...wait...oh...this one's really him..." Might help drive some the point about how insane Rob actually is (although if they haven't figured that out already then there is no hope). The comment SJIHAS pointed out above is an example of something obviously utterly insane, but the fact that it wasn't immediately apparent that it was a parody really shows just where Rob has set the bar for nuttiness (and this brings up the point that when posting on "What's going on..." we should make sure everything is legit, not a parody and not third party trolling; all material should be endorsed by at least one of their sysops). And really, it's only slightly more insane than his actual comment to Goldstein, where he turned "you ought to mention Marx" into "you're denying Stalin's mass-murders." No, this little game was never meant to interfere with or replace the standard watch-and-report, just to have a little fun and cause some minor disruption. DickTurpis 09:10, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
"Bla bla bla bla" [10] 09:26, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

What do ya think?[edit]

I'm thinking I should challenge Conservapedia to a fistfight.... Any of their Sysops against me, one on one, no weapons allowed... If they win, I stop trolling, if I win, they have to watch all of Micheal Moore's Movies, Dogma, and three hours of Def Comedy Jam.... Think any of them will go for it? SirChuckB 00:45, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Be sure to check for the methyl blue in the mouthpiece trick. CЯacke® 09:48, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
An interesting proposal. Did you have any sysop in particular in mind?--Bobbing up and down 10:02, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
I think we need to book Thunderdome. DickTurpis 10:20, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Well, I would love to get my hands on Schafly..... But he's too busy preparing to teach the truth about the supreme court... I'd take any of them..... No preference SirChuckB 11:31, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Well, I wouldn't like to think that we would actually condone violence against them. It's preferable to beat them in the realm of intellect (though, admittedly, hardly a fair fight). DickTurpis 11:37, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
See, that's the beauty of it.... I wouldn't condone violence in the sense of a random shooting (even though a drive by vaccination for Schafly would be really really funny) but if they agree to meet me, it becomes a consenting fight.... I mean, as many Sysops claim they're martial arts masters, they should be lining up for this..... oh well.... and as for beating them intellectually, we've already done that... but in order for that to work, they have to admit defeat... The great thing about being conservative is, in your world you never lose.... SirChuckB 13:43, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
I know what you mean, but can you really imagine punching this face ASchlafly.jpg? It would be tantamount to beating up a mentally deficient Don Knotts. I wouldn't have the stomach for it. Maybe some of the sysops though. DickTurpis 13:51, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Robby on the Main Page[edit]

That comment RobS made to PinkFloyd on the Main Page is seriously out there. I'm genuinely worried for the man's mental health now. Old Pink's just saying how he's a centrist, and then, wham-bam, RobS is there, talking about bread and suggesting compromise is atheistic. I wasn't sure if that was a parody or not at first.--Offeep 11:21, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

I think he's off his meds. It's pretty damn crazy, but crazy in a different way than the craziness I've come to expect. But he's right about the etymology of "Lord" apparently, or at least Wikipedia backs him up. Then again, it's probably just gossip (or perhaps very subtle porn). I'll check the OED next time I visit my folks. DickTurpis 11:34, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Slow day?[edit]

Is it just me or has it been a very slow day over in Andyland? We've had one "What's going on" added all day, and from the looks of it there is little to report on (other than the endless Talk:Atheism, which is less than fascinating). Do Conservatives celebrate the socialist Labor Day? Or would doing so be a subtle form of genocide? DickTurpis 14:41, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Socialists don't celebrate Labor Day, it's a bourgeois creation. Socialists celebrate workers on May Day. PFoster 15:09, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Very true (especially in that hive of Marxism: Europe). Nevetheless, I'm sure it's far too much of a leftist (ergo liberal, deceitful, socialist, marxist, communist, genocidal, ad nauseam) holiday for it to be differentiated by the likes of the CP crowd. DickTurpis 15:12, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
As I recall, the North American Labour Day (we have it in Canada too) was a product of the Unions, and is generally credited to the Carpenters although that's sometimes disputed. --Kels 17:49, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

A Few Days Old[edit]

But, nevertheless, I found the following discussion to be both funny and sad. I'd say add it to the page, but I'm not sure where: Aschlafly, Discussion on Abortion in Minnesota--Zelandoni 21:33, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

JW & pron[edit]

"Since when has Jimmy Wales been a pornographer, anyways?"

Um, there is a link. He made his fortune webhosting, and some of his customers were porn sites. Does that make him a pornographer? Not really, but it also means there is a slight basis for calling him one. Especially if you (CP) hate pron. It's not because of the tasteful drawing, etc. on WP (although, of course, CP hates them, too!) humanbe in 23:01, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I'll change the wording. Give me a second....done. Sandman 23:04, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Haha, nice job! Thanks! humanbe in 23:11, 3 September 2007 (CDT)

figures of speech[edit]


  • Seven figures of speech in one paragraph! That's got to be some kind of record (last paragraph above the quotations)

Was deleted. I know it sorta makes them look good (it's funny and relatively literate), but it's hilarious. Belongs in BoCP? As a permalink as I did here? Please? humanbe in 17:02, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Definitely. As Ed (who else?) said, 'Only a bunch of metaphors can describe the furor'. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Apparently it belongs as a saved parody entry over here. But let's see how long it lives... humanbe in 18:41, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Conservative vs. Ungtss[edit]

Seriously, how long can this go on before Ungtss totally loses his shit? He's having a conversation about the article, and Conservative is having an entirely different conversation to do with how charitable atheists are, for some reason. It's a bit bizarre to watch, and I keep waiting for Ungtss to finally ask Ken what the hell he's on about. --Kels 18:38, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

God, yeah. That discussion is absolutely surreal. And I think it's actually a new debate style of Conservative: "Pick a completely arbitrary point and bring it up again and again, regardless of what the other side says or whether the other side actually disagrees with it." It's like "Stonewall Lite" - he's technically still engaging in discussion, but practically goes "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU" --Sid 18:53, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Wait, didn't he make a comment the other day that consisted only of "blah blah blah"? Isn't that close enough to la la la? Or was it RobS? What's in the water over there, anyway? Maybe we should report them to the EPA before the brain damage is permanent? humanbe in 20:00, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

SharonS Copying[edit]

Looks like SharonS has run afoul of the disclaimer here. "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public so long as you do not 1) claim it is your own..." Public domain, indeed. --Kels 20:02, 4 September 2007 (CDT)


Well, they've updated the Breaking News, but no mention of terror plots, just the deaths of a congressman and an ex-congressman (both Republicans, of course). I know, at age 32, I shouldn't be amused by such things, but the cited news article's use of the phrase "a somber Boehner" did make me chuckle. DickTurpis 14:38, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Creepy TK[edit]

Is it just me or does it seem like TK takes a running joke form RW and manage to turn it into something really really really creepy? tmtoulouse persecute 15:36, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Sometimes I think he's jealous. Then I remember that he's just crazy.-αmεσ (!) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

If by creepy you mean lame and derivative, then yes. If you don't have all the context leading up to it, a joke like that falls flat. But what do Conservatives know about humour anyway? --Kels 15:45, 5 September 2007 (CDT)\

That's where that came from! A couple of those wound up on my user page, but I didn't know it was an RW joke. It's rather creepy to wake up one morning to see Comrade Putin (initials: CP) staring back at you from your computer screen. JazzMan 18:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)


What's with the anti-catholic thing? Andy is a Catholic and Andy Jr goes to a catholic college. Surely it can'tbe official policy? Genghis Khant 16:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

It was a talk page edit, no? (Who cares?) User:C is rabidly anti-Catholic, see Mary's talk page for the row he wanted to start with all around good guy Joaquín Martínez over pictures that were a bit too "queenly" for User:C's tastes. CЯacke® 17:02, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

So... what happened to the only Jewish Sysop, Fox? After this fight (below) with TK on his talk page in July, where Fox stands his ground (Hurray for Fox! Attaboy!) other than a couple of minor edits, he hasn't been seen again. Has Fox quit? -- 20:10, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Here's the convo from Fox's talk page: ---
Maybe You can understand that here, in the US, it is considered polite to ask before just taking over what another has been doing? I am speaking of the Daily Quote. I haven't said anything since the contest, but its becoming annoying. --Sysop-TK 05:11, 20 July 2007
You own the main page too, now? Go ahead. Fox 05:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
So, you just bully and then insult? Try it with someone else, Fox. You pushed in during the contest, never expressing any interest in it before, simply because you didn't like your block being reverted. Kindly grow up and end your pettiness. We have been here before with your several resignations when angered. I haven't been adding Bible quotes, simply out of respect that you took that over some time ago. --Sysop-TK 05:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Pot, kettle, black. Its your constant bullying, unilateral "I AM THE LAW!" approach (even when you are completely wrong), snide comments, insults and pettiness that drag this place down. You are treating CP like your personal fiefdom, and all of your back-biting and power struggling with everybody else is starting to become a drag. Fox 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes? Odd until your unfair and uncalled for block was reversed you never once had a complaint! Should I post your many Yahoo conversations here? Please don't insult me, or make charges out of spite, Fox. --Sysop-TK 05:54, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
As pointed out above - pot - kettle - black. Don't try bullying me - I'm not one of the schoolkids here who might be afraid or in awe of you. Fox 05:56, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

-- and that's all....

Nauseating sexism[edit]

This is pretty terrible. These people are despicable. tmtoulouse persecute 18:37, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh that's an instant Best Of.. for sure! Good find. DogP 18:53, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Infinite Blocks aren't being used as often?[edit]

TK especially seems to have taken to using 1 and 5 year blocks for what certainly would have been infinite blocks previously. Any idea what the point of this trend is? Look at all those TK blocks today - many for 'only' 5 years for what is obviously wandalism? DogP 19:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think Jallen stated herself that one year is practically infinite (there's an entry in this article somewhere, I think), so it's basically a new package for the same content.
Besides, we saw what happened to people who actually wait all the time: Five month ban expired, he (I think) edited his user page (which was later deleted, hence the lack of events in his contribs log), got a perma-ban by Bohdan, Bohdan self-reverts his ban, Andy perma-bans him for his freaking name, TK unbans the IP to enable account creation... and then range blocks it for half a year.
Let's face it: Once you get the Evil Eye, you're dead. Heck, Ames proved that you can't even win by not doing anything, much less anything wrong (last warning was followed by a ban even before Ames had actually made another edit). You get tagged with a serious block, and it doesn't matter if it's permanent or not - they'll be watching you. Closely. And they're trigger-happy. --Sid 20:28, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Might as well be infinite, given that in all likelihood CP will just be another abandoned crank website in five years' time, assuming they bother to keep paying for it after Andy's gone on to some new obsession. --Kels 20:34, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
The best part is that most abandoned domain names end up in the porn industry's clutches. Andy's just desserts, eh? humanbe in 21:41, 5 September 2007 (CDT)