Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive305
This RW is growing rapidly[edit]
I noticed we got donations so quickly this time, Kendoll didn't get a chance to do his traditional "uncharitable atheists" schtick while the total was still 10 bucks. It doesn't feel like fundraiser time without inappropriate mockery from the peanut gallery. Maybe we could set it back to zero to give him a chance to catch up. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or maybe it all just an illusion to cover up the uncharitableness of atheist? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would personally donate $100 if we could find some way, any way, for Andy to run a donation drive on CP. Assuming, somehow, him and his direct relatives were not permitted to donate, I wonder how much money they could raise? Kenny lives on disability/the charity of an embarrassed relative, Kara on a military pension, Terry on whatever money he saved while he a doctor (scary, isn't it?), etc. I'd be surprised if they could get more than a few hundred, and it'd all be from less than ten sources. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Terry runs a TV antenna and network cabling installation business from home. Funnily enough he keeps it separate from his creationist stuff on LinkedIn. I wonder why?--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. 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Remember, every dollar donated to RW is a dollar not donated to a hospital. Why don't you just go around murdering sick people? DickTurpis (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- And every dollar I spend on steak instead of gruel every night is a dollar that could be spent feeding sick African kids. I'm a monster. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are indeed a terrible, terrible person, and I don't know how you atheist heathens can live with yourselves. DickTurpis (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Atheists don't feel guilt, remember? It's a result of our complete lack of consciences and morality. It's really quite convenient. Nihilist 19:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are indeed a terrible, terrible person, and I don't know how you atheist heathens can live with yourselves. DickTurpis (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- And every dollar I spend on steak instead of gruel every night is a dollar that could be spent feeding sick African kids. I'm a monster. --Sasayaki (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I know I shouldn't care, but...[edit]
If I hear "double taxation" one more time, I'm going to lose it. CNAV, let me explain to you how taxes work: let's say you work to make $100, and after taxes you get $80. Then, you invest this, and after one year the security is worth $88. If you sell it, you pay the capital gains rate of 15% on $8. Not the $80 that you already paid taxes on. This $8 is brand new to you - you just earned it, you've never paid taxes on it, it is not double taxation.
I'm sorry, I know it doesn't matter, but it's my pet peeve, and I needed to get it off my chest. Carlaugust (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The teeny kernel of truth is that dividends can be argued to be doubly taxed, since they're paid from profits and not deductible to the issuer. Because dividends and capital gains are both taxed at the favorable "investment" rate, some "money made from investments" is therefore not totally misrepresented. But a lot more of it is capital gains. Either the author knows this and is being typically truthy, or he's in way over his head. Warren Buffet mentioned, on the Daily Show this week, that his favorably treated income last year is mostly from bond gains, and therefore not doubly taxed. Whoover (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We're doomed, I tell ye, doomed![edit]
10 stupendously pathetic questions for evilutionistsimg (the link is to the last of 6 (6!) edits that Ken made to add this link to MPL). I'm quaking in my boots. With laughter. Cardinal Fang (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm really confused. Is using more words than the Gettysburg Address good or bad? Cantabrigian (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is there another network of churches going to be released on the horizon? For someone who takes so many edits to get each post 'right', how does Ken manage to ignore basic English grammar in such an egregious fashion?
Генгисmutating
11:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- My first thought was this. My second though was how this is even inane and impotent than the usual Ken material, and that is saying a lot, man is he boring as he babbles about nothing into the gale. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Question 11: Does Ken wear his pants on his head? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- My first thought was this. My second though was how this is even inane and impotent than the usual Ken material, and that is saying a lot, man is he boring as he babbles about nothing into the gale. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is there another network of churches going to be released on the horizon? For someone who takes so many edits to get each post 'right', how does Ken manage to ignore basic English grammar in such an egregious fashion?
Yet more Conservapedia intimidation[edit]
Hi I just saw on Conservapedia that they threatened to report so called "spammers" to sites like Project Honey Pot. Does this mean I can get into serious trouble or is this just another blush by Conservapedia to intimidate people? Adapted from [1]
Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- They will care just as much as the FBI did. --Mikal Harass Follow 07:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like hearsay. Searching CP for Project Honey Pot doesn't bring up any pages. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Project honey pot is all about identifying bulk email and comment spammers. So unless you're selling Viagra you're probably safe.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 08:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Conservapedia and "honey pot" (slang). I lol'd.
NorsemanCyser Melomel 12:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Conservapedia and "honey pot" (slang). I lol'd.
- It's meant for spammers, should they ever come by and notice, not for you imbeciles at LiberalPediaBrenden (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Whilst you are at it could you unblock my socks that have been block by wankerbear for being socks of Horace since I am not Horace. Naca (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Project honey pot is all about identifying bulk email and comment spammers. So unless you're selling Viagra you're probably safe.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 08:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like hearsay. Searching CP for Project Honey Pot doesn't bring up any pages. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Random[edit]
- This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar. 22:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
From Conservapedia news: "An atheist who loses a debate admits that "most homosexuals are atheists.[11][12] No wonder why so many young earth creationists are better in sports that atheists! More Olympic gold medals will be coming to America and the UK!"
To which my reaction can best be summed up as: http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/290/698/c3e.jpg
Lets start a RW sports league, yeah.--P3A58NT86 21:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
***ERMAGHERD CERNSERVERPERDIA***
ERMEGERD BATTLETOADS
- Softball against CP? Oh, better! Softball league with us, CP, Wiki, CZ, and 4 of the other general information wikis. Wikipedia would probably clean house, but we'll make a solid second place.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Softball is for Nancy-boys that lack machismo. They'll only want to play good ol' American apple-pie-y baseball. (BTW User:Hamilton...EmpIricism) -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Two words. Foursquare. A game that's played as the drunken expression of all the festering violence in a man's heart. User:Godspeed and I will captain the Chicago team. I guess I have to be on the CP team too. That's cool. I'm good at playing the fundie reactionary. Anyone else in the Midwest in for a weekend of bruised shins, worn out knees, and sore backs, all without the disappointment of pretending you're happy naked?
00:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Two words. Foursquare. A game that's played as the drunken expression of all the festering violence in a man's heart. User:Godspeed and I will captain the Chicago team. I guess I have to be on the CP team too. That's cool. I'm good at playing the fundie reactionary. Anyone else in the Midwest in for a weekend of bruised shins, worn out knees, and sore backs, all without the disappointment of pretending you're happy naked?
- Softball is for Nancy-boys that lack machismo. They'll only want to play good ol' American apple-pie-y baseball. (BTW User:Hamilton...EmpIricism) -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
When the depth of your hatred for a politician makes you want to see your country suffer a terrible wound.[edit]
Every reasonable economic analysis I've read has made the same point: going off the "fiscal cliff" will have horrible effects on the American people: plunge the economy back into recession and create massive unemployment. People's livelihoods are at stake. And in a country where access to healthcare is often predicated on employment (good luck paying for that chemo/surgery/medication without health insurance), it's not a gross exaggeration to say that people's basic well-being is at stake. What does Hurlbut say? Okay. Bring it on. Better than my political foes scoring a win. Also, I'm laughing at him because he can't bring himself to type the word "damned" while telling the whole country to go fuck itself. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 23:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Damned", its in the King James Bible three times but I guess the Good Book is too obscene in its language for Launchbooty. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I remember that as a kid 'damn' and 'hell' were taboo words. How times have changed. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 00:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I remember that as a kid 'damn' and 'hell' were taboo words. How times have changed.
My name is Andy and I don't read linked stories[edit]
Andy: 2012 coolest year in the past decade therefore Global Warming is crapimg. Actual article: Global warming is reality, it may just be slowing, oh and 2012 is ninth warmest year on record. Does CP try and make itself look stupid on purpose? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess we'll know if that entry changes. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see it's already been pointed out on CP's main page talk that the article clearly says that global warming is real and doesn't support Andy's assertion that it "never was the crisis that liberals claimed in their attempt to limit energy". Andy (or one of his goons) will point out that you have to seperate the facts from the opinions in the story from that well-known liberal British newspaper The Daily Telegraph. Somebody will point out (again) that there's nothing liberal about The Torygraph and Karajou will say (again) that limey conservatives don't exist.--Spud (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is gunna hurt ...[edit]
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/ Karajou's already Horace'd me for adding the quotes to his page, but it doesn't change the truth. You can't un-read it, Angry Bear :-P Ruddager (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I predict some serious backpedalling here in the next few days. DickTurpis (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
My name is Terry and I don't understand science[edit]
So NASA found ice on Mercury. Naturally, Launchbooty claims the most likely reason water got onto Mercury was through "the Great Flood"img. I love that the Flood myth has been expanded to have the Earth bukkake all over the rest of the solar system, but it is just too absurd. No, it couldn't be that water is actually the second most common molecule in the universe after molecular hydrogen (Note: Not element, molecule), and most comets and quite a few asteroids are abundant in the stuff; no it all came from the Earth, that somehow through eruption of sea water manage to hit, with pinpoint accuracy and across tens of millions of miles, all of Mercury's surface (and the Moon, and Mars, and made the rings of Saturn). Yeah...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- ...what medical school gave this guy a license to practice? Sweet Jesus, I'd rather take my chances with a herbologist or something. Good thing his patients are already dead. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 02:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I put anyone who believes in Lunar Bukakke Theory in the same category as believing in a literal, actual Santa. It's just so completely absurd that it could never work, ever. --Sasayaki (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to add a note to the Lunar Bukakke page, should this be added and should it possibly be changed to celestial bukakke or something else to reflect the fact that apparently that water can make it as far as Mercury and beyond? 147.138.90.129 (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe somebody should tell Terry that Saturn's rings can't be water from the Great Flood because they have already been identified as Jesus' foreskin. Spud (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- all the comets too. Same source, the fountains of the deep hurling water and rocks into space at the start of the FLOOD. Walt Browns Hydroplate theory. Hamster (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Working in the aerospace business, like I do, and having a bit more than a cursory understanding of orbital mechanics, and actually being able to comprehend the size of the solar system... Oh forget it. I need a drink. --Inquisitor (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder what goes through their minds when they write things like this? Is he imagining some sort of spherical wave of water projecting out from earth and drenching the solar system? It's just ludicrous to think that you could get random projections of water from earth and magically hit Mercury. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Spherical expansion would mean that the amount of water that finally made it to Mercury would be minute. Does even Walt Brown believe in lunar bukkake, or is it only raving moonbats like Terry and Nephilimfree? ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 10:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think these morons envision a spherical expansion at all. At least that explanation would show that they can at least think three dimensionally. No, what I think these idiots picture is the planets are bunched up like some sort of photoshopped encyclopedia picture. And that they orbit the sun all lined up Grand Conjunction style. Dumbass Terry is blissfully unaware that the glacial quantities of Mercury's ice that were purportedly transported from Earth, would have been traveling at near cometary velocity... GRRRRR! Sweet Zombie Jesus, these people are fucking thick. --Inquisitor (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Spherical expansion would mean that the amount of water that finally made it to Mercury would be minute. Does even Walt Brown believe in lunar bukkake, or is it only raving moonbats like Terry and Nephilimfree?
- I wonder what goes through their minds when they write things like this? Is he imagining some sort of spherical wave of water projecting out from earth and drenching the solar system? It's just ludicrous to think that you could get random projections of water from earth and magically hit Mercury. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Working in the aerospace business, like I do, and having a bit more than a cursory understanding of orbital mechanics, and actually being able to comprehend the size of the solar system... Oh forget it. I need a drink. --Inquisitor (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- all the comets too. Same source, the fountains of the deep hurling water and rocks into space at the start of the FLOOD. Walt Browns Hydroplate theory. Hamster (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe somebody should tell Terry that Saturn's rings can't be water from the Great Flood because they have already been identified as Jesus' foreskin. Spud (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to add a note to the Lunar Bukakke page, should this be added and should it possibly be changed to celestial bukakke or something else to reflect the fact that apparently that water can make it as far as Mercury and beyond? 147.138.90.129 (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm no astronomer, but I am a mathematician. If Mercury is 7.72e10 meters away, and the either ejected water in all directions equally, to find 1,000,000 kilos of water on Mercury, the Earth would have had to eject 1.45 times the mass of our current oceans. Do these people really believe this shit?? Carlaugust (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- If God is trying to deliver water to Mercury as a nice side effect of The Flood, why would he be so inefficient to eject it in all directions equally? Oh ye of little faith! His virtual hose is slam-dunk proof of his omnieverything. Whoover (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- remember either the earth was much more even , with shallow lakes and small hills so not much water was needed to flood it, or the water covered Everest. That some got flung off into space, perhaps as the result of the earths rotation is not remarkable. Hamster (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is an interesting calculation, but you are underestimating the sheer stupidity of the hydroplate "theory", not only is it Mercury who had its entire crust pelted with ice comets from Earth, but also our Moon, oh and Mars too. No doubt one could expand this to any world within our solar system that has been sufficiently cratered.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- And any other solar systems, once someone points out water in them. In fact, let's just get this out of the way: the supposed "Big Bang" was actually a side effect of the Great Flood. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- other systems ? sorry but the Earth, in its favored position, is at the center of 7 crystal spheres which hold the candles taht we see in the night sky. Its not very big. Read http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20VI.htm and see the truth ! ;-) Hamster (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hamster, that is one of the weirdest things I've ever read. Cardinal Fang (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- other systems ? sorry but the Earth, in its favored position, is at the center of 7 crystal spheres which hold the candles taht we see in the night sky. Its not very big. Read http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20VI.htm and see the truth ! ;-) Hamster (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- And any other solar systems, once someone points out water in them. In fact, let's just get this out of the way: the supposed "Big Bang" was actually a side effect of the Great Flood. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is an interesting calculation, but you are underestimating the sheer stupidity of the hydroplate "theory", not only is it Mercury who had its entire crust pelted with ice comets from Earth, but also our Moon, oh and Mars too. No doubt one could expand this to any world within our solar system that has been sufficiently cratered.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- remember either the earth was much more even , with shallow lakes and small hills so not much water was needed to flood it, or the water covered Everest. That some got flung off into space, perhaps as the result of the earths rotation is not remarkable. Hamster (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I need to update my calculation after reading that there may be as much as 1 trillion tons of water on Mercury. This implies the Earth ejected 1,450,000,000,000,000 times the mass of the current oceans. That's right, Terry; almost 1.5 quadrillion times our current oceans would need to be ejected to cover the solar system like your proposing. You really think it's more likely that 1.5 quadrillion oceans shot out into space than that one of the most common molecules is being commonly found? I guess it could be that God is trying to trick us so that we won't believe and we'll go to Hell (something He hates and doesn't want us to do but apparently likes trying to make us do). God is weird. Carlaugust (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Passive-Aggressive Andy, now with more passive aggression.[edit]
Another massive trim of Ken Krapimg camoflaged as a zero character nit-pick in some Karajou spam. Why is he unable to tell Kendoll to stop posting this insanity rather than spending time quietly removing it? Unfathomable cowardice. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- "[Andy Schlafly] has helped kill conservatism in America, by never allowing it to criticize itself. When journalism puts power above truth it isn't, to coin a phrase, "actual journalism". It's propaganda." - Andrew Sullivan Occasionaluse (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding one of Ken's removed edits... I don't know if North Korea is promoting atheism so much as promoting suffering and human rights abuses, and religion would get in the way of the god-dictator propaganda. Of course, this is Kendoll, so this entire edit is pretty much wasted effort. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 16:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's been trimming a lot in the last few days:
- Kenimg, Ken (?)img, Kenimg, Terry (!)img, Kenimg, Kenimg, Kenimg
- If I didn't know any better, I'd say Andy's getting tired of people crapping all over the main page. Cow...Hammertime! 17:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- What's this I see? Can it be the beginnings of a spine? Maybe one day some balls will plop out too. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 17:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- And yet MPL still looks like a cat's litter tray. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding one of Ken's removed edits... I don't know if North Korea is promoting atheism so much as promoting suffering and human rights abuses, and religion would get in the way of the god-dictator propaganda. Of course, this is Kendoll, so this entire edit is pretty much wasted effort. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 16:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am dumber for having read this[edit]
Here's a gem from Terry that Ken cited three times, as though each was a separate source. My personal favorite strawman of Terry's was the one about volcanoes on gas giants. I also liked his claim that Mercury is the hottest planet in the solar system.--Umichcynic (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Ack, I didn't realize that this already had a thread...sorry.--Umichcynic (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I don't get here, wouldn't it be easier just to say that God created water on Mercury, I mean if he created all the other elements there then what's so special about water? I don't know what the area of Mercury is compared to the area of the surface of the sphere that distance from earth, but it has to be minute compared to the volume of water there and the mass of the earth And I t presupposes that all the affected planets were the earth side of the sun at the time which should say something about the date i guess. Pretty scary that the country is being run by guys who are pandering to guys like this.
- Water's technically a compound, but you've got a point. What I want to know is what makes Mercury so special. I mean, Europa's surface is pretty much solid water ice with a decent chance of a liquid ocean underneath, according to current hypotheses. Did all that ice come from Earth as well? How much would it take to cover the rock and iron underneath? More to the point, would there be enough in this three quarter mile thick ocean underneath the surface of the Earth to let all that escape and still, with the help of the rainwater have enough to create a five and a half mile thick layer to cover up to the top of Everest? Localised to the Middle East, is there enough to cover Ararat? That's still a three and a half mile thick layer of water.
- What I'm getting at is that hydroplate theory sucks great big donkey dicks. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 13:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I recall reading somewhere that if the subsurface liquid ocean idea is correct, then the volume of water, combined with the water-ice crust would actually exceed the volume of Earth's oceans. --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mercury isn't special in this regard, if you read through the painful article, you will soon discover that he covers the Moon and Mars as well as well as any comet that exists today; no doubt this also includes any other cratered body and perhaps even all the water-ice worlds, although I am just speculating on the last part. But hey, he also claims the flood was responsible for much of the radioactive elements and isotopes found today as well as a tremendous explosion of free neutrons, so in short, its pissing all over physics.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've never understood the effort to shoehorn science into stuff like this. Stories like the flood are the absolute best place to throw in "god did it" as an explanation and I'd go "okay, that's internally consistent", but instead they try to come up with some science-y way for it to happen that's so ridiculous that a child would say "that's ridiculous". I honestly don't understand it. X Stickman (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right! If the Bible describes miracles, then they are miracles. Why explain them away with (pseudo-)scientific stories? For my own part, I consider myself a Christian and, as such, have to regard the alleged resurrection of Jesus as literally miraculous. Anyone who suggests that Jesus wasn't really dead, but merely comatose, should be considered a heretic per my understanding of Christianity. Similarly, anyone who believes in the literal flood (which I am not at all committed to -- we each decide what is central to the faith, after all) as a punishment from God shouldn't spend time showing how it is scientifically possible. Phiwum (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Its simple, if someone is skeptical and you just tell them "well its magic", which is what miracles really are, they will just dismiss you as not being able to explain it, (those who would accept such answers already most likely believe, so they need no convincing). However most people are pretty ignorant on the details when it comes to physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and so forth; so when you give them the BS treatment such as the hydroplate "theory", well its sounds scientific to the average Jane and John, so they think there is something to it. After all the media certainly messes up and mis-explains scientific discoveries and theories on a regular basis and most people just accept what they say as "fact".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I once asked Chucky why he tries to shoehorn science into his stories and not just go straight for 'goddidit', his answer was "economy of miracles". ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I once asked Chucky why he tries to shoehorn science into his stories and not just go straight for 'goddidit', his answer was "economy of miracles".
- Its simple, if someone is skeptical and you just tell them "well its magic", which is what miracles really are, they will just dismiss you as not being able to explain it, (those who would accept such answers already most likely believe, so they need no convincing). However most people are pretty ignorant on the details when it comes to physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and so forth; so when you give them the BS treatment such as the hydroplate "theory", well its sounds scientific to the average Jane and John, so they think there is something to it. After all the media certainly messes up and mis-explains scientific discoveries and theories on a regular basis and most people just accept what they say as "fact".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right! If the Bible describes miracles, then they are miracles. Why explain them away with (pseudo-)scientific stories? For my own part, I consider myself a Christian and, as such, have to regard the alleged resurrection of Jesus as literally miraculous. Anyone who suggests that Jesus wasn't really dead, but merely comatose, should be considered a heretic per my understanding of Christianity. Similarly, anyone who believes in the literal flood (which I am not at all committed to -- we each decide what is central to the faith, after all) as a punishment from God shouldn't spend time showing how it is scientifically possible. Phiwum (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've never understood the effort to shoehorn science into stuff like this. Stories like the flood are the absolute best place to throw in "god did it" as an explanation and I'd go "okay, that's internally consistent", but instead they try to come up with some science-y way for it to happen that's so ridiculous that a child would say "that's ridiculous". I honestly don't understand it. X Stickman (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mercury isn't special in this regard, if you read through the painful article, you will soon discover that he covers the Moon and Mars as well as well as any comet that exists today; no doubt this also includes any other cratered body and perhaps even all the water-ice worlds, although I am just speculating on the last part. But hey, he also claims the flood was responsible for much of the radioactive elements and isotopes found today as well as a tremendous explosion of free neutrons, so in short, its pissing all over physics.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I recall reading somewhere that if the subsurface liquid ocean idea is correct, then the volume of water, combined with the water-ice crust would actually exceed the volume of Earth's oceans. --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's an economy I'd like to study. How would it work? And also, does the miracle of the herrings count? --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 17:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've never been sure of indent etiquette on wikis I can agree with you to a certain extent, BMcP, but this is taking it to ridiculous levels. The "pressure of flood caused radioactive stuff and that explains carbon dating" (or whatever it is) thing, I can get behind. There's enough science words and "yeah that doesn't seem COMPLETELY insane" in that thing that I can see some people going "yeah, I'll go with that". But "water shot from earth into space and hit other planets, moons and comets and ignore that the bible doesn't mention this" is just absolutely batshit insane on such an obvious level that I can't see how anyone can actually say it with a straight face. I can't even think of a way to rebut it beyond just saying "that is stupid" because my brain refuses to even entertain the notion. X Stickman (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I don't get here, wouldn't it be easier just to say that God created water on Mercury, I mean if he created all the other elements there then what's so special about water? I don't know what the area of Mercury is compared to the area of the surface of the sphere that distance from earth, but it has to be minute compared to the volume of water there and the mass of the earth And I t presupposes that all the affected planets were the earth side of the sun at the time which should say something about the date i guess. Pretty scary that the country is being run by guys who are pandering to guys like this.
- If miracles are just science we don't understand I'm not sure how that proves God and not the other thing. --Sasayaki (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, oddly relevant, too: http://www.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html . I wonder if flood did THIS water too? --Sasayaki (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. That's left over primordial water. That's what the crystal dome "firmament" used to keep out. But since the universe has expanded since Creation Week, the firmament hasn't been required since the Flood. Hey, this BS is really easy to make up! Maybe I missed my calling. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, oddly relevant, too: http://www.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html . I wonder if flood did THIS water too? --Sasayaki (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Conservative Words, part 94[edit]
Did you know that inoculation is conservativeimg? Except when it protects young girls against cancer, of courseimg. Cardinal Fang (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly the whole "Best New Conservative Words" absurdity is my favorite bit on Conservapedia. It is such an obvious, blatant manipulation, and even flat out falsifying data in order to create a favorable outcome to fall in line with a preconceived belief that anyone can see through the thinly veiled pseudoscience just from a cursory look; thanks to Conservapedia's strict censorship of anyone that falter's from the party line though, Andy is able to perpetuate this farce as some sort of amazing statistical discovery.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Conservative Words list is pretty hard to beat for sheer lunacy. It's the example I use to show people that Andy is really crazy. Or at least really dumb. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 18:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Innoculating against disease is liberal. Innoculating against liberal claptrap is conservative. Still, I'd have thought they'd cancel each other out. Whoover (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- <Schwarzenegger Voice>Liberal claptrap is the disease. Conservapedia is the cure.</Schwarzenegger Voice>MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sample usage: Conservapedia inoculates against liberal claptrap. Oh my fuckin' God. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That cheered me up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am amazed the conservative words project hasn't died a death yet, especially since no one else besides Andy has shown more than a passing interest in it. I guess it's a bit too intellectual for Ken's taste... --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 09:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've added quite a few words to it over the years. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am amazed the conservative words project hasn't died a death yet, especially since no one else besides Andy has shown more than a passing interest in it. I guess it's a bit too intellectual for Ken's taste... --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 09:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sample usage: Conservapedia inoculates against liberal claptrap. Oh my fuckin' God. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That cheered me up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- <Schwarzenegger Voice>Liberal claptrap is the disease. Conservapedia is the cure.</Schwarzenegger Voice>MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Innoculating against disease is liberal. Innoculating against liberal claptrap is conservative. Still, I'd have thought they'd cancel each other out. Whoover (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Conservative Words list is pretty hard to beat for sheer lunacy. It's the example I use to show people that Andy is really crazy. Or at least really dumb. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 18:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I thought inoculation was impossible in 1721! Honestly, I can't keep up with AndyPandy's dizzying intellect. Beastiepaws (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Who's an insensitive git who loves to dance on graves?[edit]
Andy Schlafly is an insensitive git who loves to dance on graves. A horrible personal tragedy occurs. What to do? Blame atheismimg, of course! Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Was the guy even an atheist? Or is it just a jibe at atheist owners? But yeah, Schlafly is a mean prick. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 23:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the NFL didn't have an atheism problem, Tim Tebow would start every game, right? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Every game for every team. He'd be in two places at once because God. Or something. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Get with the programme. He wouldn't need to be in two places at once because of 'action at a distance'. Wait, is that blasphemy? --DamoHi 01:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- You would see the players form a large prayer circle during pregame warmups, much like the ones they perform after a player suffers a debilitating injury, but the godless lamestream media won't show it. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 01:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Get with the programme. He wouldn't need to be in two places at once because of 'action at a distance'. Wait, is that blasphemy? --DamoHi 01:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Every game for every team. He'd be in two places at once because God. Or something. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- If the NFL didn't have an atheism problem, Tim Tebow would start every game, right? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yeah Andy, the NFL is just so atheistic, that is why prayers happens all the time.
- Seriously Andy, just stop. You know nothing about the game or it's culture, you need to just stop.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now, now... when has ignorance of the topic under discussion ever stopped Andy from wading in with his opinion? Never. That's when. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just saw the Nascar video, and I really did LOL. Oh America, you always bring us the very best crazy - don't ever change. --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 18:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now, now... when has ignorance of the topic under discussion ever stopped Andy from wading in with his opinion? Never. That's when. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
What the hell does this even mean?[edit]
"The atheistic culture of the NFL continues to destroy lives, in contrast with college #1 Notre Dameimg". In contrast how? Because Notre Dame (my personal team) is ranked #1 in college football? Some team is always ranked number one in college football, even in the pre-season. Notre Dame players don't even gather in a circle with opponents after games and pray like they do often in the NFL; instead their tradition is to sing the fight song to the student's section. So I am not sure how the NFL is "atheistic" in comparison to the school or the NCAA in general, (which is made up of mostly atheistic universities by Il Duce's standards). I suppose because Notre Dame is Catholic, but you do not have to be Catholic, or even a theist to attend and I guarantee the coaches don't care what religion their players do or do not belong to. My only guess why Andy suddenly hates the NFL is because the league doesn't give enough fawning love to Andy's man crush, Tebow; it is the only rationalization I can come up with for this sudden bout of stupid.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, when I see players in a prayer circle, I think of atheistic culture. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 05:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Tebow Again[edit]
I'm still trying to figure out why Andy has such a hard on about Tebow? Is it solely the whole "wearing my religion on my sleeve" thing? The guy can barely throw a pass and even his own teammates have politely refused to support him for starter (except the guy who said flat out "he stinks") I figure the following three scenarios are probably most likely: 1. He legitimately likes Tebow as a player and thinks he's being unfairly targeted because of his religion. 2. He knows nothing about football or Tebow except that he's openly a conservative Christian so he skims the headlines to see if any sites mention him and then he rants and raves about bias. 3. His persecution complex has become so bad h seriously thinks the NFL is part of a grand liberal conspiracy to defame and marginalize Christian athletes and Tebow is simply the player he's picked to represent that. Oh yeah, since Andy forgot to mention, the Jets won today without playing Tebow. SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 04:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely 2 and 3. Probably 1 too. I mean, this is Andy Schlafly, not some significant intellect we're talking here. Trying to figure out his MO doesn't ever go beyond Conservative = good, liberal = bad, and its inverse of good = conservative, bad = liberal. DickTurpis (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men... But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen." Doctor Dark (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile, I wonder how those Broncos are doing with that overrated sports star Manning who Denver certainly only got to keep Colorado from going conservative and nothing to do with football; clearly they will stink without the golden child of Christianity at the helm! Oh wait, Denver already won their division with four weeks to go and manning is having an MVP year.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- A big helping 2 with lots of 3 sauce. Andy knows nothing about sports (Karajou is the big football fan there) so this isn't about Tebow as a player. If Tebow didn't make a public display of his religion, Andy would never have heard of him. SophieWilder 08:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised Karajou hasn't weighed in more on Tebow, given that he wrote: "What are the odds of Tebow throwing 316 yards in his team's victory over the Steelers? 10,000 to 1? A million to one? Or did God Himself make it happen?"img. Tebow can't be all that great a player if he requires divine intervention to win. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've often noticed that Andy seems to assume Tebow is as conservative as he is, but, to my knowledge, Tebow has refrained from comment on political issues, with the exception of making a pro-life commercial. It's possible that Tebow is a like reasonable portion of young evangelicals in that they take a more liberal stance on environmental issues and taking care of the least fortunate in society. (And wouldn't it be hilarious if Tebow actually did come out and say something like "we've got to fight global warming -- God only gave us one Earth and it's our duty to take good care of it!" Andy would drop Tebow like a proverbial hot potato.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Andy's love for Tebow warms my heart. What's funny here is that after years of claiming expertise in fields he shouldn't, Andy has finally found the subject he is truly most ignorant about... sports. To make matters worse, sports (football in particular) are something that many American know a great deal about. When Andy makes bizarre claims about relativity, there's probably be some yokels who read it and think, "makes sense to me." But literally no one will buy Andy's claims about the left wing conspiracy keeping his boy Tebow down. --Marlow (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've often noticed that Andy seems to assume Tebow is as conservative as he is, but, to my knowledge, Tebow has refrained from comment on political issues, with the exception of making a pro-life commercial. It's possible that Tebow is a like reasonable portion of young evangelicals in that they take a more liberal stance on environmental issues and taking care of the least fortunate in society. (And wouldn't it be hilarious if Tebow actually did come out and say something like "we've got to fight global warming -- God only gave us one Earth and it's our duty to take good care of it!" Andy would drop Tebow like a proverbial hot potato.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised Karajou hasn't weighed in more on Tebow, given that he wrote: "What are the odds of Tebow throwing 316 yards in his team's victory over the Steelers? 10,000 to 1? A million to one? Or did God Himself make it happen?"img. Tebow can't be all that great a player if he requires divine intervention to win. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- A big helping 2 with lots of 3 sauce. Andy knows nothing about sports (Karajou is the big football fan there) so this isn't about Tebow as a player. If Tebow didn't make a public display of his religion, Andy would never have heard of him. SophieWilder 08:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile, I wonder how those Broncos are doing with that overrated sports star Manning who Denver certainly only got to keep Colorado from going conservative and nothing to do with football; clearly they will stink without the golden child of Christianity at the helm! Oh wait, Denver already won their division with four weeks to go and manning is having an MVP year.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men... But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen." Doctor Dark (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better: Will Schlafly change his principles if the right wing "goes liberal"[edit]
Ok, I am aware this is a highly unlikely scenario, but bear with me. What if the republicans go even further right next election, and end up losing worse than ever, and thus go far left on social issyes (under the cover of libertarianism) in order to stand a chance of surviving, adopting pro choice, pro gay, pro women, pro science, and pro secular positions as their "defining principles", and even the most outspoken wingnuts like WND, Anne Coulter and others kowtowing and "celebrating" this change so they can continue having some vague influence.
What would Andy do? would he (for once) stick with his guns and try to remain a bastion of "true conservative machismo", or would he fold like he did with Romney and claim each of these principles as being "inherently conservative"? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 05:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The wingnuts would just leave with the rest of the righters and form the conservative party or some such nonsense, and andy would support them while decrying the final death of the republican party to RINO's. --Mikal Harass Follow 05:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's the old dilemma of American conservatism. Which fucked up dystopian fantasy is more important - Atlas Shrugged or the Bible? I don't think it's completely off the radar that the GOP would dump on the Religious nuts if it thought it would win by doing so. However, one thing that always annoys me is that a lot of people misinterpret the Lolbertarian position. Exactly like the GOP, their first and only concern is looking after people with at least seven figure incomes, and this interest shares common ground with socially right wing positions more often than not. Opposition to funding for planned parenthood, opposition to universal healthcare, Terry's forays into constitutionalism, rants about the "moochers" vs "makers" and all that shit are all shared ground between Randroids and Social Conservatives. I don't think it'd be that hard for Andy to swap the Bible for Rand (whilst still claiming to be Christian, of course). Or you could just twist the Bible to suit your new found Randroid side by re-translating it in a "conservative" light, but what kind of True Believer would do that? Oh, what.... --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 08:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Andy would never support a Republican Party that turned its back on everything he holds dear. The more likely Orwellian scenario is that, in an "Oceania has always been at war with East Asia" way, Andy would claim that he had never supported the wishy-washy Republican Party in his life. He might even make some old pages that suggested that he had vanish, although he'd probably just hope that nobody would look at them.--Spud (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true. I think the Republican party has people like him so well trained that he'll salivate on cue whenever they ring. To demonstrate, just watch the CNAV crew. See how today they're bitching about how the Republicans have betrayed them so it's time for a third party. They say this now, but six months before the midterm elections, it'll be like all this never happened. They'll be angry about all the "scandals" ginned up by the Republicans, and they'll be voting for the candidates they're told to vote for just like good little boys and girls. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Quick reply to the "they say this now, but six months..." comment: Of course they will. Their short attention spans mean that this'll all be forgotten (
probablyhopefully by late Spring), and their preference to whine as opposed to actually organize and work means that even if they remembered, they have no viable alternatives (I predict any breakaway right-wing parties would fail to achieve much momentum before being abandoned, at least that election cycle) to their hated New-GOP. The alternative would be siding with icky Democrats. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 05:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Quick reply to the "they say this now, but six months..." comment: Of course they will. Their short attention spans mean that this'll all be forgotten (
- Andy has always been on the right fringes of the Republican party, evidenced by his willingness to throw just about anybody under the bus and declare them a RINO if they deviate from his ideology. If the party moves to the left in an attempt to stay relevant, probably by softening its stance on immigration (which it probably will), Andy will bitch and moan and he may declare the perpetrators ideological traitors, but the moment it brings the party success (which it probably will) he will declare "conservative victory." A fundamental part of Andy's worldview is that conservatism is advancing at a geometric rate. He will find evidence of this anywhere he can and a Republican victory, even one based on a more liberal platform, would serve just fine. --Marlow (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Remember how fast Romney went from RINO to conservative to RINO? Andy and rightwing fundamentalists will settle. As long as republican politicians have a fundie dog whistle, most fundies will eventually side with whoever is not a democrat. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's true. I think the Republican party has people like him so well trained that he'll salivate on cue whenever they ring. To demonstrate, just watch the CNAV crew. See how today they're bitching about how the Republicans have betrayed them so it's time for a third party. They say this now, but six months before the midterm elections, it'll be like all this never happened. They'll be angry about all the "scandals" ginned up by the Republicans, and they'll be voting for the candidates they're told to vote for just like good little boys and girls. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Andy would never support a Republican Party that turned its back on everything he holds dear. The more likely Orwellian scenario is that, in an "Oceania has always been at war with East Asia" way, Andy would claim that he had never supported the wishy-washy Republican Party in his life. He might even make some old pages that suggested that he had vanish, although he'd probably just hope that nobody would look at them.--Spud (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's the old dilemma of American conservatism. Which fucked up dystopian fantasy is more important - Atlas Shrugged or the Bible? I don't think it's completely off the radar that the GOP would dump on the Religious nuts if it thought it would win by doing so. However, one thing that always annoys me is that a lot of people misinterpret the Lolbertarian position. Exactly like the GOP, their first and only concern is looking after people with at least seven figure incomes, and this interest shares common ground with socially right wing positions more often than not. Opposition to funding for planned parenthood, opposition to universal healthcare, Terry's forays into constitutionalism, rants about the "moochers" vs "makers" and all that shit are all shared ground between Randroids and Social Conservatives. I don't think it'd be that hard for Andy to swap the Bible for Rand (whilst still claiming to be Christian, of course). Or you could just twist the Bible to suit your new found Randroid side by re-translating it in a "conservative" light, but what kind of True Believer would do that? Oh, what.... --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 08:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Terry goes to the movies[edit]
OK, conspiracy theory, Barack is a usurper, yada yada yada. But I couldn't read the opening paragraph of Chucky's latest without laughing. A "nearly forgotten" movie called "Revenge of the Sith"? Maybe we /wish/ we could forget it, but jesus Chuckarse, you're talking about Star Wars. Does anyone else think he hasn't actually seen the damn thing? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Reading all the way to the bottom (which isn't something I usually do...shudder), I kinda think that he has seen the movie, but missed the point completely. His real error is saying that liberty is somehow equivalent to allowing corporations to exploit natural resources, drive prices and endanger the public the health. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's kind of consistent for him, he does seem to view liberty as the ability to make life shitty for everyone else. I seem to remember when he was bitching about all the liberty lost under Obama, when challenged to name one liberty lost all he could come up with boiled down to the liberty of poor people not to have healthcare. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
So...energy, a sector that Obama is supposedly working tirelessly to destroy, is going to experience a massive boom. To continue this boom, the energy industry is going to pay a fee to Obama himself (for some reason). Obama will then use this fee to convince 2/3 of the Republican controlled House to propose and pass a constitutional amendment letting him be president again. Obama will then convince 38 of the states, to ratify that amendment, despite the fact that 15 states voted for Romney by 15 points or more. Seems legit. Carlaugust (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I think that what Terry has been watching is this, from Porter Stansberry. It turned up in my inbox and basically says that in the next couple of years there will be a massive dividend for the US from shale oil, which could return Obama to an unprecedented third term because of the largesse that he will be able to dole out. Генгисunbelieving 21:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did Porter Stansberry's people pass high school civics class? Also, serving three terms would not be unprecedented.--Seth Peck (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Considering there's a video from the Alex Jones conspiracy organ embedded in the page, I think we can deduce the level of scholarship and critical thinking that has gone in to this particular tale of Obama evil. Again I have to wonder if in four years' time Obama hands over the reins to another president peacefully, without having first collectivized industry or beheading the rich, will Terry admit he was wrong and apologize? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jeeves: In other improbable news, bears use public conveniences and His Holiness admits to being the Anti-Christ. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can I just point out that, for once, Tossbum has one sensible answer in his end-of-blog poll. Scroll down to the bottom to find it (quickly, so you don't have to read the blog itself). Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Considering there's a video from the Alex Jones conspiracy organ embedded in the page, I think we can deduce the level of scholarship and critical thinking that has gone in to this particular tale of Obama evil. Again I have to wonder if in four years' time Obama hands over the reins to another president peacefully, without having first collectivized industry or beheading the rich, will Terry admit he was wrong and apologize? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did Porter Stansberry's people pass high school civics class? Also, serving three terms would not be unprecedented.--Seth Peck (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I think that what Terry has been watching is this, from Porter Stansberry. It turned up in my inbox and basically says that in the next couple of years there will be a massive dividend for the US from shale oil, which could return Obama to an unprecedented third term because of the largesse that he will be able to dole out.
The poll is pretty tame. I'm used to (a) Obama is Hitler, (b) Obama is Stalin, or (c) Obama is Hitler and Stalin's baby. I love that the "C'mon, you idiot" option is winning in a landslide. Carlaugust (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why, but Terry's attempt to dodge placing a real wager on his bullshit predictions made me laugh harder than I have in days.
“”If you really had $50K US to lay on a wager like that, I’d advise you to keep quiet about it. Because sooner or later this government will find some way to confiscate any wealth denominated in US dollars. You’re talking about wagering money. I’m wagering my liberty.
|
| —Terry Hurlbut |
- How melodramatic can you get? I can't even begin to parse sense out of this. What he meant to say is, "sorry, Fergus, but I'm a coward and not nearly as certain as I claim". For some reason it came out, "Obama will make martyrs of us all". -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Ask him what amount he's willing to wager.Oops. Been done. Phiwum (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)- He said that he thought there's a 50% chance his prediction comes true. (It's not clear whether he means all of his predictions, or just the first part, where Obama tries to repeal the amendment.) This means that he should be indifferent if the odds offered are 1:1, but, of course, some people are naturally risk-averse. Certainly, I wouldn't wager any large sum of money at 1:1 odds given that I believe I have a 50% chance to win. So, sweeten the pot. Make his wager smaller and improve the odds to, say, 2:1 in his favor. Would he wager $500 in order to win $1000? In order to win $5000 even? (After all, we all think the probability is far less than 10%, and so should be willing to offer 10:1 odds in his favor.) Phiwum (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- He said the chance is at least 50%. So he's probably leaning towards better than even odds. Like you, I don't know if that means one specific prediction, all of, or merely any of his predictions. I think even if you give him 10:1 odds against any one of them coming true, he's still going to bluster about his freedom being the higher stakes, so he doesn't have to make any agreements or wager anything tangible. Healthcare reform cost him his freedom to die of cancer in a cardboard box, and by similar rationalizations, if any random Democrat wins in 2016, that will be cast as the spiritual continuation of the Obama dictatorship. Therefore, CNAV Proven Right. Hell, a moderate Republican or any non-wingnut candidate could probably be paranoiaed into the same framework. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's the the thing with Terry and Porter Stansberry's prediction. While Obama will obviously not run for a third term under virtually any circumstances, there's a pretty good chance another Democrat will win in 2016. No matter who it is, these people will claim they're an Obama puppet: Obama's Dmitry Medvedev. Someone like Stansberry makes a living by making sweep predictions ("an unprecedented fourth term for Obama"), while leaving himself an easy outs; any Democrat can win and he'll claim he was right. Just a year or two ago he was claiming a Obama fueled global economic collapse was on its way, now he says an economic boom. I don't get why anyone listens to these people. --Marlow (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- He said the chance is at least 50%. So he's probably leaning towards better than even odds. Like you, I don't know if that means one specific prediction, all of, or merely any of his predictions. I think even if you give him 10:1 odds against any one of them coming true, he's still going to bluster about his freedom being the higher stakes, so he doesn't have to make any agreements or wager anything tangible. Healthcare reform cost him his freedom to die of cancer in a cardboard box, and by similar rationalizations, if any random Democrat wins in 2016, that will be cast as the spiritual continuation of the Obama dictatorship. Therefore, CNAV Proven Right. Hell, a moderate Republican or any non-wingnut candidate could probably be paranoiaed into the same framework. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- He said that he thought there's a 50% chance his prediction comes true. (It's not clear whether he means all of his predictions, or just the first part, where Obama tries to repeal the amendment.) This means that he should be indifferent if the odds offered are 1:1, but, of course, some people are naturally risk-averse. Certainly, I wouldn't wager any large sum of money at 1:1 odds given that I believe I have a 50% chance to win. So, sweeten the pot. Make his wager smaller and improve the odds to, say, 2:1 in his favor. Would he wager $500 in order to win $1000? In order to win $5000 even? (After all, we all think the probability is far less than 10%, and so should be willing to offer 10:1 odds in his favor.) Phiwum (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Where ice comes from in freezers[edit]
I don't know what's more depressing: That Ken doesn't know how freezers work, or that I'm not at all surprised that he said that. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 04:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that was Ken trying to make a funny, but like most of his attempts at humor, the only reaction it can possibly elicit is not a laugh but a "huh?" DickTurpis (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Huh?" is definitely my reaction. Maybe Ken doesn't know about water vapour, or maybe Ken thinks that interplanetary space is full of water vapour, or maybe Ken just discovered anti-humour and thinks his ice question is the new "No soap radio". Really it's our fault for trying to make sense of it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was going to reply that air at 75°F, 14.7 psi and 50%RH contains 7 oz water per cubic foot of air (using American Customary Units as KdM wouldn't accept a reply in liberal SI units). More than enough to frost the inside of your freezer. CS Miller (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hoo boy that seems really off to me. I get more like 0.128 oz (weight) of water per cubic foot of air at those conditions, relying on online calculators.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ah my bad. I took this graph wp:File:Relative_Humidity.png (from wp:Relative_humidity). For some reason I misconverted the Y-scale as kg water/kg air not g/kg. Reading it correctly gives around 0.3 oz/ft3. Serves me right for not triple checking and explaining my reasoning to someone else. CS Miller (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hoo boy that seems really off to me. I get more like 0.128 oz (weight) of water per cubic foot of air at those conditions, relying on online calculators.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that ice in freezers comes about through intelligent design--that is, someone was intelligent enough to fill the ice cube tray after emptying it, or they were intelligent enough to hook up the water intake hose to the back and the intelligently-designed ice-maker makes it for you. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the discussion here has been about the ice that forms on the evaporator coil, which deposits from water vapor in the air. It's not clear what kind of freezer ice Conservative was referring to. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was going to reply that air at 75°F, 14.7 psi and 50%RH contains 7 oz water per cubic foot of air (using American Customary Units as KdM wouldn't accept a reply in liberal SI units). More than enough to frost the inside of your freezer. CS Miller (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Huh?" is definitely my reaction. Maybe Ken doesn't know about water vapour, or maybe Ken thinks that interplanetary space is full of water vapour, or maybe Ken just discovered anti-humour and thinks his ice question is the new "No soap radio". Really it's our fault for trying to make sense of it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Allais Effect[edit]
I just saw on CP's Relativity page that they added the Allais Effect. Has anyone else only ever heard about the Allais Effect in the context of "Don't make measurements more precise than your equiptment can actually measure, or you'll report something important that just turns out to be noise"? Carlaugust (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- My favorite is still #44, the failure to explain earthquakes in Ireland. Since earthquakes are clear proof of Young Earth because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they also disprove the liberal claptrap of relativity. Whoover (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Essentially, but I don't know if Allais did it on purpose. He "measured" a strange precession, but later it was pretty much figured out that he had insufficient controls and instruments. (I will admit two things: (a) I don't know much about the Allais Effect, so someone correct me if I'm misremember, and (b) that was a terribly worded sentence, so do your best to read my mind and figure out what I meant.) Carlaugust (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Would the effect be applicable to creationists and radiocarbon dating? Генгисmarauding 20:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seth, recording and reporting data more accurately than it can be measured is sadly rather common in science. I've seen plenty of cases where people have taken, say, three measurements accurate to 1 decimal place and reported a mean accurate to 4 or 5 d.p., when the fact that there are only 3 data mean that even a second d.p. in the mean is probably invalid. Allais is by no means alone in reporting something which would have been very interesting if it had been real but was in fact an artefact of excessive accuracy. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's not really a problem if the error bars are tracked and reported. For example, if there are measurements of 1, 0.5, 1, and 1, the mean is 7/8, so it's not improper to report the mean as 0.875 even though the uncertainty is larger than a few thousandths. If the result is mentioned in conversation apart from a description of the uncertainty, 0.9 would be more appropriate, but rounding to 0.9 in the full analysis would skew the reported probability curve 1/40 from what the data actually says. That may not matter depending on the context, but I wouldn't say that not doing it is sad. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, it does depend on the context. It's a little hard to argue about a dataset made up to demonstrate a specific point but if you were reporting an experiment in which data could be measured to accuracy of 0.1, the mean should be recorded as 0.9 or possibly 0.88. Arithmetically, the mean is exactly equal to 0.875 but if the additional decimal places don't matter, you might as well say it's 0.875 000 000 000. Anyway, the point about the Allais effect is that being excessively precise can make it awkward to interpret a statistical report, and that you can't use such an analysis to say that there's a flaw in something as fundamental as general relatively. (I have similar conversations with students about once a week...) Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's not really a problem if the error bars are tracked and reported. For example, if there are measurements of 1, 0.5, 1, and 1, the mean is 7/8, so it's not improper to report the mean as 0.875 even though the uncertainty is larger than a few thousandths. If the result is mentioned in conversation apart from a description of the uncertainty, 0.9 would be more appropriate, but rounding to 0.9 in the full analysis would skew the reported probability curve 1/40 from what the data actually says. That may not matter depending on the context, but I wouldn't say that not doing it is sad. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seth, recording and reporting data more accurately than it can be measured is sadly rather common in science. I've seen plenty of cases where people have taken, say, three measurements accurate to 1 decimal place and reported a mean accurate to 4 or 5 d.p., when the fact that there are only 3 data mean that even a second d.p. in the mean is probably invalid. Allais is by no means alone in reporting something which would have been very interesting if it had been real but was in fact an artefact of excessive accuracy. Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Would the effect be applicable to creationists and radiocarbon dating?
What a sad, missed opportunity.[edit]
I see that Conservative just deletedimg a spam article titled "Discover ways to over come persistent insomnia and wake up refreshed every morning". Sure, I imagine it was a link to a bit of internet quackery, but given Conservative's long issues with sleep deprivation, maybe he should have considered looking into that one, no? Phiwum (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Say, speaking of which, how come Conservapedia gets so much more spam activity than RW? Any ideas? Phiwum (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- We used to have a lot more but some anti-spam measures were implemented. Генгисevolving 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we can raise funds for the RW foundation through a paid consulting gig to fix their spam problem. Perhaps even install the embed video extension Kendoll is so itching to ruin the wiki with. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I am chomping at the bit for CP to install the embedded video filter. Could you imagine MPL and MPR under Ken's control, with a dozen autoplaying YouTube videos each? ShockOfGoat's videos going up on MPL every time they're made? My fictional God, it would be worse than MySpace. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we can raise funds for the RW foundation through a paid consulting gig to fix their spam problem. Perhaps even install the embed video extension Kendoll is so itching to ruin the wiki with. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- We used to have a lot more but some anti-spam measures were implemented.
Even Andy Schlafly is not stupid enough to let that happen. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 01:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Andy is also not man enough to tell Ken that he won't let it happen. Phiwum (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy can't even remember his message.[edit]
I thought the whole point about Tebow was that he's a sports legend being kept in his place by the liberal media and atheistic NFL. But now, Andy asks, "Why aren't there as many atheist sports stars [as Christian sports stars]?". Geez, first, atheists are ruling the NFL and not letting Christians play. Now, Christians are dominating the game. What the hell? Phiwum (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, there's a new Tebow. And this one is hip enough to use Tweeterimg! Whoover (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't confuse "unable to remember" with "unwilling to remember". The latter is convenient when something you said in the past contradicts whatever half-aborted brain fart hit the inside of your skull hard enough to be posted on The Trusworthy Encyclopedia. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 05:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Andy has been fairly consistent on this front. He believes that most athletes are Christians and/or conservatives. Some claptrap about sports being a meritocracy and all, and how much godless liberals hate that. Anyway, should an athlete prove to be insufficiently christian or conservative, then they'll make Andy's stupid "overrated sports stars" list. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well now it is going to be all about RG3 (Robert Griffin III) since he makes obvious prayer gestures in the endzone after touchdowns as wellimg. Amazing that an atheist institution such as the NFL allows for all these prayer circles after games, and Christian gesturing in the endzone, what next, John 3:16 signs in the stands? Oh wait...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Best New Conservative Words also includes Worst New Liberal Words. Andy just added gravy train, contrasting it with the work ethic, but "gravy train" isn't a pejorative. It's describing a sweet situation. Even "coolant" has a better argument as a conservative term than "gravy train". Phiwum (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Fantasy Obama League[edit]
Looky, looky, a new Hurlbutism dissecting the moves of a president who doesn't exist. You know, that fantasy Obama who is already plotting his way to being declared maximum dictator for life. The marxist who wants to take your guns and precious bodily fluids. The more I read of this, the more I wonder if it's Terry who doesn't exist, but rather communiques purporting to be from him just ping in to existence from an alternate dimension. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, he's just walking back his prediction of the Obama coup d'etat. It was the sanish bits of his brain declaring he needed an out. Hence, Obama has blown his chances at being Stalin. Whoover (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Further proof of just how utterly obsessed with hating obama these freaks are. Hurly's co nutjobs at every level, from a basement dwelling machete sharpening psycho to those like Gohmert in Washington, are convinced that big bad sandmonkey Obama is directly responsible for everything bad about america, and is actively planning to destroy everything they love. Thats why hes condemned for (among other things) being under the control of the Muslim brotherhood/Al-Qaeda (because he did not initiate Mccarthyite purges of all Muslims from america or declare war on enough muslim countries), being a radical communist/stalinist dictator (because he makes a few halfhearted gestures to make healthcare more availiable), being a UN Dictator (because he apparently agreed with a convention opposing selling arms to third world dictators), wanting to force reparations from whites (because hes black), wanting to ban Christianity (for the aforementioned lack of ethnic cleansing/mass internment of non christians) etc. All of these once separate wingnut conspiracy theories have now been fixed on Obama because they can't find enough actual reasons, even by fundie logic, to justify their hatred and thus actively strive to simply make things up and spew them as fact.
- The reasoning for this desperate need to demonize Obama and the Left is because self important, faux tough guy fucks like Hurly want their perceived enemies to be as utterly evil and dangerous as they are massively and magnificently heroic and righteous (in their mind). The "heroic resistance fighters" and "chosen men" of god cant look very heroic if their Nemesis is just some guy vaguely left of them politically. He has to be pure, alien, and traitorous evil who is worthy of their foaming-at-the-mouth rage, and thus they fix every one of the many schizophrenic conspiracy theories in their heads onto him, posing him as their own personal nemesis responsible for all evil and who they personally must defeat.
- This delusional thinking is actually quite fascinating when you think about it, as it seems a likely consequence of them deifying their conservatism as the ultimate, god inspired source of good to such a degree that any who oppose or dissent must logically be utterly evil and/or brainwashed. I also think this type of inane idiocy should be given it's own name or something. Maybe "Nemesis complex" or something (though that sounds like a level in a survival horror game so maybe not). Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's wrong with "paranoia"? Whoover (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, it seems the sheer amount of demonization fundies spew at those who happen to dissent merits it's own term. Especially when it is seemingly accepted as fact, and repeated by their government representatives (maybe it should just be called "brainless demonization") Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's wrong with "paranoia"? Whoover (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This reminds me of one of my favorite things to do to right-wingers; ask them, SPECIFICALLY, what spending and taxes Obama has proposed and signed into law that they think are outrageous. I get a lot "Oh, c'mon, there's so many" and "food stamps", neither of which are even close to an answer. Why do you need reason why you have so much hate? Either Obama is trying to be president for life, or he's failing at trying to be president for life. Carlaugust (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not that long ago, I was talking to a old boy in Cornwall about how he had been in London once, in the 1960s, and had never been back. "I've never been so scared in my life", he said, "there were so many darkies". Think Idi Amin, think Bokassa, think Shaka Zulu, think a thousand stereotypes in cheap movies in a Norman Rockwell painting - the wingnuts don't need specifics. London Grump (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- After one of Terry's "Obama's coming for my guns!" rants, I asked something like, "There was been one change in Federal gun policy under Obama. Did it expand or restrict gun rights?" He didn't answer it; I'm not sure if he even allowed it to be posted. The answer, as you might guess, is that the change expanded gun rights; guns are now allowed in national parks. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Johnny Manziel[edit]
Andy has decreed that some guy named Johnny Manziel is "likely to become the first freshman ever to win the Heisman Trophy".
Andy's new man-crush is presumably due to the fact that Saint Timothy of ColoradoNew York said something nice about him and that he has quoted the Bible on his Twitter account.
Now, it does seem he is a top candidate. But really, you have to know if he doesn't win, Andy will declare "the liberal media denied Manziel his rightful Heisman trophy..." MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Andy is now my sports pundit of the year. SophieWilder 12:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even liberal ESPN is saying "Johnny Football" is the likely winner. But one of the other top candidates goes to a catholic school (Notre Dame), so Andy has a good chance of being happy either way. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 20:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- And the third candidate (Collin Klein) also tweeted "To God be the glory", so there you have it. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 20:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which confirms that American Footie is run by a bunch of atheists (see above). Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- And the third candidate (Collin Klein) also tweeted "To God be the glory", so there you have it. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 20:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even liberal ESPN is saying "Johnny Football" is the likely winner. But one of the other top candidates goes to a catholic school (Notre Dame), so Andy has a good chance of being happy either way. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 20:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"Footie". Tee-hee. I gotta quote the Simpsons - "That's some language you got there. And you talk like that 24/7, huh?" Carlaugust (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- We certainly do, old chap. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Getting the Most from an Article Without Reading[edit]
Interesting article on health care. It and the follow-up are about:
"Dr. Delos Cosgrove, the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic. In the Presidential debates, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney mentioned the hospital as a model of innovation and of how to bring healthcare costs down."
He discusses many interesting approaches on the how we might rein in health care costs, by changing the incentives, using data technology, doing more at pharmacies, etc.
Andy's summary: "The harmful impact of ObamaCare is beginning to be felt". Whoover (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it's redundant to point out the "see ten patients at a time" lump of moose shit Andy drops next to the link he didn't read. At least, I didn't see anything even close to that when I skimmed. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 21:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Part of the solution is getting the most out of doctors. Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr. Delos Cosgrove told us that his hospital does it with things like group visits. Doctors will see 10 people with the same problem at the same time, so they don't duplicate advice and effort." So it's there. it's just in a part talking about the shortage of doctors for primary care as an example of something already being done, not a response to Obamacare. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this dark nightmare from our future is called a Support Group. I suspect Andy's image is of him in a roomfull of men being assured their problem is nothing to be ashamed of and is easily treated with a little blue pill. Whoover (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or, because Obama's all about the homosexuals and everything, a room full of men all getting their prostate exams together, because that's what lieberals want to do to America, isn't it?! ... Okay, I'm felling better now *burp* sorry about that. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 05:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this dark nightmare from our future is called a Support Group. I suspect Andy's image is of him in a roomfull of men being assured their problem is nothing to be ashamed of and is easily treated with a little blue pill. Whoover (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Part of the solution is getting the most out of doctors. Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr. Delos Cosgrove told us that his hospital does it with things like group visits. Doctors will see 10 people with the same problem at the same time, so they don't duplicate advice and effort." So it's there. it's just in a part talking about the shortage of doctors for primary care as an example of something already being done, not a response to Obamacare. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
In related news, an article about major strikes in Spain over cuts and privatization of its national hospital system prompts Andy to announce that the situation there resembles "America's future under Obamacare". 184.61.193.172 (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The family-friendly encyclopedia.[edit]
"Whores.img" Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like Ken's going off on an anti-British kick again. I wonder what brought that on.--Spud (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think he's just dejected because some of his fellow evolution-questioners sat him down and explained to him he was delusional, now he really has nothing to do. He posted an FYI in the wee small hours of this morning, for all of two minutes so we couldn't actually read it. Though from the deletion log I guess it was more hurr hurr, evolutionists r fat! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Poor babby. No one pays attention to him unless he's a complete arsehole. So, WHORES.img. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- His new paradigm of the non-whoring ideal: the Amish. Ken now has more in common with Al Queda's view of the perfect society than just about any anyone. If only we would eschew the corrupting influence of everything invented in the last few hundred years, we'd be so much better off. Whoover (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- They don't call them the American Taliban for nothing. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it's well known that sexual abuse of children in Amish communities is a lot more serious than most people make out, as well as other issues such as domestic violence (something CP doesn't care about unless it's gays doing it), rape within marriage (something Andy flat out insists isn't real), and other such things. They also deal with these issues extremely poorly (the focus is on the perpetrator's repentance, they have a two-week shunning, then have to make a public confession and all is forgiven). --Sasayaki (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone should remind Cons that prostitution is legal in parts of the USA, unlike the UK.
[edit]
Andy's ongoing stealth purge of question evolution bilge continues apace. I love the pathetic little pretexts he comes up with to hide his true intentions. Andy and Ken are a pair, that's for sure. Lily-liver and lil'-brain. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ken, I know you're reading this. Stand up for yourself! Install the video-app creationist Conservatives across the planet are crying out for. Add auto-playing videos on the main page. Or even better, try to replace MPL/MPR with your blog again. Don't back down from wimpy Catholic bullies! You're a tough, manly Protestant, so act like it! --Sasayaki (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I notice that there was a bunch of Chucky's CNAV spam in that trim. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I lament that this is what "trim" means on RW. Or anywhere. 07:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I should think you'd be thankful that this is the only trim Kendoll is getting. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I lament that this is what "trim" means on RW. Or anywhere.
- I notice that there was a bunch of Chucky's CNAV spam in that trim.
...But how long will Andy keep a "Gentlemen!" shout out on the front page of the wiki?img Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jeez, Andy didn't even let this one drift down half a page like he usually does. Instead, he just completely overwritesimg Ken's top-of-the-newsfeed SoG spam. What is the point of keeping this guy as a sysop for so long when you have to constantly mop up the shit he dumps all over the main page of your website?--BigHotKarl (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then wham! Another 3 QE turds flushed away. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 04:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then wham! Another 3 QE turds flushed away.
