Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive36

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <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)

Abortion Deceit

from cp:Abortion deceit: "[liberals claim] Abortion saves money. IN FACT, most people make far more money than they save, and eliminating a life is very costly economically." Is it just me or does that statement not make any sense? - Icewedge 15:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you change the "save" from "more money than they save" to "spend" or "require" and read the "money" in "make far more money" metaphorically, it becomes an argument against overpopulation, basically saying that the would-be individual would benefit the economy enough to justify its expenses. Its a pretty weak argument but it might make sense in Assfly's mind.

And apparently, every single STD causes infertility. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 15:55, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I love that he strung together the "1/10th of girls have STDs" with abortions somehow. It's like a summary of everything Andy hates, pieced together with no rhyme or reason. Hey, it's like the entire rest of Conservapedia!-αmεσ (advocate) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

See also: The Three Stooges, Britney Spears, Liberal sex

Genghis ^Marauding 16:22, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

That article reminds me of those weird "cross your eyes and stare until you see the sailboat" pictures - I could never make any sense out of those, either. --Sid 17:38, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I just clicked the source link for the "abortion has led to 25% of girls having sexually transmitted diseases" claim, and I saw this paragraph fairly close to the top:

“”Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and teens' own sense of invulnerabilty.

God, it's incredible how far Andy can spin stuff. --Sid 18:01, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I lol'd at this:

Aren't #5-#8 pretty much the same thing? Maybe they could be condensed into one item? (...) --RossC 16:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree that #5 and #8 are similar, but pro-abortion types don't care about logic and deny it. Don't ask me how! They don't care if they make sense.--Aschlafly 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [1]

NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 19:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

(I switched the wikilinks in the quote to CP ones --Sid 19:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT))

And yet another one - Andy cites his own "Legal Implications of a Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer" essay thingy in the article? That's effectively saying "I say it is so, and the source to back up my claim is me saying that it is so!" --Sid 19:36, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, did you say it at a dinner conversation? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 19:40, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Hah, good one! Is that actually still in that article? *checks* Oh God, yes it is. --Sid 19:43, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Sigh, someone could do with reading WP:RS. - Icewedge 02:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ides of March

Not only was it late and totally underwhelming, but did you notice that Ken took seven bloody edits just to write that lame front page blurb? --Kels 17:12, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Seven is actually pretty good for Conservative... he's clearly improving! ;) But yeah, that's extremely underwhelming. Even though their front page links to the "Baby Got Back" parody/homage "Baby Got Book", which I find quite entertaining. --Sid 17:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Do you ever wonder why Ken can never keep his own schedules? I find it hard to imagine the desperate behind the scenes negotiations that go in to these pathetic little link exchanges he is so fond of organising. What d'ya reckon he's trading, a surreptitious blowjob in the alley around back? A rare mint king james first edition collectors guide? --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 18:02, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Apparently Ken's latest rant was addressed to only one of us. Which of us is that gentleman?-αmεσ (advocate) 18:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, how hard can it be to fire off an email and say, "hey, we have some articles that are right up your alley, can you fix us up with a link"? Usually that sort of thing is accomplished in a day or two, but it always takes Ken at least a month. And wasn't he told before to stop making deals with other sites? --Kels 18:34, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

"How are you gentlemen?!?" was exactly what I was thinking when I read that. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 18:38, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I just love it when he does that with sites that are beneath his own in traffic. Also, we know how difficult it is to work with him, so the timeline seems eminently reasonable.-αmεσ (advocate) 18:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Ides of March, ETA: May NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 18:48, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe he actually created a sub-page to send us a message. Why didn't he just edit here? Or unblock us and let us all converse all over the internets? Oh, nevermind... human 22:12, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

ScotusWiki

Hey, TerryH! You gonna apply your magic rule to articles like Peter LaBarbera and Americans For Truth? You know, the guy and site that (according to Conservative) are important enough to deserve their very own section in the Homosexuality article? (Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that "Americans For Truth" once linked to CP's Homosexuality article... nuh-uh, no sir!)

Or how about John Rook and his Hit Parade Hall of Fame (both written by... John Rook)?

Or is that just another rule to censor all things that might make CP sysops uncomfortable? No, wait... don't answer that. ;) --Sid 19:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

My favorite about that whole thing was how he banned a user for blanking a page, when the page was, as the user said, a wikipedia copy-αmεσ (advocate) 19:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

It's Fair Use then! Fair Use solves everything! --Sid 19:38, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Crocoite doesn't like me

Crocoite just wrote this on Andy's talk page: I do NOT support night editing by DLerner. If any of the interested parties wants to know why I don't support DLerner, send me an email.

I think he knows about my affair with you good people. I replied telling him to say what he wants on Andy's page, I also sent him an E-mail. Anybody know of any other way I could have pissed him off? The user formerly known as DLerner 21:12, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Disagreeing. Being left of Mussolini. Existing. Those things seem to really drive him nuts. --Kels 21:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

And to think that I thought #15 on this list protected me. I have never been a vandal! The user formerly known as DLerner 21:23, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

You haven't given him your full name,your relative's and your boss', plus your address, phone, car plate number and/or credit card numbers. In addition, you disagreed with Ed, he doesn't mind but that means you might disagree with the others, that's too far a risk to take. You disagreed with Andy's Awesome Articles such as Liberal Friendship. You've edited vandal-targets such as Gay Bomb or Illegal Drugs. At this rate you'll get edit rights when you become a republican senator or marry one of Schlafly's family (and no, John Schlafly doesn't count.) NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:40, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

...and even then, you'd be constantly monitored. --Sid 21:44, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Crocoite is one of the most insufferable, incorrigible douches on that site. He's kind of a "sleeper hit" on that, though, sort of like TerryH. Read his user page to see more, but Kels is right, you pretty much just piss him off by disagreeing with him, no matter how politely. I think it's the magical undies, on Crocoite; they must be itchy.-αmεσ (advocate) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, you piss off Croco by not 100% agreeing with him all the time. However, in the CPverse, RW is a site run by Dangerous Internet Terrorists, and only Dangerous Internet Terrorists join it. So guess what you are in his eyes? Bet you money that Crocoite already made an "IMPORTANT, ANDY! DO NOT GIVE ANY RIGHTS TO DLERNER, HE EDITS ON RW!" post on their new Special Discussion Group.

The "off-site stuff doesn't count" claim is complete bullshit (just like the rest of the list, basically), anyway. CP sysops actively patrol RW, and at the peak, CP sysops actively banned every IP that showed up in the Recent Changes, even if that IP had never edited on CP. --Sid 21:42, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I doubt Croco (among others) would be invited to the new SDG, TK's epic parthian shot must've left Andy traumatized. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:54, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah okay, with the correction/clarification, this makes more sense (I would've asked last night, but it had been fairly late then, so I assumed my reading comprehension had simply been off). Well, this kinda begs the question what Andy settled on. On the one hand, he needs his own Cabal since the core CP sysops never do anything out in the open. They are so obsessed with presenting a unified front that they required a backstage room where they could hiss at each other. On the other hand, the lack of a SDG (or a SDG that excludes anybody who ever did anything Andy disagreed with) would nicely explain why people like DanH, PJR or CPAdmin1 suddenly started to speak out against Andy's insanity more often: They're cut off from the Hive Mind.

Either way, Andy's paranoia is merrily clashing with his need for a Secret Police: He needs a group of people he can rely on to enforce his will, but it's becoming more and more obvious that very few people are really as crazy as he is... while frighteningly many can pretend to be so. --Sid 10:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Major Update: It's official. From several E-mails I've received from Crocoite I've learned that his opposition to me getting night edits comes from me writing gems like these:

• Leda gets blocked for telling Andy that without Fox CP is fucked, of course Andy removes it from his talk page, no dissent comrade.
• Ed, the quality of the many articles that you start is piss-poor! When you start an article, do some research and write something that's more then a fucking line!

And if you do research they'll tell you that it wasn't your own work. You can't win.Barbara Shack 19:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

He went on to say (in his final email: Like I said, RW is an enemy site. To me you're not just expressing free speech, you're a snitch. Like in wartime, going to the enemy and telling them, "look what they're doing".

Well, should I leave CP, after he lets everyone know, I'm not gonna have much respect over there, so should I pack my bags? The user formerly known as DLerner 23:27, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Stay as long as you like. Crocoshite or Karajou will make that decision for you soon enough, there's little doubt. DickTurpis 23:32, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

If you honestly didn't expect that response, then you clearly haven't actually spent enough time here! It doesn't really matter whether or not you leave or are kicked out; they (by which I mean Crocoite or Karajoi) will find some excuse to get rid of you sooner or later, and it probably will be completely made up. (edit conflict, hence the redundancy) Lurker 23:33, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, I thought playing dumb might work didn't. I'm an enemy combatant The user formerly known as DLerner 23:40, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Anyway, I've decided to leave CP, see my userpage there for my goodbye note. The user formerly known as DLerner 23:52, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Wait some time so your Internet Service Provider has changed whatever lets their computer recognize your computer. Ask your ISP if you're not sure. Most ISP's change their recognition criteria periodically. See wp:Banhammer then you can register again under a different user name. That assumes you want to carry on with those cretins.Barbara Shack 19:11, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, my "Dangerous Internet Terrorists" stuff was actually pretty close to home - how sad.

Anyway, check out Dan's talk page message for you:

“”I don't want you to leave. I would point out that it seems you weren't banned for any comments elsewhere, but that the issue seems to deal with the issue of editing rights.

Clever! See, it's totally cool to treat you like shit for you speaking your mind on another site, but you won't be banned! Isn't that awfully nice of them? --Sid 00:11, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't that what the entire Cabal was banned for, anyways? And what me, Palmd, and Human were banned for, again, at least? Talking nasty about them behind their backs? They can't handle free speech on their site, they can't handle it on other sites... ugh.-αmεσ (advocate) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Most of the Cabal at least, yes. I'm one of the rare cases who got banned for everything BUT being on RW1 I think. My last few bans possibly were connected to RW2, though...

But for extra irony, the first method of CP-lovers defending CP is "Freedom of speech! Poor conservatives get bullied for merely stating their opinion!" Ugh indeed. --Sid 00:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Guys, are we really that bad, by the way? We spend a good half of our time having fake debates and talking about goatsex. The rest of it is taken up with making very good & incisive points, though, I guess.-αmεσ (advocate) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ponder, ponder. I think most of our bad reputation is the result of CP sysop paranoia and the occasional vandalism of individuals who happened to be (or become) members of RW (Icewedge, for example). I'd say that after the end of RW1, CP sysop paranoia basically took over.

We got used to the fact that CP will never allow fact and reason to stand in the way of ideology, so many people resigned and became full-time CP lurkers. The problem is that the overall CP wandalism didn't decrease, and CP sysops simply assumed that it was us because they didn't know anybody else to blame. Remember things like the Night of the Blunt Knives and the aftermath (going on to this day), where TONS of people got banned for being you, me, Human, Icewedge, etc. Evidence? Zero - The IPs would have to be different (since our real IPs were banned along with our accounts), so any "identification" would have to be a guess. Likeliness? Low - I know for a fact that nobody who got banned for being me actually was me, for example.

I wouldn't say we're saints, but we're not the Evil Terrorists some CP sysops love to portray us as. However, Crocoite is right in a certain sense: RW is the enemy of CP. Mostly (1) because we observe and quasi-blog their screw-ups on a daily basis and (2) because basically nobody else (on either side of the political spectrum) seriously cares about them anymore. There are a few random vandals, but those are everywhere (including here).

The problem here is their persecution complex. CP sysops (and people like Learn Together who openly defend them) simply can't accept that random people sign up and try to fix the articles that are openly pimped all over the place. In their view, the entire planet acknowledges their rants as the undeniable truth, except for us. And I guess that in their eyes, we're just bitter and in denial because our oh-so-horrible deeds got us banned.

Even if we all dropped dead right now, people would still get banned for being us. If Trent took down the RW site forever, they would simply assume that we went to some hidden site. We will remain CP's Big Bad Enemy until either CP dies or some other site surpasses our reputation. --Sid 01:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

So, what is the ritual for joining the cabal, do I have to sacrafice a goat? (2,000 years ago my people would do that anyway...) So I will be having some fun.

Ames be careful, Leviticus 20:18 says that you can't have goatsex all the time The user formerly known as DLerner 00:58, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

DLerner, you can't play for both sides at the same time if you wear the same clothes. At least change your socks. Genghis ^Marauding 05:21, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

It's probably an old pun, but this suggestion by Genghis made me spill coffee on my keyboard. Thanks (unless I have to change my laptop, that is). Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 05:55, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Lerner, by the way, you shouldn't QUIT Conservapedia, you should just give up your expectations of ever being respected there, but wear that as a badge of courage, and turn your disappointment into debate. Skirmishing with Karakoo, and TerryH, and Poor, can be really quite fun.-αmεσ (advocate) 11:37, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Easter

I hate to appear to be defending Andy, but...Contrary to the WIGO item, "Resurrection Sunday" is not something that sprung forth from his so-called brain. The term is actually rather common, particularly among Christians of a certain ilk. --WJThomas 21:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah. But Andy added it to "Conservapedia Terms", which implies that he claims to have (re-)defined it. I edited the WIGO entry to reflect that... --Sid 21:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Does anybody (including the Assfly) even use the Conservapedia Terms? I was gonna list those I've never seen being used outside the day they were invented but the list turned too long. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:47, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

If you were going to defend Andy couldn't you have chosen something more defensible? Oh, wait, that was a stupid question, wasn't it. Rational Ed^{irrational world} 22:35, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Two Meters

Ok, what's the joke here? I mean, I realize that it was an example of Ed's "conciseness," but now he's included it in his silly conversion tables. Ed's not one to make fun of himself, so is there some hidden meaning I'm missing out on? A long running inside joke perhaps? I feel all left out of the loop :-( Arcan 09:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

My theory is that Ed *is* the type to make fun of himself, to try to seem more like "one of the guys." A lot of his actions can be explained with that justification. His more recent craziness tracks Crocoite's rise, for example, and of course we all know about the "master look what I did" posts.-αmεσ (advocate) 10:04, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ed reminds me of Gordon Jump aka Mr Carlson from WKRP. Large, buffoonish with a quiet dignity that says much about the person within, (either too stupid to know or too spiritual to care but you'll never quite know which, [Think "Chance The Gardener" from Being There ]). CЯacke® 15:25, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

So 1 inch = 2.54 cm and 1 cm = 2.54 inch. Rational Ed^irrational 08:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

so is there some hidden meaning I'm missing out on Had you a Sweet-Baby-Jesus^TM decoder ring you would know: There is a hidden conversation table to cubits. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 08:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Another special team, and PJR's not on it

Whoa. Poor PJR. Against Andy on an important point, until he was soothed, then on the outside of the seekrit featured article team. This is a good indication that (1) there's at LEAST a secret mailing list, and (2) PJR's not on it.-αmεσ (advocate) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I dunno. I think I've seen the Featured Team being mentioned before. Chances are that this team consists of JM and two other sysops who lost interest, so that JM effectively became the Featured Team. Just look at the timing:

• 14:13 - First edit to the article
• 15:03 - Promoted to Featured

I don't see how there could have been ANY discussion in less than an hour unless the entire team had magically been around at that exact moment.

While I am halfway certain that PJR got locked out of Andy's Inner Circle, I think this is just JM being a selfish idiot who figured "If Conservative gets to promote his shit on the front page, so will I!" --Sid 12:06, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, here we go: "Crocoite, Learn together, Maestro and me, are making a team." Later on, BethanyS and DeborahB. also joined in.

And here is who featured what recently:

• JM: Mind/Body
• JM: Theater
• JM: Bible
• JM: Earth
• JM: B-1B Lancer
• JM: Stephen Dubner
• JM: Scopes Trial
• JM: I Have a Dream
• JM: Genesis
• JM: C. S. Lewis
• JM: Republican Party
• JM: Jesus Christ
• JM: Ronald Wilson Reagan

And Reagan was featured on the same day (+/- one day) we hear of the Featured Team. See the pattern? And no, I didn't leave out any articles. You can check the list bottom to top and see that the chain is complete. --Sid 12:24, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Good research! You're a fine, fine cabalist.-αmεσ (advocate) 12:26, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Looking at that awful "Mind/Body" article, isnt' JM the one who was waxing enthusiastic about the Lord of Woo (or was that Eternal Stench?), Joe Mercola? --Kels 12:32, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

What I love about the new featured article is that the very second sentence is, well, not a sentence, but a fragment. I know Joaquin's English is hardly perfect, but shouldn't he have someone proofreading his articles before they're the front page feature? DickTurpis 14:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

That's because most of that sentence was copypasted from Wikipedia. JM only wrote the FIRST SENTENCE of that article himself. --Sid 14:32, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Resurrection

Didn't Jebus hisself raise Lazarus from the dead (resurrect him)? Or do I remember my Sunday Schooling inkorrectly? human 13:16, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I think you're completely right. Humph.-αmεσ (advocate) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

According to WP, yes.

Wasn't there also this guy on the OT that went to hell, but asked to be resurrected in order to warn the living that hell is fo'real? I'm sure I read that on a Chick Tract or something. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 13:42, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I wonder does Andy realise that 'Sunday' in itself is a pagan term? MarcusCicero 14:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Hehehe. Should he call it Shabat? Day 7? human 14:17, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

He should call it the "Lord's Day", as any good Christian would. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:00, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Kjeldsen, even your emoticons were less annoying than the ":nods:". Please cease and desist. TmtamesP 15:12, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

nadhoB, Andreas is not only our resident gloomy Dane, he is also our resident bobblehead. human 16:29, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

That's right. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:55, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

There used to be a fad for people to have nodding dogs in the back window of their car. Now I can't get the image out of mind that the dog is a Great Dane.! Genghis ^Marauding 17:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Ba-dum-tssh! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

There is a HUGE difference between bringing back someone from the dead (to a natural body - that will die again) and resurrection (to a glorified body - that WILL NEVER DIE). Wired4Jesus 22:22, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

But, but, teh resErected Jebus' body only lasted a short time - it was certainl;y mortal in the physical sense. I don't see the difference - if you believe in immortal souls, they're all still "alive" in heaven, right? human 22:35, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Wasn't this the source of a large trinitarian controversy? I thought it was solved that Jesus was human, but the vessel for God. Akj, some medieval history, stat!-αmεσ (advocate) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, that is the great trinitarian controversy, the relationship between Jesus the human and Christ the God. Briefly, there have been many different suggestions, starting with Arius who believed that he was a created being, and not actually God himself. Then came the Monophysites who believed that he only had one, divine nature in a physical body; the Nestorians who believed he was actually two different persons, a human and a divine, united in one body; the Docetists, who believed that he was pure divine spirit and his physical body was an illusion; and many others. The orthodox belief was eventually established at the Council of Chalcedon in 551, which taught that Christ had two natures, a human and a divine, which was united in one substance and one person, the so-called hypostatic union. In other words, he was "both fully human and fully divine." --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 11:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

There is a difference between a glorified body and an eternal soul. Wired4Jesus 00:14, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, don't keep us in suspense. What is it?

(And while you're at it, explain what a 'soul' is, and why you're so certain you have one.) --Gulik 05:58, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

The soul is the essence of the inner man. The self aware conscience being. The immortal vessel that contains the mind, will, and emotion of man. As Descartes cogito “I think, therefore I am”, I would further expound with certainty, "I know, because I know". Wired4Jesus 08:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

You can certainly get that far, but I think that you'd have trouble using Descartes to show that it's immortal (btw, I do believe in an immortal soul, but I just don't think it's provable). --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

My proof does not rest upon Descartes. Quoting only for contrast and dramatic effect. Wired4Jesus 08:57, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I missed the proof bit. Genghis ^Marauding 09:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Bryan's: "I do not think about the things that I don't think about" springs to mind too. You've only provided another assertion nary a "proof". While we're here what is the nature of a glorified body? From mine rememberances of Holy Writ Jesus'(glorified) body had the (seemingly) ability to pass through solid objects. CЯacke® 09:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Now that the can is open, shall we inspect each worm? I have little by way of "proof" to offer, and much by way of faith. May I therefore offer a portion of Holy Writ to explain and expound upon this conversation about the imortality of the soul and the gloified body of the after life? Wired4Jesus 08:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT) The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory. It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies. The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second Man, came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly Man. Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like the heavenly Man. What I am saying, dear brothers and sisters, is that our physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. These dying bodies cannot inherit what will last forever. But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed! It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies. Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die [and our mortal bodies have been transformed into immortal bodies], this Scripture will be fulfilled: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? " For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:41-57 NLT)

No, no, no, that's not the way it works at all. We are reborn until we learn from our past mistakes and are perfected. Until we learn to feel nothing but compassion towards all sentient creatures. Then we have the choice of getting of the wheel of rebirth or staying behind to help others with the task. I'd add some poetic text to that effect, but don't want to take more space.Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 08:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

To whom are we accountable, for the righting of all wrongs? Who is the Great Score Keeper that decides the equality? How is this repetitive process meted out? Is there order in the Cosmos? May I know of it? Scriture says, "And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for Him." (Hebrews 9:27-28 NLT)Wired4Jesus 08:57, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

"To whom are we accountable, for the righting of all wrongs?" Does my wife count?

"Who is the Great Score Keeper that decides the equality?" Ditto.

"How is this repetitive process meted out?" Not sure what you mean by this. I think the answer is that I have to spend some "quality time" with 'er indoors if I want to watch the football with my mates in the pub

Bondurant 09:02, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

These are the most basic laws of the universe. Your actions are the "score keeper". The universe is the judge. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 09:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

The universe has intellect? Wired4Jesus 09:44, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

And lo! did Radioactive Afikomen, the Great Scorekeeper and one whom shall cast judgment, for we are all accountable to Him, and did say: "Get rid of that redlink, Wired4jesus" Bondurant 09:56, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Tis the golden rule. "He (and/or she, as the PC case maybe)who has the gold, makes the rules". Wired4Jesus 10:05, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

<undent>And some of us think that what we call the "soul", or just plain "soul", is a part of the emergent properties we call "consciousness" that arise from this complicated 3 or 4 pounds of meat in our skulls. I also think that not every one grows one, and sometimes we can lose it... Amazing, ain't it? I think, even more so than saying "Goddidit" or invoking mysterious entities (a/k/a "imaginary friends). human 15:26, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Resurrection Sunday Double Whammy - Jesus and TK!

I find the timing... awesome. Seriously. Especially after Andy and Co. pushed their whole "It's not just Easter, it's Resurrection Sunday!" business.

And the first edit is a symbolic slap in Dan's face. And look, he got a fan already! Dammit, why must it be 1am here? I'd love to stay up all night to watch the inevitable fireworks... --Sid 20:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Where do you and Joaquín intend to put these fireworks? --Shagie 20:05, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, my prediction is that the fireworks will be all over the place. The talk pages of TK and Geo would be possible starting points. I guess JM expects fireworks and the red carpet: "The Savior of CP has returned! Quick, let's give him back his sysop rights and CheckUser! Or hey, let's make him Bureaucrat!"

Knowing my luck, it won't be either. But I do think that - if it exists - the new SDG is exploding with activity right now.

And a fun game: Read the Parole reasoning and try not to laugh at bits like "If our system is designed to be fair and just, he should receive the same as that accorded to any other user." --Sid 20:12, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Hahah its all over for CP now bar the shouting. This is just the best news ever for those of us that want that place to die. TK is the last nail in the coffin, his unblocking the death knell for Assfly's perverted dream. DanH should be cursing the day he asked Assfly to desysop Fox, because he's next in the Brave New World of TK:CP. Oh joy, if only I'd placed money on CP imploding this year. LMAO 20:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I doubt the place will die (CP survived TK being a sysop for many months, so TK as an editor won't be able to deliver a magic deathblow - sadly enough :P), but this is going to be interesting, yes... --Sid 20:20, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

We now have numerous sysops actually convinced that TK never harbored ill will towards CP. Don't they read RationalWiki as close as their wigo-corrections suggest they do? Don't we have enough of his own admissions/contribs here to convince anyone?-αmεσ (advocate) 20:25, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Behold, the power of selective memory! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:28, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Remember Ames, everything we say here is deceitful. And also, according to the Sewper Seekret RW-CP Founding Agreemint, they are contractually obligated to like whatever we say is bad (and vice versa).--Bayes_yikes 20:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

The Battle Lines Are Drawn...and we get dragged into it...PFoster 20:37, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Boudan seems like a nice guy, I wanna meet him. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:39, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Fox got a one-day block already - that was fast! --Sid 20:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

So that's why Ed was acting like a moron... NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:44, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Who just said "asbestos pants"? That was so lame RyanC 20:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I think he's still bitter about you, human NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:58, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm still LOL'ing about the "TRENT MANIPULATED MY ACCOUNT, FOX HAS EIGHT MILLION ACCOUNTS ON RW," story. He actually has GP believing it, you know. This is amazingly fun to watch, and will at least tide me over until Battlestar & Lost come back in April.-αmεσ (advocate) 20:59, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

That slew me. Exact quote: TK: "my account on RW was minipulated by Trent and other Bureaucrats there, and lots of stuff inserted as if from me. And Fox, under his other names on RW was a major player in doing that." Wow. As the Bean guy said on the chat window, "Wow, I missed that button in my special pages menu." Me: "What button?" Beanz: " "Impersonate TK" " human 21:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Yegh, the entire thing spins into drama at a rapid pace. No fair, I wanted slow fireworks among sysops. :( --Sid 21:00, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

BTW, if someone was ever planning to host the SDG files on a full site (please not RW), that'd be super. Especially since it'd include the Parthian shot, which TK just disavowed on his talk page.-αmεσ (advocate) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

This whole thing reminds me a kickass game. We should play it on IRC sometime. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:03, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, wait a sec...how come everyone else got to manipulate TK's posts and I didn't????? Oh wait, never mind, I must be a sock of Trent/Fox. Carry on.--Bayes_yikes 21:06, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Nice idea, NF. Also, does it worry anyone that there are ~5 sysops active at the moment, and Cassandra's still unblocked? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Hey, what chat room? Has poor Ames missed somethin?-αmεσ (advocate) 21:09, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

IRC, Ames. All the cool kids are doing it. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

The nightmare begins. I like how he's going to "review" some blocks even though he's not a sysop. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:18, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I think the End Times at CP have begun: it was long ago foretold that TK's return would be Teh End. We should celebrate by ravishing a goat!-αmεσ (advocate) 21:31, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

"Only" all their edits, but yeah, it's weird. TK is clearly in charge of CP again. --Sid 21:31, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

And as mentioned on WIGO, DanH clears out his room. Looks like the lunatics are really taking over the asylum. Genghis ^Marauding 21:44, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Dammit! They burned the evidence! Did anyone take a screenshot? Now my "crucifying a Jew for telling the truth" joke doesn't link!-αmεσ (advocate) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Image:Fox.JPG is the best I could do, Ames...PFoster 22:15, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Have no fear. At least the WIGO'd links should be save. Just give me time. --Sid 22:20, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Filled in the remaining blanks. I also got cleaner diffs for Geo's threat against Fox and "JM and TK are trolls". I didn't replace the existing ones, but if people feel like doing so, feel free. I'm indifferent since all have pretty much the same information content. --Sid 22:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Sid! You're my new hero!-αmεσ (advocate) 10:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Dude, the lunatics have been running that asylum since Day 1. --Gulik 16:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Sure thing. I also left you a reply to your question last night, just in case you hadn't seen it. --Sid 10:53, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Drama was kind of a letdown

...now that TK's not visibly editing, and seems to just have started a discussion group with two posts. Frankly, I expected more drama from him.-αmεσ (advocate) 10:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, it's just been 12 or so hours since the drama burst. Give everybody time to sleep, eat, and make some more popcorn ;) Besides, it'll take Fox another twelve hours to recover from his block. And speaking of blocks and such, it's quite possible that the sudden display of sysops siding with TK simply sent a very clear message to anybody who may have considered opposing TK: "DON'T." --Sid 10:53, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

A phrase comes to mind: "First as tragedy, then as farce." And I did see the explanation, Sid, but I forgot to thank you for it :-(. Forgive me!-αmεσ (advocate) 10:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't expect thanks, I expect money just wanted to make sure you had seen it - with all the activity, it's easy to ask a question and then forget about it. :) --Sid 11:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Freedom777's talk page.

Does anybody know why it got whitewashed? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:11, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, but Dan's getting some very important email about it in at least two minutes. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Whatever it was, it was important enough to get the page deleted multiple times. --Sid 21:32, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Haha, I'm fairly sure something got changed between the deletion and restoration. Everyone check your 'back' button, we might still have it on teh cache. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I actually got a cached copy of the post-archive (before-deletion) page, but couldn't immediately find any differences. My hunch is that something "got lost" during the archiving itself. Or something once got reverted, and Ken wants to bury it. --Sid 21:36, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Now that the page was recreated, I took a closer look at it, and as I had thought, the magic wasn't in the delete/recreate step, but rather in the archiving one. Here is a (reconstructed) diff of what got lost during the archiving. The first part (link to sandbox) was later (sorta kinda) added in Conservative's "I archived your page" note, so the "lost" part was the "I sent you a mail" note. Something about "idnet"? Taking it literally, it'd be "IDNet provides high-performance broadband, web design, secure web hosting and email services for business and home office users throughout the UK.", but I somehow got the hunch that it may be about this ID Net since 777 focuses on ID stuff. But since I don't see any "Sign up here for a mail address" link right now, this would mean that 777 is associated to them... It would explain a lot, but it's mostly speculation, backed (and brought to light) up by Ken's frantic efforts to burn the evidence. --Sid 09:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

My guess it has something to do with eliminating personal info that he accidentally posted without thinking about it. Note the C-word in those excerpts--it might be a name or something. (won't repeat it here in case it really is info that F777 doesn't want spread around.)--Bayes_yikes 10:26, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh. Ironically enough, that info wouldn't have been erased by deleting the talk page - the User Rename log still has it. *shrug* --Sid 10:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah. Didn't realize there was actually a user by the name-that-must-be-purged.--Bayes_yikes 10:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Crikey

Flipperty Gibbet - a man goes camping with the family for a few days and comes back to find it's Easter Madness over at CP. I've been reading away but haven't quite worked out yet what exactly the status in the asylum is. So, just because I'm lazy, can someone give me a potted account of the current situation? Cheers. Matt 07:30, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Basically TK is back, sold a sob story saying that his account was manipulated by RW members and seems to have a certain amount of support among the usual suspects (The likes of Crocite and Joaquin) That Geo (Who released him on parole) fella is in my eyes a sock of TK. I just have that hunch. Andy is saying 'nuffink MarcusCicero 08:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

...good point, actually - Andy hasn't commented at all, has he? Maybe he finally realized that the site is effectively run by people like Croco and Kara by now. --Sid 08:56, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Geo.Pld as sock of TK... hm, that makes a lot of sense. I just looked up his contribs, and there's absolutely notrhing of note, he's a non-entity as far as "worthwhile" contributions go. But what caught my eye was that between November 30 and today, he only made a grand total of 68 edits, 12 of which were to TK's user spaces. The remainder were either Assfly talk, minor reverts of vandals or page moves. Very suspicious. LMAO 09:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, then we might as well suspect that Crocoite is a TK sock - the mainpage headlines are handled by one of Ed's bot scripts, and the rest is basically just writing new rules on his user page and shoving people around on talk pages. Also notice how quickly he complied with (un-)locking the talk page and banning whoever spoke up against TK... hmmmmmmmmm... Tinfoil-hat time! Yay! :P --Sid 09:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I actually thought of the perfect summary for last night's events. You guys remember The Lion King? The scene right at the beginning, where Rafiki holds up Simba, and all the other animals bow before them at Pride Rock? Yeah, that's pretty much it, with Geo, TK, and the other sysops. And how later Mufasa threatened Scar for basically going "Yeah, whatever" about not bowing to him? That's the part where Geo shoved Fox into the 1-day block. So, extrapolating the movie a bit more (and skipping over the Simba-in-exile part since we already got that - look, it was even FoxScar who sent SimbaK into the block!) we will soon see TK becoming sysop and perma-banning Fox. Horribly enough, this is also what I expected before drawing this parallel (especially since TK's "I may review his edits" remark). Creepy. --Sid 10:43, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Nah, Geo's real, or, at least, a very deep cover sock. Seems he's on wikimedia, too [2]. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I've talked to him on IRC, I personally don't think he's a sock. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 13:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think so either and I AM TK (on RW and AmesG on CP. I never get to be me.). ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 13:09, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

• Now Sid! Isn't it the job of any good editor to review additions? You sure have gotten a low threshold "creep factor"! And I have absolutely no interest in ever being a sysop at CP again without some major overhauls there, among those being removal (or at least a true repentance) of those Christian-pretender sysops, who don't practice what they preach. It has been written the hardest part of Christianity is the whole forgiveness deal. We can get into that at the discussion group set up for just such interactions (see my talk page here). Wiki, I do indeed feel slighted you failed to detect my many year presence and posting at the Foundation. *Sob!* Oh, that Lion King riff was indeed at least a Creep Factor 7. Pinto, you are absolutely correct. Geo is indeed his own man. And if "Sheesh" is me, than I am really Colin R. *Rolls Eyes* --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 13:11, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, the place does need an overhaul. I guess you and I will disagree on the details, but it's clear that the current system isn't really doing the trick. Some established and more objective ban review mechanisms would be quite fortunate, especially considering the speed with which bans are handed out. And the site rules would have to be streamlined. Right now, we even have sysops actively writing their own custom rules onto their userpages! Heck, I'd be happy if the sysops had to obey all the rules, just like normal users. That would be a start at least.

I don't think I'll join the discussion group (thanks for the offer, though), mostly because I'm low on time and already spend too much time on RW and lurking on CP. --Sid 14:20, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Ames will share his password with you, lol. Admin, on any forum/board/wiki have never been made to follow the exact same rules as the masses. Not even here do they, although I have been on many who pay lip service, I have never found one that does as you suggest. Perhaps there is a reason? Like those who administer a site need some latitude? Anyway, work on that creep factor tolerance, Sid! ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 14:26, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Will try. ;) --Sid 14:29, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

He's back HERE, too? Oy gevalt.

And I have absolutely no interest in ever being a sysop at CP again without some major overhauls there, among those being removal (or at least a true repentance) of those Christian-pretender sysops, who don't practice what they preach. It has been written the hardest part of Christianity is the whole forgiveness deal.

Am I the only one who thinks the first and second sentences here don't belong together? --Gulik 17:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Drochld - Satirist?

Looking through his recent contributions, it seems obvious to me that he's a satirist, how long before they catch on? Andy's warned him already. The user formerly known as DLerner 04:49, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

O...M...F...G...!!111!1 The FUCKING IRONY!!?? LMAO 07:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

'Professor Values'

The term does actually come up as number one on a Google search - if you put it in quotes. However, seeing as even Conservapedia seems to admit it's a made-up term, that's no real surprise. It's not really any different from them pointing out that doing a Google search for 'Conservapedia' brings up Conservapedia as number one. Zmidponk 10:31, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, if you change the "google.co.uk" to "google.com" in that URL (like this), you get that Hindu article as number one again. Or at least I do. (Side info: I'm not logged in on Google and in Germany. And when I change the "co.uk" to "de", the CP article is #1 again.) --Sid 15:32, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I just find this ironic - when I click there, I get the same search via google.com, but that finds the Hinduonnet.com article at number three - with Wikipedia's article at number one. So it looks like CP can't even beat WP on articles about terms it makes up itself. Zmidponk 11:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia's article will be gone in a couple of days it is AfD for several reasons, one of which was "it is plagiarised from Conservapedia " which it obviously is as the first sentence contains the phrase "liberal grading". Genghis ^Marauding 12:07, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

"Fuck" on Conservapedia

In their article Internet Slang STFU is featured, (they spell it f**k,) I thought it's supposed to be family friendly.

The user formerly known as DLerner 11:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

There's a lot worse than that on there, you just have to know where to look. LMAO 11:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Helpjazz obviously reads this site. The user formerly known as DLerner 02:56, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservative and ADHD

I await the creation of the following articles: cp:Homosexuality and ADHD, cp:ADHD disproves evolution, cp:Liberals and ADHD, and cp:ADHD values. --Shagie 18:49, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

ADHD Returns, ADHD Strikes Back, Bride of ADHD, ADHD Meets Dracula, Werewolf and The Mummy. Rational Ed^{5 or 6 edits} 08:04, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

You forgot Godzilla, King Kong and Mothra Versus ADHD! human 14:34, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm...

When I read this link from the recent WIGO entry, reading the people who commented immediately struck me that the anonymous girl is BethanyS (irish dancing and all). If that's true, and that navy veteran is Kookiejew, wouldn't that mean that all the supporters of CP are more or less the sysops? Couldn't they have found any regular editors, or was that all they could find? :P Bunchofnumberslol 10:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

This is a syndicated copy of the LA times article by Stephanie Simon which I contributed to but not as named commentator. You are correct in your identification of Karajou, but the anonymous girl is in fact Bethany's elder sister SharonS (also a sysop). You may also like to know that Dr. Peter A. Lipson is PalMD someone. Following the publication of this article, AmesG famously posted an open letter on her talk page which was removed by TK and buried by Andy. The reason that most of the quotes come from sysops is that request for interviews was posted on the frequent editors talk pages including Assfly's. Genghis ^Marauding 11:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't PalMD's identity meant to be a secret (albeit a poorly guarded secret, but still)? Arcan 12:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

There are no secrets in the cabal. --Huey gunna getcha 12:37, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Now it's buried. Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 12:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, veeeery effective. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

That's funny, then, because RationalWikiWiki still gives his name out. OMG STALKERS! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:34, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's a poorly kept sekrit. I tried (not very vigorously) to make it a little more opaque at RWW, but to no avail. I still blog anonymously, as it give me more freedom to rant to write as I wish. I wouldn't mind if people were somewhat subtle about it, but c'est la vie. -- -PalMD ^{--Unhand me, scoundrel!} 18:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Ed as the parodist/mole

Once again, another example of Ed using subtlety to mock Andy and the rest of CP. You've got massive crap articles (much akin to what Andy writes - and even praises Ed for), you've got the anti-liberal tirades (much akin to what Andy writes - and even praises Ed for), and now you've got citations through personal conversations (much akin to what Andy writes). With all of these, Ed continues to help Wikipedia by setting precedents for others to follow on CP - write anti-liberal and short crap, and cite private conversations when you don't have anything else to go by. In short, Ed is helping out by making CP the National Enquirer of the conservative world. Way to go Ed - keep up the good work. We know you you are really working for. --Shagie 15:46, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I believe I shared this observation a while back, but it's always nice to go over it again: How can you write this and not be a parodist?! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:16, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always suspected Ed Poor of being a parodist (see my CP page), though I'm still prepared to entertain the possibility that he is simply crazy. Auld Nick 17:58, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

My "What the fuck" moment of the day

ABC News reports that even fake acupuncture beats out conventional treatments. That's funny, because my eSkeptics issue discussed another study that disproves acupuncture. Why must the mainstream media sell out so easily to woo-meisters? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:34, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Most studies done with people who self-report are notoriously difficult to properly set up and analyzing the resultant data is more important than the raw data itself. Your "mythbuster" reference was for a study that was looking for results (from acupuncture) for dental pain. Yes, acupuncture doesn't seem to work for massive dental pain where nerve endings are being brought into contact with the environs they inhabit in ways that are not conducive to NOT having dental pain. Back pain is a different sort of pain brought on not by nerve endings being in contact with harmful stimuli but by a variety of ailments (for which there have been a variety of remedies) and situations. Though back pain can be even more debilitating than a bad tooth can ever be, relief from back pain is never achieved by removing the back. CЯacke®

A few links for you...one, and-a two and-a three-- -PalMD ^{--Unhand me, scoundrel!} 18:13, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, I think most acupuncture is woo. The TCM even more so; de qi is a soul like "thing" and as such no amount of physical nudging should affect it. The EBM articles while interesting only highlight the "problem", woo sometimes works but we don't know why. Not only do we not know why but we do not (yet?) have the means necessary to investigate or even know what to measure. CЯacke® 19:14, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Placebo effect? Marghanita Laski 19:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay...that's a START. How would one detect or measure the placebo effect? We know it happens but do not know why or how to "expect" it. CЯacke® 20:14, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Shagger

Wonder if cp are really iggerant or don't they care how Steve Norris got his nickname? (or is it one of us?) --Marghanita Laski 19:40, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Where credit is due

It is a 97.329623% certainty that CP editors and big wigs lurk (perhaps) on this wiki. Nearly all of these CP editors (and big wigs) --most of whom are right wing reactionary elitists-- make corrections to CP based upon things they read here. I think we should OFFICIALLY ask for those editors to credit us when they do so. It seems fair. This is true in both the figurative and literal sense as well as how I define it here. 72.218.143.171 23:46, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Eh, they sometimes tip their caps in edit comments. That's about all the wiki that shall not be named can hope for, really. human 00:07, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, yeah. In fact, many CP editors/sysops have accounts here, though not always under the same name they got on CP (Conservative is such a case, for example). And WIGO is pretty much a one-way communications platform from which we occasionally signal them about things to correct. --Sid 09:13, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

fair is fair. If they make a correction based on something they learn here they should cite us. 204.248.28.194 15:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

No! They should pay us! That's how a free market economy works after all. We do have overheads you know. I take it that everyone reading this has signed up at the site support button on the left? Genghis ^Marauding 16:31, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy's mom on Juno

With a WTF moment here:

America is in bad shape if the financial success of this movie reflects today's high school culture: sexual activity without marriage, crude pictures on the walls, vulgar language, a girl smoking a pipe, unattractive clothes, uncombed hair[?!], enjoyment of slasher movies and weird music, and marriage breakup.

She's a bit out of touch, isn't she? Maybe because Andy homeschools, she doesn't have any idea what high-schools are like. She must have thought all of them wear pleated skirts, have ponytails, and listen to Bing Crosby records until Martin & Lewis come on the air. (I'm not knocking them, they were great). ^{— Unsigned, by: DLerner / talk / contribs}

Marriage breakup in highschool is one of her concerns? 209.89.244.233 00:24, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for that lovely display ignorance and hollow prejudices, Mrs. Schalfly. Your third-rate rhetorical abilities and poor grasp of modern philosophies really shines, what with your baseless worship of paternalism, heteronormative marriage, and misconceptions of everyday life. I especially enjoyed the parts where you struggled to stuff well-written, realistic characterizations into your narrow ideals.

"How dare Paulie not assert his control over Juno's pregnancy!" If he had said, "Yes, have an abortion," would you still have enshrined his authority?

"How dare Juno defy her parents!" Is it not normal for teenagers to test the bounds of parental authority?

"How dare Juno destroy Vanessa and Mark's marriage!" That an "immature girl" could destroy it shows how irreparably weak its foundation was.

"How dare Juno wear 'weird' clothes and not comb her hair!" By your ideals, is that not the parents' choice, and, because of her parents' implicit endorsement of those choices, therefore are they not "right"?

"How dare they bill it as a comedy! No one in my theater laughed." The theater I was in had a lovely married couple of about your age. They laughed many, many times. By your own logic, this couple's opinion of the film is more valid than yours, because while you are a mere single widow, they comprised a whole marriage—the long-lived, Christian, heteronormative kind you so enshrine. Does not their moral authority outweigh yours, then? Truly, it must have been a good movie.

Sincerely, J.A. Murane