Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

I'm sorry

...I just can't look at the breaking news about deceit without bursting out laughing. I can't even bring myself to write a WIGO about it, it's so damn hilarious! --Kels 20:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

IDiots. WP:deceit redirects to WP:Lie. Which is a good long article. They still have the RIP GOP congresscritter's name spelled wrong. There most definitely is something in their water. human^{be in} 21:43, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

It gets better, until recently, CP did not have an article on honesty, now they do, but look at what its category is.--Remarcsd 22:14, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

There's no place for Honesty on Conservapedia. --Gulik 22:16, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

What's a vandal to do? [[70.146.137.154 |70.146.137.154]] 00:06, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

That sort of thing is hilarious. I remember writing such illustrious "missing" articles as, oh, "American Flag" and "Pledge of Allegiance"... damn, these are supposed to be pretend high school kids, see what they miss out on by gittin homskollared? human^{be in} 00:32, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

frequent blocking...

...is nifty for looking up blocks. I mean, in a normal wiki you would have to go to the special pages list, and then the block log, and then find someone. That takes like, 11 seconds. On CP, you just have to click the Recent Changes link, and it is quite easy to find a link to the block log. That takes approx. 8 seconds.

So, thanks to CP's ideofascist blocking, I saved three seconds of my life. Is this the first positive use of CP to be discovered in the history of forever? --Hjimachong 00:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

That's brilliant! Although CP may have "saved" you 3 seconds, you still wasted 8. Hmmmm, Hojiless Machongeral, I like the ring of that... human^{be in} 00:27, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

What if I could add up all of those three saved seconds, and use them to build a time machine, and go back to this very moment and grab the 8 seconds, plus the 20 seconds it took me to write this? Obviously, the liberal myths of "space" and "time" are blinding you to the truth - God will give me the 3 seconds. --Hjimachong 00:33, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Latest Item

The one about PJR, opthamology and dinosaurs doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Was TimS writing about dinosaurs? Do they have something to do with the userpage Jallen blanked? How does that link to opthamology? I'm confused. --Kels 05:36, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, can someone clarify these?-αmεσ (!) 09:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

IP block stuff

I'd keep this sort of stuff on the Conservapedia:IP blocks page. The notable exceptions are that TK is blocking with only the first two bytes enumerated, 123.456.0.0, which will only block 123.456.0.000 to 123.456.0.255.

CЯacke® 12:37, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Liberal Intellectualism

There are a lot of wonderful justifications that Andy added for his Liberal Intellectualism Essay, including Oppenheimer not being intellectual because he didn't win a Nobel prize. What stood out to me was the claim that Bill Clinton "may have virtually flunked out of the pre-med program at Georgetown." I did a Google search and didn't find any indication that Clinton was ever pre-med at Georgetown[1], and since he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and was a Rhodes Scholar, I doubt he had a whole lot of failing grades. Is Andy's statement true, or just conservative deceit from a person who doesn't meet his own definition of intellectual? --Brian 13:37, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Wow, he just digs himself in deeper. What I find hilarious is that many of these people do not claim to be, nor are thought of as, intellectuals anyway. And there are still three bullets under "There are two primary motivations". I thought they read this site to correct technical errors? human^{be in} 13:52, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Aschfly never ceases to amaze with his complete disregard for reality. He's so full of hot air I'm amazed he stays on the ground.--Offeep 14:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I think my favourite part is that Oppenheimer was a pseudo-intellectual because he never won a Nobel, while Kissinger is a pseudo-intellectual because he did! To say nothing about an essay on pseudo-intellecuals that repeats the hoary old lie that Gore claimed to invent the internet. Classic stuff. --Kels 15:30, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, Andy's "logic" is hilarious. According to the talk page, winning a Nobel Prize is not an acheivment because it's a meaningless honor brestowed upon liberals by liberals. However, based on the Oppenheimer remark, not winning a Nobel Prize means you have not achieved anything. So anyone who hasn't won a Nobel has done nothing worth while, and nearly all of those who have won a Nobel have done nothing as well. Brilliant. DickTurpis 15:52, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh dear, don't let Pal see this one. He might burst a blood vessel. XD --Kels 15:54, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, it's very simple, really. Liberals can't be "intellectuals", since that would require Liberals to be capable of thought, rather than being ROBOT DRONES CREATED BY SATAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. --67.102.192.7 15:57, 6 September 2007 (CDT) fnord

Well, at least Andy admits that cutting taxes only sometimes increases revenue, unlike one of the sysops (I think it's TerryH) who says that it is always the case (even when taxes go down to 0, I guess). All the others are pretty damn ridiculous. "Nobody disputes" that more guns = less crime? How come crime rates are lower in Britain? As for "Genders are not equal" well, remember who his mommy is. Which reminds me, someone should add Jello Biafra to his list. We can debate whether the line "blow it out your ass, Phylis Schlafly" is on the same level as "tear down this wall". DickTurpis 16:02, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

You can't really call him a true liberal, since he didn't think much of Tipper Gore either. --Kels 17:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The more I read that thing, and then around the rest of CP, the more glaring is the fact that Andy is a privileged, ignorant man-child. It's hard to believe someone that immature has gotten as far in life as he has, at least without seriously injuring himself. Is there really anything he touches on that site that doesn't amount to "Liberals are big, stupid poopy-heads"? --Kels 17:03, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How far has he gotten in life, though? He's general counsel for an obscure medical association that nobody takes seriously, homeschools a bunch of kids from the far-right subculture, and runs CP probably on his mother's money. Not what I'd call an impressive CV. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:14, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

He's managed to get past the age of twenty without seriously harming himself while tying his shoes. That's a big accomplishment, given what we've seen of him on CP. --Kels 17:53, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

This just in: the Rhodes scholarship is a liberal award and Oppenheimer didn't do physics. Reading this and realizing that he believes what he is saying makes me want to cry... Sandman 17:24, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Okay, he's addicted to painkillers or some (other) mind altering substance. It's not even funny anymore. CЯacke® 17:30, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I feel somewhat privileged. It's rare that you have the opportunity to witness a complete cognitive disconnect develop in real-time. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:35, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Yow! Am I cited yet? --Kels 17:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT) Sorry, I should have cited you. That was just too funny --that whole riff --dead on. I did put some of your stuff in quotes . . . ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 17:45, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How many qualified psychiatrists does it take in the US to have someone commited to the care of the state? Aschfly ought to hope that there aren't any reading his words of wisdom. He must be close to the edge now. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 17:47, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

To be fair, some of the others overshadow him in the "dangerous lunatic" department. The screaming paranoia of RobS, Karajou's delusions of being Dirty Harry, TK's sociopathy, and whatever the hell is wrong with Ken. Andy, by comparison, is just an overgrown child smearing poo on the walls. --Kels 17:53, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Am I the only one who thinks this: ROBOT DRONES CREATED BY SATAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. is a little too close to home to be funny? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 17:48, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Nope. That's pretty much Ann Coulter's entire message. --67.102.192.7 19:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I see Einstein was added, and Andy has removed him. I was wondering if he was going to appear, but I figured the very name Einstein is so associated with intelligence that it would be a tough sell to paint him a pseudo-intellectual who has accomplished nothing, even if he is a liberal. Though I do wonder if his name would have stayed if it weren't added by a trolling editor. We all know Andy's no big fan of relativity. DickTurpis 18:16, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Maybe he's saving Einstein fo his "liberal intellectuals" essay? ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}

I'm anxious to see how the Gandhi (brown, non-violent, anti-imperialist) entry will get fleshed out, as well as the Foucault (French, gay) entry. There is nobody at CP who is smart enough to engage with Foucault, so I'm sure Asshat will have some interesting interpretations of him. PFoster 18:26, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Oppenheimer allwed the leaks from Los Alamos??? You can picture the images in Andy's head. There's Oppy slaving away in his lab and an assistant comes in and says, 'A mole in the pay of our enemies wants to leak some data, will you allow it?' 'Of course' says Oppy. However, the interesting thing is that by the exact same logic(tm) Andy allows all that vandalism on CP. It makes one wonder why he complains about it.--Remarcsd 19:27, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

You give Oppenheimer too much credit. Remember, his role amounted basically to seeing everyone got their mail. --Kels 06:47, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I just noticed Linus Pauling was on that list. Linus Pauling!! That is absolutely unbelievable! Linus Pauling is one of the few people to ever win two Nobel Prizes (that liberal award!), and is considered by many to be one of the greatest scientists ever (yes, right up there with Einstein). If Andy and Pauling ever meet up some day, I wouldn't be surprised if Andy took a Nobel Peace Prize to the head. Linus Pauling, a "not-quite-intellectual;" what have you ever done, spoiled man-child Andy, that could even hold a candle to the true intellectualism of Linus Pauling? Sandman 08:19, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

<andy>Oh, yeah? How many wikis has Pauling started, huh? HUH!?!?!?!</andy> --Gulik 12:06, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

A word about standards of measurement over at CP from their resident intellectual,

TK: "And yet his [Bush's] college record, and two degrees, from one of the paramount educational institutions in the world, would indicate at least a higher level of intelligence. And a higher GPA than John Kerry." It's a different planet folks, a whole different planet. That's the only explanation that makes sense.204.248.28.194 08:30, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Wait. Chomsky, the guy who came up with the freaking Chomsky hierarchy, is "famous for making a few guesses about linguistics some of which turned out to be partially correct"? WHAT? ARGH. --Sid 19:19, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I love how a reason that Bertrand Russell is a psuedo-intellectual is because he advocated disarmament. Because the true geniuses want would rather blow the world to bits.--Offeep 20:50, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

"Popular" Articles at CP

I really had to laugh at Ken's hand-picked selection on CPs MainPageLeft:

• Atheism (22) replaced with Cactus (19) by Jallen
• Conservative (96)
• Liberal Bias (230)
• Abraham Lincoln (167)
• Creationism (64)
• Adolf Hitler (88)
• Big Bang Theory (94)
• Homosexual Agenda (111) replaced with Kangaroo (10) by Jallen
• Intelligent design (123) replaced with Wine (40) by Jallen
• American Civil War (195)
• Communism (76)

Completely ignoring what people actually read:

• Kangaroo (10)
• Unicorn (12)
• David Beckham (17)
• Harry Potter (21)
• Marijuana (27)
• Guantanamo Bay detention camp (34)
• Pornography (45)

I guess we will see Andy's Essay on Liberal Intellectualism added to that list before long. Genghis Khant 04:17, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I guess that on reading this Jallen decided to broaden things up a little. Was Kangaroo included because she's an Aussie? Genghis Khant 06:51, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

"Atheism (22) replaced with Cactus (19) by Jallen" <-- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And Kangaroo is pretty much CP's trademark entry. Judging by my gut estimation, it's the article that got mentioned the most in news reports (other than "Bias in WP"), so its omission would stand out. Not sure if that's actually her reasoning, but it's a possibility. --Sid 07:24, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I think Jallen made some good changes, my only criticism would be that she didn't make enough. Genghis Khant 15:17, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Conservative now engages in a sorta-subtle revert war: Kangaroo and Cactus are now missing, but Liberal has popped up again. --Sid 16:15, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

And Kangaroo then bounces back at the expense of Conservative! LOL Genghis Khant 02:07, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

More Conservative deceit - Balancing columns removes Kangaroo while giving counterpart to conservative means removing Cactus. Of course he could have balanced the columns by just adding Liberal back but don't expect Ken to be truthful about his editing. Remember when he deleted two high-ranking articles so that he could see what was at positions 11 & 12 on the CP stats page? Of course this had the effect of moving up his own pet projects in the standings. I think Liberal might be Ken's next project for quote-mining. Genghis Khant 16:40, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Kinda doubt it. Would he seriously invade Andy's turf with his bajillions of micro-edits, quote-mines, and absurd conclusions? He usually picks articles that are not in the active focus of too many sysops, I think. --Sid 16:45, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I still think Conservative has Asperger syndrome as evidenced by his complete lack of being able to see another person's POV as well as his penchant for editing and article and doing nothing else. I personally believe this to be true and hence cut him some slack. CЯacke® 16:49, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, the Asperger's thing has been my belief for quite a while now. It interesting to note the similarities between his style and Scorpion/man's, especially given that the latter has actually admitted up-front that he has Asperger's. --Kels 19:42, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I noticed that Kanagroo got zapped by Ken and replaced with Cactus. However, TK managed to slip in his own pet article on Ronald Reagan in place of Abraham Lincoln under cover of updating the daily quotes. Sneaky little snot. Genghis Khant 17:15, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Should we charge TK royalties?

I wonder, I just wonder what URL has the side-by-side code he's offering. Yup, it's a mystery. --Kels 14:44, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Haha, I noticed that a month or so ago (I'm so kewl). However, he doesn't know how it works. What would be funny is if they started using it, and kept our "look and feel". Too bad we didn't code some magic hidden RW link watermark into it that would get past their filters! human^{be in} 15:05, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, it's been copied in the past already... what was the name... oh yeah, "Creation and evolution compared" (even though that useless page has FINALLY been deleted). CP loves to take hints and to copy useful things from RW and WP, but both are officially Bad Wikis. Gotta love the irony. --Sid 15:08, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

The irony is that several sysops visit here to see what goofs have been made so that they can correct them. They actually rely on RW to do their proof reading and provide ideas for creative content. Genghis Khant 15:15, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Let's us then stop that?CЯacke® 16:18, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Let us rather continue, as it allows us to bask, liberal-like, in our inherent superiority. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:22, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Conservative and Arbitration

Seems to me that Ken's sure enough that Andy will just wave and tell him to do whatever he wants, he's confident that this arbitration will end up doing nothing. From what I can see, that's the attitude behind pretty much everything he's posted so far. --Kels 16:24, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, he thinks that the opposition will simply shut up. I think he's just spoiled from ToE, when pretty much all opposition died away when all the RWers got banned and the Panel made it's decision. Also, it makes me want to scream that he goes all "Yeah, have fun here, I'm not listening" when everybody else is getting ready to start a constructive approach. --Sid 16:28, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

It's just another sign of how blinkered Andy really is. He's walled himself off from dissent so much that he can't see how much of a laughingstock the people he's most proud of make him. And yet, he sticks up for the craziest of the lot in the face of a chorus of the not-yet-banned, begging to be allowed to co-operate and make something halfway good. --Kels 16:32, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, the arbitration dude could now go to Andy and say "Well, we tried, but Conservative decided to be a total dick" or something like that. Andy did approve of arbitration:

Aziraphale does great work. How about a recommendation, Aziraphale, which I can then review before deciding?--Aschlafly 19:07, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

So maybe this isn't the end... (although I think it is - so far, sysops almost always stomped down on non-sysops in content questions) --Sid 16:37, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Andy also approved of the Conservapedia Panel (*snicker*), and we can see just how much effect that's had on Conservative, eh? Although it's interesting to see Ken's latest comments, where he's attempting to simply carry on the argument onto this new page, even though he's the only one doing so. To any reasonable reader, it would be obvious that Ungtss was being not only reasonable but willing to compromise, while Ken is being his usual raving lunatic self, and arguing in bad faith besides.

Pity that Andy's not a reasonable reader. --Kels 16:45, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

George H. W, Bush - War Hero....

Well, he was. He won a Distinguished Flying Cross and everything. Why the question mark, then? PFoster 23:18, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

My mistake!αmεσ (!) 23:24, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Hell, he flew enough combat missions for both himself AND his son, who was "elsewhere", and his son's friends, (who had "other priorities"). CЯacke® 23:36, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Nice edit on the entry, though - puts it in a better perspective. One could also mention JFK and PT-109. Jimmy Carter also had a decent military record, though "war hero" would be overstating the case...PFoster 23:41, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Conservative Movies

I just took a look at the current state of the list, and I'm just freakin' amazed. It reads like one of our articles, satirizing the whole "culture war" thing. I mean seriously, Forbidden Planet, which rests on Freudian ideas, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers where the hero ends up losing in the end? What? --Kels 05:43, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Religion

TK is really paranoid. It was however nice of him to refer to me as being a master parodist ... and perhaps the most clever of them all. I didn't target that article. It would have been too obvious;-) All I did was remove Atheism and Agnostic from the list of religions. Hardly parody. Anyway apparently because I was a parodist any facts I may have contributed are suspect in [his] book just because of that, and thus apparently proof of him being right and everyone else wrong. Auld Nick 09:22, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Of course the fact that you edited the article and didn't add any parody is the ultimate parody of them all thus proving your mastery. Genghis Khant 08:49, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Fail to see how a total denial of something can be included in that very thing (draws Venn diagrams in head - stops with baffled expression). They didn't even spot Auld Nick's slightly (!) parodical name 'til it was pointed out. S^G 08:46, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Of course they're right! Atheism is so religious! I even have some definitions of religion to prove it!

• a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
• an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
• the service and worship of God or the supernatural
• A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or forces that transcend the everyday material world.

Can't you see how religion Atheism is? - All Hail Tuna 09:39, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

TK's Circle of friends

Should we be frightened..... Since I started dropoing in, TK has stated that he is "good friends" with Ariana Hufington, Edwin Meese, Stephen King and I don't know how many others..... IS he meeting these people in his head or do we have any proof of this? Maybe the FBI can find out (I know it's a cheap shot, but I still find it funny) SirChuckB 17:02, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't RobS name-drop a lot, too? Although in his case, as a historian (even if a disturbingly paranoid one) it's more likely that he's actually met these various people. --Kels 21:16, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Rob's more likely to bring up some source or another, but he doesn't claim to personally know the people. Especially since most of them are long dead. JazzMan 01:45, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Kilt by commies, no doubt.CЯacke®

Moderate Rebublicans

I love how the new page fails to even mention the people in question are, in fact, republicans. Someone was in quite a hurry to write that one up. And, of course, Andy again hates on good ol' Arlen Specter. But that's just my thoughts.--Offeep 21:07, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

"Moderate Republicans often support each other rather than conservative candidates." - Yeah, unlike the conservative Republicans, who all fairly support the moderate Republicans just as much as the non-moderate ones, right? Right? --Sid 21:20, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah. I love to live in Andy's world, where disagreeing with someone whose ideas you don't share is a horrible thing, and Ghandi and Oppenheimer are airheads, if just to feel really superior.--Offeep 21:24, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Civil War? xD

It seems that a new member named 'FreddieBIchristo' was labeled as a parodist by one of the sysops (I think Conservative...). It seems that Conservatives can't even trust each other. However, there is an explanation. It seems like when somebody claims to be conservative online, unless they use smilies, etc, or admit that it's a parody, it is impossible to tell whether they are Conservative or a Parody, there's not enough difference. xD So... Do you think we should add this to the page? It's really quite interesting. I wonder what'll happen... xD - All Hail Tuna 02:46, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

PS. I just noticed his initials. So that's why... xD

What amused me most about this was TK reverting Conservative's alert in the Abuse Help Desk with the reason that the page is only for editors, not for sysops. I guess that sysops actually don't have the right to alert others about possible parodists in public - they have to use whatever secret (and possibly inconvenient) channels the people at the top thought up. :D --Sid 06:01, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Ah well, conservatives will be conservatives. I have a sudden urge to break Godwin's law for some reason, but will abstain. Instead, I'll say that Al Gore's book, 'An Assault on Reason'... Well, really, we should've tracked him down and forced him to read that part on Conservapedia (And some other articles. xD). It would've doubled the size of the book. But really, someone should make a book about Conservapedia (Is there one?) refuting their arguments. Now, Richard Dawkins, etc, already have, but not referred to Conservapedia. It gives the impression that the opposition to evolution is so pathetic (It is) that nobody could actually think that any of that is true. I have come up with a hypothesis: Conservapedia is not actually a Christian-Conservative site, it is actually based upon voodoo, and they use these voodoo powers to turn living people into strawmen. - All Hail Tuna 06:50, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." --Gulik 13:55, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Glance at xkcd http://xkcd.com/301/ - note the alt text for the image. --Shagie 22:41, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Suicide bombing

I don't really like the "despite the fact that this would be the dumbest terrorist attack of which anyone can conceive." part - a pure suicide bombing in the sense "only the bomber dies" can be a very smart terrorist attack, just like bombing an empty supermarket or something can be a very good attack. Terror isn't about the bodycount (even though I won't deny that a high bodycount "helps"). It's about fear.

Imagine the following scenario: A guy is standing on Times Square and suddenly puts on a bomb vest he had hidden in his backpack. Everybody runs like Hell to get away from him, people will panic, and once he's all alone, he pushes the button and explodes, live on national television. I bet you money that nobody would speak of a dumb attack (except for Andy, maybe). Everybody will be horrified because John Doe suddenly turned out to be a crazy fanatic with a bomb, and the guy next to you could be his friend. There will be sharper controls, people will think twice before going around in larger crowds, the Homeland Security guys will tell everybody to be alert. One guy managed to smuggle a bomb that far, so why should he be the only one? That is terror. It's just terror with a low "people/bomb" ratio. (And I fully agree that it's a fairly unlikely scenario since most suicide bombers apparently try to take a few people with them because they're sick bastards.)

That being said, I'm not sure how to rephrase the entry. Renaming suicide bombers to homicide bombers does strike me as a quite silly move, and it's fairly inconsistent (unless they also refer to "Kamikaze" and the 9/11 terror acts to "Homicide Crashing" or something like that until anything with the word "suicide" in it refers only to actions in which the acting person and nobody else dies). Not even to mention that it eliminates the distinction whether or not the terrorist actually dies in the explosion. So I agree that the entry should exist, I just don't like the "dumbest attack" part. </ramble> --Sid 16:26, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I couldn't figure out a different point to make, so I removed it. Your example reminded me of the Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire at intersections in Vietnam to protest the Vietnam War - to this day those images carry a powerful message, and you're right. DogP 16:39, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Didn't the whole "homicide bombing" nonsense start with Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilley or some similar dumbass, trying to frame the language their way? I think it had something to do with ramping up the rhetoric against Muslims in general, but my memory's a little fuzzy. --Kels 16:42, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Sadly, it's even worse than that - it started in the White House. IIRC, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were the ones to begin promulgating the term, suggesting that a deliberate change of term was needed to 'reposition the dialogue' on the subject. Their point was that the term 'suicide bomber' appealed to the sense of martyrdom of the bomber, and that the world needed to grasp that whatever the White House says is right their main intent was to kill others. Like, uh, we didn't know that already. They - and I believe Ari Fleischer pushed it after they began dropping it into every press conference - encouraged news orgs to use it, and naturally Fox News bent over for them, to this day being the only MSM outlet that uses the term. And of course, Bill O'Reilly and Rush plowed in behind too like the blind sheep they are. DogP 16:48, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I've put the entry back in again, along with a pointer to CP's own indecisive article cp:Suicide attack instead of the "dumb attack" part. --Sid 17:00, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

"Homicide bombing", I note, is NOT the sort done by people in flying machines raining death down on folks beneath them at minimal risk to themselves. What's the Conservatively Correct term for THAT, I wonder? (Bullshit like this convinces me there can't be such a thing as ghosts, or the avenging spirit of George Orwell would have strangled the entire Washington Press Corps by now.) --Gulik 20:04, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Richard Parker

This comment by Assfly is priceless. Especially the way he shows he hasn't even read the guy's user page, where he says up front that his name is from a book. Also cute is him calling the Goon Squad in because he's getting his ass kicked in the debate. --Kels 21:47, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Ah, and our very own Bohdan is the faithful lapdog who pulls the trigger (I obviously learned metaphors from Ed Poor). I like the irony (or deceit, maybe) of his "the honest way" comment, given that he was banned several times for doing just that. Assuming that it's even true that he was a sock of Ames' in the first place. --Kels 21:52, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I was quite surprised by Andy's comment. I didn't think cp:Chrysler Building was all that bad, especially when you consider Andy's definition of federal, the tragedy of the commons, alternative fuel (uh... non-alcoholic fuels... including ethanol?!), not to mention all the copy/pasted stubs he created during the contest. The first two bother me the most; I mean, he's the one who wrote all the econ lessons, so one would hope he'd be able to provide an accurate example of a tragedy of the commons. And that definition of federal made me cry a little bit. JazzMan 00:11, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Heehee. Yeah, it was me. I couldn't resist myself. Damn boring homework. Oh, also Kels, I love the mixed metaphors. To quote Zap Brannigan, "if we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."-αmεσ (!) 22:46, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Ha. "You can lead a horse to water until the cows come home." Brilliant and pointless, like the rest of this post. CЯacke® 23:21, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

"You can't beat a dead horse, but you can cut a hole in the side and fuck it" - Human human^{be in} 00:02, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

I loved it when you called Schlafly a liberal. :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 04:30, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Andy Colbert?

It is a bit dated, but this edit feeds my suspicion that Andy is after all Stephen Colbert. And PJR even put it into a box using big fat letters. I wonder what kept him from making it bold red and blinking. Tohuvavohu 00:26, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Mindless equality

Check out the last entry on the article...then think about YEC and genesis... tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 15:41, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Hahahahaha. If he stays on this psychotic roll, I see a very nice side-by-side he can report to the FBI, Library of Congress, and his mommy. human^{be in} 15:43, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

(Damn being so slow: ) Gave me much joy! Was gonna post but youall beat me to it SJG^sjg 15:50, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

That "last entry" :

treating as equal literature and science from all cultures, no matter how primitive.

-deserves saving & quoting & repeating over & over & over again. It's hysterical! !1!!!1!1!!ONE!!! SJG^sjg 16:49, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

No Commemoration?

The item saying that CP has no commemoration of 9/11 has a link that, when followed, clearly has such a commemoration. It has a permalink id of 290607, yet, when I go there, I don't get the usual "you are looking at an older version" banner. It just goes to the latest version. Is CP engaged in hanky-panky with the history log? In any case, we shouldn't have this item if it can't be demonstrated. Gauss 16:41, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

It's just a case of "Do not link to the main page since it uses templates that will ALWAYS fetch the most recent versions". I'll fix it, gimme a sec... (Update: Done.) --Sid 16:55, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Thanks, Sid, I noticed it but was too lazy to do anything about it. This one has to end up at "best of" I think... human^{be in} 17:15, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Okay, I was wondering what the problem was, since I did a search for only the number "11" and only found those two instances, aside from eyeballing the page itself. Maybe I should leave this stuff to the competent from now on. --Kels 17:23, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Yeah, right. A dollar for each time any of us accidentally linked (especially on the Best Of page) to the Main Page instead of the templates, and we could take down the donation page for next couple of months ;) --Sid 18:26, 11 September 2007 (MDT)

Homework

Teacher: Now, kids, what I want you to do is write the text books for next year's intake. Mkay?

Student: But what do we do when it's all done?

Teacher: Then you can write an essay using the text books last year's students wrote.

SJG^sjg 08:43, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

The whole contest thing baffles me. Essentially, the students are all stuck competing with each other (with what as the prize? A passing grade?) and thus forced to all work on different topics. So if more than one has an interest in the same thing, tough. First come, first served. And, of course, that's all beyond the "for a passing grade, you have to work on the teacher's personal pet project". --Kels 08:47, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

But it increases assfly's masterwork & thereby increases his income? If a student(?) has an interest then s/he is not supposed to write on it anyhoo. They're supposed to write about stuff they know nothing about. SJG^sjg 08:56, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

What exactly are Andy's classes, anyway? Is there anything more to them than reading a bunch of error-riddled "lectures" and adding entries to CP? Is there any interaction? I'd assume that there's more to a "class" than reading some material that could better be covered by a substandard book, but I suppose that's probably a bad assumption. Also, any idea how many of his students are legit, as in not RWers or trolls of some sort? I imagine that's got to be a fair share of them. DickTurpis 10:06, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Working from memory, the homework read as though the class is a hybrid model of his homeschoolers and socks people who signed up online. I guess that Andy is teaching in real life (though I will not make any assumption about the quality of his teaching), but the online thing apparently mostly relies on CP. *cringe* --Sid 10:15, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Interesting. So when he talks about 50 students presumably that's both online and in person. I'm not sure if there's another registry list, but from the enrollment page I count 3 banned users, 5 with no edit history other than signing up for the course, 2 with only about 10 other edits (one of whom hasn't edited anything in a month), and 3 active CPers. I wonder if he's counting all of them as enrolled. DickTurpis 10:37, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Well, of course! They all enrolled, didn't they? So they'll count towards the total, at least until it comes to anouncing how many of his students passed. Then, he'll most likely only count those who were actually active enough to pass, so we get a 100% passing rate. (I'd use a smilie, but I fear that's actually gonna happen) --Sid 12:37, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Speaking of "teaching", not only do I (and all of us) wonder if Andy has any skills or training in it, but I wonder if he knows anything about modern on-line teaching methods? Partly I wonder because I have a friend who, in addition to bricks and mortar teaching work, has been teaching some on-line courses now for about a year or so, and a lot of it seems like it might, er, be over Andy's head. IE, what, if any, are his credentials? Is he breaking the law, or just incompetent? human^{be in} 13:05, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

As his "teaching" seems to be telling kids to read a few pages of material he wrote, then write his encyclopedia for him, I wouldn't worry about it being over his head. The kids who take this online course don't get any sort of credit, do they? DickTurpis 13:23, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

I think the idea is they should be able to pass the SAT test when they have completed the various courses offered. One does have one's doubts. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:24, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Do you mean the AP test? (SATs don't cover government or history, and have no passing grade.) Based on lectures and homework assignments I'd be surprised if any passed. Or if they did it would be based more on independent studying, which the better homeschool students excell at. DickTurpis 14:41, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes of course, the AP test, although I believe there are SAT subject tests in history. I seem to recall Schlafly has run courses in US history aimed at the SAT test, anyway. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:03, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

(unindent) Without any experience at all, I should think that academically homeschooling would be excellent, except possibly in "hard"science, given enough money to provide first class teachers/tutors. I cannot imagine AS being called first class and CP certainly isn't. SJG^sjg 15:12, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Recalling how much 'fun' and how long it took for the contest judges to do their job, I wonder how much time Andy has budgeted to grading homework. Additionally, it would be a 'bad thing' for any of his students to get banned while in class. I wonder how many of the teachers will have arguments and get banned with the 90/10 rule. It seems like a good way to get Andy to assign homework without thinking about it too much at first. I doubt he will enjoy the work when it comes time, nor am I sure if he has the people he can delegate it to. --Shagie 23:03, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Liberal Supremacists?

While I'm as happy as any ungulatophile to see RobS use the word goat, whose goat exactly is he getting? All I've been able to find on any of the related pages is one guy (under a couple of names) confronting him on his bullshit in general. Has he extrapolated this to a full-scale assault or something? --Kels 13:11, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

McCarthy/MoveOn

"Peter D. Feaver of the Boston Globe" Hmmm, this piece comes from the op ed page. While some regulars there actually work for the Globe, some of these columns are just picked up off the syndication wire.

In "reality, "Peter D. Feaver is a professor of political science at Duke University and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies. He is on sabbatical until August 2007 in the Bush administration, as a special advisor for strategic planning and institutional reform on the National Security Council."

So his attack on MoveOn is, well, simple politics, not "speaking truth to power". Actually, it's "speaking power to truth". If anything this is an example of the liberal Boston Globe giving space to an administration viewpoint. human^{be in} 13:15, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Brtkrbzhnv

User:Brtkrbzhnv over at CP must be a parodist, eh? He's taken to removing "evolutionist bias" from language articles, at one point even making the statement that Christians believe that God created all languages in 2242 BC (this was removed pretty quickly). Surely creationists aren't denying that languages evolve? I think there's a little bit too much evidence for that. DickTurpis 14:50, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

What, pray, doest thou meanest by that? CЯacke® 15:58, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

The secret life of RobS

Apparently, just like Conservative, he has a sordid little past. See here.-αmεσ (!) 16:09, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

I'll simplify it for you, here (in the WR link above, User:Katefan0 aka Kathryn Wolfe of Scripps Howard, her real life identity was deleted by the mods from that posting). Kathryn Wolfe was at that time accreditted to the U.S. Senate Press Gallery. It is my understanding she has lost her accreditation because of her anonymous editing as a Wikipedia Administrator, but has not been fired from Scripps Howard. Whether any disciplinary action was taken against her by Scripps Howard is also an unknown. Daniel Brandt may know.

Here's the relevent context:

" By contrast, User:Katefan0, aka Kathryn Wolfe of *Scripps Howard* did precisely the samething as Weyrich's friend, admitted a conflict of interest prior to initiating official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy, was promoted to Admin, presented evidence before Arbitrators admitting her conflict of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_incivility_and_bullying

yet the Arbs used her evidence against an aggrieved party.

In that link, Kathryn Wolfe discloses to ArbCom she (1) was a past employee of the Houston Chronicle, (2) knew persons employed there, (3) was editing the article in violation of WP:COI (4) initiated WP:Dispute Resolution proceedures based upon that admitted COI. ArbCom took no action against her, but rather invoked sanctions against the editor to whom she presented this same evidence against. Further, WikiMedia Trustee Kat Walsh, then an ArbCom member & law student, took 6 weeks consideration before accepting the ArbCom case filed against SlimVigin, which you will see in reviewing the case, does not even list SlimVigin as a party, but rather Katefan0, aka Scripps Howard Kathryn Wolfe. RobS 16:59, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

That was incredibly confusing, but all sums up to something less exciting than I had assumed.-αmεσ (!) 17:02, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Brandt still has Katefan0's real life identity posted at his hivemnind site [2]. The issue relates to Sec. 230 immunity; see pg. 30 here, relevent context,

"The appellate court noted that Section 230 was included to encourage service providers to “self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their servers.” The court cited the case of Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 12 in which the plaintiffs sued Prodigy, an online service similar to AOL, for defamatory statements made anonymously on one of Prodigy’s bulletin boards. The court held in favor of the plaintiffs, reasoning that Prodigy acted like a publisher of the defamatory message because it advertised its practice of controlling content on its service and because it actively screened and edited bulletin board messages. “Under that court’s holding,” the Fourth Circuit wrote, “computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher.” According to this court, “Congress enacted Section 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision.”"

That WR reference is part of a case where I, in support of Daniel Brandt & John Siegnthaler's evidence, produced documentation that the WikiMedia Foundation through internal, self-regulatory processes, knew of, and allowed high-level Admins (indeed, Admin's tasked with writing WP's policies) to post defamtory material and violated WP's polices, including policies allegedly in place to guard against defamation of living persons. And this, with the proven knowledge I cited, a law student now serving as a Wikimedia Foundation Trustee.

Daniel Brandt's argument is that the Wikimedi Foundation does not have protection under Sec. 230, but rather is indeed a publisher. RobS 17:22, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Was this a court case? Are you a lawyer, Rob? Also, you may think that "you get our goat" by claiming some of the crazy shit you write on the Main Page Right thing, but if you do get said goats, it's not because you make good points. It's because it pisses us off that a human being can so derelict the reason and logic that God gave him.-αmεσ (!) 17:24, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Daniel Brandt's case. At the time of this posting, Brandt was contemplating suing individually or perhaps bring a class action suit. The issue relates to Sec. 230 and anonymous vandals spreading libelous & defamatory information. If Brandt were to win his case, it would be a precedent in internet law. See WP User:Ken Myers, former editor of Harvard Law Review, now employed at Sullivan & Cromwell, Wikimania presenter & author of Wikimmunity for a background on the legal issues.

No, I am not a lawyer. But the standards of proof in my line of work are virtually identical in the legal business. RobS 17:32, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

What IS your line of work?-αmεσ (!) 18:05, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Spying for the defunctSoviets? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 18:08, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

"proven knowledge" . . . hehehehe . . he is 15. 70.177.229.220 18:54, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

" but rather is indeed " . . . 14

Enjoying his own writing, graphurbation. CЯacke® 19:39, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

I seem to recall Rob mentioning he's an historian. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 02:59, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Hey, worshipping McCarthy is a full time job, y'know! --Kels 05:55, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

"The Banhammer"

Does anyone else think Rob has gone off his meds? I mean, I thought he was a little crazy before, but he's changed his signature to "The Banhammer" and there's a picture of a hammer on his userpage (the edit summary when he put the hammer on his page was "caveat slimebags" (?!)). And as if that weren't enough, he's been baiting (i.e. trolling) people on the main page and protecting pages that nobody else has tried to edit. (For instance: McCarthyism). Look here: he reverted a statement critical of a "left-wing liberal" organization. Now, I generally have a more positive view of CP than most RWers, but WTF?! JazzMan 20:53, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

He's riding a high from plastering the Chip Berlet article up, it seems he has old scores to settle. He might as well get his licks in now before CB files a C&D letter with Schlafly. CЯacke® 21:01, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Also note that the "critical" edit he reverted was a watered down version of what was there previously. He changed it from "has been accused of anti-Semitism" back to "is anti-Semitic." So he replaced a criticism with a smear. He's the same old Rob. DickTurpis 07:57, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Oh, I guess I didn't read it carefully enough. At least that edit's back within the expected range. JazzMan 13:41, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

He's going a bit loopy over there, adding "racist" to his repetoire of wandal insults. I'm having this disturbing image of the boy literally frothing at the mouth and punishing his "little banhammer" while he types this stuff. --Kels 14:19, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

That's exactly the same image I had!! No joke, I told someone a couple days ago I thought he was getting mouth-foam on his keyboard. Poor guy. JazzMan 14:24, 13 September 2007 (MDT) Eh... I wasn't imagining the little banhammer part though....

Hey, it's not like I want to imagine any of that! --Kels 14:25, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Uh huh... we all know how disturbed liberals are and saying that you don't want to imagine it is an example of liberal deceit. RobS has a wonderful "banhammer" and I always enjoy seeing it at work in the recent changes. --ASchlafly 14:30, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

The parodist entry

About Jallen's "parodist" ban of an editor "who had done nothing"... I hadn't been around when it happened, but I noticed that in the same minute, Jallen deleted an article:

• 07:52, 13 September 2007 Jallen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ginger22 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (parodist)
• 07:52, 13 September 2007 Jallen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jed bush"

So it's possible that that was an article created by Ginger (edits done on articles that are deleted don't show up in contrib lists), alhtough we'd need a sysop to be sure (they can view histories of deleted articles). I left the entry in the list for now, though - sysops have banned quite a few innocent people for being trolls/vandals/parodists, so I can't rule out the possibility. --Sid 08:35, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I considered the same thing, but if you go back and look at the recent changes page (you'll need to go back more than 50 edits to still see it) you'll notice there are no edits by Ginger22 between the time the accunt is created and when it is blocked. I think deleted edits still show up on recentchanges, don't they? DickTurpis 08:40, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Don't think so, but I'm not 100% certain. But we can test that one easily enough. I'll create a bogus article (here on RW) after posting this, and once a sysop removes it, we can look at the Recent Changes... --Sid 08:45, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Good plan. But are you sure you were obvious enough that the article should be deleted? DickTurpis 08:54, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I really hope that was sarcasm... :P --Sid 08:55, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Hmm, hm-hm....*glances at watch*....yep....*nods to Sid*........nice weather, innit?.....*whisltes*.......well the 11:10 sysop should be along any minute now, I reckon..... DickTurpis 09:11, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

XD Okay, so it's still up in the air whether the article was created by Ginger... I'll see if I can reach a sysop so we can solve this mystery. --Sid 09:17, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I've taken the entry down pending the outcome of this. The crap they pull at CP is Sooooo complicated. I should go back to something simple, like working on the relativity article. Gauss 09:35, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Once an article is deleted it removes itself from the recent changes logs. I've seen it myself; sometimes vandals go through creating new pages, then once they are blocked and the new pages are deleted it looks like they never did anything according to their contribs. JazzMan 13:43, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

This is true. What was your new bogus RW article, Sid? I can't see anything illegitimate in your contribs ;) human^{be in} 13:48, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Thankfully, the only public trace is in the Deletion log :P --Sid 14:40, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Which one was yours? --Kels 14:42, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

"BOGUS ARTICLE DELETEPLZ" of course. Ya think he wrote "brown worm"? human^{be in} 14:48, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Now now, we have to be sure! --Kels 14:53, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

To bring some sort of closure to this thing: I just received confirmation that the "Jed bush" entry had indeed been created by Ginger. --Sid 08:07, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

TerryH's idiocy on polyglot societies

After adding a bit on TerryH and the Persians to WiGO, I really have to wonder if I'm missing something, or if TerryH is really that clueless. Is he defining "polyglot" or "society" differently than I am? Or is he pardoying himself? Something seems slightly amiss. I've seen these guys say some pretty obviously factually incorrect things before (RobS insisting that most Senators from the South are Democrats, when 3/4 of them are Republicans), but this one is almost too much. DickTurpis 15:07, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Canada is only polygot as long as they keep Quebec around... And those other nations don't win wars. How many wars has Switzerland won? They don't fight them. How can a pacifistic nation ever win a war? --Shagie 15:16, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Neutral, not pacifist. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:21, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Whether or not they win wars isn't the point. He clearly says "The last society to try to be a polyglot society was ancient Persia." Was a more erroneous statement ever made, or am I missing something? DickTurpis 15:34, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Plenty, and especially on CP, but this one does rank high on the scale. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:37, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I'm practicing for my sock. Though, if one only has one account... it wouldn't be a sock in the proper sense of the word. Nor would it be a proxy if it was the ip you were connecting through... Damn those conservatives for redefining words that already have a well established meaning. I just hope they don't do that with even better defined words like integer and prime number. Oops. Too late.[3] --Shagie 15:31, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

My personal suggestion to TerryH would be to stop reading Will Durant. Only little good ever came of reading Will Durant. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:37, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Hey, don't be k-nockin' on the Durants! Not the best "primary source", though. I'm in the middle of, like volume 4 or something now, don't tell me how it ends!!! Goatsurinatedalloverassfly, human^{be in} 16:10, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I think we can all agree that, whether they are any good or not, TerryH is certainly not reading the Durants. Unless, that is, they've released a comic book version for grade schoolers. DickTurpis 16:15, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Not quite

Not quite bad good enough for the front page:
No permalink for this but it now takes over 6 hours to make 100 mainspace edits, not counting official "minor edits", but including Conservative's fuck ups, as well as ^(other) wandalsim. CЯacke® 17:23, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

DINO TRAFIC SHUD PIK UP

DINO TRAFIC SHUD PIK UP

ART!

I thought cat blogging was traditionally on Fridays? --Kels 18:35, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! *is obviously a cat person* --Sid 19:00, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Cat blogging is traditionally on Saturdays, or, as I call them, Caturdays.-αmεσ (!) 19:02, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

New Boycott

A new boycott of CP has been proposed and encouraged by many. Starting, well, immediately, and running at least through the w/e if not for a week. Please join in by ignoring them and writing artikals hear on trashionalwickywicky! human^{be in} 18:42, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Stick it on the main page? SJG^{May the bird of paradise ...} 18:45, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

OK, but nobody ever goes there... human^{be in} 18:54, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

True SJG^{May the bird of paradise ...} 19:05, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Any way to add it to recent changes? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 19:06, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

You could create MediaWiki:Recentchangestext - it'll insert custom text at the top of the Recent Changes page. --Sid 19:11, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Nice work! human^{be in} 20:37, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

While it is saddening, finding something to do in my spare time shouldn't be too difficult. :D - 218.186.12.10 07:07, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

So I have been watching CP... Just this morning to see how it's going... And it's confirmed my suspicions. They're dying. LONG LIVE RationalWiki! αmεσ (!) 07:29, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

SCAB! SCAB! SCAB! SCAB! SCAB! SCAB! SCAB! Seriously though, what's their edit rate looking like? DickTurpis 07:55, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Im sorry, atleast im not strong enough to quit cold turkey, i need my daily fix of CP. TimoT 09:50, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

only sysop and established editors; quite slow indeed (3-5hrs listed in recent changes) unless someone is categorizing, spell checking, etc. Just one or two of those. I'd say 10 contributors tops-αmεσ (!) 11:13, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

No sign of that pick up in dino trafic, then? DickTurpis 11:56, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Well currently it looks pretty alive because of Schlafly and TK and RobS are on, and some dude is categorizing. But that's four editors. Nope, no dino trafic :-) . In other news, the "Evolution" and "Theory of Evolution" articles have slipped A LOT on teh googlez.--αmεσ (!) 11:59, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Mtur pointed out to me that the students are now there, so traffic may pick up. Sheesh.-αmεσ (!) 15:02, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, but killing their traffic isn't our only goal here. The goos part is that the stoodints will probably make the site just as funny as vandals or trolls could. human^{be in} 15:15, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Damn, I wonder how long it'll be before one of the students runs into one of sysops and gets his ass banned... --Sid 15:27, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

It can't be long, I'm sure. Man, and the students must be starting their "homework" soon. And here we are in embargo mode, not there to witness that car wreck. The temptation is strong, but I will hold fast. DickTurpis 15:31, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

The "classes" will surely be going on longer thant he boycott. And user contrib lists will allow hindsight. human^{be in} 15:40, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

This may mean nothing, but I took a little peek, and C-Pedia has been down for a good hour or so. PFoster 15:39, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Sid, it happened already (from the various logs):

• 17:07, 14 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked #18718 (this block was a mistake, and this user is legitimate)
• 17:06, 14 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked LauraK (contribs) (this block was a mistake, and this user is legitimate)
• 17:06, 14 September 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) unblocked LauraG (contribs) (the block was a mistake, this is a legitimate user)
• 21:44, 13 September 2007 RobS (Talk | contribs) blocked "LauraK (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (fascist troll)
• 21:40, 13 September 2007 Samwell (Talk | contribs) blocked "LauraG (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (No sockpuppets, please. Thank you)
• 21:36, 13 September 2007 LauraK (Talk | contribs) created account for User:LauraG (Talk | contribs | block)
• 21:33, 13 September 2007 LauraK (Talk | contribs) New user

I personally love RobS calling one of the students with no edits a fascist troll. I wonder if any of the students are going to demand an apology from Andy and/or Rob... oops, that would be liberal. --Shagie 16:04, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Good for them! Who cares? I'm not going to check and add to their hits... human^{be in} 15:40, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Could they take the opportunity to vanish somehow? Or close to all but existing editors or ... ? I'm not really wikiliterate so I don't know what's possible. SJG^{... fly up your nose.} 15:47, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

God, this is so like them. We boycott, and they just have to one-up us by dying. >=( --Sid 15:51, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

They're not dead. Nah, sorry, but they'll continue, there's enough mad right-wingers on a mission out there. I predict us leaving them will make little difference to their long-term survivability. We'd be filled with an over-inflated sense of importance if we believed that. DogP 15:53, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Personally, I'd love for LauraK's parents to get a load of RobS calling their darling child a fasicist troll. That'd spark a few fireworks, I think. --Kels 16:45, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

New entry

Damn you, Ames, for putting my "no visit" boycott to its first serious test. Must... prevail... Must... talk... like... Shatner... --... Sid... 10:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)...

Archiving

Would it make sense to archive the pre-September stuff? The page is getting pretty huge. --Kels 23:00, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, archiving = good. human^{be in} 02:19, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Why Boycott Now???

I didn't realise there was a boycott on, so I kept going to CP. You guys have to see the shit thats going down, especially on the talk page of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Sometimes over a quarter of the edits in a time period are to this, and Conservative and TK are nearly killing each other, Conservative is actually on the side of logic!!!!!!!! 121.216.21.206 02:27, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Who? And what? And where? And why? oh... sorry, I forgot to care. Diff'rent strokes, I guess. We got our own internal politics to work through! human^{be in} 03:28, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Are we done with the boycott? I am interested in the results:)--TimS 08:32, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to say, but i think the boycott didn't really work, there where still atleast allmost as much vandalism going on and i think most couldn't resist on checking what was going on in the site. Think most of the CP mockers are too casual and not committed enough to the cause to get the boycott work ;) TimoT 09:09, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

You could maybe argue that the boycott would cut down on the CP editing (which, if successful, would disprove some people's protests of "RW is not just for vandalizing CP"), but it certainly wouldn't do much to the page views, there simply aren't enough RW editors. And that doesn't even take into consideration the fact that Andy's class has started and the place is swarmed with young'ns. JazzMan 10:04, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Well, it should probably surprise no one that the boycott is not having a huge effect. Nevertheless, it is probably a healthy thing to do on occasion. Now that the weekend is over, I think we should decide what the status should be. I'll admit I checked it out for a bit this morning, and am wondering if we should end the visit boycott but maybe keep the edit boycott going. I think Jazzman is right; there aren't enough of us at RW to have a large effect on page views anyway, and additionally I don't think page views for CP are terribly significant. If CP ever wants to be a real encyclopedia that can in any way be an alternative to wikipedia, it needs a lot more articles and thus a lot more editors, which isn't happening. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing WiGO opened up again officially (ie removal of the header about the boycott). Thoughts, anyone? DickTurpis 12:27, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Agree - I think it was a waste of time as far as cp's concerned but it did get us cleaned up! SJG^sjg

Agree - the statement above that there's almost as much vandalism of CP with our boycott in place is heartening. They think that we exist just to vandalize them. We don't. We don't need to vandalize them. They have Andy, TK, RobS, and all the rest of their gang doing it for us. And the occasional outsider who comes in, takes a look around, gets the hammer, and comes to RW. Gauss 12:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Andy Schlafly, TV Critic

Honestly, looking at his list of horrible things he wants added to Friends, it becomes pretty obvious why Conservative comedies tend to fail... --Kels 18:16, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Apologies for the sudden bloat

I didn't realize that the snarky comment in my "Replace All" orgy would lead to such a bloat. If I should remove (or replace) it, say so and I let it run through again. It's just that TK's royal dumbass-move seriously robbed my interest in doing ANYTHING constructive about CP. Heck, maybe I'll create a few socks there or something. I just stopped caring. --Sid 18:42, 17 September 2007 (EDT)