Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive41

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <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)

Feminist Style[edit]

Jesus Christ. What a misogynist pig he can be. PFoster 23:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I had wondered how long it'd take him. SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:34, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Susan. My only surprise here is that we (although Susan did, herself, apparently) didn't predict exactly this article. It was eminently foreseeable. How sad that is, though.-αmεσ (soldier) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I saw that edit comment of his and thought, "This can only end in tears." And I was right, it's the same old anti-woman garbage I've come to expect. Heck, he can't even bring himself to make up original material, it's all just retreads of his stupidity elsewhere. Lulz-wise, it's pretty bland. --Kels 23:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I can't wait for the sequels: "Feminist Values," "Feminist Deceit," "Feminist Architecture," etc...and for the record, most of the feminists i know are pretty fuckin' stylin'.PFoster 23:41, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
His mommy led the way SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I really don't know how he reproduces. I've yet to meet a quality woman who didn't refer to herself as a feminist.-αmεσ (soldier) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I really don't know how he reproduces... Roofies? PFoster 23:45, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
One Roofie colada, comin up!-αmεσ (soldier) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Feminist Liberalism, Liberal Feminism? SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:45, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
I dunno where he gets his "feminists have no sense of humour" from. Clearly he hasn't been to a dyke burlesque show! --Kels 23:46, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
He equates 'Feminist' with 'Manhater', 'Cause that's the only sort of women he knows. SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:48, 14 April 2008 (EDT) Didn't read right - I mean Any woman he meets turns into a manhater! SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:50, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
He's not really much of a man, mind you... --Kels 23:52, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Well he must have done IT twice. :- ) SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:06, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Unless... turkey baster? Matt 03:36, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But, I think it's hard to oppose feminism, precisely because it's such a "big tent" concept. If you think women should be treated as, well, people, you're a feminist. Of course, like any group there are radicals and moderates, but it's hard to oppose the concept of "women are people," I think. I guess Andy & Lyin Ed just build up a strawman concept of the feminist as a mysoginist who impregnates herself just to get an abortion and feel powerful... which I don't think actually exists.-αmεσ (soldier) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, Susan gets it.-αmεσ (soldier) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Don't forget that CP has a severe infestation of Fundies of the "The Old Testament is MY Bible!" type, where the only good roles for women is as dutiful Baby Generation Units. --Gulik 00:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
You also gotta take into account that we're dealing with a..... guy? person.... being that walks upright... whatever he is, we're dealing with one that considers any success from a black man to be "Affirmative Action." Do we really think he's gonna be friendly to women? That's 1920's stuff, he's still working out the 1860's stuff. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 00:14, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

The sexual harassment part in the article should've been reworded to "belief that rape is more than just a politically incorrect act". NightFlareSpeak, mortal 13:52, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

"Non-criminal sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for the virtuous woman except in the rarest of cases."--Andy's mommy--WJThomas 14:31, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I love this comment under Feminist Style, "A feminist typically has one or more of the following characteristics:* insistence on censorship of opposing speakers, writers, or presentations". Does this mean that Assfly and his cohorts are actually all feminists? Psygremlin 08:30, 16 April 2008 (EDT)


Just out of perversity I looked up professor:

  1. . a teacher of the highest academic rank in a college or university, who has been awarded the title Professor in a particular branch of learning; a full professor: a professor of Spanish literature.
  2. . any teacher who has the rank of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor.
  3. . a teacher.
  4. . an instructor in some art or skilled sport: a professor of singing; a professor of boxing.
  5. . a person who professes his or her sentiments, beliefs, etc.


  • (For some reason that hangs up my Firefox!) SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I can't believe he is going on about Dawkins retiring from the Chair. From what I can gather here in Australian universities Chair is a Professor of a higher rank than the other Professors (it pays more for sure). As for Obama my impression of American universities is that once tenured you are now a Professor. But in both cases it comes back to the simple rule, a Professor is what a university calls a Professor. 3.14159 02:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
If you're Andy S then anything is what you say it is (or isn't) White coal & black snow if he says it's so! SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)}
This whole "Andy vs. Dawkins" spiel really has 'trauma over failed academic ambitions' written all over it. Seen that before and it's never pretty. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 03:51, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I assume you've seen the Andy & Barak side by side?[1] --Shagie 04:00, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I didn't know Andy tried to run for Congress. Academic and political ambitions, then. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 04:29, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I was wondering if his problem about professorships maybe a result of his brother's carrer. Roger seems to have done quiet well with a PhD from Berkeley, but not alot since. He probably is the cause of Andy's strange views on maths and his obsession with Riemann. PS does anyone know if this is the same Roger Schlafly? 3.14159 07:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that would be the same RS. RS holds a couple of patents (or so) in the cryptographic field defending said patents and making sure you're not treading on someone else's patents sometimes means you find yourself in court. CЯacke® 08:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Cracker~ would, that; sentence! benefit? from: some' punctuation? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:22, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Nice WIGO, Kels. Professor = liberal professor values. NOT Professor = loser. ASSFLY PWNS!!!!! Oops. humanUser talk:Human 00:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

What's the matter with Ed Poor[edit]

I got blocked for asking the reason for Madison's block, the guy wrote two talk edits, both valid, one about Josephus, and one about the NY CP lecture, I made the mistake of asking "What's the matter with you" and I get a 3 day block. I found out from WIGO.

And to think that Eddie once supported giving me night edits. Wanker.

The user formerly known as DLerner 00:19, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to the world of Conservapedia my friend.... If you kinda follow the WIGO's late, you'll notice that Ed has gone round the F****in bend in the past few weeks... he has reached the point where anything anyone says that could be in any way interpreted as not 100% kind and loyal is getting hammered with a 3 day block.... except for TK of course... he can't loose his sexual release (too far?) SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 00:22, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Ed thinks irony is like goldy or bronzey... Psygremlin 16:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed: a nutball on two wikis[edit]

Proof that Ed's been on CP too long: he thinks that Wikipedia is like Conservapedia, and bans users for mentioning other websites. Sorry, Ed, there' no WP version of rationalwiki (and you needn't submit a writing plan either). But what's this about retiring? What will WP do without their most valuable contributor? Not suck? What a colossal dickhead. DickTurpis 00:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm: Dunno about that, There's something similar. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:54, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Sort of similar... that scribblewiki thing is more people maintaining the little cabals they had created on WP, but they didn't get banned, and aren't necessarily "against" anything WP stands for. It's just that their myspacey clubs on WP got booted. Still, interesting read. They seemed on the verge of establishing a 90/10 rule ;) - but only if you're an "organized" non-mainspace-contributor! humanUser talk:Human 12:10, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Mentioning ED on there WP is effectively insta-death, but that's due to the giant war between the two (which was mutual, surprisingly enough). --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום


It occurs to me that the main reason for clamping down on talkers might be our fault. They've probably noticed that we get most of our Jollies from talk pages (I know they're where I look first!) so they're trying to cut our lulz. SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

That may play a small part but they have been paranoid about "TALK TALK TALK" since long before WIGO. - Icewedge 02:44, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, they started with 90/10 and all that way back in... April last year? Probably once they found out that people mostly used talk pages to complain over the crap golden words of wisdom in their articles. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 03:56, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
This is just fine for us, though. The more they clamp down on talk pages, the more innocent new users will get turned off by the whole process, given that the whole concept of a wiki is collaboration using talk pages. Which will leave the place an even bigger echo chamber than ever, and the craziness on the article pages will increase. --Kels 07:45, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
What is the process for actually contributing? While there are a lot of ways to contribute in a meaningless way, (creating articles that aren't of interest/aren't ideologically driven) there should really be a documented way of proposing changes to locked articles that doesn't result in a block.Lardashe
Oh, that's the even funnier joke. No matter what happens, you're suspect the moment you walk in the door. If you, used to other wikis, start by feeling your way around talk pages, you lose because of 90/10. If you jump right into editing articles, and you hit one (could be anywhere, like a minefield) that a sysop's watching, then you'll get hit for not discussing edits on the talk page, so you lose again. Seriously, with the hostile atmosphere over there, and the anti-anything-Schlafly's-got-a-bug-up-his-ass-over-today paranoia hitting new heights, I don't see how anyone actually new can stomach it. Which is probably why 90% or more of non-sysops (and maybe even some of the sysops) are parodists, nobody else cares enough to run the gauntlet. --Kels 09:32, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
They've always used talk edits as an excuse to get rid of someone whose views and uncomfortable questions they don't like. Their trigger fingers are just a little itchier than they used to be. Rational Edevidence 09:37, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Here's a few tips: 1)Don't propose changing anything, suggest adding stuff. 2)Whatever you suggest adding should be something that could never ever be construed as sympathetic to liberals, liberalism, or liberal ideas. 3) Understand that a "liberal" is anyone to the left of Grandma Phyllis. 4)Don't argue with Andy; if he disagrees with something you've written/proposed, immediately apologize and say that you see his point, and that he is a brilliant man. 5)For every "talk" edit, slap down a half-dozen petty article edits (spelling/grammar corrections, wikification, etc), but don't check the "minor edit" box, so at a glance it looks like you're being productive.--WJThomas 09:42, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
And always let your Inquisitor have the last word after you've said your piece. Getting a rational objection on the record is enough. Rational Edevidence 09:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Another one: Argue with the liberals on the site. --WJThomas 10:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I find it unutterably hilarious that the only way for a new user to succeed at CP is to follow the subversive methods discussed here. That is, if you're not a family member or close personal friend of Andy. --Kels 10:15, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservative Values[edit]

Whoo boy, I can't wait for this topic to expand. How kind of AndyPandy to provide our lulz in one, easy to reach location. Any bets on how long until it gets locked? Psygremlin 09:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm tempted to log in a sock and change it to a redirect to 'Liberal Values'. Zmidponk 12:15, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
"As regards Homosexuality and Defeating addition,[2] I have always found subtraction to be the best cure" - Oroped. PS, you're welcome for the proofreading. humanUser talk:Human 12:26, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I win the prize! Typo has not yet been corrected... humanUser talk:Human 20:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
"Conservative values are superb in combating addiction, anxiety, depression, self-destructive behavior, and mental disorders." - It also cures AIDS and makes puppies rain from the sky! Seriously, I've never seen a more blatant self-praise advertisement anywhere. --Sid 13:31, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I suspect Andy turned hard right into lala land in a desperate effort to deal with anxiety, depression and self-destructive behavior, because he has mentioned this antidote more than once. I wonder if alcohol was involved (or still is)? Rational Edevidence 13:33, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

That article was hilarious. -All Hail Tuna 11:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Offensive weapon of gun[edit]

Err: Bollocks? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:19, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

SO much bollocks. What's the US defence budget? How many Kalashnikovs are floating around the developing world? I really don't know how much longer I can bear to watch that incredibly ignorant man just make shit up and parade it around as fact. PFoster 12:24, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
PS. My girlfriend and I have now dubbed the water pistol that we use to keep our kitty off of the tabletops and counters the "Largely Defensive Weapon of Squirt Gun." Lotsa laughs. PFoster 12:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
This is interesting. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 12:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
So it's > 1%, and that only counts the number of incarcerated criminals, not overall criminals that Spongebob Andypants claims. Epic fail! Bunchanumbers 14:15, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, the incarceration rate will include many nonviolent criminals, mostly drug-related convictions. I think Andy is right, less than 1 out of every 100 people is a "violent criminal" in the sense of someone who regularly commits criminal acts of violence or threats of violence. A guy who occasionally gets into a fight probably wouldn't count. That's still a very large number of people. DickTurpis 19:19, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Crow and humble [edit]

Anyone see the pun in this guy's name? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:13, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes. And? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 14:22, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and he is also responsible for this article, so he seems to be aware of it himself. Duh. But is it really that interesting? GNUSMAS : TALK 14:28, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, excuse me for enjoying the little pleasures in life. I'll let you get back to the BIG IMPORTANT THINGS in your life now, as you are clearly too world-weary and cynical to find joy in the small things. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes. This is SRS BSNS! Lurk moar, plz. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:37, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
And, RA, have you noticed that Bohdan now admits to his "shabby" grasp of logic and reason? Perhaps he feels we have treated him shabbily? Rational Edevidence 14:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Shabbier than our old couch? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:55, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Shabby... :nods: in my best Danish stylee. And, yes, I have been "getting a kick out of" Mr. Pi's moniker for quite a while now. Waiting for his friend, Mr. Fibonacci, to turn up, though... humanUser talk:Human 20:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

How many people really bother - and why??[edit]

If this isn't the right place to ask then please delete with impunity. I'm kind of new and still finding my way around. But why does ANYONE bother to contribute to conservapedia?? Most of the sysops and Andy especially come across as being just really unpleasent people. I know they got a huge amount of trolls (I have to admit to one or two indiscresions myself) but they block you as soon as look at you. They issue commandments. Demand writing plans. And if you make one minor typo you get a load of sarcastic and really condescending hate. I just don't understand why anyone would want to contribute (apart from for the sport of it...)

So do they really have many serious contributors left? I mean really? Andy's view of the world seems so incredibly narrow and he is massively intollerent of anyone who doesn't share it. RedDog 16:05, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Just the Politbureau, everyone else keeps their heads down & does tw foot soldier work. (mixed metaphor- sorry) SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I edit there because I enjoy arguing, and I think their Party Line is wrong much everything. Sadly, only PJR seems inclined to actually argue, rather than relying on the banhammer to do his talking for him. (Also because the place is a fascinating and largely risk-free way to study the Authoritarian Mindset in all its dubious glory.)
Why anyone ELSE would bother swimming against the sewage-current, I don't know. I suspect some people (occasionally including me) just can't stand someone being wrong on the Internet, especially not as loudly and consistently as Andy & Co are. --Gulik 16:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
RedDog - there's really only about six regular contributors to the thing now - Andy, Ed Poor, Karajou, TK, Conservative and PJR. You could fit them all in a closet, so to speak. Almost everyone else has either left the closet, is trying to get into the closet, or was outed from the closet. DogP 16:18, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
It's like being in the real world and voluntarily going into The Matrix to outsmrat the Agents and free the minds of those still slaving away on addi(c)tions. 16:19, 15 April 2008 (EDT) CЯacke®
It's a handy way of developing hypertension - just dip your toe in and make a couple of little edits, and see what happens when you (in)advertently cross swords with Ed or TK. They are so wrong and so smug and so ignorant and so wrong. And wrong. The sense of indignation it generates feels so good! GNUSMAS : TALK 16:26, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Dog, was that "closet" remark conscious or unconscious. And, they wouldn't all fit in a closet since Ken has "come out of the closet". --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 07:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, has Ken come out of the closet? I wasn't aware of that. It looks like PJR might be coming out of the closet any day now too. That would make a little more room for the others who are still in the closet. DogP 12:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Ken may not yet be out officially, but I think we all know the truth. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 13:44, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Your video is "no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc.". But I got the South Park reference anyways. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:37, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Exactly how old is Conservative?[edit]

Ken's edit summary "I hear you knockin' but you can't come in. :)"[in regards to his locked talk page] seem more than a bit childish to me! - Icewedge 21:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Perfectly in character. Rational Edevidence 15:55, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Advice for Miles[edit]

Bohdan's right. You should probably back off of this issue before you get banninated, and get above 90/10 before Karajou wakes up and wants to ban someone so he can be a big man with the wife tonight.-Milesfan/αmεσ (soldier)

Aren't you MilesM? If not you, I'd guess Hojimachong. SHahB 22:00, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
taint me. Milesfan was me! But Miles seems to be the real deal. Hadn't heard of RW and a fairly genuine seeming reaction! You have a genuine independent thinker on your hands. Whatever shall you do!!!!!!!!-αmεσ (soldier) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
No, he is certainly an RW sock. You're already a liar (about debates), don't be an idiot also. And, per the comments in the above section, you're pretty creepy too. SHahB 22:06, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Please don't call other editors "liar" without providing diffs, at the very least, or risk being blocked for being naughty! (warning 1 by big bad sysop) humanUser talk:Human 00:36, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, those blind accusations get somewhat boring after a while. Contrary to what some might think, not every new guy on CP is a RW sock. There are others who stumble over the site and dare to ask questions. Especially when said questions are practically begging to be asked ("Your news headline is missing any sort of info, why?" or "Conservative keeps talking to The Other Site, what site is that?"). Tell me something: Do you guys honestly expect new people to simply believe every lie and every insane claim you guys make? Is anybody who asks the obvious questions automatically pushing some sort of agenda? This is an issue of cause and effect, and you guys are the cause. Stop being so idiotic in public, and there will be fewer uncomfortable questions by new guys. Just look at Miles. He started out okay enough and only became disillusioned because Karajou interrogated him in the "St. John's" section and because of the "Our sysops are allowed to talk to RW in public, but the rest of you must not even know of their existence!" cover-up. In both cases, CP sysops were the direct cause: Andy posted uber-vague news, Karajou instantly treated a guy like a crime suspect, and Conservative posted the shout-out even though he has an account here. --Sid 06:35, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I have to wonder--seeing how they think everyone new to CP is actually AmesG, why do they allow any new posters at all? They could just shut down registration forever--problem solved! --Gulik 23:55, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
But by shutting down posters, they would be admitting that the site is really just "Andy N' Friends Insanity Blog." It's easier to allow new users and simply block them. that way, not only can they convince themselves that they're a legit wiki but they can also show all sypathetic parties how abused they are "Look at all these vandals, the liberals do hate us." SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 23:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Hah! That's how I picture Karajou though. Ex-navy, glory-days behind him, but he needs to feel like a big man every now and then. Hence, the CP lovin.-αmεσ (soldier) 22:09, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I said "comments in the above section" you fool. SHahB 22:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm. I did pull a TK. It may be public info but you're right, still creepy. Deleting.-αmεσ (soldier) 22:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

"Hmmm. I did pull a TK.". -αmεσ (soldier)


Please try not to be boring... (self reference is only amusing in an intellectual exercise, not when trolling) (THIS is just me whingggging about the occasionally low quality level WIGO descends to) humanUser talk:Human 22:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Human, you lost me... At the risk of a block for daring to question the leader (Napoleon is always right) to what exactly are you referring? SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 01:31, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I think he's referring to the Ken & RW intercourse. I agree, it's not really WIGO-worthy and only panders to Ken's inflated sense of self-importance. It is really just gossip and is better suited to TWIG0 which tends to have a faster turnover. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

There has indeed been a marked slip in the quality of WIGO's recently. And a huge and undeserved increase in the quantity of them at the same time. And a tiresome number of WIGO's which tell their story very poorly, i.e. dead links, diffs that don't work, links to entire versions of articles so you can't find the specific comments and lose the history of the thing. Be more concise, much funnier and more selective, WIGO Editors! DogP 12:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I think I know what you meen. I don't think anyone would take offence if you highlight WIGOs you considor poor. As a new user keen to contribute I would personally find it quite useful to know the type of stuff that's expected on here. Oh - and this is only my theory but I wonder if the number of contributions to this page is slipping because CP really is going to the dawgs. That is there is more amusing stuff to report. RedDog 14:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, there's too many to go through and provide links, etc, but I personally think that if a WIGO has more than two or maybe three difflinks in it - FAIL - brevity leads to clarity and better punchlines. And if the WIGO takes a paragraph explaining itself- FAIL - the comedy or point should be blindingly self-evident. And if the WIGO is a back-and-forth running commentary on some back-and-forth debate - FAIL - it should be a TWIGO. And posting WIGO's on your own sock's activities - EPIC FAIL - your work should be entertaining enough that other editors find it so. Finally, no, the quality of the WIGO's are slipping not 'cos of CP, but because our own editors are doing it wrong. DogP
The hardest part is for people to actually wait until some debate is concluded, everyone wants to add a link to every single diff along the way, and then the next thing you know, three edits later, someone adds a new wigo to the same discussion... like the Obama professor/senator thing. I can't remember what specifically made me start this section though, but whatever it was, it must have been really lame. humanUser talk:Human 19:57, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Exactly. What's basically been happening of late is that the WIGO's are just becoming live transcripts of CP:Recent Changes. And as the WIGO's get updated, the entire paragraph becomes longer and meanders off topic and you get - wait for it, I just coined a new term - WIGO Creep. DogP 20:04, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Tiger Woods....[edit]

Best golfer in the history of the sport. You could argue, but you'd be wrong. Not sure if I've ever seen the media "bully" his competition - but I'm not at all that shocked to imagine Andy that seethes at the prospect that affirmative action has let some "darky" tear it up at the country club. What an asshole. PFoster 12:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Not seen the media bully Woods's competition? You haven't been paying attention, then. Why, at the Masters last week, every time one of the other golfers had an important shot to make, members of the liberal media jumped out of the crowd and gave the poor guys wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded rear admiral! The bastards...--WJThomas 13:25, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Absolutely! Tiger is the 'Affirmative Action' golfer! Whenever Andy says 'affirmative action', he means 'N-----', viz Obama, etc. DogP 12:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Which is exactly how one can see Schlafly's "Meritocracy": "Who should I let be 'good'"? It's not that one individual can excel it's about WHO the elite LET be good. In CP's case Andrew Schlafly is the "elite". [[SHUDDER]] CЯacke® 12:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, the "Meritocracy" where if you agree with Andy you are rewarded with a little pat on the head, wheras if you are related to him you automatically become a sysop. Rational Edevidence 13:50, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Three points on this.... First, I find it funny because the Master's headline on Yahoo Sports was "Course Too Tough for Tiger." and it linked to an article discussing how Tiger failed... sounds like they're bullying the hell out of them... Second, that's Andy's new way around Affirmative Action Golfer... He just claims that his competition is bullied. Third, THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL ALTHETES...THEY DON'T LET THE MEDIA BULLY THEM YOU IDIOT. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 00:26, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Today's Conspiracy Theory[edit]

Bear with me on this. Given Lyin' Ed's slavish devotion to the Moonies and the fact that reports as early as '89 state that most conservative organisations have ties to Moon's cult, via his funding through front companies, what are the chances Ed is pushing his own "church's" agenda here? Could explain his paranoia and frequent reverts at anybody questioning him, plus if you look at the Marxism article, the "Inter Religious Federation for World Peace" quoted there is a bizarre cult front group serving Moon, and not a respectable GOP shop. Plausible, or have I just been possessed by the spirit of David Icke? Psygremlin 14:39, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Your scaly skin and long, forked tongue give you away, Psygremlin. DogP 14:43, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed's Racism[edit]

This addition to the news is a keeper.--TimS 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

You know, if anyone but Ed had posted that, they'd be banned forever. And reported to the FBI. And they'd tell God on them. --Kels 16:51, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
The rant he links to is ridiculously funny. Goes from "OMG the media are biased" over "OMG our cities are overrun by black criminals" to "OMG ILLUMINATI!" Good stuff. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:51, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought the link was probably a typical Ken MSM, but when I read it I changed my mind; it was actually stereotypical Ed Poor racism. Oh the joys of pretending to be Christian. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I had to stop reading that lest several small objects in my house get--oh, how do you say--broke. I can forgive Andy for his affirmative action garbage because I'm beginning to think that he's deeply disturbed, but what's Ed's excuse? --Greenmango 21:58, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
speaking from the black prospective.... As we say in da hood.... Ed's a Muthafuckin Racist. That his problem SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 22:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Too Crazy for WIGO[edit]

I can't summarize it into a pithy WIGO entry, but the whole "alleged quotations" thread on TomMoore's talk page is quite amusing. Shortish version: Tom gussies up his user page with a couple of incendiary quotes from Granny Phyllis, and Andy orders them removed because they're "improperly sourced"; Tom asks for clarification, and all heck breaks loose as Andy&Co do their darnedest to avoid the question.--WJThomas 16:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I liked the way they all ganged up on him like a bunch of scientologists. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Looks like Ed the Pathologically Dishonest banned him for another week for "wasting time", even though if they'd just given him a straight answer ("We're a bunch of hypocrites and anything we don't like must be removed") that would have been the end of it. --Kels 17:10, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Nah, that would have been out-ethical. Maybe even downstat. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I liked how Eddie told Tom to scan the page to document the quote, and then Andy berates Tom for thinking scanning a book will prove anything. It's kinda like that ol' bully tag-team move where one gets down on all fours behind the victim, and the other pushes him back/over.--WJThomas 17:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I can just see them snickering as they jerk the fish this way and that. Rational Edevidence 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

You should keep this in focus too, another user just dared to bring this up with regards to a quote from a liberal [3] SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 18:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Sure. The reason they're slapping Tom around is because if they outline a standard for documenting a quote, they'll be held to it.--WJThomas 19:22, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I thought this was on WIGO? Or did I follow links from earlier in this talk page? Since I know what youse guys are talking about (and it was hilarious, yes), I must have found it somehow, and usually don't bother to troll CP's RCs. humanUser talk:Human 19:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
I think the earlier bits were a WIGO, but the conversation restarted in earnest after Tom was de-permabanned. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:10, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Responding to the eariler post from WJThomas... you're exactly right. That's Conservapedia's policy in general. When you post rules for everyone to see, you open yourself up to comment. Look how often they're called out on the rules they have posted, like 90/10 (which none of the Sysops follow) No personal remarks (Just ask Ed or TK about that)...the list goes on. When you don't post rules, you can make shit up as your feel like it. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 20:44, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
And it's now on there again. humanUser talk:Human 20:58, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
MilesM Userpage.jpg

Now I'm a little curious what was on MilesM's "castle" before Ed deleted it and banned him for a week for being "frivolous". Whatever bug's up his butt these days, it seems to have corners. --Kels 21:15, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

There were a bunch of cool quotes, you can kind of guess some form the talk page. Specifically, the last two were psycho-Schlafly-grand-mereisms. humanUser talk:Human 21:44, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, that was Tom's page. I meant Miles', but I remember now. It was the Khan pic that Ken also used, in a similar context. Only one of them got in trouble for being frivolous, though. Funny, that. --Kels 22:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Miles got hammered for a week for that? Bwahahahaha... The timing couldn't be more idiotic when you consider what he did last night, too: cp:Talk:Feminism and the history of cp:Feminism. Meritocracy, yay! (And let me consult my page cache... ah yes, there we go. *uploads and adds here*) --Sid 06:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Evolutionist style is here! Evolutionist style is here![edit]

Evolutionist style is here! NightFlareSpeak, mortal 23:07, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

THE SNARK JUST GETS BETTER AND BETTER! "An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal)" And scientists of 250+ years ago had a better understanding of things than they do today! Absolutely GENIUS! DogP 23:35, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Did TerryH really just accuse "Evolutionists" of projection in an article that's almost entirely projection? Is that parody, or are they just getting too meta for their own good? --Kels 23:51, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
What I find truly sad is that the rest of them pounced on this thing like a Wounded Gazelle... I can't understand how so many people can have their heads so far up one man's ass... SirChuckBI brake for Schukky
Hypocritical much? Point 5 attacks "evolutionists" for trying to "to demonize the other side" and then point 13 goes on to claim that evolution caused the holocaust. - Icewedge 00:02, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I think the 'projection' thing is the pseudo-scholarly version of a phenomenon I've heard movie/book critics comment upon: "Writers: when the characters in the story you're writing start making comments about how insane/unbelievable/ridiculous the situation they're in is, LISTEN TO THEM." --Gulik 00:05, 17 April 2008 (EDT)\
Look on the bright side though... At least we get a sense of humor.. and I really feel sorry for the Liberal Feminist Evolutionists out there... They have to read three essays before they know how they act.... poor bitches SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 00:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
RTFM's always a hard trick to manage... --Kels 00:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Another high point is when Andy basically accepts that Christian Fundamentalists are the same as Muslim Fundamentalists. We haven't had lulz like this since Student Values. Oh yeah, where did that go, Bohdan?!! DogP 00:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Student Values went here but you can read it here. Auld Nick 06:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Welshman's story[edit]

It was just the other day that Welsman was banned. While poking about google, I found his story - [4]. Fun read. --Shagie 04:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

And on a related note from the Blogroll [5]. It would appear that Welshman is in fact Psygremlin. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 05:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
P.S. A commenter includes this quote about the Rev Moon's technique for achieving political control and influence:
"You make yourself available to serve, and you serve that man with whatever it is. You carry out his orders. You carry out his directives until he trusts you absolutely, whether it is political work, economic work, or social work. Then finally when your services have become indispensable, then you begin to dictate policy. If he deviates from the policy you have set, you withdraw your support, and he is powerless. So he has no choice but to follow you."
Now, (rhetorical question) has Ed Poor ever instigated policy on CP? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 05:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Close - my younger (and now more disillusioned) brother Psygremlin 05:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Why haven't we got an article on the Moonies? I don't know enough about them but they would seem to be right on mission! SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree- someone who knows something get busy! I knew someone back in the PreCambrian (which happened in the 1970's) who buggered off to the Moonies and went hatstand. DogP 15:40, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Well what would Jesus TK do? Copy an article from Wikipedia and put any similarities down to coincidence. Or if you have half a brain and some writing skills then you could paraphrase it. Doh! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed Spock[edit]

So mad Ed Poor decides to be "logical" by deleting TerryH's Vulcan(planet) article because "it is not well written". Overlooking the fact that 99.99% of articles on Constipedia are not well written, didn't Ed either block or chastize another editor who called for the deletion of an article by telling them to rewrite it instead? Unfortunately I can't find a handy link to this. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 08:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Given that the average Ed Poor article doesn't even qualify a stub, but is just a random quote shat out and left to fend for itself, Ed's not exactly a role model that way. Of course, he plays at being a writer, and editor, by bragging about how much he's produced, handing out writing assignments and making a public distinction between vassal common member and Editor. But in the end, he's worthless. Although the bit above about Rev. Moon's techniques does put the whole thing in a new light. --Kels 08:36, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
you folks don't get it. It is all about posture and attitude with Ed Poor. Real content and actually contributions are secondary to appearance and his is still polishing thaT appearance . . . And if you happen to notice that the Ed-perorer has no clothes, there is always the ban hammer. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 11:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
So the great Wikipedian restored TerryH's article. Well we know that Ed, like most of Andy's stormtroopers, reads WIGO so what's the betting that we shamed him into it? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
This one amuses me, with him directing a user to do a "simple" article on biological metabolism, just like a tiny part of the WP article on Calculus. So Ed wants CP to be a pale shadow of WP at best, then? --Kels 16:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The well known year zero school system[edit]

Writing Homework 9: "Was John the Apostle a child? Alternatively, or in combination, is this topic: "An example of successful homeschooling is John the Apostle, the author of the Gospel of John."" err probably: yes! The sinful state schools were awful back then! SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

...and the Catholic schools weren't up and running yet!--WJThomas 08:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
"Was JtA a child?" As opposed to what? Then again, I'd say chances are he wasn't homeschooled. Assuming he write the Apostle and given the average literacy rate back then, he might have been taught at a rabbinical school or something? Just a thought? Psygremlin 09:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
On that note, question 6: "6. Star football player Michael Vick is currently in federal prison, serving a 23-month sentence for dog-fighting. Do you agree with this punishment and use of federal resources?" Does this imply CP thinks dog fighting is ok? Psygremlin 09:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Maybe Andy is a Falcons fan.--Bayesyikes 10:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
What he is is a complete wanker, judging by his replies to a query about his beloved homework. Can't you just picture the sanctimonious git leaning back in his chair, smirking, after typing that last reply. Psygremlin 10:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually yes, there's been previous debate on CP re. dogfighting, and it seems a number of CP'ers not only have no problem with dogfighting, but view animal rights as a liberal cause. And Michael Vick's prosecution was indeed a waste of Federal money. Of course. If you 'Next Diff' your way through, you can see how the argument developed. DogP 12:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Makes perfect sense: prosecuting a man for brutally forcing dogs to kill each other for fun and profit = bad use of federal dollars. Prosecuting random man for making unwanted posts on Andy's open source website = good use of federal dollars. DickTurpis 15:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I guess we should thank BethanyS for pointing out what Andy was referring to. Having read the article in question, the real mystery appears to be; was Jesus a pederast?

Just a little something[edit]

Is there actually a manual of style at CP, or is it just one of those things that they follow when it is convenient? I thought that this (from TK) and this (from PJR) where kinda funny. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

There actually is a manual of style. Last year the whole wiki structure was crumbling because no one bothered with consistency in article titles and categorisation. Some editors said that something neeeded to be done and Andy handed it over to TK to sort out. Unfortunately, TK decided (or was told to by Andy) that as Wikipedia is the liberal demon king they would do it opposite to WP in spite of most people supporting the lower case style for articles. When TK took his sabbatical the issue was raised again and virtually everyone supported the lower case (except for proper nouns) standard, I think the only dissenter was someone who had already changed half the article names to upper case already. Andy basically said to PJR do whatever yout think is best. So the lower-case singular title style was adopted. PJR, HelpJazz and a few others have been going round fixing page names & links. TK is seen as the instigator of the stupid Camel Case schema and probably still thinks that is the correct way. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
They have an incredibly poor naming convention. I was looking for the bit where Andy used his dinner conversation as a source, since I had an opportunity to ask Scalia recently, and wanted to see if Berger ever said anything similar to him. I could only remember that the word lemon was involved. I searched on their site, and was immediately taken to the Lemon article. I wound up having to google shafley and dinner to get the result I wanted. I also considered contributing awhile back, and it took me much longer than it should have to locate their most wanted pages. Disambiguation pages rule!

The Great Commission[edit]

I never even got a paperweight, let alone anything else. Does anyone know if I was supposed to have gotten a catalog or something? --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 09:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it's run more along the lines of airmiles. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:32, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

This should be good[edit]

I want to see what Ed has to say...--TimS 11:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't wait for the next insightful entry. Rational Edevidence 12:14, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
This too is a great example of hand-waving. "No-one has ever explained to me the problem with Expelled!" "I'd like to!" "Oh, too bad, you're banned. As I was saying, no one has ever..."-caius (soldier) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm sort of fond of this one, where he complains that the user didn't respond to a question Ed never asked, but instead answered the one he did. --Kels 12:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Stupid CP Debate Tactic #317. Rational Edevidence 14:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Does Ed usually punish himself?[edit]

Seriously, shouldn't he just use a whip to beat himself? The user formerly known as DLerner 12:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

He's done that on occasion before. I think it's him trying to appear "fair" or maybe it's part of his "fun" image. It's all for show, though. --Kels 13:02, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
He is punishing himself now by trying his hand at science that he clearly does not understand.--TimS 14:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
17:42, 17 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "Ed Poor" with an expiry time of 2 minutes (stop this name-calling!)
17:38, 17 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "Ed Poor" with an expiry time of 10 seconds (personal remarks)
14:03, 14 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "DLerner" with an expiry time of 3 days (personal remarks)
14:00, 14 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "Rocky" with an expiry time of infinite (nasty remarks)
19:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "TomMoore" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)
19:30, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "Welshman" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)
19:28, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "AustinP" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)
13:35, 11 April 2008 Ed Poor blocked "DrCB" with an expiry time of 3 days (personal remarks)
Can anyone spot the discrepancy? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Won't Expelled Persuade Anyone?[edit]

I like the way Ed assumes those who watch Expelled won't be persuaded that ID makes sense and that the natural reaction will be to vandalize the CP article on the movie. Rational Edevidence 15:14, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

LA LA LA LA, I can't HEAR you!, sez a wanker in a pointy hat made out of a pillowcase. DogP 15:20, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Bunker mentality. The allied bombs are falling closer and closer. Keep that little pill handy. Rational Edevidence 15:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Come to think of it, "No intelligence allowed" makes the perfect CP motto. Rational Edevidence 15:31, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


That is all.- caius (soldier) 15:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You don't honestly expect me to believe that you don't have any socks on cp, do you? SHahB 15:20, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
But apparently everyone who pwns Ed in debate is me. I'm flattered!-caius (soldier) 15:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Stop signing under your comments, you yokel. SHahB 15:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Crap but I fixed it-caius (soldier) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Completely missed this[edit]

If this isn't an example of self-interested sucking up, I don't know what it is. TK calls Andy (I assume) "resident expert" (in medicine). Completely forgot TerryH existed. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Surely he means Conservative - the Expert on all things gay! SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
He's certainly got..."experience". --Kels 16:23, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Learn (together) by doing, Ken always says!-caius (soldier) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Nice one, liberals! #23! That'll show 'em! SHahB 16:26, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not mockery to make a point, it's just mockery for fun. We can make our points without mocking Ken, and this mockery is completely independent of us trying to make a point about him.-caius (soldier) 16:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Stop giving out personal information about User:Conservative. Its hyporitical of you to criticize TK for doing the same thing you are doing. SHahB 16:32, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
My word Bohdan! Sarcasm? SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:34, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
He's working on his Intellectual Dishonesty merit badge. --Kels 16:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm not to good at intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps an expert, such as yourself or of course lawyer Ames, could give me a few pointers? SHahB 16:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Me? Could you perhaps give me a few diffs? Or is this part of your training, like denying that Ken was talking about us when he posted his "Gentlemen at another website" nonsense? You should really get your badge based on that alone! --Kels 16:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
You're right, Bohdan. You're not good at intellectual dishonesty. You get caught too easily, Mr. "I didn't know who he was writing to." ;) --Sid 16:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I think he meant TerryH, actually. I'll have to dig, but I vaguely recall him saying that TerryH is a doctor... --Sid 16:34, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Yup, it's TerryH they're referring to. DogP 16:36, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Bohdan, Ken made his name a public issue by pretending he wasn't KDBuffalo.-caius (soldier) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I could care less. Don't you have the decency to stop this? SHahB 16:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
No. We are completely and pubicly (!) indecent. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, I thought it was his gayness (or not) that was the personal information referred to :) SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes, that's the comment I had in mind! --Sid 16:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I stand corrected. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
He's not gay - he's No True Scotsman! DogP 16:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
writing and promoting umpteen hate-filled and unintelligent articles on the evils of homosexuality opens you up to some criticism and mockery. You don't want to be treated like an ass? Stop writing asinine things. I obviously don't mind, but then again I'm probably TK and AmesG Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 17:02, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Contradiction ahoy[edit]

Not quite WIGO-worthy, but the current CP mainpage has two contradicting news items. Top two items, under 'Liberal bias in academia'. The bottom one, CP seems to condemn the school for violating the teacher's First Amendment rights (though they seem to have missed the idea of 'separation of church and state'), but, in the top one, they seem to condemn the school for upholding the student's First Amendment rights (assuming they're sticking to the CP code of 'liberal=bad/evil/wrong'). So, is it just me or is this a a pretty clear-cut case of 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'? Zmidponk 19:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." --Sid 20:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Evolution Style[edit]

So should anyone tell them that if they can make the claim that "ignoring the clear historical link between Darwinism, Eugenics, and the Holocaust." they should also list this "ignoring the clear historical link between guns, single points of view, and the Holocaust."? Perhaps Andy should change his stance on guns...I always knew he was a darwinist.--TimS 20:35, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Another Message From beyond[edit]

There is another message duck taped under the bridge in the woods. Be Afraid, be very afraid. DogP 21:46, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

At this point, I'm more afraid of my own shadow than Ken's periodic ramblings. --Kels 21:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Before it hits the memory hole:


Are you looking forward to the day when Conservapedia's atheism article gets about 800 views a day? Are you looking forward to the day when Christian conservatives have an increased presence in the top 10 Google rankings which is what happened to the homosexuality and theory of evolution Google searches? I believe that day is coming and sooner than you think. :)

April 16, 2008 at 7:30 pm

  • Main Page ‎(2,524,606 views)
  • Homosexuality ‎(2,381,689 views)
  • Theory of Evolution ‎(274,774 views)
  • Atheism ‎(136,021 views)

April 17, 2008 at 9:30pm

  • Main Page ‎(2,530,332 views)
  • Homosexuality ‎(2,382,469 views)
  • Theory of Evolution ‎(275,503 views)
  • Atheism ‎(136,280 views)
WTF? (Why are we supposed to care how many people they can get to come and laugh at them?) humanUser talk:Human 21:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Heck, I wanna see their page hits go way up! Ken's insane rants articles will help drive people away from Christianity. --Kels 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
You know, Human - it's reading (Formerly) Gay Ken's infantile and snide missives to us "gentlemen" (NOTE TO KEN - WE'RE NOT ALL MEN ON THIS SITE: SOME OF US ARE WOMEN, YOU FUCKIN' RETARD!!!) that i wish I could just stop reading CP, just stop giving a shit...why am I wasting minutes and hours of my life (time that I'll be screaming for on my deathbed, I'm sure) reading the insane, disjointed and ultimately memory-holed ravings of a bunch of anti-intellectual, moralistic, bigoted losers. I need a 12-step programme ( that, of course, doesn't appeal to a "higher power" as I understand it.) Fuck it, I need a drink. Out. PFoster 21:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree, PFoster, totally. Why do I do this? We need a new page. We need CP Editors Anonymous. I'm driving myself demented with this addiction. DogP 22:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't get so worked up, the guy is simply unable to understand that negative attention is not a good thing... or maybe he's trying to make us ignore us so we stop mocking his other things. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 22:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but 2 mil? Isn't that a holdover from OSM? I know one of us scamps has been runnign it still.-caius (soldier) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoever was running the bot that ran Conservative's 'Homosexuality and (Foo)' articles up to their ridiculous totals, drop me a line, please? I have a cunning plan.... :) --Gulik 23:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Does he know how many hits PZ Myers gets? Hell, even I get several thousand hits a day. No one reads cp except cp and us, and a few tin foil hat wearers. And there have been, um, tweaks to the page counts going on for a very long time.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Do not read my blog 23:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)


If I put my browser on the "Ahh.. refreshing" every 5 seconds, does that also increase the view count? Fuzzy|AFD 00:00, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Def.-caius (soldier) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Never mind. I tried it on the Adolf page, and it didn't change anything. I guess I will have to resort to a carefully structured macro to bring up the page views. Fuzzy|AFD 00:09, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

More Expelled wackiness[edit]

Notice the "damned if you do" effect as Ed removes information saying the movie doesn't define ID, because it's on the website. Then bans a user for including information, because it's on the website and might not be in the film itself. --Kels 21:54, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Cripes, does Karajou even know why he's reverting a valid point, other than the fact Ed did it (for no good reason) earlier? Probably in the Koward's mind, that's plenty of reason. --Kels 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

#23 again! Nice one! SHahB 00:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Take your meds. --Kels 00:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm rubber you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you. SHahB 00:17, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Besides, it's NOT proof of #23. Andy's not arguing that liberals use mockery - he's arguign that only liberals use mockery. We're not proving that.-caius (soldier) 00:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
No, it says "The style of a liberal often includes these characteristics". SHahB 00:17, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh please. The implicit assumption is that it's only liberals.-caius (soldier) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
You assume too much. SHahB 00:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh shut up, Bohdan. DogP 00:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
He's obviously assuming that, Bohdan. Remember what happened to cp:Conservative style?-caius (soldier) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Please, I prefer "Sir Henry". SHahB 00:34, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
And I prefer garlic toast. Shabby Bohdan, your point here is weak. humanUser talk:Human 00:45, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

(unindent for sanity) I would like to publicly go on the record and say that I don't think ShahB is Bohdan. Using a false name to post on a Wiki would be Deceit and as we all know, only liberals do that. So Bohdan wouldn't possibly resort to a liberal tactic. if you believe this, The Government is selling the Brooklyn Bridge and I have an inside track, just leave a small deposit SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 01:44, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Bizarrely, they seem not to have known about the Leader's Guide. Obviously not enough reading of RW going on, then. And it opens up the possibilities of a prize - one hundred Pi's to the first person to successfully post a link to our Expelled:Leader's Guide article. DogP 02:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and when Feebas offers to add the external link HenryS replies in a very abrupt and and suspicious way (see cp:Conservative Style). Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 03:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
"What is the external link?" - what's the problem with that? SHahB 14:56, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Bohdan, does it ever feel bizarre to have to feign ignorance at Conservapedia of all issues here? I intend this in the least accusatory manner possible. But personally I think you make a better resident troll/Danologist than a CP sysop... it just doesn't seem to suit you. :( UchihaKATON! 17:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Is Learn together a closet parodist? Because this edit (That an intellect like Ben Stein is backing the free discourse of the view lends a lot of clout ...) seems reminiscent of the Exxon-Mobile (sic) quote. Of course, to us Europeans Ben Stein is only a second-rate actor in a teen-movie. Is he seen as some giant intellect in the US? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 05:41, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Nobody is 100% certain about Learn Together, but I think there was a noticeable increase in suck-up going on during the past few months. LT openly sided with sysops even on things where common sense would go "Wha?", like the issue where he went "No, there is no unfair anti-liberal bias here because I have checked 10 random articles, and they did not contain anti-liberal rants", or his behavior on TomMoore's user/talk page. It should be noted that, like most parodists, he was promoted after a few months of sucking up and going all "You're right!" to whatever Andy or other influential sysops said. Not saying that he is a parodist, but he certainly seems to recognize a good strategy when he sees one. I'd classify him as "More than meets Andy's eye", but not as a ticking timebomb. --Sid 06:15, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
He may have fooled Assfly and you guys, but he hasn't fooled me. "LearnTogether" is a sock of User:Fox and although I sent several important emails regarding this matter, he seems to be reasonably good at doing the double-act. But he honed his skill at socking with BrianCo and Ghengis didnt he..? Watch LT for fireworks and lulzy partian shots very soon, after he has done some subversive vandalism/blocking. SJ 14:00, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Ha, ha ha. Welcome back TK-1! I can't believe you fell for all that stuff. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 18:49, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I totally reject that slight. Despite claims that "you" removed me as "an impostor", I am not Learn Together. Or BrianCo. or AmesG. I may be Ed Poor, however. And will show up them kikes for the serpent seed that they is. Fox 14:25, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Is he seen as some giant intellect in the US? Only by the DI. Dmyerken 12:21, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
The "Win Ben Stein's Money" game show, in which he would go head-to-head with contestants in trivia contests, usually featured him doing a pretty good job of protecting "his" money. Oh, and he's on another show called--get this--"America's Most Smartest Model" on which he plays the "smart" host. The bookworm game show persona he's cultivated is probably one big reason for the intellectual perception.--Bayesyikes 13:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
It's a common misperception(?) that "knowing a lot = intelligent", as a veteran pub quizzer I can state, categorically, that this is not an automatic correlation. a) I have won many quizzes & I ain't the cleverest person around (no need to all agree with such alacrity!); b) Some of the least intelligent (& most boring) people in the world know vast amounts of trivia - because that's all they can turn their puny intellects towards. SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:44, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

You liberal elitists kill me.It is 98.8675309% positive that a person that can list all of the episodes of Gilligan's Island in order is smarter than any pseudo-intellectual . Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 14:17, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

The return of MargeryCampell[edit]

I don't think this is WIGO-worthy but I thought it would be worth mentioning that MargeryCampell (you know, the woman whose husband made her nag the sysops into deleting I Samuel) is back[6]. Apparently her husband has "abdicated his authority" over her, whatever that means. Angband 07:34, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

What was the consensus - is she for real? SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:03, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I vote parodist. Note her misspelling of pease. Do I get a vote? Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 08:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Not sure she's done enough to be a real parodist (yet). I'll go with real until proved otherwise. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 08:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I vote parodist. And not a very good one at that. Rational Edevidence 10:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
The funny thing is that on CP, the parody doesn't have to be good - it just has to echo what some sysops want to hear. --Sid 15:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Bye Bye TheGySom[edit]

I always thought he was kinda one of the in(sane) crowd, but I see Lyin' Ed has just shunted him out the door, for refusal to follow project rules. I see he's also sneaking around reverting any complaints again. [7][8]Psygremlin 10:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Here's another good one by Mister Ed: He gave DinsdaleP a week's vacation for--god forbid!--(the allegedly false claim of)"showing both sides of an issue". --WJThomas 10:41, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

So DinsdaleP is guilty of "showing showed" both sides of an issue? He's also after blocking some drone for "no substantal contribs", even though Swisstrust made only one edit [9] --Angband 10:52, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Question: Is it sysop abuse to remove complaints from "Sysop Abuse"? Heh! SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:01, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Not when you're in AndyLand(TM), where perverse fantasies involving homskollars dreams come true ;).--Angband 11:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Uh-oh Here we go - it'll be teh gay and serial killers next... Psygremlin 11:49, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Heh...I'm sure the folks at CP wouldn't mind if a "heterosexual" cat was added to articles about evil heteros, right? Also, the CP Dahmer article throws in a sentence or two listing homosexual murderers. Their source for that then says this: "Although there was clearly a sexual component to his killing,...experts generally agreed that Dahmer('s)...murders were not purely a result of sexual compulsion or aberrant sexuality. Some people have speculated that Dahmer's Biblical religious background may have contributed to a negative view of homosexuals, which in turn contributed to a negative self-image and a hatred of himself and other homosexuals, which in turn led him to become a serial killer." Perhaps that should be dumped into the article, too...--WJThomas 13:44, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

This is pathetic, Ed blocked me (TheGySom) for apparantly stating over email that I wouldn't follow site rules, but our email convo went something like this:

ME: I don't see how I was responsible for the misquotation, I said that some heath care practitioners believed that eco-therapy had no scientific basis, you changed it to say Malkin said that some health care practitioners believed that eco-therapy had no scientific basis. If anything I was guilty of adding an unsourced claim (which I was in the process of sourcing), you were the one who turned it into a misquotation

ED: You didn't apologise for breaking the rules, worse you accuse me of misquoting someone when you did it

ME: Could you please explain to me how I broke the rules, then we can resolve this issue

ED: No I will not explain, apologise. "There is no issue to resolve - you and I are not peers having a dispute. I am an administrator telling you to follow the rules or leave the project".

ME: I cannot see how I broke any rules, as I was not responsible for turning the sentence into a misquote (with an explanation of how)

ED: doesn't reply, blocks me

ME: Ed, I haven't received a reply. Can't we just discuss this?

ED: No, there is nothing to discuss, your failure to see how you broke the rules is a problem, "Subject to review by the project director, your application for reinstatement is hereby denied."

Just for the record here is the sentence in which I apparantly misquoted:

My Version: Eco-therapy has been criticised by some health care practitioners for not having a scientific basis for its claims, and instead relying on exploiting the latest fads.

Ed's Version: Michelle Malkin said that eco-therapy has been criticised by some health care practitioners for not having a scientific basis for its claims, and instead relying on exploiting the latest fads. 20:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to RW! And yeah, Ed isn't the biggest fan of reading comprehension. :-/ Once he "knows" you're wrong (which you will be simply by not agreeing with him), you're as good as gone unless you admit that you're wrong (regardless of whether or not you actually are wrong). Then, and only then, Ed may give you a last chance to prove your worth. Writing Plans are often part of the program.
The basic trend had always been there, but in the past, he had at least been nicer about it (though the part where blocked people were "given another chance" after "admitting their rule violations" was in the program back then already). The part where he simply points at Andy (who, at least in the past, practically never replied to mails in a timely fashion) is sorta new, I think. Maybe he got that from Karajou... --Sid 21:17, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Someone with nothing to lose: please call Ed out. I'll proxy up and do it myself it necessary. But he has been such an unbearable, insufferable prat lately (for lack of a non-profane description - alternative in edit comment, but censored). UchihaKATON! 00:33, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled radio ad[edit]

Just heard a radio ad for Expelled. Limbaugh thinks it's "powerful". "Big Science" doesn't want you to see it. Rational Edevidence 13:40, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

That's really funny.... I was looking at the User reviews on Yahoo Movies and two or three of them were titled Big Science is afraid or something similar... Huh, I didn't know Dittoheads could type. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 14:03, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Reefer Madness[edit]

I see Fox has jumped on the bandwagon behind the Koward, although he found himself a better seat. Exactly which serious legalization (or decriminalization) advocates suggest that cannibis should be allowed while performing duties like armed sentry, or on the job at all? Seriously now, alcohol is legal right now, and you shouldn't take that stuff either if you're wandering around with a loaded gun, why should cannibis be any different? --Kels 14:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

That's an interesting discussion there. I didn't know PJR was a prohibitionist. I guess "small government" is not an Australian conservative trait. But, you know, it's always funny to see people who know nothing about pot talk about it as if it were some sort of combination of LSD, PCP, coke, and alcohol, when in reality it's much less dangerous than alcohol in almost every way. Every time someone uses one of these arguments for keeping pot illegal, the same argument holds even more so for alcohol. At least PJR is consistent in that sense. I wonder if Karajou is; does he want to ban alcohol too? I also like the way they think a "positive test" for marijuana means that the person was high at the time, rather than that they had smoked it some time in the last month. DickTurpis 15:20, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
For the record, I'm fine with cannibis being at the same level alcohol is currently at. Or rather things like beer. You can get it at approved locations, you can make your own but you're barred from selling it. You can't operate motor vehicles while using it, and employers can legally fire you if you use it at work. You can have it at bars but walking around in the street with an open bottle (or a lit joint, say) is prohibited. Not an unreasonable set of restrictions, and it takes care of both Fox and the Koward's objections. --Kels 15:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I posted the original WIGO, more as pointing out Koward's random almost seemingly useless fact. But I'm in agreement with Kels' solution. Also, according to the evul WP pot isn't a narcotic. I see no issue with recreational use as long as it doesn't affect others. Jrssr5 15:41, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
The libertarian in me says 'ok, but...' the affect others bit is awkward (not just for pot, alcohol easily gets in there too). I used to work late night tech support with a couple stoners - couple days a week they would be remarkably unproductive which meant that I got about double the number of calls because it took them twice as long to complete a call. So, it affected me when they toked up on their free time. I also know some stoners who dropped out of school (not the same bunch), and ended up perpetually unemployed... and my tax money is going to them in the form of social welfare. The humanitarian in me says that welfare is a necessary safety net for people who fall on bad times... but when the bad times are their own damn fault for abusing a biochemistry altering substance for personal enjoyment to the point of not being a functioning part of society with little hope for getting back in it is a 'tad' bit frustrating. </rant> --Shagie 16:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
If only you'd told them about Jesus. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 16:15, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Yup, irresponsible pot abusers are almost as bad as alcoholics. It's not quite as hard on the body, though. The Nixon adminstration commissioned a study on cannabis use to settle once and for all the question as to whether it was dangerous. They found people in Jamaica who had been smoking an ounce a day for 40 years without any serious health effects. Rational Edevidence 16:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
An ounce a day? I don't think that's possible. In any case, I basically agree that pot should be treated much like alcohol. I guess PJR does to, only he'd prefer to ban them both. I know what Shagie is saying about stoners being unproductive, but if they had shown up to work drunk would it be much different? Any employer should be able to fire any employee for being drunk or stoned at work (especially in the military) so that really shouldn't be a big issue. And as for driving, I'd get into a car with someone who smoked a half ounce of weed before I would with a guy who drank 5 beers; it just doesn't affect your motor skills the way alcohol does (not that I would get into a car with either driver in real life, but in a hypothetical either/or situation that's what I'd do). DickTurpis 16:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Irresponsible pot abusers are almost as bad as alcoholics. Consider this a Backpedal Free Card. --Robledo 17:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent)Just to get back up to speed. I am against people who abuse alcohol and then sign out a high velocity rifle/clock in for any other responsible duty. The main difference is - just my personal opinion - its much easier to spot/smell someone under the influence of alcohol than someone whose reactions/responses/judgement is affected by marijuana. Legality? I don't know. Alcohol is already such a massive social ill; tbh, I don't think I would prohibit either, but to counter that I would have to then come out in support of random unannounced urine testing in the workplace. The libertarian in me says I'm not really for that either. Fox 04:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm adding this not really as a contribution to further the discussion at hand, I admit, but because it is a great lulzy anecdote. Well, I think so anyway :) Many years ago, before I was commissioned and was still a Corporal in the Army (and tbh, it was the happiest rank of my career - full-screws really do run the Army) I was shafted with a last-minute "Guard Commander" duty after some dick cried off sick one Christmas. Already, I had a nickname of "Corporal Punishment" among the guys because of my occasional bad temper and stickler-for-the rules approach (although the female soldiers - I am reliably informed - called me "Corporal Nice Arse" lol. Uniforms can be flattering.) You can imagine that the following 24 hrs were going to be unpleasant for everyone on the camp with a disgruntled me placed in charge... That night, there was a big function at the officers mess, and I instructed the gate sentries that no vehicle was allowed to leave camp without my personally speaking to the driver, as opposed to the barrier being lifted, gates opened, officers being saluted and let's all be nice to one another. As the officers who lived off camp all began to make their way home, I was in and out of the guardroom personally wishing them a "merry Christmas" and at the same time smelling their breath to decide if they had had a few bevvies. Any that did, I fully intended to place under immediate Close Arrest, throw them in the slammer and have them breathalysed by the Red Caps. After about 8 unsuccesful attempts to catch a booze odour, I was called out to "say goodnight" to the camp's Nursing Officer, a female Major in the QARANC. As I leaned closer, she suddenly said "Corporal ___! You're trying to smell alcohol on me!!" As I began to feign ignorance, she suddenly blurted out: "Well, I haven't had a drink, but make sure you stop the Padre when he tries to leave, he's pissed as a fart!" I almost fell over with hilarity. Well bubbled, ma'am! sadly, Mobile phones must have been a-buzzing from that point onwards, as all the married officers suddenly decided they were going to stay overnight in the mess :( Fox 06:10, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I should add, that in the interests opf being seen as a bastard equally, and not singling out officers, the same night I also prevented all "enlisted" ranks from bringing female companions back to the camp after 10.30pm on the grounds that the NAAFI bar was closed so they could only go to the single soldiers' accommodation, where females were not permitted in male areas, and I was saving them from a morning-after accusation of rape. as a gentleman, however, I did telephone for a taxi for all of the females thus affected to take them home instead. Unpopular? Yes. Firm but fair? Equally yes :D Fox 06:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)


I don't know what's worse - that I have to imagine Ed like Weird Al here or that the next edits of that article are simply copy-pasted from the Yahoo Answers source. --Sid 15:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Who else wants to see Ed test his "I bet I could go 6 weeks" statement?-- 15:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I imagine him looking like this. Be prepared to be disturbed - depending on where you work, possibly NSFW. Or if you work with fantastic people, TSFW. DogP 15:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
You might want to put a warning with that not to open the file at work... Rational Edevidence 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
NSFW - Not suitable for work! However, I thought my PC had crashed as it was such a large download. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 16:04, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

What did I do?[edit]

I woz BLOKKED for "bullying" but (Contribs), where? Shower of shitehawks! (found out when I tried to edit to revert vandalism tonight! --FrancisG 15:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

That's the way things work at CP. However, I notice that you were blocked by DanH. He is one of the more reasonable sysops at CP and may respond to an email query if you really want to get back in. Otherwise, welcome to the light side. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 16:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Someone who did nothing but help them; ASK to be allowed back? nuts! --FrancisG 16:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, you asked "What I do?". If you really meant "What a bunch of wankers", then fine. Welcome to RationalWiki. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 16:20, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry Genghis. I meant (as you can now see above) what did I do? --FrancisG 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't look at all your more recent contribs, but I'd be willing to bet that your first one may have played a role in this... Rule of thumb for CP: Never, EVER say or imply anything bad about a sysop unless you have at least twice the power (either you are a sysop and have a sysop friend, or you have two sysop friends). --Sid 16:41, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Pity I didn't go for the Mormon,The Homophobe & the YEC nutter while I'd got the chance. --FrancisG 16:54, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Professor Style[edit]

Christ!, here we go again. Now all we need is Professor Quotient . Angband 16:15, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Beautiful. "An obsession with academic pedigree." Now who does that bring to mind? Rational Edevidence 16:18, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me or does Andy describe himself here?

  1. a refusal to admit what is not known
    While scientists admit they do not know how life began, Andy ridicules them for it, then insists he knows exactly how it happened.
  2. the ability to speak in self-contradiction without any hint of concern or correction
    Andy contradicts himself all the time
  3. a willingness to bully and intimidate some vulnerable students who are trying to learn
    Andy certainly bullies incessantly. I believe he even does this to some of his homeskoolerz, though I can't always keep track of who they are. He certainly has done so to anyone who bothered to take his stupid tests and receieved a score to high for a liberal to possibly get.
  4. extreme laziness, such as working the equivalent of only part-time for only part of the year
    Does Andy even have a job?
  5. an obsession with academic pedigree, often inflated
    This from Mr. I'm a lawyer who's an expert in all fields of law, and who claims to know more about medicine than actual doctors.
  6. astoundingly bitter disputes with colleagues which can include a refusal to talk with a peer and petty grudges lasting years
    While not necessarily with "colleagues", Andy's disputes at CP are epic. And bannination certainly counts as refusal to talk. In fact "talk talk talk" seems to be one of Andy's pet peeves.

What a fucking hypocrite. But we knew that already. DickTurpis 16:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

This one was especially depressing to read. Most of my professors actually encouraged the conservatives to participate more, and made special effort to insulate them from other opinions. Andy is a little child that was never taught to have an accurate idea of what he is. As a result, he's convinced that all of his professors (and by extension, all professors) were idiots, and that he should have been teaching the class.Lardashe

Handy matrix of what articles Andy and his friends still have to create. (Yes, I was bored, how could you tell?) --Sid 17:17, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

In addition:

  1. an obsession with academic pedigree

Given his apparant obsession as regards Obama and Dawkins' title of 'professor', is this not more evidence of his hypocrisy? Zmidponk 18:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

An obession with academic pedigree? The second sentence of his brother's article is who his supervisor was and what big prize he won. Given the article is 4 sentances long, 25% of it is dedicated to his academic pedigree. 3.14159 20:54, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

And here is an interesting observation with might soon result in a block. 10:30, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled Bidness[edit]

Amusing to note that the rating by the 'RT Community' (registrants at the site) of the movie are considerably higher (21%) than the official reviewers. Despite the fact, of course, that no-one in the RT Community could have seen it yet. Ah, Ed Poor, you're one of them, aren't you? DogP 17:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

why aren't we registering at rt to drive the community ratings down? I will tomorrow!!-caius (soldier) 01:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Terry's new essay[edit]

Should we rebut this side by side style?-caius (soldier) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Hardly worth the effort. Nothing new. Rational Edevidence 18:16, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
There's a bit in there about some amphibian fossil possibly being the work of... pre-Flood genetic engineering? This guy's getting interesting. --Gulik 18:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
...hooooooly crap. That bit about Tiktaalik is interesting indeed. --Sid 18:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, while it may not be side-by-side material, I think I'll add it to WIGO. This is Conservacrack in its purest form. --Sid 18:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Damn, he removed that section. :( --Sid 18:44, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha... even ignoring the hilarious conspiracy theory, the chimera thing would be evidence for evolution/speciation/whatever he calls it. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
So is his postscript a reference to RW then? Or is someone else posting word by word commentary? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 19:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
At first, I thought so, too. But it actually refers to somebody who wandalized the essay itself. --Sid 19:19, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
PS: Of course, there is the possibility that the wandal had read our comments here. Considering how many people apparently use WIGO and Talk:WIGO as their launchpad for hilarity, I wouldn't be surprised. For example, I think somebody used my CP Article Matrix as a Wandalism Target Quicklist a few minutes ago. --Sid 19:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
As an irrelevant aside, the vandal was ObaMartins almost the name of a Newcastle United footballer Obafemi Martins. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 19:34, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes, that's the one. Interesting, I thought it was just supposed to be a semi-witty Obama pun... --Sid 19:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Could be both. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 20:13, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
The ObaMa... was completely unintentional, though funny as fuck now I see it. Let's work together and heal America. ;) --Helena Bonham Carter 20:36, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Hey Terry, next time you criticize a scientist for having believed in a then-disproved theory, remember how you believed in the antedeluvial evil society with genetically manufactured species but couldn't build good boats. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:22, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
If the "laboratory chimera" bit was the work of a vandal, they had access to his account. It was in the first draft. --Gulik 19:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Huh? I don't think anybody thinks that. This is the vandalism Terry and I were talking about. --Sid 19:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Ah, right--I got confused. (In other news, Terry is now off on why SETI is a waste of time, since the Bible already says they won't find anything.) --Gulik 22:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Even with SETI not finding anything, science is still being done. And seti isn't taking any public money - it piggy backs on other projects or is funded by people with lots of money. I bet he'll say that the Long Now is also worthless as the Earth won't be around in 10k years.[10][11] If people want to give their cpu time or money to whatever foundation they want - go ahead. Its not like the CP types are going out of their way to give money to worthy causes like fresh water in the third wold either (you have to pray for it first). --Shagie 23:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)


Well, now, that's odd...First, a UPI image from months ago is suddenly "no longer needed", and then a Reuters photo disappears because of some sort of fair use confusion. Hmm...--WJThomas 23:18, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Quite possibly. For awhile I was sending mail to contact addresses every time something with "fair use" was uploaded and I could find the contact address. The news agencies are the easiest to contact. They also have some of the meanest attack lawyers on call (I hear they only eat red meat, rare). One can only hope that Andy has started to learn "no, thats not fair use" if indeed he was bitten by an attack lawyer. Whatever the case, keep sending the emails. And if any CP sysop types are reading this - you had better go back through and reconsider what fair use is. You get the wrong lawyer mad and they start going for punitive damages rather than just a slap on the wrist. --Shagie 23:28, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Personally, I wanna see Andy pretend to be a lawyer back at them and try to claim his blog is an educational institution. It would entertain me much, and the attack lawyers would get a nice snack. Win-win, as long as you're not a Schalfly. --Kels 23:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
No fair. If there's spankings being handed out, wants my share :( SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:36, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and there's this from a few days ago. I like how Andy's being so casual about it all, not admitting any wrongdoing--didn't need this anymore, wanted a different image there, want to clear up a bit of confusion here. No "we got an angry notice from the rightful owner of this image". Heh. I wonder how long Andy can go without having to admit that the image deletions weren't all his idea.--WJThomas 14:53, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I think Andy would rather wipe out the MW database before admitting having done any serious wrongdoing. He may admit smaller mistakes (like typos) on a good day, but that's pretty much it.
But they've been going on about non-fair-use images for a good while, and the way this is only about very certain image sources makes me think that they did get some sort of "Please stop" mail. --Sid 15:02, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I can't imagine it will be long before the TIme magazine lawyers will be onto them either, especially since they're using a TIME cover on the Main Page. That's major trouble for them, I predict, so watch this space. Especially since the current version of the Expelled article directly accuses Time of misrepresentation and untruthfulness by its movie reviewer. DogP 15:06, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
low res photos or web downloads of publicly available material (newspapers, book covers, etc.) are ok for fair use if for purposes of criticism whether pro or con, as I understand it. (damnit!) SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:13, 19 April 2008 (EDT)


is this? SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:59, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't me! 01:11, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Didn't think it was for a moment, buncha. (?) SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:40, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Someone who quotes the great David Icke can't be all bad. (?) SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:40, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Well Crossx14 posted same thing at Wikipedia where they told him (as Russed000) to take it elsewhere (WP:NOR). However, he tries to claim special exemption as it is "such an important topic". Evidently he originally spammed Google Groups with the same stuff in several languages. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 04:40, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Ken... Please, I'm begging you... get some help[edit]

Really? WTF is wrong with you? Not only is:

If sin is a choice and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality is a choice.

The dumbest bit or "reasoning" I've ever seen.... it's actually wrong... Even some of the more crazy people in Camp Jesus accept that Homosexuality might not be a choice... they at least have the sense to say people should resist the urge... I know of quite a few excellent mental health care facilities in the Denver Metro area and I'll pay for flight and treatment... just commit yourself now... please. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 01:36, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

You're in Denver? Boulder, here. --Gulik 02:05, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Probably the best source on this is to go look up Phyllis Schlafly's own words:
``I don't know and he doesn't know," Schlafly said. ``He thinks he's always been. But about this thing of being born gay, he doesn't know that. I don't know if anybody knows that."
``A long time ago," she replies. He never told her in so many words, and nothing remarkable happened to tip her off. ``I just knew." She never confronted her son; they discussed it only after the QW story broke.
The quotes are from . I wonder if her feelings have changed on that. Maybe Ken should ask Andy for an interview with his brother. --Shagie 02:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
To Gulik: Yeah, I'm actually in Aurora, but it's easier to say Denver... Living in Boulder... You a student or just a pothead? :) SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 03:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Neither, actually. But I hang around with both. (Moved out here for a job, liked it and stayed.) --Gulik 11:37, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

More JM[edit]

Apparently he still has a fuzzy idea of what public domain means. From the source, "For publication of images from our online collections, permission must be requested from FAMSI." I don't see that's the same thing as PD at all, really. --Kels 09:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

wasting Time[edit]

Kowardjerk's all het up about a photoshopped image of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (itself a stage-managed picture) being used by Time magazine for an issue on global warming. One of the refs he provides contains this quote:

“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.”

Seems like these people have a hard time discriminating between their own religion and politics. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 10:06, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Karajerk is clearly insane, if he thinks that disturbing the holy cows of some swabbie(himself) will send you to hell.--Angband 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I see he got pulled up for CoPyright violation as the Iwo Jima image is actually an AP photo. So he added the AP credit but still maintains it's in the public domain! What a d*** (as they say on CP). Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 10:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Amazingly Andy has pulled the Iwo Jima flag-raising image. Did he get a private e-mail or was he just responding to user comments? It's strange that a much larger number of images are being withdrawn because of copyvio. Maybe there have been some complaints and he is just being extra cautious. If someone has the time (yes, you FrancisG) maybe thy could peruse CP's image gallery and unearth a few more. After all, don't conservatives respect intellectual property rights? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 12:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Hopefully the days of JM's sticky fingers are numbered.--Angband 12:45, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Not-Quite-WIGO, but since I'm marginally involved...[edit]

It's really quite telling when Andy's whitewash takes more than a fricken year to reach the less visited corners of CP. --Sid 16:17, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Obsessed or what?[edit]

Conservative seems to be more obsessed with us than we are with them: he's preparing to address us now! SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:36, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Methinks someone who thinks about queers all day shouldn't talk too much about others getting lives... --Kels 21:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
and there it wasn't SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:03, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that was boring. Who, exactly, is "obsessed" in this story? humanUser talk:Human 23:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Stalking our editor Tolerance on CP[edit]

You people are an embarrassment. Can't you let the guy edit and experience what happens on his own, and report back to us? The "gotcha journalism" that this process is turning into turns my stomach. SRSLY. humanUser talk:Human 23:46, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Your argument fails to be convincing. Before you commented it out, there were a total of two items about Tolerance @ CP, and the one you commented out had more to do with Ed being a d***, as usual than anything about Tolerance's activities. I personally haven't seen them rescind a welcome message before, so it's unusual behaviour and worth a WIGO. I'm not going to just rush off and undo your edit, but I'd like something with a little more meat than "you're being big meanies". --Kels 23:56, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
How about "take your meds"? SHahB 00:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
How about "quit trolling"? --Kels 00:08, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Calm down. No need to throw around the "t" word. SHahB 00:13, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Then please quit doing it. --Kels 00:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
In the right Kels is. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 00:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Why did my grandest contribution get removed?????????? 02:38, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I have many perhaps unusual views which some would consider radical, and am quite used to having them rejected - occasionally abusively. However, given the nature of this site, I would not say that I have seen any really abusive extreme reactions. So no problems there. I would ask you not to fall out over this issue.Tolerance 10:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, we don't "fall out", or at least not for long. We just like to argue a lot ;) If people feel the item should be up there (especially considering Kels pointing out that's it's really about Ed, not Tolerance), feel free to "uncomment" it back in. Hi Shabby, you high roller, you! humanUser talk:Human 13:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
What about Genghis?  Lily Ta, wack! 13:20, 20 April 2008 (EDT)