Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive48

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. 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>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <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)

Has it really been THREE MONTHS already?

Has it really been THREE MONTHS already? --CЯacke® 00:43, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I suggest it be known as Phase 6 and start May 22 - RW founder's Day. Let's apply our efforts to getting the new WIGO Clogosphere up to strength. (Although I don't really like the name.) Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:08, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

*is aghast and horrified* <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 04:28, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Can't say the name really appeals to me, but I'm not horrified by it. We'll change it later if necessary. --Kels 10:08, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

22 May is my dog's first birthday. He is called Bruno and he is a chocolate brown Field Cocker Spaniel. XD Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 16:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Isn't our birthday May 21st? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:49, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

May 21/22. RW 2.0 was born late in the evening of 5/21, EST. Although I think it was born in CST. Anyway, I agree. The celebration banner comes down late tomorrow, shall we switch to a one week boyckott starting Friday 5/23? ħψℳ₦ 18:45, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I brought it up at main:talk. ħψℳ₦ 00:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Problem?

CP down?   ^Contribs_Talk 05:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Not for me. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 05:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

No! It just went unobtainable for about 5 minutes for me - back on now.   ^Contribs_Talk 05:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Definitely unstable at the moment. I've had the old "Conservapedia has a problem" page several times now. I think they are having difficulties with animals on teh interten superhighway which is slowing the traffic down. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:32, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's definitely not Ides. DogP 16:47, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Just got this and it cracks me up. Problem's indeed. Jrssr5 15:58, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

We have that saved already ;) See: Conservapedia. Total crack up! human 16:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I get that in bursts lasting about 5 minutes every 6 or so hours.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

KDLF TTSW 57DD BBXC 9FD5 NNSP 77FF CCXP 8NK8 AQ25 MMSN LAKP 8GS0 00HG JH74. All seems to working very well indeed! DogP 16:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

That's as I thought. The connection is now timing out before even getting to the server's error message. human 16:21, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm gonna bring Fn back to around .005 of çQ and see if that brings it back into range again. DogP 16:28, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Tracert shows 209.85.100.44 as "being there" but nothing on port 80. I would hazard a guess that maybe all that traffic to go see the Atheism article has made them exceed their bandwidth allocation? CЯacke® 16:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, actually, Homosexuality had gained about a million views in the last couple hours, that's probably why... it had become their "most popular!" Lyra (WHO IS JUSTICE BEAVER?) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Has a Problem

*Chewbacca noise in disdain* Too many connections? Is that like, a DOS attack or something? I can't imagine millions of people swarming to CP for trusworthy advice. Norseman^Wassail! 17:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT) (moved 17:10)

Yup. Looks like it's fucked from where I'm sitting. Repeated server error pages, 404s, 500s. Bot attack/DoS? Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 17:26, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe one should first apply Hanlon's Razor and ask yourself "is it possible that Andy has no comprehension on how to administer a wiki and did something to mess up the database or misconfigure the server (thinking he knew better than the hosting admin)?" --Shagie 17:42, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia is down?! This calls for a celebration! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I suppose it is possible that Assfly was poking around inside the server with a screwdriver or somesuch malarky but, realistically, with CP's Homosexuality article jumping a million views in about an hour, it looks like a bot/DoS scenario. I'm 85.65% certain that assfly will claim something to do with librul someting or udder. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 17:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I assumed it was us? Also, I recall Uchiha discussing a DDoS attack. Perhaps we should ask him if his acqaintances went ahead with it? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe they got slash dotted by The Michigan Daily[1]? --Shagie 18:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, dig Anna's comment, in part: "I saw this a 100% wasp raised on welfare food w/ a single mom who got here on my own efforts, no thanks to Affirmative Action or the non-existent dollars from my non-existent wealthy parents." Sweet find. human 19:01, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I thought the blogosphere forgot about Conservapedia months ago. I figured it had become old news and we were all alone with it. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:08, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I demand the return of my favourite fundie loon soap opera! --Robledo 18:12, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that the Andy Warhol version of Chewbacca? : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:15, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

No, this is. --Kels 18:43, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Just pulled this off their mainpage URL:

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: exception 'DBQueryError' with message 'A database error has occurred Query: SELECT page_id,page_namespace,page_title,page_restrictions,page_counter,page_is_redirect,page_is_new,page_random,page_touched,page_latest,page_len FROM `page` WHERE page_namespace = '0' AND page_title = 'Main_Page' LIMIT 1 Function: Article::pageData Error: 1033 Incorrect information in file: './conserv8_media/page.frm' (localhost) ' in /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Database.php:708 Stack trace:

1. 0 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Database.php(665): Database->reportQueryError('Incorrect infor...', 1033, 'SELECT page_id...', 'Article::pageDa...', false)
2. 1 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Database.php(1057): Database->query('SELECT page_id...', 'Article::pageDa...')
3. 2 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Database.php(1076): Database->select('page', Array, Array, 'Article::pageDa...', Array)
4. 3 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Article.php(267): Database->selectRow('page', Array, Array, 'Article::pageDa...')
5. 4 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Article.php(279): Article->pageData(Object(DatabaseMysql), Array)
6. 5 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Wiki.php(240): Article->pageDataFromTitle(Object(DatabaseMysql), Object(Title))
7. 6 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Wiki.php(48): MediaWiki->initializeArticle(Object(Title), Object(WebRequest))
8. 7 /home/conserv8/public_html/index.php(48): MediaWiki->initialize(Object(Title), Object(StubObject), Object(User), Object(WebRequest))
9. 8 {main}

Exception caught inside exception handler: exception 'DBUnexpectedError' with message 'Error in fetchObject(): Incorrect information in file: './conserv8_media/page.frm' (localhost)' in /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Database.php:825 Stack trace:

1. 0 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/MessageCache.php(315): Database->fetchObject(false)
2. 1 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/MessageCache.php(252): MessageCache->loadFromDB()
3. 2 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/MessageCache.php(442): MessageCache->load()
4. 3 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/GlobalFunctions.php(420): MessageCache->get('databaseerror', true, false)
5. 4 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/GlobalFunctions.php(379): wfMsgGetKey('databaseerror', true, false, true)
6. 5 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Exception.php(18): wfMsgReal('databaseerror', Array)
7. 6 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Database.php(212): MWException->msg('databaseerror', 'Database error')
8. 7 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Exception.php(109): DBQueryError->getPageTitle()
9. 8 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Exception.php(76): MWException->htmlHeader()
10. 9 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Exception.php(95): MWException->reportHTML()
11. 10 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Exception.php(171): MWException->report()
12. 11 /home/conserv8/public_html/includes/Exception.php(205): wfReportException(Object(DBQueryError))
13. 12 [internal function]: wfExceptionHandler(Object(DBQueryError))
14. 13 {main}

I can haz neu server, pls? kthxbai! Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:21, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Could you explain what the code in the above post means to us laypeople? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:27, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Uhm, nope, sorry. I have no idea what any of the above means. I know that it's a lis of error codes relating to a database of somekind (but anyone can see that, anyway). I'm hoping someone hereabouts who is more tech-savvy can explain a little more. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:31, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

edit button

Ken's Homo-opus must've reached critical mass and infected the whole site with the bad AIDS. --Robledo 18:34, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it needs a localized injection of roughly $180,000.--Bayes_yikes 18:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)<--obscure South Park reference

Maybe Human can enlighten us as to what the above means, in laypeoples' terms. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I got a similar screen of gibberish trying to reload pop pages. And, yes, last I saw, Ken's virus was over 3,000,000 views. CP has been very popular the lest few days... and I can't read that crap. Linus might be able to, or Trent. human 18:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Bayes: I don't get it. Was that an Iraq War reference, or something else unfathomable? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:42, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It was a reference to the South Park episode where they discover that cash is the cure for AIDS (per Robledo). Guess I need a mulligan on that one.--Bayes_yikes 18:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Ken's been buggering the server without adequate lube---again.-- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 18:44, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

OH NOES!!1! Another excuse for teh Assfly to contact teh FBeye! Halp! Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Apparently, the config file has the wrong information about the database, at least. They really need to work on that, seeing as we all now have way too much information about their server. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 18:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I seem to recall MargeryCampbell wondering why they don't hire someone who knows what they're doing to run the wiki. This stemming from the fact she couldn't get her CP email working. CЯacke® 18:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Oooh, I'll copy n paste that load of gobble-dee-gook then and put it somewhere nice and safe for <cough!> archival <cough!> purposes only, I assure you. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:48, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It's all well & good larfing @ the wazzocks, but if they're down, WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE Gonna do?   ^Contribs_Talk 18:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

There's always Metapedia. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well I'm installing 16 driver updates on my Eee PC 900. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:52, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

(UNDENT). I love that part of the code reads "BagOStuff." I don't know why, but that amuses me greatly.PFoster 18:49, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Susan: Dunno! XD Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:51, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Earlier it just displayed the "CP has a problem" page. Any reason why it now shows the gibberish instead of that page?--Bayes_yikes 18:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Bet Andy's on to the EFF BEE EYE right now complaining about those dam librals. !   ^Contribs_Talk 18:54, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

The ones who wrote the MediaWiki software? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:04, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

"What is going on at CP?" - nothing, that's what! Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 18:58, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It went from a "friendly" internal error message, to not available, to the server puking its guts out in response to queries. Sweet. human 19:00, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe Andy's trying to fix it. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:02, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Back up & Running!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:06, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Genghis; your last but one edit comment (Andy: on the job!) nearly made me vomit!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

And the first editor is HAGGERman!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:12, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia new problem haz

They're down again. Haggered this time? DogP 19:38, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

They were working a minute ago. 78.46.51.83 19:43, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Ooops I fink I busted it again:

Conservapedia has a problem Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.

Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

(Can't contact the database server: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11) (localhost))

Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 17:35, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Er. I'm not having any problems. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 17:39, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Yep, I saw that too Spica. It died suddenly, then came back to life like the zombie it is. DogP 17:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Phew I thought I was having an hallucination then :D It's probably left over wobbles from last night's big crash :) Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 17:48, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

AaronP

I'm sure he means well, but given his intro on his talk page [2], I think we can start the countdown to a banhammer falling.... now. --Psygremlin_Whut? 08:18, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, he's going to violate the first implied CP Commandment: "Do not add facts unless they are compatible to a liberal-hating, YEC POV". --Sid 09:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

He already got reverted twice for removing some Andyspeak from the Professor values article. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 09:23, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

His professor values edits never stood a chance. Quickly reverted by Andy who threw this little gem in food good measure (and likely as a "fuck you") immediately afterwards. So if 3 or 4 professors have done something once, it's suddenly something professors do? I also just love the way the protest of the crusty old bitch contradicts what CP always says liberals do, which is shout down any conservative who tries to speak on a college campus, as opposed to conservatives, who protest their opponents silently. I guess even that is now evil liberal behavior. DickTurpis 09:43, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

RW editors will never get tired of the same old biased shite about evil professors, "martyrs" for the YEC cause, lieberal conspiracy theories and all that other insane crap from Andy & Co., will they? :) Angband 10:20, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I can't speak for my friends cell mates, but I never get tired of hypocrisy from any side.... Whether it's Andy claiming that degrees from non christian schools are worthless, while bragging about his degree from Harvard or Former Gov. spitzer prosecuting prostitutes while visiting a very expensive one on the side or even good Rev Haggard, who makes a wonderful cameo in Jesus Camp, which makes his scandel ever funnier. I love it from all sides, so to answer, NO. I never tyre of it (that was an intentional spelling error) SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 15:35, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Predicting Andy

In response to this, Andy will say that "Conservapedian" doesn't always mean somebody who is associated with Conservapedia and/or that liberals take things too literally.

If he doesn't I'll stop mocking him for a week. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 11:30, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm guessing you're right, in that he'll simply redefine what it means to be a "Conservapedian". He may also throw in an accusation of Liberal Style #48 for good measure. --SpinyNorman 12:37, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

NIGHTFLARE FTW!!!!!PFoster 13:49, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I love the way Ferno's talklink now reads "All my funny lines are banned." Andy is really being a dick (more than usual) over that signature. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 14:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy vs. Hollywood

You have to admit, it's properly labled. The "Falsehoods Section" is, indeed, full of falsehoods. --Kels 15:59, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

en passant: the educator Schlafly apparently thinks that a troika is the same as a trio.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It isn't?? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 16:03, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Also pretending to be stupid brings out my intolerance. :-)   ^Contribs_Talk 16:06, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I can't win! Halp, halp! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 16:12, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

troika /troyk/ • noun 1 a Russian vehicle pulled by a team of three horses abreast. 2 a team of three horses. 3 a group of three people working together, especially as administrators or managers. — ORIGIN Russian, from troe ‘set of three’. PFoster

Oh, that makes more sense. I've always wondered what the hell "troika" was for. Thanks. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 16:12, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

"green-lighted a troika of Matthew Shepherd movies" Schlafly quote.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:14, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Good job Rob Smith's not around any more. He'd burst a vessel seeing his boss use a Russian term! --Kels 16:15, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Whatever happened to him, anyway? --Gulik 17:48, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

The low-flow toilet mafia caught up with him. It wasn't pretty. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 17:49, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Minor Grammar quibble... shouldn't it be "living in backwards America?" Also, I love how Andy is willing to take the word of convicted criminals as the absolute truth. No reason a convicted Felon would lie about his motives to avoid a lesser punishment right Andy? You fucking idiot SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 18:22, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Deletions

What has DanH got against Adolf Hitler in that he keeps deleting the article? Surely it would be to CP's advantage to highlight his faults? It just looks like they are ashamed that he was actually a Catholic. Isn't it about time you deleted and recreated another homosexuality related article Dan? You can't be too proud of all of them surely? Come on Dan, we know that deep down you have some integrity. Be a man not a sheep. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:32, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I think he just wants to get rid of all its pageviews, they get restarted after a deletion. Lyra (WHO IS JUSTICE BEAVER?) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Now he's done it with one of Ken's Homosexuality pages too...PFoster 21:18, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Won't Kenservative be a little upset? I'm sure he'd love it if his articles were artificially inflated like that. Perhaps we should try and induce Dan to reset Atheism and Homosexuality as well? Than would really piss Ken off. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 21:24, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

If we can get him to delete a few more out of the Top Top, we can get David Beckham, Unicorn and Kangaroo into the mix. Time to change up the Top Ten! I'm delighted to see Portsmouth is #2 now. I hadn't realised CP was such a hotbed of support for 'Arry's boys. DogP 00:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

And just like that, some fuckin' n00b takes away the lulz.PFoster 19:13, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Wierd Ed

His edit summary in that item was "yes, my sweet bubbly friend." What? Is this some kind of CP in-joke, or what? (Or is Dan really "sweet" and/or "bubbly?") Lyra (WHO IS JUSTICE BEAVER?) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahh! I know the answer to this one! *calms down* DanH used to be called Mountain Dew. *preens* <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{I like red links} 22:32, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

That was back-in-the-day, I complained his moniker was offensive to me since it was a euphemism for illicit alcohol. He complained that "Cracker" was racially offensive to him, that's when I became Rob Pommer. This was Tax Day 2007 I'd guess. CЯacke® 22:46, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Hee hee. I remember that. Good times... SHahB 23:00, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

The image of a jellyfish preening just made my head explode. Rational Ed^think! 13:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Cults

This is kinda funny http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=51028&diff=456338&oldid=456187

Also, anyone notice (or pointed out to Ed) that the Unification Church is under Category:Cults

Ace McWicked 23:27, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Skeletons

[3]

Anybody read the article? Fucking hilarious!

Given how young I am in comparison to the events mentioned in the article, I have no memories of the events. I'm very skeptical of his assertions. He offers no specific information, aside from vague claims that "Joe Bloggs was a hero to American leftists." Are we sure that this isn't Andy under a pseudonym? Lardashe

Isn't it obvious?

I'm sorry, but isn't it a bit more newsworthy when a churchman steals as compared to junkies? DLerner 03:07, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

The headline "Dog Bites Man" is not really of interest, but the headline "Man Bites Dog" is considerably more of interest.Lardashe

Not if you really hate dogs! human 12:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Of course not-- Church men are on the same level as junkies! 142.179.252.17 21:34, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, if the man was bitten while in a gun-free zone and/or attended public school... NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 22:42, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Modern Christian Parable you WON'T see on CP

One day, a well known author receives an award for one of his books, including a substantial sum of money. While going out to his car though, he's approached by a woman telling him about her child that is deathly sick and needs an expensive operation in order to get healthy again. The author moved to tears cuts a check and hands it to the woman who then goes off and cashes it. Later, a friend of his notes to him that she had lied, and that there was no sick child. The author replied, "Wow, what a relief. There is no sick child!" The moral is... shut up, money ain't be yours, an the only thing that matters in life is the well-being of others, not whether you got ripped off. The CP version likely ends up with the lady going to jail for ten consecutive life terms before being killed in prison by a gang fight after overdosing on heroin. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:16, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Which wouldn't have happened if the inmates had been allowed to carry guns :) :) SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 03:39, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Subtle Vandalism

Look at the last line LOL --DLerner 12:23, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder when they'll find the one in Battle of Gettysburg. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 12:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Aziraphale's Parthian Shot...

Screencap, maybe?PFoster 12:44, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Got it. Opinion later, once I read it. --Sid 12:52, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I already did the WIGO, you wanna add the screen? --Kels 12:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Done, and I also adjusted the main link to the section. --Sid 13:05, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I was under the understanding that diffs were preferable because after Andy or Kowardjou delete the post, it'll still be there. Am I wrong in this? --Kels 13:09, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes the entire page gets whacked and then recreated without the offensive post showing up. !CЯacke® 13:12, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, we know Andy's active. He just blocked StatsFan for telling the truth. --Kels 13:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I thought the diff would probably survive in this case, even if the post is deleted... human 13:25, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I linked to a permalink-version of the page. So if Andy just removes the post in a later edit, the permalink will still have it. It's as good as a diff in that regard. And diffs don't survive page deletions, either. --Sid 13:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm actually excited to see his response. It's not really a subject he can generate statistics in regard to. But I'm sure he'll just revert it and that'll be a non-dramatic ending to a well through criticism. Lardashe

If nothing else, A Zero Phile is absolutely right about restricting signup at CP. If Andy simply vetted wannabe editors, he'd have a much more manageable project that might actually grow in a sensible fashion. As it is, people whose main skill is deleting comments and blocking trolls rise to the top of his "meritocracy". Hell, then Poor Ed could spend his spare time trolling WP for abused conservative editors to invite! human 13:31, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

It's true, I love me some zeros. Az -iraphale :p 13:35, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

And let me rephrase that - Zepo is right about most of what he wrote, I think, but "If nothing else, Andy should listen to A Zero Phile about restricting..." is what I really meant. human 13:37, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Edit button 1

Aziraphale makes some good points and has good intentions, but I find some suggestions troubling in the details:

• "all editing should require an account and those accounts should be verified in some fashion"
  • Given how willing the sysops are to blackmail people with private information and how often they publish it, NO. HELL NO. I can see the point, but trusting Andy and his goons with private info should be a big no-no. The worst part is that people usually need a few days or weeks before realizing how insane and hate-filled CP sysops can be. And at that time, they'd prefer to distance themselves as far as possible from the site, but they gave exactly those people personal data. Not good.
• "Has a single valued contributor to this site started off as a nuisance user?"
  • Yes: The entire founding team of RW and most of our new members. We all joined the site in an effort to improve it, and almost all of us were branded vandals, liberals, nuisance, or even terrorists at some point simply for not saying "Yes, Andy, you're right! Public schools are Satan and every child should carry a gun! Also, abortions most definitely cause breast cancer and Hollywood and Universities are filled with disgusting liberals who try to brainwash the world into becoming New Sodom," and for offering differing opinions. Or for trying to include facts, even if they are not YEC-compatible. It all grinds down to Andy's definition of who is a nuisance, after all.

All in all, though, he's mostly on the right track. The site should finally drop the pretense of being "open". It's not. Anything that goes against the ideology of the sysops will be removed without discussion. Key articles are protected right from the start to prevent any dissenting view from ever entering it. If you're not a YEC Gun Nut, you are wrong on CP, and the site leadership should finally admit that. CP is not an encyclopedia, and it's not trustworthy. It's an activist opinion site, period. And some sysops should really be booted. "High quality contributors" my ass. --Sid 13:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Sad part of all that is I was recommending bits of that ages ago. Close the site. Kick out the really insane ones like the Koward and Ken. Shift the focus back to homeschoolers and don't open it to the general public for editing. See, that I could respect. Not Andy's Conservative Lie Emporium and Travelling Snake Oil Show. --Kels 14:12, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Surprise, Andy replies....and no surprise, he sounds like a cult leader. Exactly like a cult leader.PFoster 13:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Something is holding you back from accepting conservative values across-the-board. Maybe it's the views of friends, maybe it's a personal experience, or maybe it's a misunderstanding of what conservatism is. Well, that's why were here. Let go of what is holding you back, and try accepting the logic and emotion of conservatism. Then you won't leave it again.

...oh dear God, you're right. The paragraph starting with "Millions homeschool" makes him sound more like a Bond villain, but the last one REALLY sounds like a cult leader. I've read tons of Andy-posts in my life, but this one paragraph creeps me out more than 95% of his other stuff combined. --Sid 13:53, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow............wow..............that whole thing.........I can't even fathom........nevermind I don't even want to try and think about it. tmtoulouse ^nettle 14:00, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, we already knew that Andy defines anyone who doesn't agree with Himself and Mommy as Liberal, but this is probably the most blatant he's made it. To him, there's a laundry list of positions, and you must agree with every single one of them in order to be a Conservative. Don't like abortion but allow gay marriage? Liberal. Don't like either one but believe gun control is useful? Liberal. I assume that only PJR's unwavering lying to himself support of YEC saves him, but I'll bet Andy's suspicious of him, too. Ideological test? Check. --Kels 14:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Funny thing is, Andy's black-and-white examples are far from black and white. There are huge grey areas he can't see. The vast majority of people are neither in the "a fertilized egg is a human being with rights as much as anyone else" camp nor the "have an abortion at 8 1/2 months, no questions asked" camp either. Likewise people can be for, against, or indifferent to gay marriage, or against it but not in favor of an amendment banning it. There are even people in the world (unfathomable as it may be to Andy) who may oppose something but not want it banned. But Andy does seem like a cult leader, and I am getting seriously concerned about these students of his. I have no problem with them holding conervative ideals, but this brainwashing is troublesome. DickTurpis 14:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) More later, but for now: Sid - you might have been adding a value, but were you valuable from Andy's perspective? Not by individual edits, but net? Accounting for how much effort is spent dealing with the people they disagree with?

I was not, and am not, trying to "diss" anybody here, but imo CP doesn't get more than it costs to deal with the dissenters. Bear in mind, under a "registration required" model I would not be an editor at CP, for exactly the reasons you raised. Az 14:25, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Embrace the dark side, Aziraphile. It is your destiny! DickTurpis 14:31, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

"Sid - you might have been adding a value, but were you valuable from Andy's perspective?" - Heh, that's an excellent way of asking, and it nicely highlights where you are right. The answer is (of course) "No, I wasn't," since most of my edits went against Andy's view of reality. Some of my edits may have been universally true enough to be accepted, but the rest... My protest (that point at least) was mostly based on a more universal view of "value", but you're right that on CP, this definition doesn't get you very far.

That's also why I agreed with your basic point - putting CP into lockdown mode and dropping the act that the project is actually open. --Sid 14:42, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, Kels and I have had similar opinions on this for so long it's not funny. @ Andy: I suspect your discomfort stems from some disagreements with conservative principles. really means I suspect your discomfort stems from some disagreements with my principles. Andy's small-tent "conservatism" is in direct contradiction with his triumphalist view that the world would embrace CP as a fountain of true-majority conservative ideals. And there's no shame in putting together an "encyclopedia" with a closed editor base (open upon request and approval) with a minority stance. Just to get one's ideas out there. Wiki or blog, it's all the same.

PS, @ AZ and Sid - I joined CP an obvious "enemy of the state", but all my edits to CP actually made it a (slightly) better encyclopedia. I just avoided the controversial topics - but not having controversial friends ;) human 14:48, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not really a fan of labeling a blog or other activist site an "encyclopedia", but it may work if they had the guts of admitting their bias instead of claiming that they are "trustworthy".

And when I joined CP, I never thought that I'd end up being one of those Bad Boys the "good kids" shouldn't hang out with. XD Then again, I hadn't anticipated how closed-off and hostile Schlafly-conservatives would be in the face of dissent on any subject. Small wonder they are mostly shunned on WP and had to flee into niches where they could be king. --Sid 15:03, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Yet another intelligent, thoughtful, willing to listen CONSERVATIVE gone from conservapedia. Wish I could shake AZ's (right) hand after reading that. You go, Republican! Czolgolz 15:10, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

On open editing and software. Andy wants to use Wiki software and he wants to have it be as open to editing as wikipedia. If he closes it down to the level of Creationwiki, it isn't wikipedia and he can't "win" in his own eyes. Long ago I suggested that H2G2[4] has a much better model for the type of system that would serve him much better - but its not wikipedia.

Andy also wants to be oppressed. This goes back to a group is its own worst enemy - "The identification and vilification of external enemies". He needs the demons out there that want to put him down. The liberal masses wanting to crush his message. This gives him strength. Just as we vilify Conservapedia and the anti-science types, Andy vilifies liberals, public schools, and wikipedia. As much of a headache as vandals are for CP, they are part of the social structure there and I daresay are needed for CP to feel that it has something of value. --Shagie 15:31, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

That brings up an interesting question: Does anyone actually read Conservapedia, aside from vandals and the couple dozen editors? Czolgolz 15:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Of course they do: are you suggesting that all Ken's Google spamming is to no avail? :-)   ^Contribs_Talk 16:09, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Edit button 2

I'm sure no one uses it as a regular encyclopedia. It's useless as such. Kenny's campaign to advertize a few of his pet projects probably has a few eyes on them here and there, but it's not a reference work. I admit looking things up on it occasionally to get the far-right perspective on topics. I just did so today in fact, but their Che Guevara article is piss-poor; I expected a multi-page hatchet job, but got almost no information at all.

In any case, I've seen no references to anyone using CP as an encyclopedia. If we start seeing educational institutions telling students not to use CP as a source, that's when we should get worried and Andy should get excited, because that means that it's actually being used that way. When that happened to WP I knew that this somewhat obscure project I had taken an interest in had really arrived. That just isn't happening for Andy. DickTurpis 16:28, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Short answer: No.

Slighty longer answer: It's of course possible that thousands of people read CP and treat it as a trustworthy source for encyclopedic information. However, all these people apparently vowed to never post anything about it. I've made various "Who links to or talks about CP?" experiments, and I had extreme trouble finding any source that shows that anybody seriously reads CP (or at least no source that doesn't mock CP). 99% of all references about CP are either mocking posts or "sponsored links" - Conservative either trolling/spamming on sites, or people who link to CP because Conservative explicitly asked them to. --Sid 16:33, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

How could anyone use it as a trustworthy source of information? The first time a casual reader spots a factual error, bias or opinion in an article and tries to correct it or add to it they are almost instantly reverted or blocked. Or, they may see it happening to another editor. Once the Goggles Of Denial fall away, they are almost impossible to put back on again, and one instantly sees every other article as impossibly tainted with the stink of 'Blog'. DogP 16:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflicts, sorry for repeating what others may have said)

I have been collating page views on CP for quite some time and from what I can see the site acually gets 50,000-70,000 mainspace page views a day. Only the site admin knows the true stats of how many are unique IPs, how many of are vandals and how many are Ken rewriting the last sentence that he just posted. The main lulz for RW is on talk pages so we probably don't drive up the mainspace views that much. What I don't understand is why people go to CP for information, even if they are conservative, christian homeschoolers as there are very few articles that have any worthwhile content. Andy promotes the concise entry as being more encyclopaedic, well that may be true for an encyclopedic dictionary, but if you want to write an article for school then you need depth. That's what makes Wikipedia so interesting, you can follow a link to something and get a good grasp of the entire topic. The only articles that are not concise are the contentious crap about atheism, homosexuality and liberals, or the dozens of boring copied articles about insignificant naval vessels. none of which make good foundations for an encyclopedia. Nearly 50 articles on homosexual topics, none of which actually tell you much about the subject and mainly comprise acres of third-party quotes joined by Ken's hackneyed phrases. It's just not a resource for homeschoolers. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:06, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

In my way of seeing things, his "Something is holding you back..." crap really sounds like "Damn, you got me. But, it's true if you BELIEVE it's true." Sort of a defeatist attitude who refuses defeat, y'know? Now imagine him telling that to a young, impressionable mind, giving a warm smile and patting them on the head. :P Norseman^Wassail! 17:23, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

In response to the bit above about page views. I think CP gets a pretty decent amount of traffic from RW, I also think much of the traffic comes from people who read it as a joke site. Much like Nambla, people treat CP as the joke it is. I think even the few conservatives that still think it holds any accountability recognize that it's not an encyclopedia. In fact, I tried to look something up today... oh yeah, the China Plate thing and like most of their articles, it was completely worthless and uninformative. I had to go to Wikipedia to figure it out. So I don't think many people really use it as a source of infromation, for gods sake, most of their articles are two sentences long and contain failry obvious information. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 17:47, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Since we focus so often on just a few batshit-crazy articles, I imagined that much of the 'trustworthy encyclopedia' consisted of similarly long, rambling, totally unreliable entries filled with opinion and factual inaccuracies. But to really educate yourself as to how useful the overall project is, I highly recommend a quick visit, followed by repeated clicking on the Random Article button. It's astonishing - about 90% of their articles are one or two sentence stubs (legal, particularly) that don't even explain in the first sentence what their context is. There is practically no useful information there whatsoever. Although I have recently learned quite a bit about KAL007. DogP 13:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Edit button 3

After reading the above (and been a reader of CP for over a year now) I kinda feel sorry for aschlafly. Almost. He has kind of painted himself into a corner and is now raving and jabbering while waving his brush around at the other CP sysops in their painted corners. As Aschlafly can NEVER back down (backing down means he made an error which he can never admit) his site has just become another humourous blog at the dark end of the internets. Even Stumbleupon.com has CP as 'Satire'. Also, noticed that CP is down? Has been for awhile now. Ace McWicked 18:25, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd go back to Czolgolz's point - Andy can't lock Conservapedia down, because it's getting a reaction from "liberals" that validates him. Seems to me that it is the sense of being an oppressed minority, fighting the brave fight against overwhelming odds, that gives Andy reason to get up in the morning. That's why Andy and his sysop owsla are quick to revert mainspace edits, but actually leave the majority of talk pages untouched. If they shut down the debate pages then there would be no fight with liberals, and it would become obvious pretty quickly that it is just four people playing the biscuit game in a shabby corner of the internet. Andy wants his enemies on the site, just so long as he can control the final word. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 04:48, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Owsla! The biscuit game! Excellent references, there, Mr CharlesSublunar. I most heartily approve.   _{_‡¥}        05:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

And Andy's final word is, "Liberals always like to have the last word". A paradox, a paradox, a most unusual paradox. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:16, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

You have very strange editing habits, Genghis. I think the purpose of Andy's "I will take the last word just to tell you how immature it is that you always have to have the last word" thing is just to make his opponent incredibly angry. No one could really be stupid enough not to see the internal inconsistency there, surely?   _{_‡¥}        05:19, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Strange editing habits? I couldn't resist a Gilbert & Sullivan quotation, that's all. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:17, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I meant the way you posted as an IP, then reverted, then posted again. I was thoroughly confused until you posted with your proper signature.   _{_‡¥}        12:21, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

The problem is that, while Andy needs opposition for validation, the same opposition drives him deeper and deeper into his corner. The result is that his "insights" and "mysteries" get more bizarre every week. Remember, those mysteries started with "Was Apostle XYZ a child?" and worked their way up to "Aggression-based sports turn girls into lesbians and keep boys straight" and "The movie/music industry causes breast cancer". Sure, this means more Lulz for us, but where will it end? --Sid 08:37, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

In tears. Tears and fire. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

That's "tears" as in to pull or rip something apart by force. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 09:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think I agree that Andy uses some of these techniques just to get a rise out of liberals, and out of the pure joy of getting even for all the slights he received on WP. I get a certain pleasure out of leaving the last and most stupid post during a discussion on CP without an answer to just flap in the wind. Rational Ed^think! 13:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Man, Andy's sounding even creepier by the hour.

"Conservative values have personal benefit, Aziraphale. It would benefit you and those around you whom you share them with."

I guess he's getting some pointers on cults from Ed or something. --Kels 17:14, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy and white pow[d]er thinks he is Luke's father

The block above has wandered away from Andy's rant:

• I suspect your discomfort stems from some disagreements with conservative principles.
  • There is one way. I own it. Here is my favorite strawman
• But note that several of your criticisms are contradictory (e.g., you implicitly say, first delegate more and second, don't delegate so much!).
  • This is simply a lie told to deflect. Andy is a liar. He does this all the time.
• You culminate with a statement that you're not a liberal, but it's clear you're not a full conservative either. I don't see much in the middle.
  • People who don't agree with me are my enemies. This is my excuse to deflect
• Either one is pro-life or pro-choice. There's no middle ground. Either one supports same-sex marriage, or he opposes it. There's no compromise. The same could be said about a half-dozen other key issues.
  • Let me quote to you from the wedge document
• I know we try to remain friends to as many as we can, but one can't be all things to all people.
  • Rise up my Christain brothers and kill the liberals!
• Millions homeschool. That's more than enough to change the world.
  • i.e. Andy's Army of God
• I know, I know, we have a culture that watches the polls daily and thinks a majority is what matters.
  • Strawman. Let me interpret the criticism in as broad a manner possible to allow me to deflect
• Check out all great movements, insights, achievements, discoveries, and inventions. They didn't happen by majority vote, and often a handful were enough for amazing progress.
  • deflective bullshit pulled out of Andy's ass. And another reference to his besieged army
• Something is holding you back from accepting conservative values across-the-board. Maybe it's the views of friends, maybe it's a personal experience, or maybe it's a misunderstanding of what conservatism is.
  • you have to give that up if you are going to be with me, if not your against me
• Well, that's why were here. Let go of what is holding you back, and try accepting the logic and emotion of conservatism. Then you won't leave it again. Godspeed
  • Come towards the light. We're waiting for you. brainz! more brainz!

^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 15:15, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

<font Goat gonendy's response, I couldn't help but imagine him reaching his hand out to Aziraphale, Empire-Strikes-Back-style --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:26, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh yes, definite ESB scenario. "Join me and together we can rule the USA!" Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 08:16, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Would that make George W. Emperor Palpatine? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:39, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, but it makes *me* Luke mutha-f#*@in Skywalker, so I'm down with this analogy. Az 10:51, 20 May 2008 (EDT) <-what, thought I was allergic to naughties?

Aaah!

Pet goat gone   ^Contribs_Talk 08:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

"Not notable"? Not notable?! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:47, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

It isn't really that notable. BeastmasterGeneral 14:22, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Everything goat-related is automatically notable... or perhaps "goatable." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:37, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Of Goat = Of Note RedDog 15:35, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

And it lasted ...?

Wonder how long this vile revisionism'll last.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:10, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks like DaveD sorted it ;) Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 14:30, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

The Ted Kennedy one

Sources conflict. Schlafly's "error" here seems to be he trusted that bastion of Liberal lies, PBS.

I say we comment it out fer now. CЯacke® 16:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

A google search turns up quite a few pages that agree with this. Andy actually seems to have chosen the reference with this least random ranting on this. Wikipedia seems to have relied only on his Congress bio. 3.14159 18:36, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Although the edit Andy made contains the "I know you better than you do", where says that he in not a practicing Catholic. He latter goes on to add he that Kennedy is "pro-abortion", probably to support his theory he is not a true catholic. 3.14159 18:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

My main point in posting that one was that a little research would have shown that there were conflicting dates. Harvard's own website has Kennedy listed as class of '56. IMO, another example of Andy selectively picking data as it suits him. Jrssr5 10:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Right, I got that. But the way it was worded suggested CP was just wrong again. If the sources conflict then (IMO) one should cut them some slack. The way it is now is fine, mentioning that the source used had it wrong. That it remains wrong goes to Schlafly's inability to admit he makes errors. CЯacke® 11:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Queer Theory

Aside from the general wrongness of it all, is anyone else creeped out by Ed's edit comments? It's like he and Andy are in a competition or something. *shudder* --Kels 17:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Cripes, it gets better. Check this one out, where he quotes one school of thought and applies it to all, and even more fun makes reference to "Queer Theory" which he then goes on to delete for not being notable. What a piece of work is Ed! --Kels 17:24, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Even better, did you notice Ed actually wrote the first article? and then called it "great, surprisingly free of liberal bias"? Eddie eddie eddie. Lyra (WHO IS JUSTICE BEAVER?) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

So Tom Moore is now blocked for questioning Ed Moon-Pies 'philisophical expertise'. Alsi, I knew that AaronP wouldnt last Ace McWicked - (not signing in)

I SO want to sock up and take Ed to task for his complete lack of understanding about what Foucault was saying in HofS..luckily, my library's IP was permabanned.PFoster 17:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd say Ed's moving quickly into Hypocritical Asshole territory, if that wasn't where his permanent residence was. --Kels 17:57, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

He really is a complete and utter bastard. Ace Mcwicked

Smells like CENSORSHIP to me, Poorly Ed-ucated! Norseman^Wassail! 18:18, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed's Feminist Theory article is typical of the crap he posts. The article is just a quote from some other site which puts in a box, he has not added a references section to the article, there is no category, and then whacks it with masses of red links. How he can claim to be any sort of super-wiki editor is beyond me. I think Ed really needs to submit a writing plan as the quality of edits is poor (no pun intended) and they are rarely encyclopedic. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:17, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Genghis, Genghis, Genghis...do you have an degree in Encyclopedia Sciences? Unless the answer is yes (and if it is yes, unless you can mail me your degree) then you have no right or ability to say what is or is not encyclopedic. But on another note, I was looking over Ed "Me, Wales and Sanger founded Wikipedia" Poor's earlier WP contributions, and they are awful. I'll cut him some slack, because he was a very early editor over there, predating many policies and guidelines, but a pile of shit is a pile of shit no matter how ill-defined a project is. The guy is a useless waste of organic material. DickTurpis 09:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Back to A Zero Phile's parthian slings and arrows

Off topic - But Aziphales recent post to Aschlafly but be driving him bananas. I can see aschlafly staring at the computer doing brain spasms in wonder at how someone can have other beliefs yet not be a liberal. Ace McWicked

Doesn't matter, his most recent reply shows he's not really reading Az's comments at all, since he's responding to other topics entirely. I think by now he's put Az into the "Liberal, but maybe he can be saved" box. --Kels 18:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Az is really bringing out Aschlafly and showing what he really thinks - that being a liberal, old earth creationists, pro-choice - whatever is actually some kind of disease of the mind. Its really quite fascinating. I have never seen Aschlafly spouting this nonsense in such a fashion. His guard is way down as usually he gets quite aggressive. Ace McWikced

Wait, for there to be a "Lib but can be saved" box, there must be three boxes!!! human 19:32, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think teh assfly put it all in a neat little nutshell here:

"The only reason that I identify posters as liberal or "not fully conservative" is to debunk their claim, express or implied, that they are conservative. This become particularly important when a poster is (a) criticizing the site for what may be due to ideological reasons, (b) insisting that there is a diversity of opinion among conservatives when there really isn't, or (c) telling (misleading) students about what conservative principles or values are."

(a) if you criticize the site, it is by definition ideological (and you're wrong)

(b) the only true conservatism is the exact set of views I ascribe to (any issue on which you disagree with me makes you a liberal/not fully conservative)

(c) ding! That's the definition of Andy and his Conservapedia blog! human 19:44, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHA Gotta love them conservative girls! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=59900&diff=457511&oldid=457500

Az is doomed without those smokin' hot girlz in their floor length canvas dresses and braids. DogP 23:05, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Someone ought to remind andy the Gordon Brown is NOT a tory. Ace McWicked

Not only is Gordon Brown not a Tory but Australia under very conservative John Howard had strict gunlaws. Who has a sock? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=59900&diff=457512&oldid=457511 Ace McWicked

Wow, he's managed to construct himself an entirely fictional person with the same name as you, Az. And rest assured, any further comments you make will be assumed to be coming from that person rather than you. It's a shame, but you've just been kicked out of your own identity as far as Andy's concerned.

As to Human's comments, it's the same as PJR's YEC-ism. The beliefs he's built up around himself, which all come directly from mommy's...uh...let's say lips and not dwell on it...cannot be challenged in the smallest particle. If he admitted even one of them might have nuance or even, horrors!, be incorrect, then the whole thing crashes down. So any amount of twisting of words, inventing of arguments, deliberate misunderstandings and so on are fair game. --Kels 21:48, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm I am not sure but is Aschlalfy suggesting that because of gun laws, the conservatives were not able to rise up and stop the leftists taking control by shooting them? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=59900&diff=457564&oldid=457562 Ace McWicked 22:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

That's pretty much how I read it. And note how much less polite he became when called on his mistakes.

Az, we appreciate your efforts, but I think this patient is beyond saving. --Gulik 00:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks like Az agrees, with a heavy heart. What you wanna bet Andy's gonna take one more "Last Wordist" shot at him as he walks out the door? --Kels 00:19, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

The cons. girsl part was teh funny.. and the link to AZ's "final" (?) statement is here human 00:31, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

In the bit he was replying to, Andy really does sound like some sort of cultist. "Why can't you just agree with me about everything? Think how much EASIER it'll be...." --Gulik 02:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

My favorite response in the thread is [5] - the bit about "You've chosen the hard road for yourself. It could lead to medication, depression, mid-life crisis, and loneliness. Conservative girls do not have a high demand for guys who adhere to a liberal belief system." --Shagie 02:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

If he speaks the truth: damn it, because you know how much I like those conservative girls. - Icewedge 03:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

You wouldn't believe how tempted I was to point at to Andy that he should look a little closer to home before he makes search assertions...

But that might constitute jackassery. Uchiha^KATON! 10:32, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

ZOMFGBBQ. Phil's calling Andy on some of his dumber comments! I always liked Phillip, even if he is a Creationist. Pity he's going to be banned, now. --Gulik 03:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I bet Andy will just go quiet now and let the discussion die. He'll never banhammer PJR, despite him being a liberal (or non-conservative) as he's the chief YEC blinding idiot proponent on the site. Bondurant 03:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me, or is our Phil livin' on teh edge? He's just called Kajaboo on the whole encyclopaedic sciences claptrap [6] --Psygremlin_Whut? 06:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

DaveD just made a pointed remark about Gordon Brown not being a Tory: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=59900&diff=457690&oldid=457689 Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 09:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Which has been reverted. --CЯacke® 10:15, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm vastly amused by Philip calling out Andy on his irrational absolutist attitute on most issues, but he's basically a goddamn hypocrite. Remember? Repeatedly he has proclaimed that Christianity is the only correct and true religion, and furthermore, since it is correct, it should be the default, government-endorsed worldview of the US. Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise has a warped perspective and should be ignored (i.e. "I think everyone else is wrong and our democracy should reflect this"). Why not just impose Christianity by force and be done with it, Phil? Apparently there is only room for middle ground/diverse stances when yours is the one that's different. Uchiha^KATON! 10:36, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

The veneer of the "downtrodden minority" wears thin if the gummint (to use the Pogoism), makes one practice it. Besides, one cannot assent to the faith-as-a-gift-from-God through coercion but "arrive" at that (blessed) place through thorough reflection and positive volition. CЯacke® 10:45, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Good heavens! Andy just posted his reply to...well, not to anything Az actually said or anything. More to some post he made up. And it seems that the Entirely Fictional Az who replaced the real one is developing some clear characteristics:

• EFA is not only not conservative, but anti-conservative. Apparently if you don't score 100% in the ideological test, you're at the very bottom of the slippery slope. Bummer of a grading curve you got there, Andy.
• EFA is apparently not very smart, and doesn't even know how to vote.
• EFA supports full taxpayer funding of abortion regardless of any other circumstances or consideration. Anything goes!
• EFA opposes school prayer, and having a place to pray like a lunchroom or even a chapel JUST AIN'T GOOD ENOUGH. Just a dodge to get out of saying you hate Christianity and want to destroy it, I guess.
• EFA is deliberately and deceitfully hiding what his true ideology is, which is 100% of the motivation behind any and all criticisms of the site. Putting a link to your positions in your very first post is clearly Liberal Deceit.
• Finally, EFA is actively trying to put others in harm's way and get them addicted to drugs, violence and sex, and will be heading down that road himself presently. Nice knowin' ya.

Sorry about losing your identity, Az. But you no longer exist on CP. It's all EFA, all the time now. --Kels 09:47, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I like "look at the high drop out rate from public school" - You can't, by definition, drop out from homeschool - you've pre-empted a drop from public school & are left with nowhere to drop to.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:57, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's kinda hard to drop out of your family before the age of 18. Rational Ed^think! 10:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Clueless

Let's see what happens to poor old DaveD: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=457889&oldid=457699 XD Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:22, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent parthian shot, there. I give it an eight. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

He's on a roll: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cthulhu&diff=prev&oldid=457891 Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:29, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

What's the betting that Andy will class this as trolling? ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

And again: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Camel&diff=457894&oldid=457892 Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:32, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Bye y'all, come back and visit soon, y'hear? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DaveD Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:33, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

You need a new sock, now :) ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I think in this case Dave's aggression is slightly misplaced. After all, he's overlooking an epic landmark in Andy's life: for the first time ever Andy admitted he was wrong! Well, he admitted he was "confused", which is close enough, and then he went on to basically say it doesn't matter as his point is exactly the same either way, but it is still an achievement the likes of which I have never seen. Of course, the correction came before Andy had dug himself into a hole he couldn't gracefully back out of (unlike Dawkins and Hollywood breast cancer), so his retreat was pretty painless. Next time it'd be best to firmly entrench himself before pointing out the error. DickTurpis 15:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Poor DaveD. And such a new sock as well. Ah me. Never mind, I have sox-a-plenty over there in IdiotLand. DanH blocked Eu as a sock of DaveD but Eu wasn't. Sorry, Eu! XD Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Yep. DanH is very reliable like that. He's done more for our cause than we have! ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 15:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed Poor vaped your Camel edit! What a slimy little... ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 15:50, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

But DanH missed this (which will disappear in a few seconds): http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=457903 Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:53, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

So what did the camel thing actually say? I've never managed to do anything bad enough to need deep burning like that -- and my vandalism often consists of massive adverts for RW. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

If you weren't Eu, then you were using the same proxy. DanH 15:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much everyone uses the same few proxies, Dan. You can't tell the bad guys from the good just by that. And hi, by the way. :) ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

DanH: I wasn't using a proxy... The camel thing was something about there being male and female camels, and edPoor and assfly just luuuurrrrvvveee to ride 'em across the desert. Or something. Anyway the incineration was that they copulate with dromaderies (?sp?) Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 16:20, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

No proxy? That's quite odd. You should consider using one for your other socks now, y'hear? Camel thing: I guess Ed just felt like throwing his weight around, then. They don't normally do that kind of burning for any kind of vandalism, as far as I know. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

PJR

Who wants to take some odds on PJR bowing out soon and heading back to Creationwiki? Ace McWicked 06:53, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Not me. He's too embedded in CP to leave easily and has shown infinite patience in dealing with the idiots over there in the past. Andy would move into full-on creep mode to try to keep him if it looked like he was going to leave.

I deeply dislike his "Christianity is the right religion" attitude and his dogmatic adherence to YEC, but you have to admire his restraint. Bondurant 07:04, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

He's good window dressing for Andy too, since he's pretty much the only prominent sysop who doesn't bully people mercilessly, or go out of his way to taunt them. But it's pretty rare when he even recognizes the misdeeds of his fellow sysops, let alone speak up. Most of the time he swallows it and goes on, assuming they're absolutely right in banning people for three talk posts and that the entire population of the United States is AmesG. --Kels 07:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I find PJR's insistence that everyone is going to hell unless they follow his narrow version of Christianity rather nasty. His restraint consists of smiling as he stabs you with eternal damnation. Most of his arguments hinge on some variation of a literal interpretation of the Bible - demonstrating a pronounced lack of imagination and intellect in my view. Rational Ed^think! 09:12, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I don't doubt he has intellect. He's obviously very intelligent, but it's mostly used in the service of the logical contortions he has to go through to justify YEC and what he concedes about science at the same time. It's not an easy trick, and requires a lot of self-denial to do, and it's a total waste of the intelligence he has. To quote one of the great philosophers of the 20th century,

“”"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully. "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever." "And he has Brain." "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain." There was a long silence. "I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything."

The thing to remember, imo, is that a belief that other religions are wrong (and that non-believers are going to hell) is a logical conclusion of Christianity as practiced/professed in many corners. If you really do believe in all the tenets of, say, the Baptist Church, then Presbyterians really do have it wrong and they are screwed.

I'm not saying it's any fun dealing with those people, or that they're right, but if you put yourself in their headspace for a minute it's not to hard to realize that that's the way the world looks to them, in which case them saying so should be no surprise at all.

As for PJR apologizing or not for other sysops - if he shouldered their sins that's all he'd do, all day. Cheers, Az 11:16, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I never said he should be apologizing, but there's no element of even recognizing it for the most part. It's a willful blind eye towards a good 90% of the excesses on the site, and even simple acknowledgement that maybe it's not a good idea would be nice. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Not to say they are evil, although in some regards I do see their ideology as leaning in the "pretty nasty if implemented in RL" direction. --Kels 12:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I for one, do not believe that Christianity has to be interpreted that way. And I believe that those who do, have failed in a profound way to understand the message Jesus was attempting to convey. I also believe that the message was corrupted very early on in the evolution of the church. Augustine, for example, decided that it was okay to use the full force of the state against heretics - that is, people who interpreted the message differently than they did. And I consider it the utlimate arrogance and hubris for anyone like PJR to claim to know who is damned and who isn't. Rational Ed^think! 11:39, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Knock yourself out, I was only trying to offer some perspective. Az 11:55, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you're right. I just find it ironic that Christians can be so un-Christian. Rational Ed^think! 11:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, PJR is at least consistent. If you say one religion is the right one (as I assume most religious people do, and certainly Phil does) you are by necessity saying all the others are wrong. They can't all be right; that simply doesn't work (they can be, and likely are, all wrong however). Saying "I am convinced this is true, but ideas contracting it are just as valid" doesn't work unless you admit your beliefs might not be valid either. How many devout Christians are willing to say that? I'm perfectly willing to say my atheism could be misguided, and there might be a God (maybe even the Christian one, though I very much doubt it), but I don't think most Christians are willing to give Muhammad, Buddha, Vishnu, Xenu, and others a fair shake when it comes down to it. So whether they come out and say it in so many words or not, they are indeed saying that other religions are lies (a small exception can be made for Judaism, concentrating on the common ground and ignoring as much as possible the Jesus question, but that can only take one so far). So when PJR says that Christianity is the true religion and all the others are false, he is at least admitting what it seems most believe. It must be give a very warped perception of life, believing that the majority of humans who exist and have existed are going to be tortured in hell forever. Imagine that as your worldview. Kind of scary. DickTurpis 12:28, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip is... nothing if not consistent. Damningly consistent, I might say. At least in terms of religion and creationism, his worldview is so impenetrably built up and so intrinsically woven together that it is impossible for any piece of evidence to breach it. He needn't even deny it or deflect; to him, these arguments seem as nonsensical as debating 2 + 2 = 4. It's simply a reality to him. I have, however, found it interesting that he hasn't really applied to same "reality rejiggering" to most political positions, as fundamentalists are so wont to do.

For these reasons... I would never debate PJR (on religion). The best I could hope for is to clearly illustrate his reality, to expose the real core of his "reasonable", and to juxtapose that with what everybody else thought it meant. Uchiha^KATON! 12:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

The problem is not the theological exclusivity itself. Baptists are free to condemn the Methodists, or vice versa, and that's fine. I can understand how those kinds of beliefs are derived, and even that they can help determine how people arrive at particular political positions. The problem arises when one advocates the belief that the government should actively promote one religion over the other (I think Philip has endorsed that idea at least implicitly, if not explicitly). To extend something that RatEd said above, expecting the government to determine who is damned and who is not goes beyond arrogance. IMO it can lead to some dangerous policies.--Bayes_yikes 13:33, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Meh, this is why the world is tricky. Once you get your head around the idea that it makes sense for people of a certain religion to accept that certainty that they are right to correlate to certainty that they are wrong, why draw any lines at all? If you *know* you're right, why wouldn't you see it as acceptable for the government to model itself on your worldview? If you think it should be inclusive, you're saying all religions are equal on some level, and you don't really believe that. (With a hypothetical "you" of course.) Being a person is hard work sometimes. Az 13:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

That's basically what I was about to say. What you and I call "belief", PJR calls "fact". To him Christianity and Biblical inerrancy are as scientifically true as anything. We see evolution as a scientific fact which clearly should be taught in school, while PJR is just as convinced (actually more so; we're willing to admit there could be alterations to the theory of evolution if scientific compelling evidence points in that direction, while certainly PJR would never say that about the Bible) that his view is indisputable fact. When it comes to strange worldviews, looking at education from the perspective of someone who is convinced not only that evolution is wrong, but that it is a deliberate hoax contrived to turn out children from God and make them subjects of the state (not sure if this is exactly PJR's view, but it is that of some of the fundies over there), you'll see just how insane and paranoid that can make someone. To them it's as if teaching Scientology as historical and scientific fact were mandated in school. It wouldn't be a matter of disagreement, but an epic crisis, and we'd all be up in arms. That's how they see evolution. Imagine seeing the world through that perspective, and think about that's how some people view everything, every day. Fucked up. DickTurpis 13:50, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, being a person is rough :). However, even if you *know* you're right, it's worth considering that everyone else *knows* that they are right also, and that if you're going to live together under the same government you'd better agree to disagree when it comes to that kind of thing, for no other reason than practicality. A "We each think the other is going to hell, but I won't launch crusades against you when I'm in power if you won't launch them against me when you're in power" agreement goes a long way toward creating a successful democracy, I think. Not to mention just allowing people to live together in relative peace.--Bayes_yikes 13:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflicts) Because most people aren't sociopaths - they have empathy. They can understand, without compromising their faith one iota, that there are others who hold other faiths just as deeply. Not drawing the line leads automatically and inevitably to radical fundamentalism and the conversion or destruction of your enemies. Knowing you're right and knowing that other people have as deeply held beliefs as you are not mutually exclusive. Ajkgordon 13:59, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Ajk. Having religious beliefs doesn't have to lead to condemning those who disagree with you.   _{_‡¥}        14:03, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I still maintain that PJR is a nasty fucking theocratic wanker, no matter how "polite" he seems. Anyone who thinks you have to believe their bizarre fairy tale or you're evil is a dangerous dude.-- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 14:11, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Amen, brother. Rational Ed^think! 14:13, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Has he ever said anyone is "evil"? I don't think he has, and I don't think those are his views. I think he believes (or, rather, he "knows") that those who do not accept Jesus as their savior are going to hell, but that does not make them evil. I think he, at least (though not all fundamentalist wankers to be sure) is legitimately concerned about the souls of non-Christians, and thinks the state should adopt and promote Christianity for their benefit. (I don't think he believes Christianity should be forced on people, but strongly encouraged on all fronts.) Any notions of separation of church and state and the rights of other religions are of little consequence when you're talking about the difference between eternal bliss and eternal damnation. The offense one may feel from being told by their teacher that their religious beliefs are incorrect is a small price to pay if it eventually results in being saved from the fires of hell. Yeah, you have to believe some pretty fucked up shit to have these notions, but if you adhere to a particular form of Christianity, then this is what you believe. The idea that only through Jesus can you get to heaven is a strong aspect of most of Christianity, so a solid chunk of this country believes that, whether they've actually thought it through or not. It's kind of scary. When it comes down to it, people will likely understand that others hold different beliefs very strongly, but they will still see those beliefs as wrong. DickTurpis 15:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

As the young people say on message boards these days: "This ^^^". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:13, 21 May 2008 (EDT) Am i doing it right?

Who says that, and what does it mean?? ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

People most likely significantly younger than me who frequent message boards and so-called "*chans", and apparently it means that the post immediately above makes some good points with which I agree. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Here I believe we say "mega-dittos"! DickTurpis 00:41, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

(undent) "I think he...is legitimately concerned about the souls of non-Christians"---the problem with this is that it devalues anyone who doesn't agree with you, and effectively dehumanizes non-believers (despite arguments about just trying to save them).-- -PalMD ^{--Did that sound a little harsh?} 18:56, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Not quite, fella. Such thinking can certainly lead in that direction (cf. heathen, infidel, heretic, apostate, etc.), but it's a necessary, rather than a sufficient, condition for ending up there. --Robledo 19:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

We are left with wondering why people go to hell if they are not evil? Is God vain (needing to be worshipped but not really caring about sin)? Is She a sadist (inflicts punishment just for the fun of it)? Rational Ed^think! 09:37, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Classic Dominatrix behaviour!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:48, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

BTW, a few quick notes on this:

• PJR is still going, trying to convince Andy there can be a middle ground sometimes. It's pretty funny because Andy will never accept that, even from a YEC apologist and sysop like Phil.
• I still think he's a bleeding hypocrite and a well-reasoned nutjob... He has pretty much explicity argued for government-endorsed Christianity, I recall.
• AKjeldsen... how old are you, anyway? I wasn't comfortable with the way you remarked upon "*chans" in your post... And I might be even less so depending on the answer to my previous question.

Uchiha^KATON! 01:21, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm 28. I look forward to learning whether this piece of information makes you more or less uncomfortable. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Nutjob? Oh, certainly. But hypocrite? I don't know. I'd say he's certainly one of the less hypocritical guys at CP. He is consistent, I think many of us agree. He has serious faults, but is hypocrisy one? I'm not sure. DickTurpis 01:44, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Dick. PJR may be strange, but he is at least "consistent" - and, almost uniquely among CP powermongers, game for a discussion wherein he does not yield the "banhammer" as a away to win the argument. ħψɱ₦ 02:29, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

To briefly remove this from the filing cabinet and clarify - I agree that PJR is consistent (and in this sense, "reasonable") and not as malicious as the other sysops. I say he is a hypocrite, IMO, because he actually argues with Andy for the tolerance of alternative and middle-ground political positions, yet effectively tosses this notion aside when it comes to religion (i.e. Christianity is right because it's right and the government should endorse it) Uchiha^KATON! 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Trolling but fun

DanielB hasn't got long!   ^Contribs_Talk 07:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

..."Liberal professor"? I thought all professors are evil liberals! And curse you, Andy, for not sticking to my matrix (which I still have to rotate... how could I forget that?)! --Sid 07:31, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, isn't Andy confusing a few things there? Other than the general WTF, I mean. Things like "unusual gift of the professorship" sounds like he's thinking of Dawkins, but I think it was established that the "gift" was the "Reader" title or something while he received the professorship (after peer review as confirmed by Oxford, FFS) later on? Oh well, I don't mind. The more Andy rants, the dumber CP looks. --Sid 07:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

You're forgetting - unless Oxford University, entirely off their own backs, personally contact Andy and furnish him with a step-by-step, detailed audit of the procedure used to grant Dawkins his professorship, then Dawkins is either not a professor, or not a 'real' professor, so the simple fact that Oxford have given information that Dawkins was legitimately granted his professorship, or that they will give the same information to anyone that asks them (which means that all Andy has to do in order to confirm Dawkins' status is contact Oxford himself) is not proof enough. Though, actually, if you think about it, if Andy says that Dawkins is not a real professor, whilst at the same time, having the 'Professor Values', article, in a way, Andy is actually paying Dawkins a compliment, as, if Dawkins is not a real professor, then obviously he cannot be displaying 'professor values'. Zmidponk 10:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To be fair to Andy, he did provide very clear and unambiguous evidence that in 1992 the Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, had a category of honorary award known as a Professorial Fellowship, which it could award to people not employed there. It didn't award this title to Dawkins, which is surely proof enough that Dawkins wasn't awarded the title of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom, in 1995.....or, put another way, Zmidponk is right - that 'Liberal Professor' article is a tacit admission that Andy knows full well Dawkins is a professor, but he wants to have his cake and eat it at the same time. Criticise Dawkins for not being a professor AND criticise him for being a professor. Hypocritical, petty, and self-delusional in one neat package. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 13:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

This reminds me of the shite I went through with Andy when I was trying to prove that www.iraqbodycount.org was a non-profit organization. Andy told me to prove it. I wrote to the site, and they politely gave me a breakdown of their costs, sources, methodology, etc. I passed it on to Andy. No dice, says Andy, that info in not independently validated. They need to submit to me an independent audit, only then will I accept their statistics on Conservapedia. Of course, IBC wasn't willing to jump through hoops for Andy, which he took to mean they are a bunch of liars who make up statistics.Czolgolz 14:53, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Prediction

Bert Schlossberg, who's been single-handedly doing a bang-up job on anything remotely connected with KAL007, has turned his head in other directions and is starting into some very substantive expansion of Judaism-related article, among others. It can hardly be long before he bangs his head up against the ChristoFundies, eh? Just a thought. DogP 14:03, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll be interested to know how Fox reacts. Rational Ed^think! 14:10, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely - Fox, your thoughts on a napkin? Does Bert look like a contender? I would have thought so myself. DogP 14:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks like Debs has dived in with the first strike. DogP 14:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Seeing as Fox blocked a guy today for 2 weeks, apparently just for defending himself against an accusation without evidence, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he got involved. --Kels 16:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I blocked him for being an asshole and trolling on my talk page after having it gently pointed out to him that his initial anti-Christian blatherings were in contradiction with his live-and-let-live philosophy. As for anything else going on anywhere, meh, I'm just waiting for the AoC server to boot up again after patching, ie don't know, don't care :) Fox 04:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Really. I read his comment, it was merely a copy of his reply to your accusation of hating Christianity exclusively. So you leave a rude comment on his page, he leaves a civil one on yours, and gets punished for it. At least you're fitting in with the CP "house style". --Kels 07:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes really. Interpret his trolling however the hell you want, he turned up and started posting about Christianity being a load of shite, chooses a username that is spelled "I'm Only Here For An Argument", immediately posts a load of crap attacking Christianity and then proclaims on his talk page how he has a totally neutral opinion to all people and all faiths. I call that being a dickheaded troll, but left it at that. When you remembered the password and logged him in again to troll on my talk page, what did you think was going to happen? A bunch of flowers and a "Welcome Back!" card? Fox 09:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Sure, his record really shows a HUGE number of posts "attacking" Christianity. Well, actually two that could be kinda confrontational, the rest of which were pretty mild. But hey, if you're happy with your hypersensitivity, go for it. --Kels 10:14, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed gets the hump

So what made Ed Porn delete and recreate Camel? Was it a vandalism target or had DogP planted a botmag? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:00, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

DaveD inserted a bit about camel sexes and Assfly and Ed riding 'em across the desert. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 16:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

More camel-related fun: http://www.sceneproxy.com/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LmNvbnNlcnZhcGVkaWEuY29tL2luZGV4LnBocD90aXRsZT1DYW1lbCZhbXA7&b=61 Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 16:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Has camel become the new goat? 70.91.248.249 16:47, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

No but they go well together ;) Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 17:16, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Someone posted some goatse link in it and in the edit summary, so he probably deleted and recreated it to purge the linkie. Norseman^Wassail! 18:53, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Trouble brewing

Was it you guys who made FBI get on the top ten viewed on cp:Special:Statistics? That's treading on thin ice... Lyra § talk 17:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Or that Portsmouth FC is number three with 400,000 hits? PFoster 17:39, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Or homosexuality at NUMBER ONE with over 3 million? nah, that wasn't "us". I think it was meatpædia, perhaps. ħψℳ₦ 18:39, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Regardless of who did it, why is it trouble? Andy and Ed welcome pagecount inflation with open arms: See here. --Sid 07:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Camel "tow"

LOL that is obviously what happens when you park your camel on a double yellow line XD Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 17:29, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

More Trouble?

Anyone else getting Cannot be displayed messages? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 17:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Works for me, but I did have one pageload die suddenly, so there may be something shaky... --Sid 17:48, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed's time of the month/week again

Ed's having a new session of focused editing, sponsored by the Discovery Institute. Expect a shitload new two-liner articles and a lot of whitewashing. --Sid 17:47, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

It has begun. I mean really Ed, come on... http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_and_motivation Ace McWicked 18:09, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

And don't forget when he brings their carcass the list over to Andy and leaves it on his talk page, panting in anticipation of a pat and a "good doggie". ħψℳ₦ 18:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Yup there it is...good Moonie, good, good Moonie http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=59900&diff=458143&oldid=457904 Ace McWicked 19:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I particularly like the two redirect ones, is it really that hard to understand that people aren't form of arts, or what the prefix "pre" means in that context? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:56, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

That is really demeaning - has the man no pride, no self worth, that he creeps to the assfly like a puppy dog bringing a stick to his master? Totally gruesome.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:19, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Sweets for the sweet, creeps for, well, Andy. --Kels 22:50, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

This little gem is my favorite.... For god's sake man.... What the fuck is wrong with you? Also note that someone has already taken the Hatchet to his Uncle Tom Article... this should be funny SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 23:02, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed's 2 graphs (for sea level rise & glacier shrinkage) do show an inversion of cause & effect between hydrocarbon use & the effect. However they do omit the major "hydrocarbon" use - timber, whether as wood or charcoal. The use (combustion) of timber was the prime mover of the Industrial revolution and of the deforestation of much of the industrialising western world and began anywhere between 1600 and 1750 in sundry locations. The rapidly increasing population after the "dark ages" also increased timber consumption both for building, where the major effect would be of deforestation, and for heating with the additional production of greenhouse gasses.I've looked for definitive sources but can't find anything concise. - Some research would help I suppose.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:39, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

And ?   ^Contribs_Talk 00:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm betting PJR hasn't seen that, since he's maintained that a scientist's motivation is of prime importance. Unless it's ID "science", of course, then it's just following the evidence. --Kels 07:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I get the impression that a major but unspoken axiom of CP's collective "thinking" is if someone is evil, then they MUST be wrong. Hence all the agumentum ad hitlerum. --Gulik 17:10, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Ed's block on Engel

Actually, it wasn't for the comment on AssBastard's page, it was for Engel's now-deleted comment on the Talk page of the excellent "Availability of guns" article. Ed deleted the Talk page, saying the comment was "unrelated to article" (Engel was complaining that the article suggested Germany, the UK and others were Totalitarian States) and blocked Engel. DogP 18:12, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Oops..... I sawy. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:11, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Anti Brit?

Did anyone else notice the not exactly pro Brit edit comment?   ^Contribs_Talk 22:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I did, I hope he didn't mean that Brits were "pollutors," he just didn't like being called out on saying Gordon was a Tory... If this "talk pollution" gets any worse, we might have a Administrative Wikiwide Warming! (if that isn't censorship I dunno what is) Lyra § talk 22:28, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To be (marginally) fair, he already did get called out in the same conversation for the same thing, and he responded to that. Sure, he was rude and dismissive, but at least he acknowledged it. For Andy, that's pretty good. --Kels 22:35, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I think something should be said. ;) Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 04:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To be fair (not that he deserves it), Andy has probably never met a Brit. He probably assumes you're all evil radical liberals. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

"To be fair (not that he deserves it)," - don't: don't be fair towards him, at all, ever. He has overstepped the mark now, AFAIAC. "Andy has probably never met a Brit." - all the more reason for him to shut the fuck up then, eh? "He probably assumes you're all evil radical liberals." - yeah true. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 06:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree, sometime fairness has to go out of the window. Armondikov 09:01, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Spica, I join with your sentiments but worry about your profession - hardly 'caring'!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Susan: After working in psychiatry for as long as I have, I've developed the ability to become a complete psychopath when and where necessary, never towards family/friends/patients but it is available to use against arseholes everywhere if needed. And teh Assfly is a case that needs it. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 10:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, lookee here before it disappears: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Andy_Schlafly_is_an_Anti-British_Racists Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 07:33, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Gone: 08:45, 23 May 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Andy Schlafly is an Anti-British Racists" (content was: '{{speedy}}') Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 09:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

June 5th - Ed?

Hmm.. I wonder if Ed shall attend the June 5th event. If he does, then I shall gladly attend just to tell him his articles suck for you--despite his age. =-= Candlewick 23:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

You don't need to insult people in RealityLand just for us, Kettlekid. :) Now Karajou on the other hand... ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 23:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Insulting your girl's old man's buddy =/= a good way to ensure domestic peace. Pick your battles wisely, GrasshopperPFoster 23:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe I'll just see his reaction when he finds out who I am. That should be satisfaction enough. =-= Candlewick 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't be silly, Jellyfish. The Koward doesn't live in RealityLand. --Kels 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Good point. :) Next best: Conservative. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 23:25, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

<-- Just edit his Moonie cult articles on CP. Not even facts will get in his way to make his cult shine. You have nepotism immunity, therefore you don't need to worry any consequence. =_= Norseman^Wassail! 00:02, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm just having lulzy thoughts of the mischief that may take place while so many conservapedians are away from their keyboards toasting Phyllis as she receives her award (yes, that prediction's in the bag). Somebody's matrix may be completely filled in by then... --SpinyNorman 13:06, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

A nice little project would be for Candlewick to edit the Moonie articles under someone else's account. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't you think that editing will turned off during the festivities? I suppose there will be enough sysops who can't go to watch the shop... ħψℳ₦ 13:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I still don't think we should encourage devilment from Fuzzy Kettle-Ticket. It's not cool, and he's playing with fire as it is. DogP 13:46, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

<-- Just wondering where this little shindig will be held - hmmm, let's see. North Jersey. Serves dinner. Appropriate for Conservapedian values... ah-ha! Medieval Times, of course. --SpinyNorman 14:20, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, not there! It's actually in a nice place.. "I do not recall" where. Candlewick 15:25, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Block Paradox

Blocking somebody indefinitely with the message "choose a better username" doesn't really give them a chance to do so, now does it? And is "I don't believe in God" really offensive, or just non-compliant with CP's narrow world view? [7][8]--Psygremlin_Whut? 04:50, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

About the first part: Those blocks mean "Re-register with another name". Of course, that requires that they don't ban the IP along with the name. No clue if they do or don't, though. --Sid 06:55, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I hadn't seen that part. I guess Fox is just in a pissy mood and wants to pick on the poor guy for his personal choices. --Kels 08:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

His IP isn't blocked. And that'll teach the poor "guy" to join an ostensibly Christian website knowing full well what it claims to be with that username and then start trolling :) Fox 09:38, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

But it's y'all's Christian duty to save the poor unbelievers soul, not ban him for his ignorance. Rational Ed^think! 09:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

What motivates people to become policemen in the Assfly's police state_{figuratively speaking of course}? Auld Nick 10:40, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

What's interesting to me (and a bit bizarre) is the conflation of "conservative" with "Christian". ħψℳ₦ 13:48, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Sometime around 1978 or so, the ultra-right-wing in the USA took Jesus hostage to their bizarre anti-Christian theology, as part of a plan to get gullible True Believers to vote for policies that would end up screwing them over. It's worked pretty well so far, so they haven't let Him go yet. --Gulik 17:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Help

Can someone who knows enough read this & tell us what it's all about, I know suspect it's bollocks but don't have the background to analyse it. (referred to from cp:Universe)   ^Contribs_Talk 08:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Hello. Well no I doubt I really know an awful lot more about this than you but... My understanding of redshift if that it is an observable thing where objects travelling at high speed relative to one another appear slightly blue if they are towards each other and slightly red if they are travelling away. It broadly equates to the change in pitch you hear when a fire engine drives past. As far as I was aware it is used to show that the universe is expanding (flying apart - therefore slightly redshifted) and is indicative a big bang. I have never heard of it being used to indicate distances apart (as per the web site you linked too) but that may just be my ignorance. I have never heard of it being used to indicate that we are at the centre of the universe but that is certainly their ignorance. Even if our galaxy is at the centre of the universe (a concept I have real problems with!) we are not at the centre of the galaxy - so - it doesn't really help! RedDog 09:33, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

(ec, disregard if better explained above) I found some more info here (from "our side," SciAm), but I'm still wrapping my head around it. I found a post or two in the Bad Astronomy forums, but nothing that I could parse into being useful. The SciAm article seems to break it down, but you still kinda need to know what wp:redshifts are (I'm still in the process of understanding wp:redshift quantization. I think what it boils down to is that the quantized redshifts from other galaxies (measurements of an effect on light, which the original article relies on) can be organized into a set pattern. Since there is a pattern, they take this to mean that the other galaxies are arranged in a set pattern around ours, thus we're the center of the universe. They go on to say that the Big Bang doesn't allow for a center, so us being the center disproves the Big Bang. The SciAm article points out the flaws in this "theory."

Of course, I'm not completely sure I fully, 100% understand it myself, so all of this may be a pack of lies. Feel free to ruthlessly eviscerate my explanation if necessary. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:39, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Mmm. You all seem as confused as me . I hadn't heard about the quantisation thing before & don't understand its implications. Researching further ...   ^Contribs_Talk 09:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If I remember from the astronomy courses I took, red shift is an important means of calculating the speed at which distant objects are traveling relative to us. Red shift doen't necessarily mean that objects appear blue or red, but that their color (the wavelength of the light they emit) shifts a little to a larger or smaller wavelength depending on whether it is moving towards or away from us. Color is important because it helps you calculate temperature, and what the object is composed of (which, in turn, provides a clue as to the stage of a star's evolution). You need to adust the spectrum instruments receive to compensate for changes due to motion if you want to use a spectrometer to analyze its composition. Rational Ed^think! 09:51, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If it helps, think of the universe as a balloon. We're on the inside. When it expands, all the sides appear to be moving away at the same speed, regardless of where we're located, giving us the false impression that we're in the center of it. Barikada 10:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. So the article linked to above is incorrect. No matter where you are in the unverse it appears that you are at the center, not just on Earth, and not just in our galaxy. They're still trying to put us at the center of creation against all evidence. Rational Ed^think! 10:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I know the Red Shift thing but the quantisation is the thing it makes play with. (IIze edumicated you kno)   ^Contribs_Talk 10:16, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

They apparently, as Arcan said - take this to be disproof of Big Bang.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:18, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Research (WP (and further on)) leads me to believe it's a tad snake oily - if it works for you (i.e. you're desperate to believe we're special) take it, otherwise it's spurious.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Susan, this is the classic creationist habit of rejecting scientific theory because they can't believe it and that it would be so much simpler to invoke God. The quantisation aspect of the red-shift, while complicated, is explained in the standard model of the Big Bang but relies on the universe not being flat. (You've seen those saddle diagrams of the surface of the universe in books like Brief History of Time, right? Something to do with that.) What the quantisised red-shift actually does is support the Big Bang - quantum effects on the structure of the universe at very early stages of its development being amplified by its expansion.

You can see their incredulity amply demonstrated by their sneering of the concept of the universe being a three dimensional surface of a four dimensional balloon. As far as they are concerned it would be much easier to imagine God doing it because they can visualise it - something notoriously difficult to do with more dimensions than we live in.

It's otherwise known as a lack of imagination - a chronic disease that many creationists suffer from. Ajkgordon 10:48, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

It's also a classic case of creationists glomming onto a scientific concept they don't really understand and pretending that it actually proves that God exists and that everything in the Bible is literally true. Since true believers are scientifically illiterate, it works. Rational Ed^think! 12:14, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I've put something in Red shift q.v.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:51, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhhh I do know a little something about this, I do a lot of reading on cosmology, quantum mechanics and the like. The red shift is noticable any point in the universe as it is not the galaxies moving away more space itself is expanding. The balloon example is a good one. Draw a lot of dots on a deflated balloon and blow it up. The dots themselves do not move but the space between them does. That is a smiplistic way of describing it of course but a creationist wont get it. Ace McWicked

At the risk of repeating myself: It's NOT the expanding thing - it's Quantised (stepped) expansion they're claiming. Supposedly showing we (milky way at least) are at the centre of expansion. Turns out it's old & discredited news.   ^Contribs_Talk 17:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Whoooooa Jesus God almighty I can feel your wrath from here. I apologise for having made you repeat yourself. It is early here and havent had coffee so not thinking straight. Anyways, I was thinking about something the other day (as you do) and please allow me to digress....It is often said that the Earth occupies what is known as the 'Goldilocks Zone', the special area that allows life to develop as if earth were a little off this zone life would never evolve.. However, if the moon of Jupiter, Europa - with its theorized liquid oceans under its ice layer, is found in the future to have life (even the most simplistic dividing cells) it also can be said to be revolving in its own goldilocks zone in orbit around Jupiter. Hence one could say that these goldilocks zones, that creationists harp on about as showing that the Earth occupies a special zone in the universe, are actually quite numerous as these areas dont nessaccarily need to be an orbit around a star. Hmmmm Ace McWicked

And, as well as that, there is much more scope for the developement of life elsewhere in the universe once you "factor out" the parochial features of life on Earth. Not that really relates to what we're talking about in any useful way... :) ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 17:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for SHOUTING Ace - It's getting late here - I've been up for about 20 hours now & patience wears thin. Wish I'd never started this thread :)   ^Contribs_Talk 17:57, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No Worries Susan. I have had my coffee now and feel much better. Ace McWicked

This site is growing rapidly!

Crocite seems to have an obsesssion about Dancing With the Stars, and has added a dozen or so quality articles about the dancers in the show. CP gets more encyclopedic by the day! Next thing, we'll get cp:Ballroom Dancer Values Bondurant 08:39, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I recall him saying that DWtS is his mostest favorite television show. Not that there's anything wrong with that...--WJThomas 13:19, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

References for Conservative Values

After the latest WIGO, I noticed the huge number of references for Andy's outlandish claims. Which reminded me of one of the old fashioned methods of making silly legal arguments. You preface whatever you are about to claim without evidence with "It is manifest that." I would absolutely love to see someone pull that sort of thing on Andy. -Lardashe

and liberals end the statement by adding "...between the sheets." :-) --SpinyNorman 15:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Learn together

Is my new favorite CP sysop. Lyra § talk 17:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Vy? ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

He "has respect for some atheists." Score! Lyra § talk 18:10, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

For the FSM endorsement? I'm sure C. S. Lewis would have approved. :)

(BTW, what language is your sig in?) --Gulik 17:20, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Tamil. I don't know how it's encoded, what, is it just boxes? It might only work in IE. Lyra § talk 18:10, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks fine in Firefox. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I use Firefox, too and it looks fine. I just think it looks nifty. --Gulik 23:28, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Dan's command of the Engrish langwidge

Dan makes a total **1*xx!* of a previously legible piece.   ^Contribs_Talk 17:32, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, be nice to Dan :) ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 17:35, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Nah, he illiterated it... ħψℳ₦ 20:20, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservatism: New American Health Snack

Did I miss this on WIGO? Andy appears to be under the impression that a belief in the free market, and rabid opposition to free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare is a slimming aid.

And should anyone be wondering, the title of this subsection comes from a painted sign I saw on the side of a must-have-been-fifty-years-old food hut at the Blackheath Fair (in Lewisham's famous London), about two years ago, saying "Popcorn: New American Health Food". Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

"Blackhealth Fair"? What, was "Lung Cancer Circus" taken? LOL Norseman^Wassail! 18:54, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Blackheath. Near Greenwich. Where they make the time. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 04:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Lies

Yesterday CP had a link to 3 part article on the lies and half truths of the top candidates. The first was Hillary and now today is John McCain. I notice that CP hasnt linked that one their front page. Perhaps, someone with a sock, could suggest it? Ace McWicked 18:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Lost in Space

Am I a bad person for seeing that and immediately thinking, ...and meaning? Worse, it applies even more. --Kels 20:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservative values defend against obesity and dangerous driving

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values

They do. Really. Secret Squirrel 21:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

They freshen your breath, too. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Not where I come from, they don't. Secret Squirrel 21:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

That would be Squirrelville. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

That's WEST-By-God Squirrelville to you. Secret Squirrel 21:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just something I noticed

You know, most encyclopedias would tell you right off the bat that cp:Thurgood Marshall was a Supreme Court justice. But not Conservapedia. They make you wait until the fifth paragraph. I guess it is sort of an insignificant detail in his life. DickTurpis 21:19, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I noticed when I was reading about cp:Noam Chomsky that he was an Anti-Semite before a linguistics expert. And my English teacher always tells me to go in order of ideas, not chronologically! I should bring some of the articles to class and show him how REAL Americans in the REAL world write shit.Grandoise 22:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Good description of their writing, anyhow. --Kels 22:11, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, somebody did a hasty (and not pretty) fix of the Marshall article, but the Chomsky one stressing his politics way more than his scientific achievements. And it doesn't even mention the Chomsky hierarchy, FFS. --Sid 07:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, they screwed it up. It now has Marshall on the bench during Brown v Board, which was about 10 years before he was on the court. And they've added bad capitalization to boot. DickTurpis 09:24, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, this style of organization fits CP perfectly, ideology over substance. Rational Ed^think! 10:06, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

America's Top Comics

I really love the type of humor these Conservapedos are into: cp:Bill Engvall. Did you know that Bill Engvall is up in the leagues of such great comedians as Jim Belushi AND Rex Havens? Rex Havens' stuff is cringe-inducing and is only good for the goof factor. Grandoise 22:10, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Then again, CP would be the perfect place for Bill to walk around, going "Here's your sign..." Hey! Maybe he should MC their little shindig? --Psygremlin_Whut? 03:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)