Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive49

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <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>, <48>, <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)

"legions in the genital region"

Wow, Ken must have spent a night at the bathhouse. --Kels 22:20, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Fuck me, I never even noticed the typo - I thought it was pretty WTF to begin with, but now it's just epic. PFoster 22:26, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I updated the WIGO to address Ken's imaginary genital legions ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 22:39, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Come to that, who the hell is this "Dr. Earl Hawk" of Louisiana, anyhow? I can't find the name at all on Google, let alone anything to do so-called "pornography addiction", or pornography in any sense. Or to do with genital warts. Or even with Louisiana! Does he exist? Is he even still alive? The stuff quoted in the article sounds like it came out of the 50's, so who knows? --Kels 22:47, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I got the sense that the "legions" in question, given the nature of the "addiction" in question, may have had more to do with chafing than warts, if you follow. _{and we all know how painful that would be}...PFoster 22:55, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

So pornography, not masturbation even, causes some sort of physical abnormality... Guys I'm pretty sure that's psrody or however you spell that. Uchiha^KATON! 23:56, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, it inspires activity which causes some sort of physical abnormality...PFoster 00:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

people, people, people. How naive can you get? Clearly genital legions is conservative code for circle jerks, a phrase that Andy and his lil' legions are no doubt quite familar with . . . (so sorry) ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 08:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

?   ^Contribs_Talk 08:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to start a band named 'Legions in the genital region' now. It's just that awesome. -Judas Reward 09:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

May I suggest Masturbatory Legion? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

But if you're successful, you'll get those and breast cancer! Save yourself! --Kels 09:33, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention blindness . . . 204.248.28.194 09:59, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm a little surprised he hasn't brought hairy palms into it. --Kels 10:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I believe that Dr. Tony Hawk MD might have confused "legions" with "scabby areas from friction burn". Did anybody happen to catch My name is Earl last night? I think it's hilarious that they just take some country-fried good ol' boy doctor as a reliable source. Grandoise 10:21, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Did Ken Freudian slip onto a cliff again? Diff link or it didn't happen. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia: Atheism

Conservapedia: Atheism
With Ken's almost unprecedented enthusiasm in promoting his precious article-child, this slice of Conservapedia might actually end up attracting a modicum of attention. Would be a worthwhile effort to write a full-length, RationalWiki style refutation of the article? His article's only advantage (if any) is that it's so broad that no one he harasses could possibly be bothered to respond to all of its points in their full inanity. A custom-made anti "anti-atheism" article would effectively counteract that. Furthermore... attention for Conservapedia's atheism article could be syphoned off towards our refutation of it. I'm sure the notion that all of his boasted advertising success was indirectly popularizing one our articles would get Ken rather... excited.

Please answer if there's any interesting in adding at all to such an article (or if we already have one in progress and I've forgotten!) Uchiha^KATON! 23:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Ehehe... sorry about that Susan ^_^" Uchiha^KATON! 23:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Atheism is Ken's pride and joy. He and Andy are likely to get quite upset (in a legal way) if we just reproduce the text here, aren't they? I know we've done this before, but it's always been with articles that were a lot less important to CP than this one. I'd just like to check with Our Great Leaders to see if we're OK from a legal point of view with this. What do you think? ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not a lawyer, but Andy's not a doctor, and that's never stopped HIM from commenting. I think we're safe under fair use, since we're using it for purposes of criticism and/or parody. --Gulik 23:37, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Jelly, that's a reasonable point... Considering how Ken has been demanding every atheist on the internet refute his dozen-or-so page mess, it would be incredibly hypocritical for him to complain when someone finally does so in a point-by-point article side-by-side with the original. But I suspect avoiding hypocrisy is not a top concern on his list... neither, for that matter, is actually engaging in any sort of substantial debate. Whether he has any legal foundation for such complaints is another matter, and I'd guess - like Gulik - probably not. Uchiha^KATON! 23:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! You know, now I think of it, vandals love trying to replace our pages with that article, so maybe that counts as permission... :D ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 23:44, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Alright, I'm hitting the sack now (I always seem to start projects past 10 PM...) but the initialized article is here. Feel free to add to it, work on formatting or even move it to a different space. I'll be back on tomorrow to try and keep things moving. Uchiha^KATON! 00:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree, no harm in playing that game. And maybe lots of fun. ħψɱ₦ 00:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

The #1 way they claim to differ from WP is allowing broader reuse of their material. We could copy a WP article here to refute it, if we wanted to, so I see no reason why we can't do the same for CP. Of course, this assumes they are not hypocrites, which is sort of like assuming black is white, but I think it's worth a go. DickTurpis 09:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy's a very, very poor lawyer, who failed immediately after getting out of the hothouse they were keeping him in at Harvard. His idea of rights on his stuff is, "You can use it for the glory of Conservatives, but I'll send you a laughably ineffective lawsuit threat if you use it for something that makes me look bad". Completely unenforceable. --Kels 09:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Would this be of any help? Wut 09:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Has this refutation article been made? If not, please do so, I want to help contribute to it. They would have no case for copyright infringement, since they say "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution." And despite their claims to the contrary, they can't revoke such a license at their whim when they would like to do so. They would only be able to give and reclaim permission on such things if they were retaining their copyright, but there they explicitly release it.--70.126.243.83 23:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

It's at User:Uchiha/Conservapedia:Atheism. Refute! ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 23:22, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

By who's definition?

CP Main Page: For the first time in American history we have two hard-core Leftists running for the Democratic Party nomination "Hillary and Obama are Marx twins who only differ in race and gender." By any non-American definition (apart from, probably, Burma's) both Democratic Candidates are fairly Right Wing. They make the British Conservative Party look leftist anyhow.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Apparently they don't teach homeschoolers left from right. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:15, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Whoever wrote that obviously hasn't read Marx, and doesn't know what they're talking about. Nor do they know anything about the 'Democratic' candidates, who are right wing, and fairly authoritarian. If they were actually Marxists, I might support them more, though I don't believe that anything further than Socialism is possible, or will be possible, for centuries. And they're not even close to socialists either, or even social democrats. -Judas Reward 09:17, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Substitute "left" and "Marx" with "boogeyman" and it'll make a lot more sense. I said the same thing about the word "terrorist" only a few days after 9-11, and it's served me well since then. --Kels 09:34, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh yes, and where are these Marxists who fought the US in the Cold War? I don't seem to recall any. Not to mention that, while the USSR did lose the Cold War, so did everybody else. And technically, if you replace them with 'Frenchmen', it seems to make more sense somehow. -Judas Reward 10:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Parthian Barrage

Apparently Az's Partian shot has gone into Round Two, as he tries once again to appeal to Andy's sense of reason. Unfortunately for him, like Peter Sellers' real self, Andy's had that surgically removed. --Kels 08:26, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Shorter Andy: Your staying around for debate is an example of Liberals (which you now are) running away from debate. And I did answer your questions, look at this example where I totally dodged two of them and ignored the rest. --Kels 10:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Jesus tapdancing, bowl-smoking Christ! He's trolling by bringing up classroom prayer! Aziraphale, call him out on that. You've seen him do that on Dawkins talk page and that... one debate page... that I forget what it is. He's ignoring everything else so he can pin that ONE thing and stick to it. Norseman^Wassail! 11:07, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

And Learn Together's come in arse-kissing. Pass the vomit bucket!   ^Contribs_Talk 11:14, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

My long-standing strategy for traps (it comes from too much D&D, but surprisingly works well in life, too) is simply to barrel into the trap, set it off, and deal with the results. Tap-dancing AROUND traps is what causes people to get off of their own message and give the trap-setter the advantage, in my opinion.

I'm not there to try and debate him on things he wants to talk about; I want answers to my questions. I'm already doing a middling-to-poor job, although the last couple exchanges I've tried to drag in a course correction. Az 12:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm already doing a middling-to-poor job, No - you're playing a game that nobody can win - he won't answer your questions, will only debate the things he wants to debate on the terms that he sets, and will ignore and or block you (or put his fingers in his ears and go "LA LA LA") whenever his idiocy is expoosed. Don't bother - play the lottery instead. Your chances are better.PFoster 12:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, he did clearly and concisely answer the two points I was offered. Now the rubber meets the road - laying out the case against the bad sysops. Az 13:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I was thinking "Liberals tend to cut off and censor debate while conservatives don’t? I’m not so sure about that. Take a look:" was you, but I was wrong - still he seems to not have taken long to bring the conversation around to you hating on classroom prayer and wanting the gummint to pay for abortions - familiar ground for him...PFoster 13:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice try, but...

Shorter Andy: No, I didn't read your response. Now pardon me while I scream in your face for a bit. --Kels 12:33, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

An even better anti-trap strategy is to get the party paladin to barrel into it and deal with the results. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:24, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

-embarassed look- I may, perhaps, occasionally, from time to time, play the paladin. *grin* Az 13:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah. Well, keep up the good work, then. Where would everyone else be without our dear easily manipulated heroic paladins? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:33, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Well now, all pallies aren't created equal. --Kels 17:54, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

LOL that's awesome. :) I don't play one anymore, been DMing (in the paladin-less Arcana Evolved, for that matter) for years. But yeah, when I got to run just one character, the last one was a paladin who could be counted on to find out what was behind the door... by opening the door. :p Hey, why have high saves and a d10 hit die if you aren't going to use them? Az 18:48, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

And so it goes.
Shorter Andy: If you won't let me derail the conversation, I can't be bothered with it. --Kels 14:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

One difference in style is that conservatives tend to continue searching for the truth, while liberals tend to cut off and sometimes even censor debate I wonder what it feels like to live a life utterly devoid of self-examination? Thankfully, the soon-to-be-re-banned Jaguar called him on it immediately. --Gulik 15:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Holey socks, I got back on. I couldn't resist calling Andy on his BS. Take a look before they delete it. --Gulik 16:53, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Banninated by the S-Dawg hisself. I feel honored. The reason given was "Talk pollution". I fully expect the irony of this to soar over his head. --Gulik 17:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Deleted your comment but deceitfully concealed the fact by simultaneously replying to John & using that as edit comment.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:17, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

That's Andy. Class all the way. :-P --Gulik 18:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

CP loves them sources!

Does anyone else find it highly amusing that whenever CP posts any sort of news, they inevitably link to a blog quoting a news site rather than the actual news site. I guess that just shows what they consider reliable sources. Oh and Laura Ingraham is a fucking idiot ("if you turn your back on someone (who isn't even speaking), you're against free speech"). Retard. She'd fit in quite well over at CP. DickTurpis 09:54, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

The media is liberal. Conservative blogs that quote liberal articles magically transform them into conservative news. Rational Ed^think! 10:15, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservative's About:Atheism obsession

It seems to me he's just begging for attention, trying to call out Austin Cline but being too cowardly to confront him by himself [1]. I've searched that site and couldn't find anything related to Conservapedia (correction - anything earlier than 2007), or his atheism article in specific. It's like me going to the end of my street and putting up slanderous flyers about someone who doesn't even know me. Something tells me that he's trying to get someone else to point out the article to Austin because he 1) can't do it by some reason (banned from their forums, etc. etc.) or 2) thinks the article is so popular, he doesn't need to, thinking some adamant believer will do the work for him.

I just have this nagging notion that if someone DID post the article to Austin and got his attention, it'd be ripped apart piece by piece. Or, maybe Kenny (off his meds, that WIGO reminds me of Kenny sniffing cat piss to get high on South Park) is expecting his article to be ignored, so he can continue goading them as if he "won", but then removes/burns any sort of challenge if it's picked apart, removing any evidence of his buffoonish hype. After all, posting the challenge on THEIR forums means you can't do whatever you please to make it seem like nothing happened.

Also, it's funny how he's only challenging on the grounds of the atheism article, when a quick search around the site would clearly refute itself by the sheer monstrosity of nutjob views they have over there. Norseman^Wassail! 10:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, Kenny's been posting there all right. He's commenter "Mark Davidson". It's the same trick he's tried to pull on Pharyngula and about a hundred other places. There are a couple of places he's insterted links back in the comments over the past month or so. --Kels 11:11, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

That blows most of the stuff I just said for not knowing. :P Guess I'll do a bit more searching, as I really want to see some squirming. Thanks, Kels. :D Norseman^Wassail! 11:18, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Here's a nice example. Rational Ed^think! 11:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, that's why he's calling others. He's all alone. lol Norseman^Wassail! 11:33, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Most relevantly, Austin Cline's response to "Mark Davidson's" post (immediately below it in Ed's link) indicates that he is already aware of Conservapedia:

...are you just posting them here because you wrote them are shilling for part of a Conservapedia which you wrote? ...

Don’t simply quote yourself as if you were an independent authority for your own views

Cline doesn't need to refute Ken's precious atheism article, he's already bitch-slapped him. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

By the way, your attempts at link-spamming will fail because search engines don’t index the comments here. Thanks for trying — it has been amusing, I won’t deny it, but all the time and effort you’ve spent on that has been wasted. So there is no need to find excuses to include links back to your own Conservapedia articles. It won’t help any more than trying to use passive-aggressive tactics to get me to link to your irrelevant and unimportant articles in the hopes of having them rise up in search engine rankings.

Owned! Man, I should post all the comment links on my userspace. Norseman^Wassail! 12:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

This is great! Thanks, Kels, for clueing us in. Rational Ed^think! 12:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

No problem, I knew about the no-index thing already, but didn't want to spill the beans too early. Look for Ken to drop his "challenge" down the memory hole presently, as it no longer serves his self-promotion purposes. --Kels 12:30, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, looks like Ken wants to "count coup" against Cline, for some obscure reason, and claim victory when Cline refuses to "debate". Problem is, it's pretty obvious the difference between "I won't debate because I have no case" and "I won't debate because you have no case". --Kels 18:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Parthian thread

It's fun to see the debate continue over the whole "public school kids are the dumbest" debate on the main page Talk, since Poor Ed's gone and deleted the original item that Karajou posted for "being a misquote" in the first place. --69.248.132.97 16:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Pregnancy....

Nothing like watching two probable socks trying to out-CP each other...PFoster 17:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Keeping in mind that Ed Moon started it. --Kels 17:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Tee hee Ha Ha ...

Conservapedia: The Conservative Alternative 5/23/2008

Quote: If you're looking for information on issues important to conservatives, there's a great new resource available. Conservapedia.com, which is similar in format to its controversial counterpart, Wikipedia, has information available on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on.

Whereas Wikipedia is riddled with hard-core pornography, gratuitously graphic videos and other objectionable material, Conservapedia bills itself as, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Sure, you can find information you need for reports on controversial topics, but you can do your research in a family-friendly, cyber-environment confident that your children aren't going to be unwittingly exposed to obscenity.

Interestingly, as Wikipedia presents much of its information from a liberal perspective, Conservapedia takes a straight forward, "Just the facts Ma'am," approach. However, Conservapedia lives up to its name. An accurate presentation of conservative values and perspectives is presented. unquote :concerned women of America   ^Contribs_Talk 18:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Just how damaging for kids is being homeschooled?

I realise its pretty bad when at a young age (Around 6-14), but after that a kids ability to think independently begins to develop. Does being homeschooled and fed the same biased and tilted nonsense by the likes of Andy (Whose recent cult-like utterings terrifies me for the future of American Kids) damage children to the point of no return. I felt a weird sense of dread when I read some of his comments. I always felt like these were people who I didn't agree with but still could respect, to some degree, but after reading Andy's comments they seem little more than a cult to be honest. MarcusCicero 19:22, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

"nutjobs" in fact ? :)   ^Contribs_Talk 19:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't think they realise how isolated the US is with these Andyesque ideas - they're becoming more & more like the isolation wing of the hospital.   ^Contribs_Talk

Good jab :-) MarcusCicero 19:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

One has only to read some of the contributions of his home scholars to realise how indoctrinated they are (although, come to think of it there haven't been many lately). I've had discussions with AKj about "Give me a child to the age of 10 and I'll give you the man" & agreed to differ.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:40, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

"Give me a child to the age of 10 and I'll give you the man"? No comprendo. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I think it's a variation on "give me a child to the age of ten and he's mine for life." Silly Radioactive man. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

A phrase I haven't heard 'til now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:00, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I think you can probably work it out, in context. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 20:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I thought it was the Jesuits who meant "If I can educate/indoctrinate a child, then the adult is mine for life" but Akj (who knows much more about these things than I) didn't quite agree as I recall. Can't remember where it was - I'll look around.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:03, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

(Undent) ->One has only to read some of the contributions of his home scholars to realise how indoctrinated they are... And one only has to read Foucault's Discipline and Punish to see how indoctrinated all the kids who go to public school are. Indoctrination is the primary goal of the education sysytem, don't kid yourself about this. The only question is: what shape do you want your kids' indoctrination to take. There's a lot I see wrong with Schlafly-style homeskooling, but there's a lot I see wrong with public schools, and private schools too, for that matter. I haven't reproduced, but if I did, I would have serious reservations about sending my kid to school to get educated, and would gladly consider alternatives, if there were any that weren't the kind of homeskooling we all have in mind here...PFoster 20:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Mmm. Honestly don't think my generation in the UK were indoctrinated & the only malign influences I see now in (UK) schools are peer pressure & commercialisation. Correct me if I'm wrong.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:16, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Of course you were indoctrinated-we all were; that's the only way we can get society to work. Without a certain amount of deference to authority, an acceptance of logic/science/mathematics, and especially language the transmission of a sense of the foundational values that society needs to reproduce itself (the need for money, work, police, politics, ets) and countless other ideas that we inculcate young people with, the whole system, a system that is designed to reproduce itself mostly for the benefit of some as opposed to others, would fall apart.The "commercialisation" you mention is but one manifestation of how the system works - as is the "peer pressure." PFoster 20:22, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't think you can put that down to school as much as to society generally. - Thinking: back in a while.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:40, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

You're right, there are many other forums in which this indocrtination takes place....but school is a big one. PFoster 20:41, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

PFoster, I'm sure you're aware of it, but... your definition of indoctrination in this context is likely much broader than the one assumed. Yours essentially just describes... conditioning a person to be able to function in society. Perhaps we need to try and draw a distinction? Uchiha^KATON! 20:53, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Uchicha - my definition of indoctrination is more akin to "ensuring the reproduction of a society as shaped by the exercise of power in a certain way." or something like that - and I'm not sure that this is the forum to debate everything that entails, but: If you think Schlafly's kids are the only ones being indoctrinated, or that public school kids aren't being indoctrinated, you're wrong. If Foucault doesn't convince you, think of what Althusser wrote about the ideological state apparatus, for example....PFoster 20:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I gotta say, while I find Andy's worship of homeschooling and complete condemnation of public school deplorable, I do think rationalwiki has too much of a bias against homeschooling as a whole. The thing about homeschooling is it is whatever an individual parent makes of it. Clearly homeschooling entirely based on shielding a child from anything that may seem to contradict the bible is bad, but homeschooling, if done well, can yield very good results, academically. Does anyone seriously doubt the personal touch and having a one to one student to teacher ratio is not an advantage? Teachers have been saying, quite rightly, that small classes generally yield better results; a homeschool environment is the very essenance of that. The real problems with homeschooling are the Schlafly "let's teach everyone to hate liberals" approach, the social element and lack thereof (which is not always a problem, but it can be), and the very fact that it cannot work for most people. You'd suddenly have to turn millions of people from other jobs into educators, which isn't exactly the most productive way for scoiety to function. Add to that the fact that a very, very small percentage of the population is qualified to teach half a dozen subjects at the high school level and you have a system that is not workable in any widespread use. But when the problems are addressed and handled, I see no reason to condemn a system outright just because of its advocacy by a single small minded hypocrite. DickTurpis 00:22, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Dick - It sounds like what you're describing is essentially the difference between "educating your children," which is a measured and logical approach to, well, educating your children, and "homeskooling," which is, well, problematic. PFoster 00:28, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Everyone "educates their children" in some form. No one relies on schools to teach their children everything. I'm talking about removing children from public school to educate them at home, with parents acting as teacher. If done well, I have no real problem with this, though, without regulation, there is no way for external parties to verify the level of education they actually recieved (not that grades and test scores are a perfect measure of this either). When Andy talks about homeschooling, he generally is referring to his style of Christianity-dominated brainwashing. Yet when he cites prominent homeschoolers, he draws on anyone who was ever educated outside of a public school. That's most people throughout history, as mandatory public schooling is a relatively recent development. The whole definition of what homeschooling actually is a bit tricky, in some ways, which is why I'm using the most general sense of the term, and by that definition, there are good examples and bad ones. I don't see how promotng nor condemning them as a whole really is an accurate approach. DickTurpis 00:48, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Dick, the larger problem with homeschooling isn't the education itself. School is designed to be equal parts education and socialization. By isolating kids from the latter, they lose valuable social lessons. Where do kids learn what they want to look for in a friend? Where do they find their interests, and where are they to learn to make independent choices? Some things are expected in school, just as they're expected in the workplace. There will always be bullies, there will always be jerks, there will always be drama queens. The fact is, school is there to give real world experience in a safe environment. Many kids who I know personally that have been homeschooled are kept away from the world and those dangerous liberals, and therefore, have no experience. To rely on a small anecdote, a friend of mine who was homeschooled up until 9th grade was so socially behind and so unused to new ideas, she had a major freak out when she entered high school. After graduation, she had completely lost her rational mind. She dropped out of college because she couldn't handle the independence needed to succeed, she started dating some jerkoff she met at a party, moved in with him, moved out, then went back to him. Last I heard she was pregnant at the age of 20. I would argue, very fiercly, that had she not been secluded from the world, she could easily have been success in college. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 02:32, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, you can always find stories like that; it's hardly any different from Andy's horror stories about public schools. It all comes down to the hows and the whys of homeschooling. There are programs for homeschool kids in many places where they interact with one another and learn social skills. Andy's classes are, I guess, a very scary version of that. Certainly if someone is being homeschooled in order to keep them away from evil liberals and their ideas, that is a big problem. That is the Andy version, and the one he assumes in practiced by everyone else who homeschools. That is not the case though. There are a fair number of people are the far left who homeschool their kids. If they do it to shelter their kids from evil conservatives and their ideas, then it really isn't better, but such sheltering is not the only reason to homeschool. No one, I think, doubts the benefit of private tutoring, and with a proficient parent you can get some excellent results. The social element can be handled outside of school as well; schools do not have a monopoly on social interaction. Indeed, at some point, some sort of classroom-like environment is necessary, as I don't know how many people can teach algebra, trigonometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, literature, US history, world history, economics, politics, art, music, and other subjects at a high school level. And if such a person can, I would think it likely they would use those skills in a career, where they could undoubtedly earn a lot of money. If done right (and I have no idea what percentage is done right) I have no problem with homeschooling. It's the complete condemnation of public schools that I really disapprove of. DickTurpis 10:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

One could argue indoctrination is prevalent in every walk of life. Rousseau's model of education in Emile, although a little naieve, is probably ideal. Instead of teaching at a person, the student must be allowed to ask questions and develop his intellectual capicities. This would probably only work in a homeschooling environment.

I think homeschooling can be OK, but at the moment its being used by the far right to insulate themselves from the world. Far right parents have children, and they really stuff this fundamentalist stuff down their throat from a young age. This is the essence of indoctrination. On the other hand, my relatively moderate Catholic upbringing (Mass on Sunday, everyone half asleep etc.) along with a childhood spent playing Gaelic Football (And the associated laddishness with that) and watching TV; Is that form of 'indoctrination' really any worse? All those factors have shaped my worldview and personality today...

Indoctrination is an issue that people make too much of. PFoster is right, we are all indoctrinated in some sense. The far left would have it that the Public School system in the US indoctrinates kids to serve the nation and the capitalist system; the far right has it that it teached the kids all sort of Liberal/Atheist/Anything-we-disagree-with in order to undermine the Christian faith... Both fringes are wildly taking things out of proportion! And I'll close my point at that. MarcusCicero 07:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

guns

what a freaking moron http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=59900&diff=459414&oldid=459411 Ace McWicked

Yeah, that whole conversation is in a class by itself. We've got two people who LIVE there telling Andy he's flat-out wrong, and he's completely ignoring it and just reciting his talking points. It's like watching a badly-designed conversational AI hit a snag. --Gulik 02:08, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

What I love about Andy's "post" in that edit is that he kept five words from the posts he deleted to build his "comment". And, yeah, he's looking at an issue that has a distinctly unique history in the US as if it's the same in every country. ħψɱ₦ 13:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Attn. Conservapedia sysops

On May 14, someone named Johnnycomelately edited your Ronald Reagan article to read that Reagan was "the father of modern political discourse." This, in case you're too dense to realise it, is trolling and vandalism...and not to put too fine a point on it, you may be too dense to realise this, as at least five of you (Kettlelick, EdPoor, DeanS, Learntogether and DanH) have edited the article since then, restoring the vandalism on at least one occasion. Reagan was a lot of things, but "father of modern political discourse" was not one of them. The article dedicated to one of your most important political icons is a joke, and you've looked silly for a week and a half now...PFoster 23:36, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Hi, Crocoite!!! *waves*....PFoster 08:49, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Heh! *sniggers*   ^Contribs_Talk 08:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Andy of course

this is of course about Andy. Firstly I would like to apologise for bringing this up again but Az mentions it also. He has really shown, plainly, what Andy is all about. Reading Az and Andy's discussion shows what type of ignorant, bull headed person he is. But above all it shows just how deluded and sad he is. Ace McWicked 02:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm torn. It does show how sad and deluded he is. It's almost pitiable. On the other hand, the whole event just goes to show how far Andy will twist and malign the conversation/facts to slander (at least in his own mind) someone who he once sided with. It makes it seem as if there is no end to what he will do to demonize someone he disagrees with. I know this is just a function of his delusion; he has to turn everyone who disagrees even slightly with him into a full-out enemy to maintain his persecution complex, etc. At the same time, I can't feel any empathy for that kind of person, no matter how "sick" they are. I do feel for Az, though. I'm not sure if he started the conversation for closure or if he thought he really could help. If it's the former, this is not the closure he deserved.

I am surprised at how PJR came through in the conversation though. I never expected such (what's the word?) balls, I suppose. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 06:06, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Props to AZ for summing up trying to discuss "anything" with Andy so perfectly: "I've felt like a magician showing a card trick to a dog. You're interested alright, but you clearly have no idea what's going on." That one is brilliant, and the context (Andy's previous 3-4 displays of willful ignorance) was chosen wonderfully. ħψɱ₦ 14:14, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

A Reply to the Gentle Peeps at this Site

Message from PJR to us [2], in case you haven't seen it over there yet. --Psygremlin_Whut? 07:32, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Reply to the reply (not that he's likely to read it...)

Thanks PJR :) You've always been the most resonant voice of reason at CP, in my less-than-humble opinion. It's nice to demonstrate that our two wikis can ocassionally communicate in a civil manner, even if our ways of thinking sometimes seem to be incompatible. I'd be interested in discussing your argument in that post, as there are a couple of places where I disagree or can't really see your logic, but since you don't have an account here it would be a pretty inefficient discussion, really. All the best, ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 07:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry JF but reason? - someone who believes that the entirity of living organisms was created by JuJuman-in-the-sky 6000 years ago - reason? The guy, however polite, is a nutter!   ^Contribs_Talk 08:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, he makes his points calmly, though I disagree with many of them, not the least being: " Christianity is correct, and this is objectively determinable. " He seems to be specifically responding to something specific here though. What was it?--Bob^{bing up} 08:43, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

To the best of my knowledge, he's referring to the section about him in the latest archive of talkWIGO. Took me ages to find what he meant! ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 08:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Someone commented above about his contribution to the Aschlafly/Aziraphel debate. Addendum Oh & Pal slagged off his consigning all us non-believers to eternal damnation.   ^Contribs_Talk

Polite & calm != reasoned. Nutter = nutter, even if he's nice!   ^Contribs_Talk 08:52, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

"As for my "scary" worldview: I think the matter is overstated, but it provides lots of motivation! What's yours?" That's why he believes it: because otherwise he'd just curl up & die. (nutter)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, I think it's commendable that PJR is mature enough to frame his religion as one view among many (even if he does then state that his view is that it is "objectively determinable", which is a little baffling and seems to suggest an odd definition of "objective"). And secondly, please stop equating viewpoints you don't understand with mental illness. This is the twenty-first century. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Understand? How can anyone understand it? It is a mental illness - believing in something that's manifestly untrue & defending it against all evidence is loopy. Where do you draw the line? Is the Time Cube guy also sane? How about the guy who believes he's Napoleon? Society tolerates some but they're all out of the same mould.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Wrong. Mental illness isn't some magic spell you can invoke to explain away anything you don't comprehend. Besides which, believing something that is manifestly untrue is a very common, almost mundane way of thinking. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 09:33, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

What's to comprehend - the guy's wrong in his whole "worldview" - don't keep telling me I don't understand/ comprehend -   ^Contribs_Talk 09:43, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

By that I meant only that you don't see the logic in his argument. And he may well be wrong, but to suggest that makes his whole reasoning irrational is a massive oversimplification. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 09:50, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Too right I don't see the logic in his argument - you can't see what's not there! As his premises are fatally flawed (God, Christianity being true because Christianity says it's true, the Bible ditto ) there can be no logical derivation from them.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I see: he's wrong because you disagree with him, and moreover he's irrational because he's wrong. This is barrels of fun. We must do this again sometime :) ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 10:07, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

If he could demonstrate 1 (one) non-self-referencing piece of evidence for his views then .... Until then, yes you're right!   ^Contribs_Talk 10:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

But surely you can see that it's possible for someone to believe something incorrect without being mentally ill? No, actually I give up. We're clearly talking at cross purposes here. Godspeed! ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 10:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

  ^Contribs_Talk 10:35, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I know it's not my place to judge people as being "good" or "bad," especially since I'm an English teacher and should know better adjectives. However, there are so many sysops over there that I would consider "bad people," not mislead, not deluded, but genuinely wretched stock. PJR has never fallen into that category for me. Even though I disagree with him, and I think he is misguided, he's always struck me as a "good" person. He lives for his faith. Maybe that is a pitiable position in its misguidedness, but I don't see it as something to actively deride. Whereas others argue out of sheer xenophobic hatred, that doesn't seem to be his position, even if he's xenophobic himself. While I'll never agree with his views, I have come to respect him as a person. I don't know, maybe he's just my "pet sysop," but I'd rather talk to him than scream at the others any day. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:23, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Arcan. You managed to sum up what I was getting at. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 09:33, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Mega-dittos, Rush! DickTurpis 10:52, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

So, a polite nutter isn't a nutter. I see - that's OK then.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm with Susan. A nutter is a nutter even if it has been house-trained (housebroken_{for those in the good ol' US of A}). Auld Nick 10:34, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Far be it from me to defend religion in any of its forms, but believing something which cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method does not necessarily make one insane. It may well make you wrong - but being wrong is not the same as being insane.--Bob^{bing up} 10:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

"Is the Time Cube guy also sane? How about the guy who believes he's Napoleon? Society tolerates some but they're all out of the same mould." When all the evidence points otherwise, but you stick uncritically to a view, what are you?   ^Contribs_Talk 10:59, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Mildly irritating. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 11:06, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Many people believe you can catch a cold by being cold. They are wrong, but many simply won't accept it. Are they insane?--Bob^{bing up} 11:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

They haven't "researched" the topic like PJR claims to have - so no - they're misinformed.   ^Contribs_Talk 11:10, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, there are Christians who move from a belief in miracles to athiesm. Does their medical insanity somehow end simply because they change their minds?--Bob^{bing up} 11:13, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me, on any topic other than religion, PJR is actually kind of a normal person. I imagine I could meet him, have a few conversations with him, and think he's a decent guy, and, as long as religion doesn't come up, I could even see eye-to-eye on some matters with him. This assumes he doesn't work religion into every conversation (something you can't do with Andy, as it seems the first thing he does upon meeting anyone is find out their position on school prayer). It sounds like on some issues, like gun control, he might be even left of me. Obviously he takes religion very seriously, and he's clearly thought it through extensively. I actually respect that, in a way. I think if you're going to be a religious person, and purport to believe Christian doctrine (as so many do) you really need to think it through, and if you're going to believe it, you actually have to believe it (which, it seems, not so many do). If you do a poll of Americans and ask how many believe the Bible is the literal truth, you will likely get a substantial percentage saying yes (I'm not going to bring in Schlafly statistics and make up a number), depending on how the question is asked. Whereas if you bring those same people to a museum and show them a rock that is 50,000 years old, how many of them will say or think "impossible! The world is only 6,000 years old! 7,000 tops!"? Some, but not that many. People often just don't think things through, and hold contradictory beliefs. Not PJR. When he believes something, he believes the bejeezus out of it. And if you believe in a religion like Christianity, it's kind of an important thing. If you believe in Christianity, but it's not a very important aspect of your life, then ur doin it rong. So I can't condemn him when 250 some million people in this country alone believe the same thing, only in a lame, half-hearted "sure, whatever, if that's what the Bible says" way. I'm convinced he's wrong, and he's convinced I am. So be it. At least, it seems, the Christianity he practices is not the hate-filled Falwell variety, but one that emphasizes the positive aspects (and there are some; I'm not about to pretend there aren't). Also, while obviously no one has ever proved Christianity (or any other religion) is true, no one has, or ever will, prove it entirely false either. And even if they did, I'm sure they'd only move the goalposts. DickTurpis 11:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The example of PJR shows that you don't have to be a jerk to be a conservative Christian -- the other sysops just happen to be jerks. I suspect that he doesn't enjoy the hostility and incivility displayed by the rest of the 'team' there, but he's taken the decision to collaborate with the regime, so he deserves to be tarred with the same brush. Barnaby 12:19, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

He's just masking his jerkiness with civility, he still want to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation and, having done that bit of violence against American ideals, who knows what nastiness he would then find reasonable and lawful -- certainly a purge of homosexuals, for instance, would be in order. Don't be fooled by nice manners. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 12:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

All other points aside (because really, what's the point walking into the shitstorm of anger here?) can I just point out that he's not terribly interested in toppling the US at the moment; he's Australian, and in fact has been consistent in his mild annoyance with all of the US-centricism. At least accuse him of being a fanatical zealot in the right country. Az 14:39, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, that's completely different. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 15:15, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting point, Sheesh. But has PJR ever really weighed in strongly on the homosexuality issue? I'm sure he's against gay marriage and such, but there's a huge difference between opposing gay marriage and putting gays into cattle cars and saying bye bye. Ken is more in the latter circle, and Ed has even said that gays should be in prison or in an insane asylum, but I can't recall PJR make any comments along any such lines at all. DickTurpis 17:15, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Nah, you're right. I can't recall him saying anything that nasty and that is duly noted. And yet, CP as a monolithic project seems to have the more radical stance and PJR is part of that project QED . . . ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 17:38, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not really sure I go with the guilt by association in cases such as these. I mean, most of the users here were once involved with CP (myself included) until they decided we were not welcome there. CP is not homogenous, as we can see from disagreements between folks over there. RW isn't either, and I disagree with views expressed here not infrequently. PJR has stood up to the asshole contingent on occasion. I just wish he would do it more. ^{— Unsigned, by: DickTurpis / talk / contribs}

Re diverting to PJR's reply to replies

I want to talk about this part:

I don't think I've ever said that a government should "actively promote" one religion over another, but I have said that they should endorse Christianity. But this is on the grounds that (a) Christianity is correct, and (b) this is objectively determinable. (Note that when I say "objectively", I'm not talking about scientific "proof". Rather, the sort of reasonable conclusions that one can draw, that I explain in my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia.) Atheists, conversely, reject both those points, and from their point of view, I can understand their objection to a government endorsing Christianity. Can they see the grounds for a government endorsing Christianity on the premise that (a) and (b) are true?

• endorse versus actively promote would seem the functionally the same
• Christianity is correct: lots of American citizens believe that say, The Goddess, or Gaia are also correct. Lots believe that other cultures or races are inferior. They think those views are correct too.
• this is objectively determinable. Note that when I say "objectively", I'm not talking about scientific "proof". Rather, the sort of reasonable conclusions that one can draw, that I explain in my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia.): These reasonable conclusions are simply rationalizations. Given a set of incorrect assumptions and erroneous data I can objectively reason that bumble bees can't fly. Given the correct assumptions I can reason that bumble bees can fly. None of this is going to effect the bumble bee however.
• can they see the grounds for a government endorsing Christianity on the premise that (a) and (b) are true?: Assuming (a) and (b) were true, sure. But they aren't very likely to be true and so we can't work on those assumptions. We could just as easily assume that humanity was seeded by a race of noble aliens (a) and that we need to recombine by attacking and eating three other people (b). on the premise that (a) and (b) are true we should endorse murder and cannibalism.

^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 12:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Note - the original discussion that I believe PJR is replying to is located here.

BTW Philip, if you're reading this, I don't actually dislike you per se. Uchiha^KATON! 14:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Got to agree. I don't dislike PJR on a personal level. I thoroughly disagree wtih his stance on religion, and boggle at the mental contortions he has to go through to mold reality to fit the awkward structure he's faced with. And, as before, I find it hard to accept the description of "reasonable" while supporting what Andy and the others are doing. It's admirable when he actually disagrees, though, and I give him credit for that, at least. --Kels 16:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

<incoherent rant> Trouble with being a member of an organisation is that you are inevitably classed with the rest of them. I wouldn't object to being grouped with the rest of the Ratwikians (although there's probably some who wouldn't want to be grouped with me!). By staying where he is & failing to stand against the worst excesses PJR is digging himself deeper into the mire. It is quite possible that Ken (for instance) would disagree with PJR on creationism (I don't recall him being defensive about it). They're a disparate collection of nutters (sorry) held together by the contempt which the rest of the world has for them. PJR is probably a really nice man, kind to kids & pets & a great raconteur but his creationism is outside all bounds of sense and the fact that he claims to have researched it for years only makes me more convinced that he is "not all there ". </incoherent rant>   ^Contribs_Talk 18:02, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

What strikes me about PJR's reply is that, to summarise it, he seems to be trying to argue that Christianity is correct because the Bible says so, which is rather circular reasoning, and, as such, is really asking us if we can at least see the argument that the US government should endorse Christianity, as it's correct, given the premise that Christianity is correct. Well, if Christianity was objectively proven, once and for all, to be the one correct religion, I could see why the US government should endorse it. However, that simply hasn't happened. As for his comments about the teaching of evolution in schools, one of the things that he quite specifically mentions Christianity is not proven by is scientific proof, yet, for some bizarre reason, he seems to think that something other than evolution, presumably creationism in one guise or another, should be taught in classrooms. Speaking personally, I would have absolutely no objection to creationism being taught in classrooms - as long as it was taught as 'things that some people believe due to their religion', not science. In the UK, from what I hear, there are 'religious education' classes, where pupils are taught the basics of just about all the 'major' religions in an entirely objective manner. If US schools started something similar (which, of course, would mean finding a way around any First Amendment concerns), this would be an ideal place to teach creationism. Zmidponk 16:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Reply to the reply to the reply .......

No Phil, I won't take you on on your own terms. All I will do is say: If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that there is the possibility of creationism by a GOD being more likely than evolution from basic chemical constituents then I'll never comment on your absolute nuttery ever again.   ^Contribs_Talk 11:01, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

PZ Myers and the Gentleman at etc.

Haha, hey Ken! He noticed you. My favorite part? In the complete and utter dismissal of your inanity, he doesn't even link to your site. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 10:39, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Did anyone notice...

The kid on the left side of the screen at about the 5 second mark of this video? _{He's wearing a Che shirt. Oh, the irony....}PFoster 11:35, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to guess that what the shirt actually says is "Communism killed 100 million people and all I got was this lousy t-shirt". You can't really tell from just seeing the top. DickTurpis 11:38, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah. never seen that one. these crazy kids with their hair and their music.... My bad. PFoster 11:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Then again, the image doesn't really match this one which has Che at the bottom, not the top. I wonder. Andy would never allow his students to wear a Che shirt in class, would he? Certainly not when they're being filmed for....um...youtube? DickTurpis 11:41, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

It's from a CBC doc...and if it IS a legit Che shirt, that's just the kind of smaratass kid that cracks me up. Totally awesomePFoster 11:44, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Reminds me of the kid suspended for wearing a Pepsi t-shirt on his schools "Coca Cola Day". [3] DickTurpis 11:46, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

That video is awesome. What high school teacher would use WP to teach world history anyway? I thought they had, um, "textbooks" and such? What's fun about watching it is realizing what really goes on at CP, and why people really go there, while Andy drones on about their pageviews (which have to be at least 20% bot-generated by now!) as if they confer legitimacy. ħψɱ₦ 14:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Human, you are totally clueless. There'e no way that 20% of CP's page views are bot generated. It's actually about 60% according to my stats. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:01, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh God that video is sooooooo disturbing. That windowless room looks like it's about six hundred feet underground. Perhaps it's in Colorado Springs, not New Jersey, and it's in the NORAD facility?

Fairly sure the Chr shirt is straight. A little later you see wide shot of the whole class with the kid in the front row. I can't see any text at all on his shirt - just a picture of Che! Respect! RedDog 15:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually I think the Che picture has a line through it, like a stop sign. Though I did like Andy's explanation of why there's so many articles on Conservapedia about anal fissures. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is an anti-Che t-shirt a la the cross-out ghostbusters logo. A better picture is seen on this page. DickTurpis 17:03, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

It definitely is. I must say that the fact that there's only one marginally cute girl in the class did make me happy, however. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:31, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and the girl in question is our good friend Deborah, I believe. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 22:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. On what do you base that hypothesis? DickTurpis 22:59, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

1. She looks Irish. 2. Her affect would suggest that she's heavily involved, and thus… Obviously, I'm not certain, but it seemed like a good guess to me.

My comment got lost (in EC), I think she is more likely to be Bethany. PFoster, these people have signed affidavits allowing their likenesses to be used in the media (otherwise this video would not exist). Sorry, they are fair play. ħψɱɐ₦ 23:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

If we're talking about the one who does most of the talking, Fuzzy Kettleticket says its Sharon. I guess he'd know. And if it's a secret, he let it out of the bag, not any of the rest of us. now, if you're talking about the one marginally cute one, well, I'm not especially big on rating the looks of teens, but if there was one, I would have guessed another was being discussed. Not to call Sharon ugly or anything. All of them actually looked normal enough. DickTurpis 23:33, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I meant, Sharon, actually… aargh. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 10:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't really want to argue with you Human - and I AM being a GIANT HYPOCRITE seeing as I brought up the kid in the Che shirt in the first palce - but I think there's a line between making comments about what we see in the video--which is pretty much fair game, it was on teevee and all - and trying to link that with real world/real life people that we see on the CP. So I won't do it. Everyone's happy.PFoster 23:15, 24 May 2008 (EDT) PS - I also come from a country where it is illegal, for instance, for the media to name juvenile defendants in court cases - or even their parents so as to protect their identities - so that sort of shapes my thinking on this...PFoster 23:18, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, FIRST and foremost, please feel free to argue with me. What am I. teh frickin' assfly or something? I'm just a person on this site. I understand the whole "protection of minors" thing - but my argument is that for this video to exist, WAIVERS WERE SIGNED (sorry for the shouting). As I understand it, this was part of a CBC documentary, and as such, followed all kinds of legal intricacy - including permissions by children or their guardians for their appearance in the video. Perhaps CBC would even release the information contained in such releases (I think they'd have to?). This is not "us" as RW "outing" some innocent kid. This is us seeing the idiots spouting garbage and wanting to know who they are - they have made their stance in public, all I ask is, "who are they"? ħψɱɐ₦ 23:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I see your point. But unless you are also seventeen, talking about how cute they are or are not is really in poor taste AFAIC.PFoster 23:38, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

(UNDENT) - Seriously, dudes - leave the kids out of it. They're kids. Pick on Andy and Ed all we want, but playing "spot the homeschooler" seems a little uncool to me....PFoster 23:03, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I concur. I'm sorry. :( --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 23:07, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Funny, that a video that talks about homeschoolers takes place in a classroom, just like a private school (or the basement of one). How, exactly does this become homeschooling? Although by Andy's definition anything that's not a public school is homeschooling, but I could count the number of people who believe his definitions on the thumbs of one foot. --Kels 16:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

"I don't have to live with what's printed in the newspaper." Andy's self-deception explained. Also, why doesn't he have the lapels of his shirt *outside* his jumper? Is this a fashion I missed? Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 16:22, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe he was "helping one of the students with their homework" when the camera crew arrived, and tossed it on in a hurry? --Kels 16:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The Che t shirt definitely has a red circle with a red diagonal line across it. Ergh, I had to watch some of it again! "My homeschooled class", delivered with no irony. Why not call it "my amateur Christian private history class for homeschooled students"? ħψɱ₦ 17:04, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

ID characters

Obviously, the geek in the pullover and glasses with the droning voice is none other than our dear friend, Assdrew Shufflefly. Can anyone identify any of the rest of the cast? Who is the young woman who is so proud that they surpassed Limbaugh's hits? (A couple of times, and on the weekend, when his show is not pumping hits live[4]) Who is NotCheFan? When was the CBC documentary and where is more of it? ħψɱɐ₦ 20:07, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I guessed at the third query above, which is totally not the right place to do so. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 23:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Here's the thing. These kids, and their psychopathic "teacher" have signed contracts allowing their appearances - this was a CBC documentary, right? Not a "spy cam" in Andy's basement. Whoever was present is now FAIR PLAY. They have entered the adult world of "discussion of issues" and "this is what I think". I am all for "protecting the children" from over-exposure - but they have made their stance in our public world, and argue, on CP, (by default) that they are "right" and someone else is "wrong". Bring it on, kids. Surely your parents know you were on TV and the Webbything, right? Was there informed consent to these TV appearances? I suspect so. ħψɱɐ₦ 23:15, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed and yet they are still just kids, so perhaps we should let the who's who thing go and simply focus on what was said ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 00:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that any linking between visual image and a CP user name hardly constitutes an outing of their identity. As far as RW is concerned they are still virtually anonymous. Their Facebook, MySpace, Bebo or whatever pages will give far more away about where they live, and what they do. If it is felt that they are are somehow exposing themselves to danger on teh intertubes then it is a serious dereliction of duty by their parents and any criticism should be directed at them. Personally, I think Andy puts them in danger by making them sysops and thus giving them greater exposure to obscenity than if they were just regular readers or editors. Ans surely the masses of detail about homosexuallity and gay life-styles currently available on CP are beyond the bounds of decency for an allegedly family-friendly site. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:12, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree. A minor is part of a website in which she releases minimal personal information about herself...a minor agrees to be part of a public video, also in which very little information about her is revealed. Saying that person A and person B are the same person doesn't reveal any new information about the person that she hasn't already made public. Nevertheless, we should keep comments about them to a minimum, and keep the focus on what they say rather than who they are. Nor should we reveal any information about them that they have no revealed themselves (should we somehow be in a position to do so). Fuzzy Kettleticket is probably the only one in a position to do so, and I assume he won't. DickTurpis 20:25, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Oooh....Burnage

At about 1:21 of the brainwashed video, this girl is saying how Wikipedia didn't talk about Issac Newton's religion. I dug up research and it turns out the actual article, not even a section but the actual article was created on October 12, 2005. Assfly's site was first polluting 13 months later on November 22, 2006. This Newton thing was cited as one reason they did it. So.....does that make 50 percent of conservapedia void in Schlafly's eyes? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 13:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

It was really hard to get through that... the whole time, I was remembering a Saturday Night Live sketch where Jimmy Fallon was impersonating Pat O'Brien and opened with "Welcome back, I'm Pat O'Brien and I don't breathe through my nose EVER." Funny stuff man, funny stuff SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 13:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

They sure have their talking points down, don't they? Allegedly WP is so full of anti-American and anti-Christian bias that it knows no bounds, but when they interview that girl (could that be Bethany of Sharon, I wonder) it's the same thing they've said 100 times before "they don't give enough emphasis to Newton's piety" and "they don't credit Christianity enough with the Renaissance." Add "they use BCE! (sometimes)" and I think they've covered it. (And by the way, Andy, wp:1 BCE on Wikipedia redirects to wp:1 BC, so guess which the preferred use is?) DickTurpis 16:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, that's SharonS (at 1:21). Candlewick 17:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Favorite moments: 2:27 - Are those Cliff's Notes?; 2:40 - He just looks so creepy! Sandman 17:03, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that shot of him in the background at 2:40 really creeped me out the first time I watched it. Not sure exactly what it is about it, but him standing behind all these students, tucked away in the dark with a creepy expression. Scary. DickTurpis 17:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Haha, I wonder just how much it burns Andy's buscuits that at least one (I haven't checked them all) of the sites that Jinxmchue cited also gives links to our version of the Atheism article? Ken must be so proud. --Kels 07:39, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Jesus its bizzare. Whats with the music? Ace McWicked

Who Conservapedians Model themselves on

(One of) The greatest comedian(s) of the 20th century, Peter Cook, invented E. L. Wisty "A dire, bland, know-it all". It is apparent that every (adult) member of Cp has taken their example from this character. Brits will be more familiar with him although Americans will possibly know him through his later (unnamed) incarnation in dialogues with Dudley Moore   ^Contribs_Talk 18:19, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that the "Do you know you have four of miles of tubing in your stomach" sketch from the filmThe Secret Policeman's (Other) Ball?PFoster 18:25, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes! There's LOADS of E L Wisty on You Tube - although not necessarily by name.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:30, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I bought a book of Cook's skits and writings a few years back when I was visiting England, and was disappointed that I couldn't see them performed, as I'm sure they're even funnier with his dry delivery. That was before youtube, though. I'm surprised I haven't thought to look for them there before now. Thanks for the idea. (Incidentally, did anyone else find the Beyond the Fringe DVD a little disappointing?) DickTurpis 20:14, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I just watched this one. Even as a Canadian, I recognize a bunch of those faces. --Kels 20:24, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Ken starts a long list

Articles on Conservapedia from Conservatives Sources - 2 in 14 months. ----

Oh, that's fun. He adds the CreationWiki article, which includes substantial contributions by...a couple of CP editors. Isn't that cheating?

Hypothetical Cancer

"If 2 out of the top 20 developed breast cancer at a young age, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge." ([5]) Yes Andy and if 2 out of the top twenty Premiers of Australia were green space aliens, wouldn't that be alarming? That approach presents a good intellectual challenge.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Wasn't that the first season plot of the current incarnation of Doctor Who? --Kels 22:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

This whole thing makes me mad.

If you look, you'll notice that only 10 people were diagnosed since the year 2000 to the year 2006. That's an average of 10/7 people per year = 1.42 people per year out of a supposed (500) and that's with a HUGE amount of assumptions. Conservapedia reports that the number of people on average who are diagnosed before 30 is 1 out of 2525, or about 2 out of 5000, or about .2 out of 500. Anyway, only one of those 10 people is even under the age of 30, and that's Anastacia, diagnosed in 2002. One event is not statsically significant. If we go back as far as they go, that's 1972 to 2006, 35 years. 21 people/35 years = .6 people diagnosed out of 500 (Assuming that from 1972 to 2006, no one left or entered Hollywood) or 1.2 out of 1000. Their average age of diagnosis is 37.4, at which point the national average is about 1 in 217 women. So Hollywood is well under average. As my "facts" are all based off of "Andy's" facts, the only way I can be wrong is if Andy's "facts" are wrong, which would never happen. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:28, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Now Andy is saying if he had a list of the most popular female musicians we could analyize them and see if maybe 2 of the top 20 had cancer. Well, Andy, 20 is too small a sample population to give meaningful results, but what the hell, I did a bit of research for you and here are the 60 female recording artists with at least 50 million records sold worldwide. That would, by sales, make them the most popular in the world (source: had to use Wikipedia, sorry: [6]):

1. Anni-Frid Lyngstad (ABBA)
2. Agnetha Fältskog (ABBA)
3. Alla Pugacheva
4. Celine Dion
5. Cher
6. Madonna
7. Nana Mouskouri
8. Wei Wei
9. Whitney Houston
10. Liz Mitchell (Boney M)
11. Marcia Barrett (Boney M)
12. Maizie Williams (Boney M)
13. Karen Carpenter (The Carpenters)
14. Dalida
15. Dionne Warwick
16. Dolly Parton
17. Donna Summer
18. Stevie Nicks (Fleetwood Mac)
19. Janet Jackson
20. Joni James
21. Mariah Carey
22. Mireille Mathieu
23. Patti Page
24. Teresa Teng
25. Tina Turner
26. Valeriya
27. LaVern Andrews (Andrews Sisters)
28. Maxine Andrews (Andrews Sisters)
29. Patti Andrews (Andrews Sisters)
30. Britney Spears
31. Fairuz
32. Gloria Estefan
33. Mina
34. Alanis Morrisette
35. Anne Murray
36. Ayumi Hamasaki
37. Barbra Streisand
38. Debbie Harry (Blondie)
39. Andrea Corr (The Corrs)
40. Sharon Corr (The Corrs)
41. Caroline Corr (The Corrs)
42. Miwa Yoshida (Dreams Cone True)
43. Enya
44. Hibari Misora
45. Kylie Minogue
46. Linda Ronstadt
47. Olivia Newton-John
48. Marie Osmond (The Osmonds)
49. Petula Clarke
50. Reba McEntire
51. Marie Fredrikson (Roxette)
52. Sade
53. Shakira
54. Shania Twain
55. Judith Durham (The Seekers)
56. Victoria Beckham (Spice Girls)
57. Melanie Brown (Spice Girls)
58. Melanie Chisolm (Spice Girls)
59. Geri Halliwell (Spice Girls)
60. Emma Bunton (Spice Girls)

No sure who here has had breast cancer, but I'm sure some have, as the overall statistics are 1 in 8 or something. If someone wants to post this over there, he might find it useful. Or not. DickTurpis 22:01, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I think what Andy is trying to say is that such people are the cancer. Really, the same technique he used to equate the theory of relativity with moral relativism. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:29, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

re: the list. I'm sooooo out of touch? Who the hell, to give two examples out of many, are Alla Pugacheva or Wei Wei. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 00:05, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

This is an international list. I think the one is a popular Russian and one is a popular Chinese singer. I could have removed such examples, but as Andy made it clear that it has nothing to do with Hollywood, just singing a lot or something, so they qualify. DickTurpis 00:43, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Poking about the nation lists[7][8][9] that are there, some additional names to toss on the list:

• Laura Pausini
• Nana Mouskouri
• Anna Vissi
• Despina Vandi
• Katy Garbi
• Glykeria
• Angela Dimitriou
• Elena Paparizou
• Eleftheria Arvanitaki
• Alexia
• Marinella
• Natassa Theodoridou
• Peggy Zina
• Elli Kokkinou
• Lara Fabian
• Dani Klein
• Evi Goffin (Lasgo)
• Axelle Red
• Lio
• Kate Ryan
• Jeanine Deckers
• Sandra Kim
• Reba McEntire
• Natalie Maines (Dixie Chicks)
• Martie Maguire (Dixie Chicks)
• Emily Robison (Dixie Chicks)
• Laura Lynch (Dixie Chicks)
• Robin Lynn Macy (Dixie Chicks)
• Linda Ronstadt
• Almeda Berkey (Mannheim Steamroller)
• Roxanne Layton (Mannheim Steamroller)
• Faith Hill

Realize thats only 4 countries (Greece, Belgium, Brazil, US). Side note, I bet it would annoy Andy if someone was to go through and create articles for the various artists (especially the obscure ones) that are on his list. He complains about WP having articles on pop artists. Some others (going through my itunes)

• Dido
• Shannon Noll
• Amy Lee (Evanescence)
• Vikki Thorn (The Waifs)
• Norah Jones
• Yoko Ono
• Dar Williams
• Jewel
• KT Turnstall
• Lisa Loeb
• Loreena McKennitt
• Mindy Smith
• Sara Watkins (Nickel Creek)
• Sarah McLachlan
• Tori Amos
• Kathleen Edwards

Hmm... Hall of fame...

• Debbie Harry (Blondie)
• Aretha Franklin
• Ruth Brown
• Gladys Knight
• Etta James
• Janis Joplin (died age 27)
• Laurie Brown (The Kinks)
• Brenda Lee
• Michelle Phillips (The Mamas & the Papas)
• Cass Elliot (The Mamas & the Papas - died age 32)
• Joni Mitchell
• Zola Taylor (The Platters)
• Bonnie Raitt (The Ronettes)
• Veronica "Ronnie" Bennett (The Ronettes)
• Estelle Bennett (The Ronettes)
• Nedra Talley (The Ronettes)
• Shirley Owens (The Shirelles)
• Doris Coley (The Shirelles)
• Beverly Lee (The Shirelles)
• Addie 'Micki' Harris (The Shirelles)
• Patti Smith
• Cleotha Staples (The Staple Singers)
• Yvonne Staples (The Staple Singers)
• Mavis Staples (The Staple Singers)

So, thats just a few more. --Shagie 02:58, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh we could go on forever. I'm sure there are thousands of successful female recording artists through the last 60 plus years. I only used my list because it had objective criteria which Andy said he was specifically seeking and therefore couldn't preen the healthy ones with contrived excuses ("hasn't toured recently") while making sure to maintain the few who did have cancer. Those are the 60 best selling female artists, as far as we can tell (Patti Scialfa of the E Street Band might qualify as well, the list includes Springstein, but doesn't specify his band). I'd like to expand it a bit to get a larger sample size, so I guess we'd need a list of artist with sales between 25 and 50 million or something. DickTurpis 09:53, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

It might just be easier to list conservatives with [body part] cancer and show conservativism causes this. Then again, he'd just change the definition of conservativism....-Shangrala 11:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservativism must cause anal cysts!

See: Rush Limbaugh.
This is SCIENCE! --Gulik 12:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Clueless and cluelesser

"By the way, there is no way that there are a half million touring female singers. The entire New York City area, as large and entertainment-oriented as it is, can probably support only a handful on any given weekend." So sayeth Andy on 15:30, 24 May 2008 (sorry no diff link for you). First sentence included for context. NYC, the biggest and richest metro area in the world, can only support a "handful" of paid female singers on any given weekend? Don't get out much, do you, Andy? If we just consider that opera and musicals probably cause cancer just as effectively as balladeering, how many female singers do you think are getting paid every night on Broadway alone? For singing? ħψɱɐ₦ 15:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives Dont use or own wallets

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=459903

hahahaha Ace McWicked

Wow. Just, wow. Andy, 8 * 6 = 48. 8 * 5 = 40. Keep it simple, stupid, eh? At least get the math right. Minimum wage? Isn't that a liberal thing? Surely you are against that, and this clueless teenager should better toil in a poultry farm for $2.50 an hour (the min. when teh assfly & I were kids, surely it's good enough for you?) for 16 hours? PS, Andy, did your daddy (or your mommy) beat you for losing the $40, you idiot? If so, I think you deserved it. ħψɱɐ₦ 00:12, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The moral of this story: If you lose $40, suck it up, bitch! Who spends months worrying about losing $40? What the hell is wrong with you? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:19, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

No kidding... I mean, really, how has Andy, with his very successful mother ever had to worry about losing forty dollars...and there is a certain irony about him screwing up such a simple math error when his general response to getting pwned on the math pages is "My Mathematical abilities speak for themselves...." By the way.. notice something odd about these two edits... Hi Andy, ya Bastard SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 03:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I suspect a deeply traumatic personal experience is behind this one. I also note that the math has been corrected at CP. Hi! :) ħψɱɐ₦ 03:58, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes: One, he killed off the minimum wage and went for the totally socialist liberal "prevailing wage" phrase. And two, yah FK fixed the loser math. ħψɱɐ₦ 04:00, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Worse than the 8 * 6 error is the fact that Andy appears to believe that not losing more money is the same as gaining money - one wonders if this is how Andy justifies the bills for Conservapedia. It's ok mom - by throwing money at my blog you're saved the expense of me making an even bigger ass of myself in the real world. --Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

And speaking of Conservative Parables, I have to ask: what so conservative about the Fosbury Flop? Do liberals hate anything innovative and new, and only try to hang on to what's been done in the past? Somehow that sounds like a different group. DickTurpis 10:01, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

You took the words out of my mouth (see below) :-)   ^Contribs_Talk 10:13, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

It's simple. The dude was mocked by the media, and the media is liberal. Duh! Oh, wait, nevermind, it's because without competition, the flop would've never been invented! This shows that capitalism obviously works. -Judas Reward 10:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Insults/ban reasons CP hasn't used yet

"Not a team player." Anyone else have any ideas? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:08, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

They don't use "sock of Jellyfish" nearly enough. I want infamy, dammit. ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 05:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Far too reasonable" --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Called Schlafly a fag" MC 86.45.194.60 07:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Used reasoned, rational argument that I don't understand." --Psygremlin_Whut? 07:47, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Excessive conservative bias." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Under investigation by the FBI RedDog 08:02, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"too right" note the double entendre < / toggle self promotion off > ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 08:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Doesn't believe our lies" ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 08:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Good point, well made. Now eat shit and die, librul!!11!!1!"

"Coulter-style rant"

"Pointed out the flaws in Andy's logic"

"For great justice" --Robledo 09:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Bohdan" ħψɱɐ₦ 15:19, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

To intimidate and harrass. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:16, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Sock of Barikada." :( Barikada 18:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Conflict of Interest edits." Barikada 18:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Flop

What's particularly Conservative about the Fosbury flop?   ^Contribs_Talk 10:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

[Comment moved from above section on Conservative parables, now that we have this section]:

And speaking of Conservative Parables, I have to ask: what so conservative about the Fosbury Flop? Do liberals hate anything innovative and new, and only try to hang on to what's been done in the past? Somehow that sounds like a different group. DickTurpis 10:01, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

(From Cp's source:
Education
high school: Medford (Medford, Oregon), 1965
undergraduate: Oregon State (Corvallis, Oregon), 1969
Public schooler?)   ^Contribs_Talk 10:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe he "homeschooled" himself into athletism, like James Watt into engineering. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 13:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Note that Oregon State University is state-funded. I can't help but get the feeling that Dick Fosbury is actually a liberal. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Has it packed up again

I'm getting a lot of errors. Is CP working for you guys or does Andy need to put another 50p in the meter? RedDog 11:58, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Me too "The server at www.conservapedia.com is taking too long to respond." I was puting it down to my connection, but everywhere else is OK.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:08, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I can't connect either. Maybe Ken's Homosexuality article finally used up all available server space? --Gulik 12:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh well, guess I can watch that Conservapedia video again. At 2:40 you can see him looming in the background behind his students, ready to strike upon his victim with severe groomings. Norseman^Wassail! 12:13, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The last week or two his server does seem to have been a bit more flakey than usual. If there's one thing search engines hate it's sites being unavailable. I think we might be seeing a bit of a dip in his google rankings. RedDog 12:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

No luck here either. I need my lulz!!! Auld Nick 12:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe they're trying to hide all the signs of vandalism? Even I can't get on. =-= Candlewick 12:31, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Do you guys have access in a way that we don't? PFoster 12:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Kettle Ticket, Have you emailed Andy - we're in danger of suffering withdrawal symptoms here (thank G for Yerranos)   ^Contribs_Talk 13:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

His "public" email is always flooded with unread emails. And I do not dare to email his "personal/client" email. Candlewick 14:06, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Um... seems to be working again fine (for me at least). Uchiha^KATON! 17:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

In regards to Ken's latest atrocious essay...

Ken, just because a few people on a Christian fundamentalist website talk about Nietzsche's insanity being caused by his atheism doesn't mean that there's "been debate on the subject." Smart people wouldn't debate that question because it's a step away from debating whether or not fairies exist. _{...and not the kind of "fairies" you're always writing about.} PFoster 13:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, the only non-Christian blog reference you gave doesn't seem to deal with the question of atheism as a cause of Nietzsche's insanity. How is that a debate? PFoster 13:31, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not the statement that his insanity was caused by atheism or not, it's the suggestion that attempts to make readers believe that it is possible. Remember, this is Conservative. Norseman^Wassail! 13:39, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow

"AdenJ, you're right. My tone was insulting and I apologize. I hope you accept my apology.-- Aschlafly 09:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)" [10]

Way to go, Andy. (It's only fair to notice signs of humanity/humility, since we rip on his every flaw...) ħψɱɐ₦ 15:01, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Aye. Unreserved and with good grace. Credit where it's due: *applauds* --Robledo 17:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Quite the big step for Andy. He is still wrong on the issue though. I bet he doesnt know where NZ even is. Ace McWicked

Yeah, fair enough, he acknowledged he was wrong, good show Andy. However, I'm betting he doesn't learn from it. But then maybe I'm wrong. DogP 18:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

actually he acknowledged that his tone was hostile, not that he was wrong. Further, he didn't respond to the questions asked. So while it is a step forward. It is a baby step ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:31, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what?

Am I reading this wrong ? If 36% of Americans who believe that the theory of evolution is valid are liberals, how does Conservative figure that most people who believe that the theory of evolution is valid are liberals? Does that not mean that 64% -a big majority- of evolutionists are Conservatives? In what universe is 36% most? PFoster 17:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

His universe, obviously. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:29, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

He misread the article. It says that Liberals are the most likely of the groups queried to believe only in evolution, wit 36% of them doing so. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, he apparently skipped page 2, which says a clear majority at 67% of all Americans think that both evolution and religious beliefs are valid. Oh hai, quote mining. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:45, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah. what is this "reading the article" of which you speak? PFoster 17:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

For "read," please read: "skimmed through the article looking for exploitable statistics." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Just for fun (an odd definition of fun, I know), check out this diff of all changes to the ToE article since Andy's figleaf the Student Panel decided there wouldn't be any major revisions to the article. Looks pretty major to me. --Kels 18:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Those are "all changes"? Those aren't even 430 edits! Going by the posting time of the Panel decision, THIS is the diff you're looking for: "935 intermediate revisions not shown." (Well, technically, one diff is missing, but I loved Conservative's edit summary there since it really adds to the irony: "super minor change. no real difference") --Sid 18:43, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

That's weird. I went from April 9/07, and even gave him the benefit of a doubt by starting at the end of the day, and comparing it to today. I don't know what's happened. --Kels 18:53, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

You probably checked the first diff on the 2nd page (on a 500 diffs-per-page) of the history, rather than the 1st. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 19:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Rob Knox

That total moron Andrew Schlafly has replaced the Hollywood Values entry. The man (?) is beneath all contempt.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT) "Folks, we need more than a few minutes to discuss something before deleting it like that. Some good new information is provided above, but some of it missed the point. No one is trying to blame the victim here. Hollywood values include carousing amid drunken people, and can often include underage drinking. Trouble breaks out and victims get killed. This doesn't happen as often to people who are, for example, sleeping by midnight. More comments welcome.--Aschlafly 19:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)"

Shorter Andy: If he'd just got a good night sleep and left his brother to die, I wouldn't be picking on him. But that's not blaming the victim so much as blaming the victim. --Kels 19:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Improved! 9,000,000 points awarded! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I suppose, that by getting my anger up, he's succeeded in his liberal hating ambitions. Damnit!  ^Contribs_Talk 19:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

This latest rob knox comment by Assface is repugnant. Why shouldnt people be allowed out drinking until late without being stabbed. What horrid man he is. Ace McWicked

WarenG only got a 2hour block from ASSfly! Is he mellowing in his old age?   ^Contribs_Talk 20:08, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

What a vile man he is. Absolutely disgusting. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.45.194.60 / talk / contribs}

I'm sorry, but if I met Schlafly on the street, I'd knock him down & bite his balls off before feeding them to him. The man's got no redeeming features whatsoever.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:31, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

He is totally vile. Abhorrent even. Ace McWicked 20:36, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

And now the loathsome Dan weighs in to blame the 16 year old brother: "His brother is probably the real example of Hollywood values here for being there at that particular time. The inclusion is no problem if you view it from that angle. DanH 20:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)"   ^Contribs_Talk 20:48, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

...et tu, Dan? --Sid 21:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Does Jamie Knox, Rob's brother, even have anything to do with Hollywood/acting/singing? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 21:12, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Dan is shamed into retraction.   ^Contribs_Talk 21:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking of the wording "Dan steps back from evil", but that works too. Andy really is a ghoulish, vile man with some serious mental issues. I'm still wandering around the talk.origins articles, and he was pretty insane back in '99 and 2000 too. Outside of rampant ideology, I can't imagine why anyone would want him teaching children. --Kels 21:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly, who is after all the expert on law, questions the lack of disclosure of the alleged assailant's name. This happened in the UK Asshole! We don't allow prejudging by the media here! (Even though we're a liberal country) ("The newspapers have not been forthcoming about the identity of the murderer, even though a room full of people saw him and he was promptly arrested, presumably with blood on his clothing. Odd, wouldn't you say?--Aschlafly 21:13, 25 May 2008 (EDT)" )  ^Contribs_Talk 21:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

That's what makes Dan different than Andy, Kara, Conservative, etc: He still has the potential to realize when he went too far. --Sid 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"NightFlare", if that is your real name, you're clueless. You most likely think that "Hollywood" actually can be found on some map. If you fail to realize that "Hollywood" includes everybody who ever had any connection to somebody who earned money by singing, dancing or acting, I will pray for you. Something that evil liberals like you will never do. --Aschlafly --Sid 21:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

...wow, CONSERVATIVE removed the "multiculturalism" bit from the main page? What is this, the Twilight Zone? --Sid 21:37, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"Yes, and when the name is released, the person involved "is assisting the police in their enquiries." And Everybody Knows What That Means, don't they?--TerryHTalk 21:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)" Sorry Terry, once they've been charged, they can't be questioned at all!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Damn those liberals and all their nonsense about "due process"! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:25, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Ken's next promotion?

Conservative starts on Creationism.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

And he creates and, within minutes, protects Bible Scientific Foreknowledge. Yup - it's Ken's new focus.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:23, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

A quick check tells me that he has often edited the CreationWiki version of that article. So it's hardly a "new" focus, strictly speaking. Still quite interesting. So far, he managed to implicitly assert that the Bible predicted AIDS and the Gay Bowel Syndrome! Way to go, man! --Sid 21:12, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Venom

An interesting chat is going on on the main page talkpage. Andy reckons conservatives never spout vitrol (venom) at liberals. Someone should mention, I dunno, Limbaugh, Coulter and O'Reilly for starters. Ace McWicked

Remember. Whatever you do, don't mention Fred Phelps. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 20:05, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Dont mention Fred Phelps! You'll get them all excited. I wish I could jump at the moment but this IP of mine is currently blocked. Ace McWicked

Apparently somebody (or two somebodies) already took care of that. Banhammered in 3... 2... Uchiha^KATON! 14:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Multiculturalism

or Racism as we know Terry's interpretation of it over here very interesting - not!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:55, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Augh! I give up, I was trying to explain racism and I get block threats!!! DLerner 22:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Well "crass name-calling" is naughty!   ^Contribs_Talk 22:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Did you read what Terry and Michael wrote? Shocking! even for CP. DLerner 22:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I read it, my comment to you above should have had a smiley face. :-) We have them in the UK too you know (racists that is).   ^Contribs_Talk 22:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Here in Oz (the country, not the prison) we have them too. Back in Detroit had lots of them. Bunch of wankers. DLerner 22:44, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

It seems that Schlafly's getting soft - two apologies in one day.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:47, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Maybe, just maybe, he's getting decent. Quote, pleez kan I haz? ħψɱɐ₦ 01:09, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT. Reason #13411249812 why I love RationalWiki - people need to be keeping account of the bigotry and hatred of people like this. TerryH is... interesting.-caius (tailor) 01:35, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

What I find kinda...suspicious...is that Andy left the comment for the original poster to remove instead of immediately memory-holing it. That, and the fact that the guy didn't get any sort of block or reprimand of any sort is a bit of unusual behaviour from Andy and his thugs. --Kels 07:45, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I suspect the poster in question is one o' dem homeschoolers in da video. Maybe even che-boy hisself? 08:55, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

That's what I was thinking, although it wouldn't surprise me if Andy felt some sympathy as well. After all, doesn't he have a thing about Mexican immigrants too? --Kels 09:02, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Ken reaches new levels of censorship by deleting the article wherein everyone's asking an awkward question.

Ken reaches new levels of censorship by deleting the article wherein everyone's asking an awkward question. Seriously though, that's the most blatant example of "You caught me out, so I'm burning the evidence" I've ever seen. (for posterity, Ken had been socking on an atheist website as Mark Davidson. He was called on it several times & eventually deleted both article & talk page. without ever admitting his deviousnessnessness) [11] (I know it's WIGOed but It's worth a mention)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:47, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Utterly pathetic isn't it? He goes to someone else's website under an assumed name and starts link spamming in the most pathetically transparent way. He lays down a gauntlet supposedly for a debate (but more likely just to link spam). When others call him out what does he do? Backtracks rapidly and attempts to destroy the evidence! Just about the most blatent admission of defeat (except without the courage of explicitly admitting it) I've seen to date on CP. The olympic gold medalist in internet cowardice goes to Ken! RedDog 10:19, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

The best part is Cline's responses that catch him link-spamming and such. It was a total shut-out, Kenneh never had a chance. He didn't even have the balls to go on the forums section either; he just spouted off little insignificant challenges in comment areas (the droning on about stuff tells me he didn't even relate to the article in question, just picking a fight, but I can't honestly tell :P). It blew up in his face and we all saw it. Mmmm, yes Ken, cry. "Your tears sustain me [us]" (Stewie Griffin) Norseman^Wassail! 10:57, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Ken reinstates the article but then goes totally MAD, sticking pictures of hunting trophies on the page !!!!!!!!! (sorry about the ! but !!!!)   ^Contribs_Talk 14:26, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

He took it down. Pity--I found his delusions of adequacy highly amusing. --Gulik 14:38, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

It's becoming depressingly easy to shame them into retraction.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:44, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

The so-called ferocious dog of Atheism article at Conservapedia has been defeated by a little cat representing only a little part of atheists' power, and along with the Atheism article at Conservapedia goes the campaign by its author, closet homosexual Ken DeMyer, to raise awareness to the Atheism article at Conservapedia. The Atheism article at Conservapedia was meant to be the article of the year at Conservapedia but now it is only another blog entry. I cite the following by Richard Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

He just wants the attention. His spamming "Operations", the public announcements of having sent private mails, the public announcements of soon sending mails, the "T0 gentlemen" shout-outs, the "15 edit build-up and complete removal five minutes later" editing style... it all adds up. --Sid 14:48, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Does Conservative honestly think that he can succeed where others fail miserably? That somehow, he is the first person in the entire to world to present convincing enough arguments to "destroy" atheist websites? His ego is amazing. And pride is one of the seven deadly sins, so I expect to see Conservative struck by lightning anytime soon. Thunderkatz^Ho! 14:53, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

No wait guys, Mark Davidson made an account on CP! So he must be real, even though it is pretty unusual someone so intimately familiar with the articles there so as to quote them didn't have an account already! NEVER MIND, FALSE ALARM!--70.126.243.83 16:03, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm actually curious if that sock was made by Ken (to defend his claim that he actually has a "grassroots" campaign and that dozens of different people eagerly spam sites for him) or by somebody else. --Sid 16:20, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm betting on Ken at the instigation of Schlafly, who was probably a bit pissed off with his socking up & obvious concealment of it.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:43, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Anyone wanting a good idea of Ken's state of mind, just see his user page. He's so amusing. We had a saying: "If wit were shit, tha'd smell o'violets"; make of it what you will.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:50, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I still find it amazing that all these "funny" pictures that Ken posts, and his missives to"gentleman at another site" are the work of a middle-aged man rather than a pimply teen sniggering at Playboy. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:18, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

This gets a a question that's been bugging me for a while - does Andy really care about these sorts of shenanigans? Remember: CP is strongly linked to his homeschooling project. What risks is he taking for the credibility of the homeschooling project (in the eyes of the people who believe in it, not in other eyes) when an obvious loose cannon like Conservative is sharing bandwidth with his students -- or more importantly to me, with a guy like Terry who made Metapedia-esque comments about Africans having murderous revenge as a cultural phenomenon?PFoster 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Risks? None, probably. Those entrusting their kids to Andy's tutelage are likely already familiar with, and approving of, his sainted mother and her own special brand of batshit insanity. Once you've made that leap, there's nothing on CP to make you so much as blink. --Robledo 17:26, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I lol'd. And at this... which has been there for awhile. o_0Uchiha^KATON! 17:14, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm a little amazed that Ken leaves his "challenge" to Austin Cline up, given how much of a sham it reveals his linkspamming project is. If people were actually coming and being convinced by his Atheism article, then surely at least one of them that wasn't a sock of Ken himself would have gone and tried out a few lines. But nope, not a thing. Ken's efforts have gotten him nothing but detractors, and a few begrudging linkbacks, probably from people thinking "okay, okay, now shut the hell up". --Kels 19:12, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

In a burst of irony, it appears that Ken's promo efforts get more time in the spotlight than the article - a typical indicator of a failed marketing/astroturfing campaign. People openly mock his decision to promote the article to "Article of the Year" status and his "awareness" project. Congratulations, Conservative, in the end, you hurt Conservapedia more than RationalWiki ever could! --Sid 08:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Moer Sensorship

Ken replaces a Mark Davidson dig.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:13, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Come to that, what the hell does this mean? I looked at Cline's page and it's the same as always, there's two new articles at the top, you press a button and get the archive. Same as last time I looked. Does Ken not know how a blog works? --Kels 08:19, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Kels, he's reading - he's altered all the references to "prominently at the top" - one for you!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:01, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Does Ken think that Cline is even slightly bothered by the witterings of a loathsome little creep who won't even use his real name/identity when posting to his site?   ^Contribs_Talk 08:22, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

That's the problem with all the work Ken's been doing, spamming his article hither and yon. He's getting views, but precious few of them are anything but atheists and similar coming to see the freaks, and leaving either with a sad shake of the head or a laugh. Hell, I'd bet most of the people already on his side are probably embarrassed by lousy articles like that.

Hey Ken! Here's a challenge for you! Stop spamming and trying to game the search engines for, let's say three weeks, then see what the results are in terms of search engines. If your rank and pageviews stay up, then you've actually got some repeat visitors, which presumably is the point. If not, then you'll have to admit that almost all of the results of your dishonesty is flash in the pan and mockery. Which hurts CP and anti-atheism. Either way, you'd get three weeks of people not laughing at you (as much). --Kels 08:25, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I think the "damage" has been done already - those blogs and comments and forum threads will be archived for eternity, so I don't think the article will slip much if left unattended for a few weeks. And of course Ken would eagerly accept such a challenge: According to him, nobody has any scrap of evidence or even an implied hint that he is Ken, Creationist, Peter Moore, DJ, DJJ, Darren777, jonathondickenson, Mark Davidson, etc. So he'll proclaim that he never did anything to spam, and his Atheism article rose just because thousands of other people are motivated to promote it! Following his perception of what can be proven (read: "nothing, because I never admitted it"), he will declare himself to be the winner, even while his socks other people spam the hell out of it in order to game Google. --Sid 08:43, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Whee! I got me blocked for slagging off Ken. (Who apparently thinks that mockery = satire)   ^Contribs_Talk 08:46, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Haven't counted but Ken seems to have thousands of identical Austin Cline refs all over the Wiki - he constantly updates them to be identical - weird or what?   ^Contribs_Talk 09:08, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it spamming when it's your own website that you're littering with spam-like waffle?   ^Contribs_Talk 09:43, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Good heavens! I hadn't looked at the main page talk over there since yesterday at least, but what a friggin' mess! Well, if we weren't able to make a mockery of CP, Ken's doing a bang-up job in our place! --Kels 09:57, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

He's got virtually identical rants at three different places - he's really making the site look stupid.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:06, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

He's just being silly now (12:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)) about one edit every 5 minutes - I'd count 'em up but can't be bothered.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

2 bits of news for da price of 1

Another reply from PJR. And cover up? What cover up? 8 x 6 = 40, if you allow for taxes, folks. [12]. Why can the man just admit he made a misto myst musta typo? But we'll warn those who correct our maths, oh yes... [13] --Psygremlin_Whut? 10:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't really follow the PJR story too much and don't really have an opinion on what he seems to be getting at- but maybe one of his interlocutors can tell this guy that we do let people take out accounts here at RW and tend not to block dissenters, so maybe instead of his waving semaphore flags a la "to the gentlemen at another website snarky little blog" approach, he can actually, like, post that stuff here?PFoster 11:00, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

And that's the SAME USER Andypants trolled a talk page to asking if he ever admitted he was wrong. LOL Norseman^Wassail! 11:01, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Message for PJR If you're not afraid of the wrath of Andy, then come over here and talk to us like a normal person. It's stupid for you to not come over here where you can easily make an account and won't be blocked for it, but instead send love letters from CP. It's not even worth reading and responding unless you actually make that little effort. Addendum Ken doesn't do it because he doesn't get search engine benefits for his pet articles. What's your excuse? --Kels 15:18, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah I've always wished PJR would do that. Reach accross the divide. Be the bigger man. Talking can only help surely? I don't expect to change his mind about anything and I have no respect at all for his beliefs or views. But I think he's a decent sort of bloke and it would be great to try to get some understanding. But I guess that's just because I'm an aging hippy. RedDog 15:27, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

What I don't get is that, if PJR is so confident of how his 'evidence' is so valid and objective, why doesn't he just post what it is, either over there or over here, so we can all judge this mysterious 'evidence' for ourselves, instead of trying to finagle certain conditions? If it's as solid as he seemingly thinks it is, it will stand on it's own merits. If it's not, it won't. Zmidponk 15:29, 26 May 2008 (EDT) Oh, and Philip, you may deny using the argument that Christianity is correct because the Bible says it is, but all the 'evidence' I have ever seen you submit on this matter is only valid if you accept the preconception that the Bible is irrefutably true. So you do use it. Zmidponk 15:52, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Message for PJR If this is how you'll insist on communicating, what the heck, I'll bite. Remember your two premises? And the agreement that, hypothetically, if they were true, the government could endorse Christianity? Here's the catch: that only works if everyone agrees they're true. It isn't true just because you think it's true (or because you think you can prove it's true). Who would be the authority over which religion (if any) is correct, anyway? Uchiha^KATON! 17:23, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is no such authority, and no such agreement, so I see little point to your argument. And no - you are not allowed to simply dismiss perspectives that don't matter. As a matter of fact, 2 + 2 only equals 4 because everyone agrees on it. Uchiha^KATON! 17:25, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Sheisse. Didn't save WarrenG's password so FrancisG's is still there - but blocked! I see the creepy sycophan: Learn Together's sticking his oily wordage in. " 'Nutter' = One who has a viewpoint that you are already sure is absurd - if you actually took the time to look into the issue.": Sorry, was that supposed to meansomething? Go on then Phil: Show us your "Evidence" untainted by Bible or Christianity and we'll all kowtow to the true master.   ^Contribs_Talk 17:39, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Philip, if you're reading this, I do wish you would open an account here so you could have a reasoned debate/discussion about various issues without this indirect diplomacy going on. Bohdan, Ed, Rob, Fuzzy Kettleticket, and even Ken have all done so in at least a minimal manner. I'd be happy to do so at CP but 1) my account was blocked long ago for nothing other than being a part of this website (a clear violation of difference 15), and 2) the 90/10 rule prohibits too much debating, and ideological blocks are rampant as well. Sure, I think some of your ideas are a bit nutty, but you think mine are. So be it. I have no doubt there are various people here you want nothing to do with, and well, you should feel free to ignore them. In my view, even the worst offenders here are not half as bad as Karajou, Crocoite, Ed, and Andy (on a bad day, is that guy bi-polar?) to say nothing of TK (glad to see he's been less active). I, for one, am curious to see this evidence of yours (I hope it's better than the offerings of Ken and Yerranos). I seriously doubt you'll convince me I'm wrong, and, of course, there is little chance any of us will convince you of anything, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be gained for anyone. Well, think about it. DickTurpis 18:07, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There's an essay namespace at your disposal, too. I'll support a "See also" link in the YEC article. --Robledo 18:17, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I would support something by PJR in the Essay namespace, or User for that matter. I'd rather see him come here and have real conversations with people instead of that childish coy "ooh, I can't officially recognize you but I'll send you little messages" ping-poing nonsense. --Kels 18:42, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

That is the issue Kels. The ping-pong nonsense serves him by allowing him to make a empty gesture towards reasonableness while still clinging safely to the belfry, away from the embarrassment of direct discourse. Perhaps if you offered to make him a sysop here so he could block and ban anyone who asked uncomfortable questions he'd be more willing. As for "the evidence: he has made amply clear that he sees the hand of god in everything QED god exists. I've got the same sort of issue: I see the foot of Chuck Norris in everything QED Chuck Norris exists. everything else on his front is pure hand waving, and he knows it, and he knows that would come out almost immediately over here QED he won't be here. Too inconvenient a truth. All of that aside, I personally would pledge to treat him with the same respect that he treated me i.e. worlds better than anyone with differing opinions get treated over at CP. I doubt that will sway him. Nothing for him to gain. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 19:24, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

For goodness sake PJR step accr5oss the divide and let's speak like adults. Everyone who reads your talk page knows you're reading this. It seems so childish not to post directly. Why won't you do it? Atheists (which I thin k most of us are) are as disperate as theists. I'm sure you could find an accord with at least some of us. I doubt very much that we could ever reach an agreement but it would be great to talk to each other. Be a peacemaker. Be the bigger man. 217.41.92.46 02:37, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I watched last week's Channel 4 Dispatches documentary about fundie christians in the UK, and how they are slowly gaining influence in the corridors of power. The part that made me quite angry was when it was shown how, in the faith schools, children are being indoctrinated in YEC views. Indeed, one kid was shown taking a "science" exam, where the correct answer to how long the Earth took to be created was six days. The kids are blameless here, but the parents, and fundamentally, the government are inexcusibly at fault for allowing this to happen.

So I don't buy the line that YECers - in particular PJR - can be "decent blokes" because that makes them sound essentially harmless. It's people like this that would return us to the dark ages if they had half a chance. No different to the Taliban. It was people like Galileo who asked "what if church doctrine and the bible are wrong" that gave us the world we live in today. Without science, without people who dare to ask questions that religion cannot answer, the world would be no more advanced than in the 1600s.

Imagine a world without satellite navigation (requires space flight, requires relativity, etc.), for example. That's a world that should not exist, even in my worst nightmares.

</rant> Bondurant 04:41, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

<endorsement = "rant"> Well said Bondurant, a pernicious nutter is still a nutter even if he's the politest guy on Earth. Just because these things are someone's deeply held religious beliefs is no reason to treat them as anything but the absolute claptrap that they are. That such things should be mentioned in school as anything but a "creation myth" is revolting. I cannot begin to put into words my loathing of these people. </endorsement>   ^Contribs_Talk 05:15, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

You can be flat out wrong and hold potentially dangerous views but still be a decent bloke. Just a very badly misguided one. Have you watched Jesus Camp? That made me furious. I found it hard not to cry when I saw really good kids with loads of energy and personality struggling to repeat a rhetoric which at least one of them clearly could not believe. I think it's one of the most moving and frightening documentaries I've seen. These kids may well grow up to be deeply dangerous nutters - but I would argue that many of them will still be decent people. PJR does not need or want my charity but I think he is misguided (as he doubtless thinks I am if he reads this). I think his world view is devisive and dangerous. But I think he is a decent bloke - if only he would open his eyes to the world around him he would realise the error of his ways (in my opinion). I honestly believe his intentions are good. He may still be a nutter (I say "may" - I actually don't know, he could be a troll or a paradist or a hundred other things for all I know so I do not call him a nutter myself) but as long as his intentions are good, which I believe they are then he is a decent bloke. Even if his intentions are dangerous and misguided, which I also believe they are. 217.41.92.46 05:47, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

[Undent] Again, I disagree. While in the minority, as YECers are, I'm sure they will seem like nice, decent people. Put them in a position of power (goat forbid) and they will gladly destroy the secular nature of any national institution, such as education. Do you think PJR would hesitate for a heartbeat to remove anything from the national curriculum (or whatever each nation's standards of education are called) references to astronomy, geology, history, physics or social studies that went against the YEC view. No, of course he wouldn't. That nice-at-heart, reasonable guy would look a little different then. Bondurant 06:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't know. Well Phillip, Would you? In defense of my opinions though I did infer that I considered his beliefs to be "deeply dangerous" for exactly the reason you stated above. A misguided person is not always a bad person. All right - I admnit it. I'm a wooly minded liberal who tries to see the good in everyone. 217.41.92.46 06:13, 27 May 2008 (EDT) Sorry - just realised I wasn't logged on 217.41.92.46 is me! RedDog 06:14, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

If I am being too harsh, then it is in conjoining the notion of PJR (the man) with YEC (the bowel movement). Personally, I don't see the difference, but I am sure he is a polite individual, especially in comparison to the scum over at CP that make capital out of somebody being murdered, like Rob Knox. Bondurant 06:20, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

PS. I should add that the Dispatches documentary came as a shock to me, as I had thought that the UK was above influence from YECers. But they are active in this country, and - worse still - being funded in part by American organisations. I will no longer have that complacent attitude that "it couldn't happen here" Bondurant 06:30, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Bondurant, kindly STOP saying what I want to say, and doing it so much better. You realise the weasel ways of these people - they get in on something apparently unimportant and next thing you know they're forbidding anything connected with real science. YOU CANNOT ALLOW REASONABLENESS TO TAKE THE PLACE OF REASON!!!!!   ^Contribs_Talk 06:25, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

It was the Blair/Brown Education funding thing that let 'em in - City Colleges, or whatever they call them, funded by anyone with the money!   ^Contribs_Talk 06:33, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Ok, ok. I give up already! I do recognise the dangers of these people but I believe that by using words like "despise" we end up becoming them. I do not want reasonableness to replace reason, but that doesn't mean I can't recognise reasonableness when I see it (which is a very rare commodity in itself over at CP). I am also well aware the road to metaphorical hell is paved with good intentions. But at least having good intentions is a start! Hang on - I started this by saying "I give up" then I noticably didn't give up at all. All I want here is a reasonable discussion between rational adults. I would invite PJR to join to step out of the shadows and join the discussion openly. I hope if he does he (as a person) would be treated with respect even where his views, beliefs and opinions may not be. Right then. NOW I give up! RedDog 06:51, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

I pre-invoke Godwin's Law: Hitler (probably) seemed reasonable at the start.   ^Contribs_Talk 06:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

(Oh and before the storm: "Godwin’s Law does not dispute the validity or otherwise of references or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. As such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate in a discussion, Godwin has argued that overuse of the Nazi comparison should be avoided as it waters down the impact of any valid usage.")   ^Contribs_Talk 06:59, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I'm a little late to this, but I think PJR likes to think of himself as a nice, reasonable guy. So if he somehow came to power, he probably wouldn't gut education and public institutions. No, he'd quite happily sit idly by while other people did that sort of dirty work. And of course the changes he would make would set the groundwork for such people to do their inestimable damage to society. After all, that's the "reasonable" way to do things, and we've seen that tendency in him already, writ small. --Kels 08:28, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

This is really why I'd like to have PJR here, I've at times tried to represent his views as well as I could, but I don't always do it accurately (sorry if I misrepresent you, Philip, I'm doing my best to try to understand your views), but I believe he has stated that he is not against teaching evolution entirely, as he sees it as an important idea that people should understand in this day and age. Perhaps the way I think religion should be (and is) taught in school, in which you teach about religions in history and social studies classes, because a working knowledge of the major religions is an important part of understanding the world and the course of history. Of course, teaching about evolution from a YEC perspective is not likely to produce great scientists, but it's a step above banning the teaching of evolution entirely. Perhaps a small step, depending on exactly how it would be handled in our theoretical PJRocracy. Again, Philip, why not get an account here? Or, if you really want to stay away, is there a "neutral ground" where discussions could take place?

Oh, and in response to something you posted in your response (see how annoying this method of communication is?), we "evolutionists" will allow weakening of our "evolution is true view" when compelling scientific evidence leads us in that direction (the theory has changed since Darwin's time, you know), not merely from some theological argument. Cheers. DickTurpis 10:39, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Phil's latest

"The current problem is that most of you simply have next to no idea about what creationism teaches, and are therefore arguing from a state of ignorance." Correct me if I'm wrong, but creationism teaches that there's a "GOD" who made everything. Correct? - Err .. no there isn't!   ^Contribs_Talk 11:14, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Which creationism? Aren't they all equally (in)valid?

I like the one with the elephants on a turtle's back, personally (or was that Terry Pratchett?) Bondurant 11:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

"What are the turtles standing on?"

"You can't trick me like that, young man. It's turtles all the way down!"

That's Pratchet!   ^Contribs_Talk 11:37, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey PJR - I thought you might have a point, so I read your Conservapedia article on creationism to see what extensive details I was missing.

Hmm. Or maybe you meant the somewhat wordier intelligent design article? I doubt it, they're not supposed to be the same thing after all. Uchiha^KATON! 11:37, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

closet homosexual

I kinda thought we were above using "gay" as an insult - even with people who have written horrible things about homosexuality...PFoster 19:12, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

The insult in this context (I'm assuming you mean the thumbnail above) is in accusing somebody of being what that person condemns and that he's in denial about it, not simply mocking somebody being homosexual. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 19:32, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I see the difference - but insults are in often in the perception of the target...I'm not going to make a big deal about it - just express a vague sense of disapproval and then go watch the Red Wings beat the penguins...PFoster 19:34, 26 May 2008 (EDT)