Information icon.svg Voting in the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election is now closed. Results to come!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive5

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Schlafly's courses[edit]

Being bored I looked over at Schlafly's courses.....there is what one active user in the math and supreme court ones? One.......why bother? tmtoulouse annoy 23:15, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

By the way this talk page and the actual page should be archived some how...older months put into subpages. tmtoulouse annoy 23:20, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Done the talk page. What, you couldn't, er, figure it out? humanbe in 00:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of children[edit]

It's actually pretty innocuous, but for some reason, Ken attempting banter with BethanyS here totally creeps me out. --Kels 17:02, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

You know, I was actually just thinking about this as well and a lot of the attention being paid to BethanyS is creeping me out. -Smyth 17:13, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Well Beth's talk page is currently protected so only sysop's can chat with her (she has no email enabled - pretty poor for a sysop who can block without anyone being able to challenge). However, she is obviously one of Andy's hand-groomed pet homeskulers so nobody likes to upset her as they then challenge her "guardian". She got her sysopship for a handfull of crap edits about dragons and stuff after Andy obviously promised it to her if she did some editing. Genghis Khant 17:55, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
If she did some "editing." tmtoulouse annoy 18:21, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait, is it creeepy when we banter with Kels, et al on here? What really creeped me out was that animation. Ew! humanbe in 18:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
I think the whole "age of consent" is what defines creepy. tmtoulouse annoy 18:49, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, it's a guy like Ken being all "chummy" with a teenage girl, given the image that I've got of Ken from his many exploits. *shudder* --Kels 18:53, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Seen cynically, it's not creepy, but an attempt to get back in the favor of Bethany's patron Andy. Or he could just trying to make friends. I think what's most remarkable in this, actually, is it's the first example we've seen on Conservapedia of one sysop attempting to be nice or make overtures of friendship to another. We know first and second hand how hostile the relationships between Sysops are. What's remarkable is that this doesn't fit within that paradigm. αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:33, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Did anyone else see this?[edit]

Noted paranoid and CP sysop, RobS, seems to be trying to make some sort of point
Oh, what could it be...

What the hell is it?!-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:32, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh no! Rob has called us communists! I'm soo offended! Whatever shall we do to remove this horrible stain from our collective character?

Or maybe he's just trying to parody himself. That kind of makes sense.--Offeep 22:37, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Ooooooh nooooooes! Commies! Where did he get that?!?!? --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:52, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

The whole cut and paste random clippings gives it a nice schizophrenic feel. tmtoulouse annoy 22:55, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
Not only is it one of his better (or his only good) works, the "copyright" notice at CP is another kind of classic bit of confusion. If he made it, why "fair use"? If he didn't, what's the source? Etc., etc. We should put it on our pages as a direct load from CP. All our pages (most as a 1 pixel thumb?). And add it to all CP pages likewise. Get it into the top 40! humanbe in 01:08, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
That's not entirely unfunny. I sort of like it. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:26, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
OMGTHATISLYKSOSMARTLOLOLOLOLOLOL. ;) - All Hail Tuna 11:29, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

There's a better copy up now where you can see more clearly FDR's hand picked Stalinist prize dupe and former Democratic Vice President, Henry A. Wallace, delivering a McCarthyite smear on President Truman, "the Truman Administration is conducting a Hitler like "campaign of terror."

Now, if you fail to replace this version with the one on my page, can we conclude RW is enggaed in censorship? RobS 11:55, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused. What is RW censoring? VirileSterileblah, blah, blah 12:03, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Dunno. It probably is censoring the ESSENCE of RobS' user page. :O - All Hail Tuna 12:04, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I don't plan on uploading the new montage, not because we're censoring, but because I honestly don't feel it's worth my effort. If you upload it and change the link (RW allows users to upload, doesn't it?) I would not object. But I don't plan on wasting any more effort on this :-P-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 12:14, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Thank you. Oh, and I mistakenly labeled in fairuse; it's public domain. Source: FBI Silversmaster file Vol. 131 Pgs. 36 -54 pdf. RobS 12:56, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Now now, it's not nice to tease the mentally ill. --Kels 12:23, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

...or this?[edit]

Eury, after making his two "90/10 violating" edits, quickly turns to more important matters: namely, insulting Andy's mom and asking about you-know-what. I could almost feel physical force of the banhammer sweeping down on this guy... Feebas factor 23:58, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I made it! YEAH!!!!! My Wizard of Oz edit to Andy's mom's page here got on to his Talk page on CP. I've hit the bigtime! :) --Edgerunner76 08:40, 19 September 2007 (EDT)


Isn't every pageview we give Conservapedia a pageview for gossip? And how much of the pageviews do you think are cabal-related? Hmmmm. I'm guessing at least 20% of CP is gossip-related thanks to us.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 12:25, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

That's the main reason I go there. The gossip, the ongoing sysop soap opera, the Just Plain Wrong lulz, and to see just how far into hypocrisy they can sink. For instance, you notice that RobS' page approvingly quotes Pete Seegar, although he was a quite enthusiastic member of the Communist Party for most of his life? I guess RobS' standards have a wee bit of wiggle room, after all. --Kels 12:40, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Yep. Well, that or he's just an idiot. Not that I think that, I just want to include all options so we can all make the most informed decision. -Smyth 13:02, 19 September 2007 (EDT)


What do you all think, shouldn't RationalWiki have a much higher percentage of the occurrence of "suicide" than either CP or WP? Maybe a template can be created that wouldn't show up on pages, but would count them in a search? Maybe more work than it's worth. -Smyth 15:29, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

We have a category, but I think the only article in it is Albert Camus, since we don't have a Vince Foster article. Maybe the rational actually selficide less? humanbe in 15:34, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Probably. Suicide doesn't seem like a very rational thing to do under most circumstances. Besides which, we probably ought to remove Camus from the cat, since that "self-inflicted accident" sounds a bit questionable. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:38, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
How about "fact" tagging it so someone (me) will be forced to footnote it? humanbe in 15:49, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Done. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:53, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

The more fascinating this is Andy has the audacity to unfoundedly link breast cancer and abortion, and then use the most shitty data (Do wiki stats mean anything?) to make some assertion about the how wikipedia is morally inferior because of the supposed predominance of the "depravity" of suicide. And then for User:C to backfill the entry with a sancity of life article, and that "proves" (in hindsight!) CP's supposed moral superiority. VirileSterileblah, blah, blah 16:20, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I bet that you can link conservatism to breast cancer with a pirates and global warming type analysis mixed with socioeconomics. Since the highly educated in the more affluent areas of the country tend to vote "Liberal" as defined by conervapedia, and the less highly educated less affluent areas of the country tend to make up the core of the conservative constituency -- it stands to reason that they'd have less access to high end medical care and prevention, eat worse and be more likely to have breast cancer. You can even make a fair assessment that conservative policies that they voted for locally helped give them breast cancer. Therefore conservatism causes breast cancer ;-) It is utter crap but probably more solid than the abortion thing :-) Richard 22:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)


I think we should pull back on hitting the homeschoolerz on here, the adults do enough to keep us entertained, lets leave the kids out of this as much as we can. tmtoulouse annoy 19:43, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I have to disagree..... The kids are still making their own stupid statements.... They should see how dumb they actually are.... Besides, who do you think grows up to become the adult idiots? SirChuckB 19:47, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
I said a lot of stupid shit when I was 16, and a lot of that stupid shit I said on the usenet, and thanks to google groups I can go back from time to time to review the stupid shit I said. Perhaps in another 10 years RW will be around to show me stupid stuff I say now......*shrug* people are free to do as they want, maybe just use a little discretion with those below the age of consent. tmtoulouse annoy 19:51, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, you know what? We're pretty mild, all things considered. I was a little hesitant to even poke a little fun at Ambers' mistake, even at that, though. Thinking about it, I just ended up losing even more respect for Andy (it's well into the negative numbers now) for pushing these kids onto that wiki in the company of adult freaks like RobS, Ken and Karajou, to say nothing of himself. He knows there's an ongoing fray there, and he's willingly exposing the kids to it.
If he cared more of the kids than his own self-aggrandizement via his pet project, he'd have made this a mainly student-run encyclopedia with a closed login. But he didn't, and won't. --Kels 20:04, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Andy has crossed the line from using CP as a tool for education to using "education" as a tool for CP. He is using the kids to expand his project not using his project to help the kids. Preaching to the choir and all that. I do not really follow this page that much actually, so if we have been using kid gloves on the kids then cool, I just saw the recent revisions. I will quietly move away now towards areas I am better acquainted with. tmtoulouse annoy 20:07, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Tmt's general sentiment. I was a moron when I was their age; I'd hate to be quoted and judged on it :-/-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 21:04, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Would concurring be overly self-deprecatory if I were to? :) --Linus(plot evil tech) 21:22, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry Linus, you don't get a free ride, everything you do and say will be saved for posterity and mocked ceaselessly till your 18th birthday. tmtoulouse annoy 21:24, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

A couple of random thoughts: Stuff posted on the WWW should have no expectation of privacy attached to it. Also, if Schlafly wants to use child labour to fill up his blog, the responsibility for what other people do with those posts falls on him to a certain degree. PFoster 21:12, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Agree on both points, and with out much evidence that we have really crossed a line I will withdraw any criticism that I might have made. Just something to keep in the back of our minds that these really are kids. tmtoulouse annoy 21:19, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
PF said pretty much what I was going to. Man, parents letting their kids play on ashfly's blog is only one step safer than letting them visit Whacko Jacko for sleepovers. Is it our fault they are playing in full view of our village commons? Still, most of them are anon, ie, no last names. humanbe in 21:28, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
I concur that the fault lies with the groomer and we have every right to do what we want, but don't have to. tmtoulouse annoy 21:34, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

making fun of illiteracy, etc.[edit]

Our house is no better, so try to stick to the ideological stuff. Some of us could really use a spellchecker before hitting save... or sobering up, depending on who it is... humanbe in 21:31, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Did we ever make fun of SimonA?[edit]

He seems to think so. Although I have a very deep problem with anyone who puts a "gay is not okay" box on their UP.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:30, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

BUT OMG. Do we have RW's first convert?-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 22:33, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Democrat approval news?[edit]

Okay, so Rob just posted how the Democrats approval ranking went down to 11%.

I briefly looked over the linked document, but I can't seem to find anything about Democrat approval there, at least not in a sense that can lead to 11%. I won't put it into WiGO myself since it's possible that I missed something, so I'll instead ask for more opinions/explanations. I'm honestly confused, and the fact that Rob just linked to a 15-page document to back a one-liner doesn't really help. --Sid 12:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

More info: Apparently, this is the summary/explanation of the document. Within the text, the only 11% number is in "Just 11% of Democrats say the surge has made things better". Didn't check out all the graphics/tables there yet, though... --Sid 12:56, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I just looked through the document, and it's pretty clear that Rob completely made that up (yet I somehow doubt it will end up at cp:Deceit). The closest thing they even ask is which party do you associate yourself with, in which case Democrat beats Republican by 5 points. Rob is, as usual, a moron and liar. DickTurpis 13:09, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Don't know if he's outright lying, or if he misinterpreted something, but I can't find anything backing that 11% figure in that document anywhere. I even looked for something that could be confused that way, and still came up with nothing. -Smyth 13:12, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh, he's a fucking liar. Look at this. Democrats reject habeas corpus? The Republicans filibustered it! What a dick. DickTurpis 13:14, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Someone better invite WillM over here, fast. [1] DickTurpis 13:21, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Odd, Andy has actually taken a rational response to WillM's criticism. No mention of liberal deceit. Expect the headline to change from "Democrats reject habeas corpus" to "Democrats side with terrorists over USA! Republican filibuster prevents the release of Guantanamo Bay terrorists into the country!" DickTurpis 13:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Meh, I was a bit off. Andy does manage to create one astoundingly awkward sentence. Why "Democratic Senate"? Isn't it the Senate, regardless of who has more members? And since when is habeas corpus a new right? DickTurpis 13:27, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
That sentence really is awkward. It seems that Andy tried to add a desperate spin ("Democratic Senate") to something that would otherwise show Democrats in a good light. Notice how there is no mention of who voted against the right now. But I expect this entry to be among the first to be purged as new ones pour in. --Sid 13:37, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
The thing is, in Andy's view, this shows Democrats in a bad light, as they are "siding with the terrorists," so it makes no sense for him to attempt to tie it to the Dems. The really odd thing is that Rob's initial post seemed to be pro-habeas corpus for Camp X-Ray detainees, which is not the Rob I know. Either that or Pro Democrat, which isn't the Rob I know either. DickTurpis 13:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
and is it just me or is the linked Examiner headline very poor grammar as well? "Senate rejects to expand..."? Shouldn't it be "rejects expansion of" or "declines to expand"? DickTurpis 13:48, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
The leader writer was homelearnded. Genghis Khant 15:38, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

"Once again RobS gets overwhelmed when people offer "facts"."[edit]

I knew this would happen - I'd bet any money that the edit in question was whoever it was a few weeks ago of pretending to be Rob in order to gum up the works at CP. The "subversive" crack is too over the top for even Rob. Unless Rob is craftier than we think and is playing along...PFoster 20:55, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Pay up. --Sid 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Related: I kinda think/hope it's his kind of humor. Otherwise, I'd be very scared right now. Well... more scared than I am already by Rob's serious theories and rants. --Sid 22:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I saw that! Really, let me in on the it a parody site? I thought I was MOR, but some of the people there are totally whacked! Someone needs to slap up a political test, so people would have some warning. Guess the same goes for here, because if Conservapedia is any barometer, everything with these wiki's are sort of off. User:NightTrainṢρёаќǃ 07:26, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's new pet article?[edit]

Hard to miss since it's currently dominating the Recent Changes, but...

Conservative is "doing research on the Times and liberal bias" over at cp:Talk:New York Times. Anybody who wants to observe a potential pet project evolving from scratch, check it out... might be worth a few chuckles. --Sid 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative seems a bit confused ...[edit]

Whoever put that item up (DickTurpis, I believe) the link now goes to the usual "deletedpage" memory hole. Did they burn the evidence before you could capture it? They are really sneaky! (But no deceitful, of course.) Can you bring back whatever it was? Gauss 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

No, check the edit summary of the unprotection. :P --Sid 21:55, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Kudos to TK on one thing.[edit]

This was missed in the boycott, but his deletion of Talk:Main Page was a stroke of evil genius worthy of Professor Moriarty. I can assume I know why he did it - to piss us all off, because all those links went poof. Well, kudos. The king of whitewashers strikes again.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 21:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)


I'm really interested in CP's classification of itself as an "expert-driven" encopicdic (cp:Intellipedia), when their membership restrictions are identical to those of Wikipedia, with the major exception of Anonymous IP edits. Still, making a CP account does not require being non-anonymous, or intellectual, or an expert. We should make CP aware of this folly. --HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 11:56, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

In a world where Schlafly was "tried more criminal cases than most lawyers" BethanyS is an expert in maritime history. tmtoulouse annoy 11:59, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
It is an ENglish-speaking COuntries-only PICture DICtionary.--Edgerunner76 12:07, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Popular pages[edit]

Dunno how much manipulation there is in this, but the "popular pages" list at CP is rather amusing. Being a Christian-conservative site, shouldn't Jesus Christ be a bit higher up than #48? I mean, at the time of this writing he is less popular over there than George W. Bush, David Beckham, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Potter, Charles Darwin, Barack Obama, Alfred Nobel, Al Gore, Friedrich Nietzsche and Victoria Beckham. Other random items that are more popular include Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, Unicorns, Wikipedia, Cactuses, Marijuana, Goats, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Video Games, Sweden, Wine, Abortion, Pornography, World of Warcraft, Law Terms D (empty page), Alcoholic drinks and Cocaine. -- 17:25, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

"Dinosaur", "Cactus", and "Kangaroo" were popular examples mentioned in blogs back in February/March. "Abortion", "Charles Darwin", and other articles in that area are popular pet articles mentioned by sysops like Andy and Conservative, so I'm not really surprised there, either. --Sid 17:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
One might attempt to extrapolate a rough estimate of the number of "legitimate" visitors. For example, it seems reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the 200k "Kangaroo" viewers visited CP just for fun. Comparing those with "Jesus Christ" (around 50k) and "Bible" (less than 20k) seems to suggest that the ratio of legitimate viewers might well be under 20%, which would not be surprising. What puzzles me is the "Law Terms D" - how did you do that? ;) --Sleeping Dragon 18:13, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
I didn't do anything, although I know of at least one way how it could be done.
About visitors... I think the visitors can be split into three categories: Those who go there for the LOL, those who actually believe the crap there, and those who stumble over it by accident and then re-sort themselves into one of the first two categories.
And I did a search for link: (lists pages that directly link to that URL), and the only non-CP URLs are this one and this one - you might notice that both blogs aren't exactly showcasing CP as a great site. --Sid 18:45, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

The contest no one cares about[edit]

While I know that there is more interest in cricket or crickets than the contest... the current contest doesn't give points for blocking. So how much use will TK be on the team? Unless they give him points for his ill advised crusade to make articles Title Caps and adding redirects. And then there's Ed occasionally creating a debate page to hide disagreement on talk pages. Karajou isn't that prolific of a copiercontributor either. It takes longer to clean up from a contest than it does to run it (they are still finding protected articles to keep the other team from stealing points - cp:talk:blood vessel)... maybe if they awarded negative points to an unclassified dead end, but then Andy would be sorely negative. --Shagie 18:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Where is the Contest page? Are they talking about transforming cp:Contest into a team contest? I didn't dig beyond the Andy-quote there - my interest had already faded again. --Sid 18:36, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
It is here: [2] --NightTrain♦Τάļќ ǃ 22:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
I knew of Tash's user page (although I didn't notice the new stuff, so thanks for the update). However, by now, it appears that this really is an extension of the quasi-contest that's been going on so far - you know, Andy's homework contest thingy at cp:Contest. Check that page out and you'll see that the winners of that phase apparently got promoted to Team Leader status. This is going to be trippy. The homeschoolers apparently aren't even being considered for the teams from what I saw... --Sid 22:36, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
I don't think so. The contest for the students, and this one are apparently different. Look at the team members posted on Tash's page, and who he asked. Ed Poor, TK and DanH were not members of the student teams.-- --NightTrain♦Τάļќ ǃ 22:58, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, that's the thing: For one, there were no student teams so far (and I don't see any now) - the team captains were just announced on Friday or Saturday. That contest had been a single-player event, so to speak. And then look at the team captains that are announced on the homeschool contest page: Tash and SharonS, the very same people who are now captains in the contest that involves TK, Ed, Joaquin, etc etc. So unless each captain now leads two teams (one student team, one top-contributor team), the homeschool class just got pwn'd. --Sid 23:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
You said "pwn'd"!!1!!111oneone !!2@@#!!!! Haha. humanbe in 23:52, 22 September 2007 (EDT)


Take a look at Conservative's running stats page:

September 22, 2007 at 2:45pm 
 Main Page ‎(1,670,976 views) 
 Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ‎(207,550 views) 
 Dinosaur ‎(192,087 views) 
 Homosexuality ‎(192,076 views) 
 Theory of Evolution ‎(191,612 views) 
 Atheism ‎(76,527 views) 

September 22, 2007 at 7pm 
 Atheism 76,643 

September 22, 2007 at 8:07pm 
 Atheism 76,673 

September 22,2007 at 9:20 pm 
 Atheism 76,712 

September 22, 2007 at 11:45pm 
 Atheism 76,821 

Obsessive or what? Genghis Khant 08:32, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Or compulsive ;) Anyway, "Law Terms D", albeit empty, is more popular. --Sleeping Dragon 09:06, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
How do you find those stats on CP? --NightTrain♦Τάļќ ǃ 04:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, the stuff above looks like it just came from Kendoll's page/subpage. However, even though Randy Andy may have edited out half the interesting links in SpecialPages, the software is still there. All ya gotta do is copy in the link from an ungelded wiki, usually. humanbe in 04:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Follow the link above, Ken has been monitoring his pet pages for several months. Interestingly it shows how he has sometimes manipulated the page counts. Genghis Khant 05:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I it is an actual page he made.....not something you can paste other user names into? Crap. --ИїģḥŤŗáìṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 05:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Well NT, he copies the data from the CP statistics page or the CP popular pages. He has links for them on his talk page. Genghis Khant 05:54, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


This is an interesting development; I sometimes do wonder if TK is a Donnie Brasco-like undercover liberal over at CP. A few of the links are now error messages, so it's sort of hard to follow what's happening. What is the alleged RW connection? DickTurpis 09:04, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


Went and posted invitations to rationalwiki all around the site, particularly on the pages of some liberal CP editors. Worth a mention? Feebas factor 11:08, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

was he one if us? I've abandoned socking.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 11:29, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
I dunno about mentioning it. It was just a single-use account that basically spammed around for a short time. Kinda pointless, even though we might get a visitor or two. --Sid 11:39, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
It was one of us. --Linus(plot evil tech) 14:02, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Apparently the nefarious recruitment scheme continues with User:ButWeDont and User:CommunistRecruitment. Hope it actually works... Feebas factor 14:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Insight into Rob's brain[edit]

This comment seems to give a clue to the enigmatic "workings" of RobS's twisted little brain. I'm not exactly sure what to make of it though. It seems as a "qualified historian" Rob is incapable of looking at the present, and has to define things by what he deems they were like in the past. If a person/organization/whatever did something suspect in the past, that incident will not only be part of what they were, but will forever be all-encompassing of what they are. He freely admits he doesn't care about current events, yet he discusses them frequently. Is he just projecting incidents from the past and placing them in the present? That might explain why nothing he says ever seems to make any sense. DickTurpis 17:33, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I think that, like a lot of old-time Conservatives, he pines for the Good Old Days of the Cold War, the clearly defined blocs of Us and THEM, and the imminent threat of nuclear holocaust. --SockOfGulik 11:20, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Well of course that's the case and it's also the main problem. Historically, the USA actually was quite isolationist but once they started meddling in international affairs there was no holding them back. However, there has always been a tendency to polarize things into good and evil and therefore they have to demonize the enemy and barricade themselves in the fort - this is why cowboy films have been such a good analogy for the the whole of the US psyche. As most dictators know, it is easy to keep everyone in line if there is a perceived common threat; once the Soviet Union disintegrated they were unsure of their role in the world and Al Qaeda has given them a purpose, even if they don't really know how to combat it. Historically they have always used force to get their way and in the current climate that is proving counter-productive. Unlike the major European nations diplomacy has actually been a weak point for the Americans, who see conceding something to the other side in order to get what they want as a sign of weakness. This is exemplified by CPs attacks on "liberal" Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler. Well, with the USA not prepared to enter a war at that time , Britain was actually ill-prepared to fight Herr Hitler and his "appeasement" bought valuable time for the British war-machine to get going. Unlike the Chinese and the Vatican who deal in centuries if not millennia, most Americans can't see past their next visit to the gas station. Genghis Khant 11:52, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

This is the end, my only friend[edit]

Is it just me, or has Cp gone completely, even more than usual, batshit insane in the past few days? You've got the second-rate sysops coming out and being wacky, you've got Rshilifiy making sense, TK's banning anyone that talks to him, and Ashlilfiy still mad. Is this the true end?--Offeep 17:37, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Ironically, I think one of us posts a comment like this about every two weeks or so. humanbe in 17:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Here's the odd thing. I was googling Conservapedia recently, mostly to see if I could find any indication that someone takes that site seriously (apart from themselves). No one did, from the several pages of hits I looked at (the best they had was neutral references from Wikipedia and NPR), but looking at what the blogs were saying, and the articles they linked to, I have to say Conservapedia is noticably better than it was 6 months ago. Look at cp:Theory of Relativity. Obviously not the best article in the world, but compare it to Andy's "article" from months ago, which basically was just him ranking about how relativity has no impact on anything, Einstein didn't get a Nobel for it, it's undermined morality, it's just a theory, blah blah blah. Now, admittedly the older one is much more entertaining, but as an encyclopedia article, it's clear there's been a big improvment. The same is true for various other articles as well (articles are more likely now to at least give a cursory definition/description before going into a partisan rant). Conservapedia basically has 2 kinds of articles, the political shit that's just nutty (including some non-political shit that's been politicized by them) and the mundane articles that are generally short, poorly written, over-simplified and done 10 times better on Wikipedia. So while they're still largely batshit crazy, either there were loads more parody articles in the past, or they have at least not gotten any more crazy recently. DickTurpis 18:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
As long as Andy can continue to pay the server costs, the site isn't going anywhere. There probably aren't more than 40 - 50 real contributors to the site (and that's a generous estimate), and I would bet that the majority of new accounts are socks and wandals. Anyone who challenges the status quo is quickly tossed and the influx of new contributors is down to a trickle, so what is this really but a vanity project for a couple of people? Stile4aly 19:11, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I think 40 - 50 is a very high estimate. Even of their 31 sysops, a good dozen of them are inactive (some for many months). There's about 8 or 9 non-sysops editors who do a lot of editing, and then there's the short-timers, who are either pranksters, wandals, curious people who lose interest quickly, or good intentioned contributors who get banned for idelogical reasons. Andy will probably keep paying the server costs, but eventually the hard-core editors will go the way of Bohdan, and it seems there are few to take their place. It is a vanity project for a few people; it always has been. It's a couple dozen people writing for each other, which is fine for a forum, but hardly good for an encyclopedia (imagine a Britannica read only by it's contributors). Is there any evidence anyone uses CP as a general purpose encyclopedia? Does anyone ever come across a name or concept they are unfamiliar with and think "I think I'll go look that up on Conservapedia"? I think those few people who do use it as a resource just use it to see what the ultra-conservative view of a subject is (either in seriousness or in jest), not as a source of general information. I guess that serves a purpose for political topics, but it's hardly useful for the Rocky Mountains or pizza. Even in those cases where it's unbiased and accurate, it's piss-poor as a resource. I think my favorite thing about the site is how every time someone makes a statement about the unreliability of Wikipedia, they see it as some sort of victory for them, when it's really an utter defeat. If Wikipedia is unreliable, what does that make Conservapedia, which has all the same flaws, and few of the advantages? DickTurpis 23:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
I'm curious to know how many of our socks are responsible for what gets on to our What is going on at CP? page? One of my socks is currently directly responsible for one bullet/CP link and indirectly for about two or three more.--Edgerunner76 10:25, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
I provoked at least three of them. Masterbratac 10:40, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I like to think I play a role as well... egging on Conservative that one time was certainly fun. Meh, I'll probably do more as I work my way deeper into the system. Although that will still likely consist of just encouraging the sysops to yell at eachother (which isn't hard to do anyway). Feebas factor 00:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow. TK just emailed me a transcipt of the above paragraph, i.e. he had read it over here at RW. I was all ready to add myself to the banwatch list... and on a whim I checked my CP account anyway. He hadn't blocked me. Bizarre. TK, I guess a confused thanks are in order. Feebas factor 20:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


TK blocked Conservative[edit]

The deserves its place. tmtoulouse annoy 00:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Your command of Inglish rulzorz, dude. I also thoroughly enjoyed the link. humanbe in 01:37, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
[3] 20:45, 24 September 2007, TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked #19297 (expires 22:45, 24 September 2007, account creation blocked) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Conservative". The reason given for Conservative's block is: "Failure to stop silly antics.")
There you go, gents! --NightTrain♦Τάļќ ǃ 01:50, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I stoled a better link from wigo, but thanks for the quote! Whoa... Ken, we still love you. I think my recent block of you wore off by now, but if not, I'll go undo it so you haves a home. humanbe in 02:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Something tells me Assfly would sell him cheap about now. Did you notice that on at least two of the articles complained about on Jenkins page, Jallen had previously unlocked them, also with the comment about no vandalism having ever occured? I have me some good ideas on how to better help Ken/David/Conservative. Yes I do! ----NightTrain♦Τάļќ ǃ 02:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
No, but if ashfly is gonna auction off a cp sysop, he should put it on eBay. Mucho pi to be made!!! Could pay for a few months of sitegrounds asspwnery! humanbe in 02:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Too late! TK has a message on his user page that he is selling his! [4] --02:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Conservative unblocked himself[5]. Seems like he is prepared to pick a fight with TK over who Andy values most. Cool. — Unsigned, by: Tohuvavohu / talk / contribs
I wonder where TK will place the auction. I wouldn't mind going Samwell on CP myself between making productive edits here at RW. We're not reading a book, we're burning it! And then writing one with the charcoal... humanbe in 03:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Samwell's course of action was fun, but not sure if he couldn't have used the Sysop account in a better way. Tohuvavohu 07:02, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Oh sure, I fall asleep after the initial unblock wave, and prompty, all Hell breaks loose. Damn my time zone! --Sid 07:54, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes! Equal rights for all time zones now! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:08, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


Schlafly may be a stopped clock, but I dunno if he's entirely wrong about Freud being a fraud. He's certainly been accused of being so by actual scientists and others. Andy overstates the case, of course. --Kels 08:12, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, there's a big difference between being a fraud and just being honestly wrong. But making not-so-subtle distinctions runs counter to main-stream idealogy (sic) at CP. Genghis Khant 08:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
I dunno, there's been a lot of Freud that's been put down as pseudoscience, and his best contribution to the field has largely been stylistically, in setting up the conversational model of therapy. --Kels 08:33, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Maybe, but fraud implies deceit. I think Freud believed he was right. There have been many religious people whom I consider to have been wrong but I don't consider them frauds, just misguided. Genghis Khant 08:46, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

A prophet is never accepted in his time. The Anti-Conservapedia 08:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Especially if he's a stopped clock? Genghis Khant 08:23, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

My point was that the father of anything, no matter what his field is usually discreditied by someone in some manner. Doesn't mean we should always accept it though. The Anti-Conservapedia 11:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Your point is well taken. I was just making a cheap joke at Aschlafly's expense. Genghis Khant 11:51, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

You don't know the history of psychology! I know the history of psychology! Richard 01:08, 27 September 2007 (EDT)


While CP's front page trumpets that they are number 1 on Google for Liberal Deceit, they omit that they are also number 1 for Conservative Deceit [[6]]. Genghis Khant 08:18, 25 September 2007 (EDT)


Er ... Isn't it Roger calling Andy idiotic?Susantalk to me 01:46, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Power struggle[edit]

Liberals and conservatives do not have equal standing at CP. After a period of debate about policy matters, all must defer to the decisions of Andy Schlafly.

It is possible, however, to remain a member in good standing while maintaining a position of integrity with one's own beliefs there. The trick is to know when it's time to "agree to disagree". Any opinion can be expressed and defended; just don't insist upon it.

For example, I've made a few changes to this WIGO page. I expect to be reverted, at least in part. I'm not planning on re-inserting my changes. I've made my point; I've been heard. If we disagree, then we must agree to disagree. --Uncle Ed bug me 09:29, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

"Ed Poor is just like nails down a chalkboard. This may be due to smarmy self-righteousness masked in a weird pseudo-"good faith" thing he has going on. His favorite topics are explaining how to "earn trust", and demanding "writing plans" from peons. Ed was a long-time administrator and bureaucrat at Wikipedia until events in 2005 and 2006 led to accusations of abuse of power and POV warring, which led to the stripping of his authority." ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 10:00, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Ed, I'd love to see just that as official policy. Come on, do it. Add it to the Conservapedia Commandments (not some tiny guideline that nobody reads anyway): "On Conservapedia, the opinion of liberals is worth less than the opinion of conservatives. Liberals have fewer rights than conservatives. When encountering a sourced liberal edit, feel free to remove it. When encountering an unsourced conservative edit, it is your duty to look for sources." THAT would be honesty.
Your "good standing" part is exactly what I complained about in our mail exchange: Yes, it would be possible to participate on CP, but only if I cover my ears, my eyes, and my mouth so I can hear no bullshit, see no bullshit, and definitely not point out the bullshit that's going on. If CP actually was sure about its opinions, then it wouldn't be so damn afraid of dissenting voices. --Sid 11:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

While we're changing Commandments to more honest versions, Ed, be sure to include a disclaimer that "Liberal" means anyone Andy or the Sysops say is a Liberal, regardless of what their political or religious views are. --Kels 13:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget "Don't mention the FBI." --SockOfGulik 15:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

So Andy is going to get around to making a decision... on the atheism arbitration? He hasn't said a word about it since he asked Aziraphale to come back with something. For that matter, I haven't heard any decisions directly from Andy other than "quit arguing with me when you're right... and that is the final reply." Everything else has been filtered through TK. Did Andy have anything to say about the style guide that has that amusingly shortsighted policy on title caps for all articles? --Shagie 13:49, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I can't be the only one who wants to call TK "The Mouth Of Sauron", can I? --SockOfGulik 15:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
"Mouth" isn't the orifice I'd normally associate with any of them... --Kels 15:50, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Nostril from which mucus hangs in an embarrassing way? --Shagie 16:06, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

History, not science[edit]

Tony Blair was very fond of saying (paraphrase): "That's yesterday and should be forgotten" as a way of consigning things to oblivion.Susantalk to me 12:32, 26 September 2007 (EDT)


Do you think it was just hyperbole or do you think he really believes that "page views" = "unique users"? Does he think 24 million people have really come to conservapedia? tmtoulouse annoy 13:13, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I was so caught up with his "people visit our site to learn, never to mock or vandalize!" that I didn't even notice his 24 million people statement. What an idiot. DickTurpis 13:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I know for a fact that 10 million of those page views are due to 4 RW editors alone. tmtoulouse annoy 13:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
You're 95% certain of that are you? Genghis Khant 15:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
biatch! 15:13, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
And those four are all socks of Sid. --Kels 13:52, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
You can't prove anything! It's in the past, outside the realm of science! =O --Sid 15:10, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Unlce Ed a parodist?[edit]

Ed's main page rant about the Buddhist monks really seems like parody to me. Next thing you know he'll be saying that the monks tried to break the soldiers' rifles by hitting them with their heads. DickTurpis 13:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I dunno. These days, I wouldn't put much past Ed, given the frequent documentations here of his dishonesty, and his world-class "mediation" skills, which generally amount to "shut up and do what you're told, you filth". --Kels 13:33, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
You would like to think so, but no. The truth is that Ed is astonishingly stupid. — Unsigned, by: Franklin / talk / contribs
The article speaks as though Burma is an ally of the US. But Bush (BUSH!) just got through hitting them with sanctions.--Bob's your uncle 14:58, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Magna C[h]arta[edit]

Um, not to come sweeping to Schlandy's defense or anything, but the statement linked to isn't completely wrong. "Original copy" is one of those terms that probably shouldn't be used, but it does get used, and this being the only "original copy" in private hands isn't exactly a wrong statement. Poorly stated, perhaps, but not outright wrong. -Smyth 13:37, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

The point is that Andy claims that the "The Magna Carta, which established the Rule of Law, is going to be auctioned..." etc. But the 1297 copy being sold did not establish anything - it is at most a reconfirmation of the original charter. Ordinarily, this would be a minor point, but I obviously hold a lawyer like Andy to higher standards regarding understanding which documents establish a certain practice and which do not. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:27, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I know, and it's a bonehead move no matter what, but I guess my point is that the sentence is so convoluted it leaves room for the possibility that Andy understands the truth, but can't for the life of him communicate clearly. Then again, he is a world class idiot. Seriously, I thought he was around 13 to 16 when I first went to CP. Scary. -Smyth 15:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I suppose one could give him the benefit of doubt on that one. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:53, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
It strikes me as horribly symbolic that the Magna Carta, the first source of the rule of law for commoners, is about to be sold to the highest bidder. --SockOfGulik 16:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I thought it was more a demand by nobles of power/justice from the king? Mebbe I better go read WP and CP and learn all about it... humanbe in 16:38, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Basically. The vast majority of the document contains various limits on the king's power vs. the high nobility and the church. However, some of the clauses refer to all free men, especially Habeas Corpus and the right to due process. I guess you could say that it's more important than most other similar documents in English legal history, yet probably not as important as many people often assume. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
I'd buy it in a second if I had the money. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:33, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Burma Shave[edit]

So are we to assume that with Andy's endorsement of Ed's lies, that the official position of CP is that the Junta are the good guys and the monks and other protesters are rabble-rousing villains? Should be interesting to hold up when, with the eyes of the world paying more attention to them now, more and more of their crimes come to light. Way to go, Andy! --Kels 15:49, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

If the liberal media is behind democracy then conservapedia is against it. Why is that so hard for everyone here to comprehend? ollïegrïnd 15:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Ollie, your sentence makes absolutely no sense by any rational standard... so I fear that is exactly what Andy and his loyal buddies are thinking. --Sid 16:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
What amazes me is how ... well, tolerant they're being. I've made, what, three links to RW, said that I'm a banned user, flamed the Gang of Four, and am still running? Woah, has the RW plague infected them via Bohdan? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

I seriously can't believe Ed went there. "To be trustworthy, we should neither condemn the government forces in a knee-jerk way, nor praise them unconditionally." Said while he's condemning not only the pro-democracy forces who according to his sources were responding to violence, but Asians in general. Truly, the man has no shame, nor honour. --Kels 16:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

The monks are evil since they do not believe in JESUS!!!--TimS 16:44, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I would love to see Ed raising his arms and slowly backing away while a cop raises his rifle... in the middle of a protest that turned into a panic due to violent police clamp-down. I assume he'll expect to be read the Miranda rights in the middle of it, too. --Sid 16:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

They're not even the cops! They're either the army, or that other group, who Suu Kyi described as 'Nazi Brownshirts', the ones who attacked her cavalcade a while back. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

They're The Authorities, and therefore MUST be obeyed. All Authorities are legitimate and deserve everyone's respect and obedience....except Liberals like Bill Clinton or other commies. Fnord. --SockOfGulik 17:33, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
He is even more authortarian than he was at Wikipedia! He should be moved up to target #1, IMO. Have any of you actually read the BS he puts into articles? I suspect he is a major behind-the-scenes contributor to Ken-doll. ----ИїģḥŤ¤Ṭŗáìṇ ♦Τάļќ ǃ 18:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
What he put in articles... articles... ah yes, that reminds me that I wanted to make a WiGO edit last night! Lemme see if I can find it again... --Sid 18:27, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

We're targeting people? News to me. I'm certainly not. --Kels 18:35, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

It's a shame there was no CP during Tiannamen Square; I'd love to see Ed's take on that. Then again, that was against a dictatorial government that was also communist, so that makes all the difference in the world. Anyway, I'm sure CP will have a firm stance on one side or the other in the Burma thing once Newsbusters weighs in. A bunch of semi-retards blogging from several thousand miles away always bring out the truth, and are much more reliable than reporters on the scene. They are the authority on all subjects, unlike the deceitful liberal MSM. DickTurpis 09:55, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

The Bible is hate speech in Canada?[edit]

According to the CP front page, the Bible is hate speech in Canada. Can somebody shed some light here? Am I just reading this wrong (I hope!), maybe? --Sid 20:03, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

That sentence is confusing, but yes, it appears to be saying the in Canada the bible is considered hate speech. - Icewedge 20:08, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
No, it's true. Up in Canada we don't use regular swear words - instead we've followed the lead of our francophone counterparts and turned to using religious terms instead. "G*dspeed" is particularly offensive. Feebas factor 20:11, 26 September 2007 (EDT) tabernac!!

I was looking at that too. Andy's a real fruit loop. --Kels 20:14, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Looks like Andy believes that harrasment of one's lifestyle does not fall under hate speech. Interesting enough in the US it can be. Perhaps we should mail Andy some letters pointing out his ignorance, since he does not see that as wrong.

a quouple of quibbles[edit]

  • "Rob, in one of their useful contributors, especially considering he hasn't made a single speech by deleting the WP database gets 30,000 page requests a second while conservapedia gets about half of Ed's arguments: "homosexuality is wrong by the edit count update on the main page soon." Less of a million people in the eyes of Aschlafly. Parody is always the best part is that if we keep this up more bullshit."

Can someone translate this into English, please? humanbe in 20:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

That was put in by an anonymous IP, I'd say dump it. --Kels 20:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
This looks like more "dissociated press" "contributions". Should we zap them on sight?--Bob's your uncle 05:36, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Unless it's not unfunny, I guess so. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
On an associated point, I suggest that the IPer below be left to continue talking to himself.--Bob's your uncle 05:47, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, it's a bonehead move no matter what, but I guess RobS' standards have a Vince Foster article. The vast majority of new contributors is down to 11%. Tony Blair was very fond of saying (paraphrase): "That's yesterday and should be moved up to become the adult idiots?" I'm not exactly sure what to make any sense. Bobbe in Godspeed! 06:14, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
HA. an impostor.--Bob's your uncle 06:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
HA. A bot perhaps? The big chunk "it's a bonehead move no matter what" caught my attention, since it's exactly what I said above under ==Magna C[h]arta==. I always thought I should be more productive, but I guess there are some folks with even more time on their hands than myself. -Smyth 11:40, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Yeah! Block 'em all! It's time to crack down on these anonymous vandal terrorists! You've still got a lot to learn from CP, but you're making progress! Way to go!!!!!!
Yeah, those anonymous IPs are really just a bunch of idiots. Why can't we have an internet without those stupid IPs?
Ack. Those anonymous IPs are not to be trusted. They should contact an admin or present a writing plan before making any edits.
Wasn't it illegal to use anonymous IPs?
Sure, but what are you gonna do about it? They're anonymous, you know... --Hobey 14:08, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
It's not illegal, except those that get used for warez, p2p, crack, that kind of stuff, you know... -- 14:39, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Wait, are you telling me that you transfer cocaine over the internet? That would certainly explain a few things... --Hobey 14:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • "Uh-oh! Somebody on CP plans to plot "some graphs of temperature over the past 400,000 years"! Quick, somebody go there and tell him that the universe, according to CP, is only 6,000 years old! Seems someone did! TK delves into science![1]"

The link at the end is just to cp/index.php. humanbe in 20:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

If that one is still there I'm going to delete it. humanbe in 20:47, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
  • "I guess they are a little confused as to what an organ is?" They all look like organs to me... certainly no real lulz there. humanbe in 20:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)


Terry TK wrote to me (Andy, aka "Richard" of "Warren Harding is the greatest" infamy) and said something about me being someone called "Edgerunner", when I have not actually kept up with Conservapedia (or RationalWiki for that matter) in some time. Richard 22:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

He's still writing me and hasn't clued into the fact that I am NOT in fact Edgerunner. Raving about me posting emails...noting that the above is the only thing I've posted about him writing me weird emails. I seriously think that whomever is supplying him with whatever drugs needs to cut him off about now. Richard 00:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
It's not just you. He's emailing lots of us in some desperate attempt,, mein tukhas! 00:08, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I feel so left out... humanbe in 00:18, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I've seen you called a "fascist." You're getting no worse treatment than the rest of us, though.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 00:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes. I think that the ultimate joke on Conservapedia is that I never go there again but they'll forever wonder if I'm there and go to great lengths to expose me. Someone send TK some porn though man he needs it. Richard 01:06, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Boys Gone Wild, maybe? --Kels 06:06, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
WOW! I never would have thought that I'd become this popular. --Edgerunner76 08:04, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
You know, Richard is such an uncommon name; how could there be more than one? Liberal deceit! VirileSterileum 08:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I did go to Warren G. Harding elementary school. I remember this one time during recess, Schwartz, Flick, and I were in the playground during recess. Oh... wait... that was A Christmas Story. Of course, with the surrender of Christmas to the forces of Happy Holidays in the War on Christmas, we really shouldn't talk about Christmas anymore. Happy Non-denominational Winter Soltice everyone! --Edgerunner76 08:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Man, it's only 6 days since the equinox and we're already buying soltice cards? Sheesh... humanbe in 20:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)