Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive51

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <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)

Ken's back to fag-baiting[edit]

Does anyone else lol when they read this? Pasty, chunky men are, of course, the expected spokespeople of a so-called women's group. --Kels 23:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

The conclusion of Tom's Flavor-Aid quest[edit]

(See WIGO for links; starting new section because old one is too far up for my liking :P) Finally, a one-day block. Karajou backing down from his insane block threat was apparently seen by LT as a great act of mercy, so he blocks Tom for not properly kissing Kara's feet.

As said ridiculously many times before, this really makes you wonder if the CP sysops systematically try to drive people away or if these are all "accidents" of their power-tripping.

Keep in mind that this entire case was kicked off by Tom supplying three sources. And within a day or two, he has been actively harassed by at least three sysops (four in the unlikely case that RobS is real). Way to go! You really taught him a lesson! And the lesson goes: "Never find sources that might prove a sysop wrong." Or let's phrase it more loosely: "Never disagree with a sysop." --Sid 14:17, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

And especially don't provide convincing sources. Since sysops can never be wrong, it just reveals that you're fabricating them. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 14:21, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
A plot of LT's arse-licking increase over the past few months would be interesting. Can you quantify creepingness? SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:25, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
In answer to your question Sid, I think it's a little of both. All of the CP sysops are so stuck up Andy's ass, they're seeing Liberal Bogeymen in their sleep. They systematically try to remove almost all their editors because they think they're all vandals... I'm pretty sure they just assume every new account is a Rationalwiki sock these days. Also, remember how many of these sysops were killed at Wikipedia. I mean, classic Ed Poor behavior got him stripped of power at Wikipedia, but that same behavior makes him grand inquisitor of CP.... So I think they drive away a lot because they fear the Rats and sometimes their power trips just have results... My two cents anyway SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:30, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Learn together was a reasonable editor for CP and given how long he was there probably deserved to be made a sysop. But now he's turned into a real little prick. It really illustrates the "power corrupts" aphorism. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:48, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
That really depends on your definition of "reasonable". He started out as one, maybe, but he wasn't promoted until he openly defended CP and denied that it has a notable anti-liberal bias (even when he was confronted with some of the "liberal [noun]" articles), and after that, he turned into a power-tripping Enforcer.
Here are two nice quotes that sum up his just-before-promotion attitude:
“”I just used random page 10 times, and didn't come across a single article that mentioned liberals, deceit, etc. Again, you are fixating in certain areas because they bother you, but they are a small part of the whole. I have 9,000 edits, and I believe I can count on one hand the total number that I have made in the areas that you have mentioned you have difficulty. There are other subjects that can be addressed and created.
“”Wow, and you gathered all of this in 2 days? Well, sometimes a blind squirrel will accidentally stumble across some nuts, but what we've noticed is that you are the rule, not the exception. And that, of course, only helps to reinforce to Andy that his perceptions are accurate. You made a claim about our articles, I showed it was inaccurate based upon a random sampling, and then you go right back to your original mantra without missing a beat. And all of that based upon 2 days sampling. Personally, if I was new to a site and I had been shown that what I had just stated was incorrect, I would be very humble and apologetic and seek to learn more before proceeding down the same line. And that's why you, and every other carbon copy of you, is seen as an article of clothing that is worn under a shoe. Andy will let you stay here, but he does ask that you make positive contributions, and that always seems to be an area where you folks won't go. Learn together 19:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Both quotes from this discussion. --Sid 15:22, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I admit he started to go gaga just before he was elevated to the Waffen AS. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:51, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't believe it. He's just trying to blend in, and biding his time... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 15:58, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

I notice that despite being active since then, Mr. Reasonable still hasn't weighed in on the utter inappropriateness of the block. Guess he's not Christian enough or something. --Kels 21:40, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

I gotta admit I didn't expect Karajou to back down from his challenge, it must be pretty tough for anybody to do so after all that. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 00:21, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
It only shows what a dumb grunt Kowardjerk is. Having found overwhelming evidence that he was wrong he had to admit it. At the very least all his years in the navy would have taught him that. However, if it had been Andy then Tom's views on school prayer would have been questioned and everything else would then be an irrelevancy. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 02:28, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

What is courage?[edit]

This is courage. --Sid 17:32, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

CpAdmin's talk page edits were sort of like PJR - they questioned the wrong people, such as other sysops and Andy. Good guy, compared to the others. NorsemanWassail! 18:00, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

I was "RobS"[edit]

I'm glad you guys thought the impression was good, and I'm profoundly glad that I tricked Joaquin. It was really hard to stay in character though. Ed was being more stupid than usual, and his stupidity was so profoundly painful that I had to bite my tongue... sort of.

I haven't edited CP in like months! This is what happens when I have to stay home from work (sick) and run out of TV to watch.-caius (heckuva job!) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Fun while it lasted though? SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Profoundly. I got to toss around the "racist vandal troll" line, which hasn't been seen at CP since nigh-on dickety-six years. I figure that's how long RobS has been away...
TomMoore, if you're reading this, I'm deeply and profoundly sorry that my intimidating you may have led to your block. I just meant it as a way to establish my bona fides, I was hoping a gullible siteadmin may have given me powerz. It was a long shot, and you have my apologies.-caius (heckuva job!) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Had nothing to do with it, and sorry I couldn't say anything before. It didn't seem right to be using an account on CP and here as well.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 04:08, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Bah, the blame lies squarely on LearnTogether, who's trying to fit in with the dick brigade by being a dick himself. Although I am a bit curious about the earlier assertion that Jim Jones was a conservative. I don't know much about the guy, so it's interesting. That's probably what got Koward riled up in the first place, but for some obscure reason didn't want to come out and say it. --Kels 20:48, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, it makes sense: If you doubt that it was Kool-Aid that was used, then why shouldn't we doubt that Jim Jones was a liberal? Just like why creation must be true or the Bible is completely false. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 21:52, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Nicely played! It's been a while since I've done a Rob impression. Mine were always easy to spot because I used other accounts but with a fake RobS signature. There was one time when Ken reverted one such comment, then put it back, apparently thinking it actually was Rob. Didn't last too long, but that at least was evidence that it was convincing, even though it was intentionally a bit over the top. Thing it, it's hard to be more over the top than him. You try to exaggerate, but you end up sounding just like him. DickTurpis 23:12, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Funniest of all is that you weren't blocked for being a "sock of AmesG". Which is mostly something that happens to other people. NOt very good at spotting AmesG, are we, Gentlemen-At-Another-Website? DogP 03:04, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Really funny. Not the most subtle attempt to subvert CP but very funny just the same. Kept me guessing for a while (but then I believed in Santa until I was 34) RedDog 04:52, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

The ACLU v. Good Judges[edit]

So now patronage is better than democracy? This makes no sense. Isn't preferring appointments to defend the Constitution a sign of preferring an oligarchy? What? Lyra § talk 21:01, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but what if the Constitution had a liberal bias? --Gulik 17:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Bias in WP?[edit]

Good heavens, does this idiot realize just how easy it is to simply pop over to the talk page in question to see him doing his best to heavily slant the article and failing? It's lousy liars like this that make CP so funny. --Kels 22:10, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually I'm currently fighting the good fight over there (the Aussie IP, not the other one), and in this case I think CP do have a point. Effectively the WP article links to an AFA article to make a claim that they "insinuate" that Jews cannot raise kids (or words to that effect), however the AFA article does not explicitly state this, and although it could be suggested the claim is original research at best. I've been reverted twice by an editor whose refused to discuss it on the talk page, and an admin has semi-protected the page after jumping to the conclusion that I'm some wacko conservatvie who wants to censor criticism of the AFA.
I really hate defending such a homophobic and racist organisation and arguing against a homosexual who understandably hates them and wants to leave in as many criticisms as possible, however in this case there could actually be some institutionalised bias. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out. Do others agree that the statement fits the definition of original research, regardless of whether or not it is correct? RyanC 04:04, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh dear, that all just went horribly wrong... RyanC 08:08, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Kinda sad...[edit]

Does anyone else find the juxtaposition of Ed Poor I and Ed Poor III kinda ... sad?-caius (heckuva job!) 11:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

As in "how are the mighty fallen?" sort of thing? yup! SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:08, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
T'other day I noticed something he wrote: straight out of nowhere he dragged in the "fact" that "several Africans had thanked him personally" for setting WP right about DDT. Can't remember where it was but I know it was totally irrelevant to the subject he was commenting on. The man craves attention - suspect that's his legacy from grandpappy Grumman. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:15, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I find it kinda sad that a man who apparently dedicates himself to editing "encyclopedia articles for various wikis" still can't manage to insert a references section. into an article about himself/grandpappy. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:47, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Here it is he was rambling about Blair and got sidetracked. 3.14159 19:50, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I nearly had a hernia then. Ajkgordon 16:14, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Ed III inherited a vast Grumann fortune and has all the time in the world on his hands? Perhaps he's wealthier than Croesius? DogP 21:35, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Joaquin[edit]

Noticed how Joaquin's gone into overdrive lately? He's taken on Business now - must have completed ART. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:20, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

You know Joaquin can never finish Art. His internal definition of that word includes everything. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:26, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Spiny Norman[edit]

This block just amused me. Why even bother explaining? Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:01, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Heh. Koward is the very definition of Unclear On the Concept. --Kels 14:06, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I think it's the third or fourth time it's been inserted. Someone's got a thing for big spiny things. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:10, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
And who doesn't, eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge. --Kels 14:15, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
They just don't get it, do they? Time to add an article for The Crimson Permanent Assurance, and link to it from the article on Business Enterprise.--SpinyNorman 15:30, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
I wanted to write an article about the notorious Parahna Brothers and see if anyone noticed..... but I never got the energy up to do it. SirChuckBCall the FBI 15:49, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Grawp[edit]

[1] - uh, am I missing something here? 67.170.155.176 16:09, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

"Grawp" is the name of a repeat vandal who targets any wiki he can find. (Incidentally, he has about a hundred permabanned socks on Wikipedia.) He almost certainly created the page called Grawp while he was running through the forest knocking down trees vandalising. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 16:13, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
ah, thank you for the explanation. I'm not that learned on wikilore. 67.170.155.176 16:21, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Course Research Resources[edit]

Was this complete and useful list of resources already admired on WIGO or WIGO Talk? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 17:08, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

It is growing (rapidly) as much--more, perhaps--than CP itself :) Lyra § talk 21:00, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

I wonder...[edit]

...if Conservative made this himself... Lyra § talk 20:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, some of them 13 year old half-wits is pretty good with computers. DickTurpis 20:56, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Am I the only one who finds that image funny? Lyra § talk 20:59, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
No, it' hilarious. Especially as I picture it as a image by Ken modeled on himself. DickTurpis 21:02, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
And I'm high, so anything will seem funny to me. DickTurpis 21:02, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
And to think Jesus preached love and kindness... it looks more like an Uncyclopedia parody, but then again, Conservative's "Jesus Never Fails" image looks that way too. Poe's Law. Lyra § talk 21:04, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
Gone so quick (-ly after this little discussion was posted) Lyra § talk 22:12, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
It wasn't that long ago that Ken had to ask TK how to upload images to CP, so it would be very surprising if he created it himself. Especially when he could just steal it from here in the first place. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 03:01, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Good heavens. If there is a hell, then the guy who wrote that awful poem is definitely heading there. --Kels 17:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

From the very beginning[edit]

Did we cover this gem? Look at the first line. Lyra § talk 22:04, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Specifically:

“”The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.

(bolding by me) Lyra § talk 22:10, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, the last two were apparently on board the ark, but they got eaten by lions. I read that in the Far Side once, so it must be true. Then again, if you believe a big man in the sky is watching your every move, believing in unicorns should be a cinch... --PsygremlinWhut? 23:30, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
That's really strange... as Mr. Larson is the most recognized expert on all matters religious.... But a group of well known Irish Scholars insist that the Unicorn did not board the Ark, as they were playing in the rain and missed the call..... I can't seem to reconcile the two together SirChuckBCall the FBI 02:43, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe there is a film, supposedly fictional, supposedly for little girls, ostensibly a cartoon, that details of the last unicorn, perhaps CP should consult that. Such a film would be at least as reliable as 99.9506078% of their other sources e.g. Expelled, the bible, "Andy's" "dinner" "conservations," "because I [insert CP blow hard here] said so" Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 09:42, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I love, love, love that movie documentary! When I was a teenager, one of the local TV stations used to play it on Christmas Day, for some reason, so I try to keep doing that with the tape I made of it, and later the DVD. Problem of course is that since I don't "do" Christmas, I often forget that it's actually December 25, but I get as close as I can. --Kels 21:06, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I have vague recollections of a movie like that. Is that the one where they turn the unicorn into a human at one point? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 21:09, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Yup. Good movie, fantastic book. As it should be. --Kels 07:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Messages to Conservapedians[edit]

A couple of us have set up a safe, friendly place for more direct CP/RW dialog. It is organized by CP editor. I know --from some of the shout outs, and the correcting of typos, the re-use of certain vocabulary, pointed shifts in emphasis and the like--some CP editors read WIGO and TWIGO regularly. Please take a look at this Messages to Conservapedians page and offer your responses. Note that guidelines there are set up to be quite different than guidelines here. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 09:50, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Scientism?[edit]

I'm just boggling at this gem. Not only was it created by someone with a rather, uh, limited history, but it's already been tacitly approved by Ed Moon and overtly endorsed by Mr. Reasonable hisself. I know this is all part of the "science is a religion and since religion is bad we know science is...uh, wait..." garbage that PJR frequently spews, but does it have to be this obviously stupid? --Kels 16:28, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Wait, is there another way for it be, besides obviously stupid? When did this happen? Nobody tells me anything around here! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 16:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Page count manipulation[edit]

I see Andy has reset the page counts for several popular pages to help move atheism up the rankings.

  • #3 Theo Hobson
  • #9 Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • #12 David Beckham
  • #33 John Schlalfy

While DanH took out:

  • #8 Homosexuality and choice

Who says page counts don't matter then Andy? Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:58, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I've come to the conclusion that Andy is just fundamentally dishonest. This is just a symptom. He no more cares about whether or not page views are a valid measure of popularity than I care about whether the pope wears boxers or briefs (does anyone know right off the top of their heads? . . . ). What he does care about is polishing his e-peen by any means necessary. And an e-peen of that size takes quite a bit of polish. The page view no page view thing is a symptom of that. It was no significance other than to say "oh, look Andy is lying again." The thing I find fascinating is that all of his sysops know this, and not only look the other way but endorse it. Their version of the ten commandants ( the biblical ones not the meaningless fluff on CP) is titled " Ten things to do when convenient, but to hold everyone I disagree with to all the time" We should start a page called the lies of Andy and parse every edit he makes out into how it is dishonest. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 20:22, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
That wouldn't work, as just about every edit he makes on CP involves a lie in someway, I'd have a ZZTop beard and a case of malnutrition by the end of the first month SirChuckBCall the FBI 20:55, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Q: "How can you tell if Andrew Schlafly is lying?" A:"His lips are moving" SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:36, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

My theory about Andy is that he believes that the end justifies the means, in a big, big way. So when he lies, and dissembles, and outright propagandizes, it's all fair game and it doesn't count at the judgement, because he's doing it for a higher cause. He's convinced himself that his enemies are eeeeeevil and thus lie and cheat and do horrible things by definition, so he's just using their own tools against them. He's still on the side of the angels (literally), so again, none of what he does counts so he's free to be as big a liar as he wants. So long as he's using it against his enemies, who are by definition the enemies of all that's right and good. --Kels 20:59, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

No offense Kels, --I think you're swell--but I think it total bullshit and believe you should look again. He's just a manipulative little twat who learned on his mama's scaly knee that lying was a short cut to winning (or allowing yourself to believe you've won). He no more believes in the christian god than I do. All that is just a power fetish and a matter of holier-than-thou brand convenience to him. You take him too seriously and don't realize that it is ALL a lie. It is no more profound than wanting to get his way. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 21:15, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Fine, but I do believe that this is the lie he tells himself to justify it all. For him I believe it does come down to "I'm good, they're bad", but you're right, it's entirely dishonest. He almost certainly dresses it up to look wonderful in his own mind, but he's still scum. --Kels 21:17, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I've gotten the sense that it's more about politics than "killing-the-bad-guy" for him. He promotes the liberal-conservative dichotomy to promote his own ideology, much in the same way Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do. I would not call those two self-dissemblers, rather wily arguers and figurative warmongerers. Lyra § talk 21:32, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy is not a liar, just rather ignorant. This leads him to promote his views regardless of whether they are rational or irrational, and in whatever way possible. Lyra § talk 21:34, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I originally thought it was solely politics too. But having been reading his views on evolution (and, in the same groups, censorship) from 8-9 years ago, I've come to think of it as being a lot deeper than that. The man is delusional, and willing to use *any* lie, even if it makes no sense at all, if only to discredit or harm the people and causes he does not like (and, by definition, are bad). Wikipedia is only the most recent target. --Kels 21:46, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Well there I agree with you. However, I think that he was raised so mindblowingly conservative that he is rather delusional about promoting it. Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, but reality has a liberal bias. His lies are not evil in nature but borne of ignorance. Lyra § talk 22:02, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Look at Dawkins, look at liberal X, love at his sick hatred of public schools, the man isn't trying to do good in a bad way. He's a petty, sadistic, narcissistic Machiavelli where the state is something like his public face and his enemies are simply everyone. pure creep. That's what happens when your raised by wealthy coyotes. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 23:42, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure there's all that much disagreement here. I'm not saying he's not doing that, what I'm saying is he thinks he's right in doing so, and none of those tactics count because he's the Good Guy. Although you put a lot more active sadism into it than I would, and I don't really see it there in what I've read. --Kels 23:53, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't call him sadistic and narcissistic. He is, however, ignorant and a sanctimonious nutjob. He has many allies and friends, people that agree with his ideology. His enemies are not "everybody." Lyra § talk 23:59, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

If you could use one word to describe Andy, what would it be?[edit]

Gun Control[edit]

The blind adherence to the party line over there never fails to amaze me. It took about 2 minutes to find a couple of (admittedly old) reports on the web [2][3][4] and the numbers are scary:

  • US (no gun control) = 14.24 gun-related deaths per 100 000 (in 1994)
  • Brazil = 12.95
  • Mexico = 12.69

Now let's look at countries where there is gun control:

  • England & Wales = 0.41
  • Australia = 2.65
  • New Zealand = 2.38
  • Japan = 0.05

But, as Bill Hicks said, "You'd be liar and a communist to point out that there's a relationship between not having a gun and not shooting somebody and having a gun and shooting somebody." --PsygremlinWhut? 00:13, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

None of us are fooled by your Liberal Statistics Psy.... Any unemployed liberal living off the welfare could state could create fake reports and spred them over the internet to decieve people who keep an open mind and see the truth. Get me some trustworthy sources and I'll block your ass for a year. Godspeed SirChuckBCall the FBI 00:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Chuck, you're clueless. Those statistics constitute an unimpeachable de facto argument for Psy's case. Lyra § talk 01:49, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Lyra, you've spent way too much time with the bears. Everyone knows that Gun Control statistics have a huge liberal bias and it's only liberal denial or liberal gulibility that prevents the world from saying so. Also, it's well known that Hybrid Cars are sixteen times more likely to kill than guns, but the liberal media refused to divulge that. I bet that in your world, 2+2=/=4. SirChuckBCall the FBI 03:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Those bears are bad news, man! --Kels 07:47, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
"Sir", if that is your real name, you're obviously in breach of the 90/10 rule. I'm going to give you an infinite ban to give you time to cool off. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 06:55, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I might give you a longer ban than that. You're way out of line, and you didn't once mention Jesus' support for the right to bear arms. Godspeed. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 06:55, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I dont have time to sit here and debate meaningless statistics with you. I suppose you would defend big tobacco by showing statistcs that coutries that have lower smoking rates dont smoke? Would you? Its well known that the countries with high gun crime have the strictest laws against classroom prayer. But your liberal denial and deliberate ignorance would stop you from seeing such logical conclusions wouldnt it......oh yeah, before I forget, get fucked. Ace McWicked 07:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anybody have any stats on armed bears? BeastmasterGeneral 08:58, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes There is a 98.31424% probability that the founding fathers committed a typo and meant to say that 'mericans have the right, nay the duty, arm bears i.e not bear arms, though maybe, anticipating wife beaters, they meant the right to bare arms. -- the accepted historiography is a bit fuzzy on this point. Remember the bill of rights was written in an age before God invented word processors, so it would have been really a big hassle to change it. Thus, our current predicament.
Note: if it was the right for a well regulated militia to bare arms one could only surmise that our founding fathers would have been huge fans of The Village People and, of course, Rambo Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 09:59, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
As a matter of choice, I would prefer to have bear arms.131.111.8.96 14:05, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
A good point. I wonder if they would take a pair of chicken legs in trade. (cue rim shot!) Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 14:25, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Make it a plate of Buffalo wings, and we might have ourselves an agreement. --Kels 14:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Of course it's all a huge misunderstanding. The founding fathers wanted to create a masonic state and one of the symbols was a bare right arm. Ajkgordon 14:45, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Check out cp:gun locks for an argument that everyone should have guns in the home, unlocked, loaded, and ready to fire. (Because what's more likely: that some bad guy will invade your home and kill you, or that your kids will rummage around in the gun cabinet and decide to play with them?) I pointed out that having a gun in the home can't save you from every possible crime, like a drive-by shooting outside your home. Of course, that got reverted. --Elkman 00:35, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy himself has argued in favour of teenage girls being armed at all times, even in their own back yard. So this isn't much of a stretch. Andy seems to think that a gun is a shield that will protect you from all harm. --Kels 07:48, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

crime-by-gun v. murder-by-knives[edit]

Laugh amongst yourselves... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:17, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Ho ho! --Kels 19:22, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Also, I think knives are a good idea, you know, big fuck-off shiny knives, the ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good because they don't make any noise, and the less noise the more we're likely to use them. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 20:41, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
"Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives! It's 1183 and we're all barbarians!"[5] --Kels 20:52, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
What about the mostly defensive weapon of crossbow? Deadly at a distance, untraceable, and totally kewl at SCA drunkathons! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:05, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

PJR throws Andy & Bugler under the bus. Nice response, Philip! DogP 23:32, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, kudos to PJR for pointing out what "logic" really is to Andy. Who cares about Buggler, it's a psrdgoat, surely. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:26, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Agreed, Philip has a good mind when he uses it and a light touch with his fellow sociopaths fascist hatemongers Conservapedians. Why hasn't he been banned yet? Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 07:11, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

BUGLER: parodist or wazzock?[edit]

Look at Bugler's edits, (s)he's either a parodist or a (by British Standards) right wing prig. His latest, about the death, in a family context, of a gun protester, smacks of revelling in the misfortunes of others. Just like the rest of CP. SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:44, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I think his username refers to the British podcast "The Bugle, Audio Newspaper for a Visual World," which is very liberal, so it is likely that he is a parodist.
Then again, mostly everyone there could be construed as a parodist. CP Poe's Law! :) Lyra § talk 18:55, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Also, his block log by Ed is for "confusing backtalk."
CONFUSING BACKTALK.
CONFUSING BACKTALK.
I'm done Nods.gif Lyra § talk 18:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Heh! knew that'd get a rise out of you Shifty.gif SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:00, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Psrodt-by-Largely-Defensive-Use-of-"Clueless" ħumanUser talk:Human 19:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Hah! He's Andy approved! (check here for context) --Kels 19:26, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
PARODIST: [6] Lyra § talk 19:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I think the most amusing result of this editors actions was the interplay with Andy and other sysops... He was just subtle enough to get a rise out of the non-wackos there and, therefore, the implicit endorsement of the sysops. It may be hard for Aschlafly et al. to untangle themselves now. UchihaKATON! 19:36, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it is akin to Poe's Law. One man's parody is another man's dearly held Christian belief system (yes, I'm looking at you Andy). Bugler's parody is fine by Andy so long as it doesn't cross the line and become too obvious. I don't think Andy actually cares whether Bugler is taking the piss. All he cares about is what is on the page. So long as Bugler supports Andy's silly hobby-horse philosophies without crossing the line into obvious parody (and I mean obvious even to those on CP) then all is well in Andy Land. --Horace 21:41, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Also see
ħumanUser talk:Human 21:24, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
My favorite is here where Andy leaves a threat because someone called Bugler a parodist.... The man really deludes himself doesn't he.... He does not see that the entire world is laughing at him SirChuckBCall the FBI 23:51, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
Nooo nooo, they aren't laughing at him, they are laughing near him, surrrreelly? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:56, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Just discovered this[edit]

Inane, perhaps, but I'm surprised they let this stay up: this article. Lyra § talk 19:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, it's one of the very old ones, that's why Shlafly never noticed... Lyra § talk 19:59, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Take a look at the History page: TerryH wrote this one. So it has the official Sysop Approval Seal! :D --Sid 20:50, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
The article makes sense (basically). The title, however, was ill-conceived at best, and a stolen bukkit at worst. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:06, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

War on Drugs[edit]

I made some amendments to their article on the War on Drugs making a comparison to 1920s alcohol prohibition, which were reverted.

The article has now been protected for no particular reason. I've asked why my edits were reverted but they didn't give any reasons. D-Notice 07:46, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Nice job, D-Notice Drug Supporter. I was going to make a WIGO entry of that yesterday, but... forgot. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 08:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Resorting to name-calling? Just show you've lost the argument. D-Notice 08:48, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
No, just remembering how Karajou (?) called you. Wasn't it "drug supporter"? I guess for him one is either a true conservative or a narcomaniac liberal. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 09:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry about that. Your username gave me the impression you agreed with him D-Notice 09:25, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I took this username when I still edited at CP - now I'm quite sleepy there. Some of the sysops there read here and easily block you if you say something "bad" here. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 09:35, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm seeing how long it'll take and what "controversial" (read factually accurate) edit will lead to me being banned. D-Notice 09:38, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
After over 22 hours I finally get a response from him. Well, some sort of response, but he still didn't answer my questions, so I've asked again. D-Notice 13:58, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't be silly. For the Koward, "because I said so" is an answer. --Kels 14:03, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

I've added a [citation needed] to heroin's use as a murder weapon. How long until it's changed back? D-Notice 09:46, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Also added a link to the article on Methamphetamine about people being arrested for purchasing allergy remedies. D-Notice 10:08, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey, are you sure you want to get yourself blocked? Sure you can, but why not stay there a bit more? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 14:17, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not really trying to get myself blocked. I'm just wondering what "controversial" edit would cause me to be blocked. D-Notice 14:31, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Editing here with the same username carries a pretty short fuse, usually. That's why I got permabanned in May 07. And "here" wasn't even "here" yet, really! ħumanUser talk:Human 14:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

A sort of response: You can make your edits if you can prove your case. However, the article has been locked so it's impossible to make said edits! D-Notice 04:00, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

I like how asking for a reason now constitutes a "demand", leaving the Koward to cast you as unreasonable and probably subversive (I'll get you...and your little blog, too!) --Kels 08:08, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't worry about it, I've responded. D-Notice 11:45, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

That's some mighty strong Stupid they're smokin' over there. I'd say this definitely belongs on WIGO. You can make an "Essay" in your userspace on CP comparing the War on Some Drugs to Prohibition, if you feel like bothering. For a bunch of people who say they don't like Big Government, they certainly like like seeing Big Government put hippies and black people in jail. --Gulik 17:03, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Done. I'm not that concerned about putting a fully-referenced article on there (it'd just be removed for not toe-ing the Party line having a liberal bias). I'm happy just showing the contradictions/idiocy/cognitive dissonance, whatever you wanna call it, like the way you've pointed out... I'd call it "Idiot-bating" only there's no real bating, just making reasonable requests. D-Notice 18:18, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't know about you, but I definitely partake of a bit of idiot-baiting while I'm at CP :) ~ Jellyfish! (Talk • Contribs • Logs) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Is this Andy?[edit]

What happened to Andy? Four exclamation marks, dude: is he suddenly feeling young, or is it his beloved son-in-law? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 09:59, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Not me. Haven't been over their house since Saturday. =-= Candlewick 23:33, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
What the hell is going on? Did someone hijack his account? --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 10:15, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, he's still being his old weird self elsewhere. --Kels 11:04, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
It's like that episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns is all hocked up on goofballs and Homer thinks it's an alien. BeastmasterGeneral 11:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Its definitely Andy, only he could come up with a reason that's so narrow and only correct in specific cases (i before e ...). Jrssr5 11:07, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not the first time he's done this sort of thing, either.131.111.8.103 11:12, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
And he almost admits someone else is right, here. Getting soft in his old age, if you ask me. GNUSMAS : TALK 12:17, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, I think it really is him, as this link has him correcting someone else's spelling by quoting a rule for the spelling of 'atheists' which 'atheists' actually breaks. That is exactly the type of thing you expect from Assfly - even when he's right, he usually finds a way to be wrong as well. Didn't I see something WIGO'd a while ago about Assfly berating someone for calling him 'dude'? If my memory is not at fault, maybe he's trying to make a point, and failing. Zmidponk 14:21, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, kettlekicker has said that sometimes he accidentally uses Andy's machine when AS is still logged into CP, he might actually be doing it by accident. It's hard to imagine Andy calling someone "dude" (unless he knows the other poster irl and is very casual with them?) ħumanUser talk:Human 14:25, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
He actually has done so before Kettlekin started contributing while defending his points: [7]. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 14:43, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Anyone over the age of 16 who calls me DUDE (or Dudess or whatever), will receive the sharp side of my tongue (that's tongue as in language btw)SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:46, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
What if they call you "Big Sky Juju Babe"? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:53, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

undent

As my mother used to say: "Call me anything but late for dinner." SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:56, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

I was never actually clear on the exact implication of that expression... Is it that you're always prompt, so no one should ever have reason to accuse you of tardiness? Or would "calling you late for dinner" entail calling you for dinner after such calling should already have been done, thus setting you up for a cold dinner through no fault of your own? I'd expect the latter, but the phrasing seems bizarre. UchihaKATON! 15:27, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
It is the latter. The bizarre phrasing is no doubt the result of making it parallel with the "you can call me anything you want but . . ." prefix. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 16:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Talk about having your cake and eat it too. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I know. There ain't nothing cooking but the beans in the pot. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 17:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, it's actually 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' (along with the rhyming part about exceptions, such as words like 'neigh' and 'weigh', etc.) Hooray for homeschool educators! Sandman 20:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Its funny, I didn't even notice until now, re-reading this thread, that Andy did totally f up that trick. "I am so smart ... s-m-r-t" - Andy Schafly. Jrssr5 10:48, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Over and Under[edit]

Um...I meant that "2 cents worth" is more than the actual value of Ed's thoughts. Do you think they're more valuable for some reason? --Kels 15:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

No: I just thought that with all that edumification and such, he ought to be charging MORE for his invaluable (or do I mean valueless?) opinions. - It's intended to be snarky - feel free to revert. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:35, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Mmm, I think I might. I just can't make sense of the snark as it is. --Kels 15:59, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
I did one some time ago that said something along the lines of "Ed's 2¢...you've got change coming." CЯacke® 00:38, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Insulting[edit]

I know, I know, Operation Chaos. But why in God's name does the Mainpageright say that Obama "claims" to have won the Democratic nomination? By that logic, McCain only "claims" to have won the Republican primary! Is there no shame? Obama passed the "magic number" 2118, which means he IS the de facto nominee.

Then again, I hear the weather is very nice Up Your Ass. Lyra § talk 23:24, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

That's only 'cuz Ed's been blowing sunshine up there. --Kels 00:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not only CP saying the "claim" thing though, and until Billary Clinton finally decides to give up the ghost, it's kinda accurate. Bondurant 07:52, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
He has the delegates, I don't see why he hasn't won... Lyra § talk 08:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
The fat lady hasn't sung yet. I.e. the Democratic party convention hasn't taken place, so I assume that Hillary is either hoping that some of the delegates will change their position, or else she is holding out to strengthen her chance of becoming VP. Incidentally, the BBC also says "claims." That's the same BBC which, according to CP has institutionalised Librul (and anti-Israeli) bias. Bondurant 08:57, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Correct @ Bondurant. Anyway, "claim" is a rather broad word. Sure, at one level, it is used to disparage an assertion (Dawkins claims to be a professor), but it also can imply a very strong position (after presenting the winning ticket, he claimed his lottery winnings). A "claim" can be an outlandish statement (Andy claims to understand logic), or a stringent legal device (after processing the claim, we went to work hard at our new mine). ħumanUser talk:Human 13:46, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Presumptive nominee is the term I hear that most accurately decribes McCain. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 14:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
And according to this morning's CNN, presumptive is also the term that applies to Obama until he is officially endorsed at the national convention. (Hope I've got my terminology right). Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:42, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Whinging again...[edit]

I check out WIGO every few days to keep up... right now, it looks like 5 or so of the first 6 or 7 links all go to the same discussion at Bias in WP talk, re:Ireland. Do the golks adding these things ever read what others are adding, or does everyone just add any diff they think is half a laugh and keep on hitting RC at CP for the next one? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't speak for everyone... but it seems like every time I follow a WIGO link, I notice something else worth posting... Andy seems to jump from one conversation from another and always adds something (unintentionally) funny to the conversation. However, if we were to update an old WIGO everytime, it would soon become incredibly long and hard to follow. So I usually follow the rule of if it's a continuation of a previous WIGO, I update. If it's something new,even if it's from the same conversation, I tend to make a new one. That's my style anyway SirChuckBCall the FBI 01:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I think a little editing is wise. Right now there's three WIGO's to the Ireland shenanigans. It's a bit much, and the WIGO's would be be better if they were more concentrated. DogP 02:50, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps all you need really is a photo of Andy, that really hideous one he had on his talk for awhile. Ace McWicked 04:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps ;). One thing that might help (not that we'll ever do it...) would be if WIGO items actually said what they are about (so many read like "Oh, no, not again!"), making it much easier for the erstwhile editor to see there's a place to add a new comment. Since if I follow one to a talk page, I usually follow the diffs for a bit, when the next couple I click on bring up the same talk page I at least get confused... Oh well. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:42, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
But then we lose a lot of opportunity for delicious snark.... I will agree that we should try to keep the snark somewhat related to the item we're posting... I try to do so though I admit I don't always do thatSirChuckBCall the FBI 14:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
When is WIGO gonna jump a snark? BeastmasterGeneral 17:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
There's a while yet. We've only just started the second series. ;) --Robledo 19:10, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Alfred123[edit]

Must be a parodist? Either that, or the ghost of Hendrik Verwoerd is stalking CP. [8][9] --PsygremlinWhut? 09:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Goddamn Poes Law - I've been following his edits and trying to figure out if he's a parodist or an apartheid apologist. I'm more and more convinced it's the latter...PFoster 09:15, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
The guy's genuine. He's one of a breed that's been in existence for all time in the UK. If Hitler began his rise today this vomitbag would be right behind him (G's Law, I know - sorry) SusanG  ContribsTalk 09:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Sigh. [People who look up to Ian Smith http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Alfred123&curid=67040&diff=467016&oldid=466970] make me sad.PFoster 10:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
And Verwoerd! - Not linking - makes me feel ILL to see it once. SusanG  ContribsTalk 10:11, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
(I always remember the Private Eye cover "A Nation Mourns" on the death of Verwoerd in 1966(?) - It showed a quartet of tribal dancers leaping joyously in the air) SusanG  ContribsTalk 10:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
First one to yell "racist troll" on CP (and get Karajou's attention, hopefully) gets a solid gold jellyfish figurine. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 10:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

AliceBG[edit]

Close, but no figurine! :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 10:50, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
WE HAVE A WINNER! Sadly, I have no such figurine, so you'll have to settle for a Ford Escort. Thanks for playing! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you kind sir. I demand my prize! HaroldMander11:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I thought you woz AliceBG, akshully.
No parallel entries! Disqualified, I think :P <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Heh! The Creationist pillock doesn't like me! Boo Hoo SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:19, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm more concerned about his "trusting liberals about figurines" comment. Cheek! I've got half a mind to remove you from my "good guys" list, Philip :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Philip here. Your failure to provide a jellyfish figurine when one was clearly promised reflects badly on us all. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 11:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I can't believe I'm having this discussion. Bearing in mind there's no such thing as a solid gold jellyfish figurine, what kind of prize would you like, Susan? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:30, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Might not be solid gold, but this is still pretty cool. --Kels 20:45, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
It's lovely; that'll do for me Jellyfish. (Oh he's out playing with ken - I'll get him when he comes home.) SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
The disapprobation of PJR is enough! Thank you. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
But you disapprobatize him all the time! Not a real prize! I can't fall back on empty gestures like that when my honour is being impugned by fundemantalists like AKjeldsen! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:36, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent)

The fascist bastard's being ganged up on now anyhow! SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm a little disappointed that he wasn't banhammered outright. Isn't that normally what happens to nazis on CP? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 11:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah, but he did proclaim himself a Xian Conservative too, so I guess that covers for the fact that they've got another vicious little Nazi on their blog. I see he's comparing Mandela to Bin Laden now. What makes it more ironic is the spotty little skinhead says he's 15, so he was basically born after apartheid died. Makes it even sadder, really. I'm still holding a small candle for the parodist, although if he is, he's a pretty twisted one. --PsygremlinWhut? 11:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Ye gods! - Hadn't realised he was only 15 - what sort of upbringing has the poor little sod had? SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Just because he can find fascist sources for his fascist ideas he seems to think that makes his point. Aaaaargh! wanna go back!SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:06, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
The little neonazi's parents are somewhat lacking. A fifteen year old still on t'internet at 2:00 am [10] - what do the other Conservapedians think of that, I wonder. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
You may have won the challenge, but I'm not rewarding you with tasteless jellyfish nudes. And Ken is surprisingly slow. I'm amazed. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 21:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Alice ought to take his youth & probably sleep deprived condition into account when patronising him quite so overtly. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:11, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
In other news, Kenservative has locked his talkpage rather than talk to me. Nice one, Ken. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 21:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
(to be fair Jelly [may I call you Jelly?] you were only taking the piss! SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:24, 5 June 2008 (EDT))
You may indeed. I thought I was being quite friendly, actually, all things considered. At least I can add Ken to my "Sysops I've been blocked by" list, now... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 21:29, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Alice might also ask the little know-all fascist what he knows about US support, financial and moral as well as in the supply of arms, for Irish terrorism. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Nazi Junior is really hammin' it up over there. My favorite bit "The argument that violence is okay in some cases but not in others cannot stand up." Nice. So, if it's okay to use violence to defend your child from an attack by a raving lunatic, then it must also be acceptable to kill every living thing you see. Anything else, apparently, is the paragon of hypocrisy. So, is this guy for real? Or is he just 65 years too late to join the Hitler Youth? DickTurpis 21:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

One step too far?[edit]

He's now reverted DanH's deletion of his stuff SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:57, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, he's almost certainly heading for a block if he caries on like that. Silly rabbit. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 21:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus Christ - there's no arguing with racists - especially when they've learnt "The History of South Africa for Racist Dummies" inside out...PFoster 22:01, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

The trouble with a lot of the people on Conservapedia, particularly PJR & now Alfred123 is that they are by and large one trick ponies. They've got their area of expertise and they've really researched it (their viewpoint, that is). Anyone trying to counter them has to be just as knowledgeable. With the majority of normal people, who have a life, including Ratwickians, this is a problem as we're at odds with them on all fronts, from gun control to creation, at the same time. I think that we're generally pretty knowledgeable over all but lack the focussed depth of these idealogues. SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
normal people, who have a life, including Ratwickians: isn't this a contradiction in terms? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:42, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

I actually do have quite an in depth knowledge on South Africa (how about that folks) and could easily take on Alfred123 the little nationalistic little prick, because he is quite provable wrong and unlike PJR he has no infallible bible to fall back on. He's only 15 so i could beat the crap out of him too. Ace McWicked 05:11, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, he's back, so you are welcome. By the way, is night editing being lifted earlier than usual? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:40, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
AdenJ & Murray are a bit worried about him: telling ASchlafly and cleaning up the shit the little pig's left behind him. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:20, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

And he's gone[edit]

Kajagoogoo bans and deletes the little Nazi. Never thought I'd say this, but "Well done, Karajou!" --PsygremlinWhut? 12:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, credit where credits due. Ace McWicked 17:00, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

LOL[edit]

If anyone has some free time (and a strong stomach) I would suggest going here and reading the comments added.... It's funny in a sad sort of way.. the only think I could think of was King me

Sad, yes. Although it's good to have a window on what "the other side" thinks. Don't we have another WIGO for that sort of thing? Not WIGO 4R, another one? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, it could be a A(a)TSPWIGO? DogP 15:25, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
It's here. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
And for more fun... check This video out.... This is from a debate between Al Franken and Ann Coulter aa few years ago....enjoy, I know I did. SirChuckBCall the FBI 20:25, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Islam is not a religion[edit]

This time I think the-user-formerly-known-as-Bohdan is right. It's just a Category mess, with Islam belonging to category:Islam, which belongs to category:Abrahamic religions, which belongs to category:Religion. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 15:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Let me explain my pov here... The issue isn't so much that Islam is not in the cat... in my opinion, the fact that it was deleted from the category intentionally when everything else is in there... including some crazy shit.... my two cents anyway SirChuckBCall the FBI 16:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
It is just category messification. It is categorized correctly, and even has it's own subcat. Trouble is all that other clutter that should be in subcats, but I don't think they ever really decided how to handle things like that - probably because Poor Ed and TK were in charge of it? Also, their "subject Terms D" etc. things are their historic organizing system, so they are screwed. But I don't think it's a very good WIGO. All I have to do is vote it down, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Agree with all that. Even though it may look silly at first glance, it is perfectly logical, and it's also the same system used at Wikipedia. Imho we should remove this entry, we shouldn't mock CP for things like this, because then we wouldn't be better than they are. Etc 17:12, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I won;t fight too hard... I just dislike deletion without discussion... If the consensus is delete... Kill it SirChuckBCall the FBI 17:19, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't delete, comment out[edit]

As Sid's found out, just deleting an existing entry can fuck things up - It says, quite clearly, that unwanted entries should be COMMENTED OUT. SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

PJR is a total Numpty[edit]

i find it amazing the PJR thinks thinks that Time Magazine has a pro-evolution bias. Isnt it a political magazine? And why cant he figure that creation, specifically YEC, is NOT an accepted scientific posistion and hence science magazine dont report it? What an utter fucking teacup. Ace McWicked 17:34, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

"Either you're with us, or you're against us." is the operative thought here, I suspect. And since Time fails to preface every article on biology with a three-page Creationist disclaimer, they MUST be a bunch of raving zealots of the Cult Of Our Savior Darwin the Naturally Selected. --Gulik 18:12, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

i was thinking that everytime a news report or mmagazine or newspaper says anything like 'A fossil dated 100,000 yrs' or 'A crater was discovered in the Pacific from an impact 10,000,000 yrs ago was discovered' PJR must sit there and scream at the TV "Teach the controvery". Does he think that any thing on the news like that should followup with "...yet others believe..". If so we are in for some long news broadcasts. Ace McWicked(not signed in) 203.96.84.33 18:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Being generally polite doesn't keep him from being a tool Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 18:46, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

his politness makes him even more of a tool. At least if he was a karajou-jou type he would be easier to pwn but his infuriating politness is, well, infuriating. Also, this Alfred123 is a bit concerning. I wonder if he has evcer been to South Africa. I have been there twice and my girl is South African (white South African) and most inner-city, white and weathly South Africans have a total disdain and shame for the former colonial past. Plus this garbage about not blacks being the Transvaal before the Boers is ridiculous. Ace McWicked 203.96.84.33 19:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Not on its own. But being consistently polite, civil, patient, decent, even-tempered and willing to debate his opponents does. In spades. Let him be. --Robledo 19:23, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
True. If he ran CP, we'd all be over there debating this stuff with our original usernames, and there'd probably be no RW. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't agree with PJR's YEC and inherent rightness of Christianity beliefs but he is incessantly civil, speaks up against Andy's gunophilia and doesn't block for spurious reasons. We may mock him for what he believes, but despite that I believe he's probably a decent bloke that would probably help you out if you needed it. Unlike Andy who would just step over you, and probably wouldn't even give a liberal atheist the time of day, let alone 10¢. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Would it be selfish of me to say that I'm glad he doesn't run CP then? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Unlike Andy who would just step over you, and probably wouldn't even give a liberal atheist the time of day, let alone 10¢...y'know, I'm not so sure 'bout that. Like I told Kettlelick once, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between the real human being that is Andy Schlafly and teh Assfly, which is a persona that the CP project and its detractors have played at least some role in creating. these Charlie Church guys are often nice to a fault, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that you're on a short road to Hell. PFoster 20:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy (we presume) wouldn't give 10¢ to the smoker in his Conservative parables and there has been research that many priests actually stepped over a guy supposedly in trouble, on their way to deliver a lecture on The Good Samaritan. (Don't have the refs to hand but it was cite in a book called Quirkology.)

The Dinner is Tonight...[edit]

And here I was wondering why it was so quiet over there. Looks like Conservative couldn't make it, he seems to be the only heavyweight editing over there. Well, him and Alfred with his Parade of Apartheid Heroes. Wonder what's on the menu? Ribs? PFoster 19:47, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Eve's rib, probably. DogP 21:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Tonight? Aw fuck, I had half a mind to go. Well, maybe next time. Fuzzy, you there now? If so, tell us how it went. DickTurpis 21:36, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
It was from 6:00pm to 9:30pm (EST). It takes me half an hour to get there. I left early because I wasn't too sure when it began (was told 3 different times to mess me up).
It also takes me half an hour to get to the Schlafly's house. =-= Candlewick 11:38, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Can Joaquin get any more dishonest?[edit]

Seriously, check out his 1-month block of Tom Moore, for simply removing some of the garbage from a bad article, which he'd been encouraged to do. --Kels 21:47, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Jellyfish! NightFlareSpeak, mortal 22:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Uh, yes Nightflare? Did you want to speak to me, or have you simply discovered the joy of shouting the word jellyfish? It is joyous, I know. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 22:18, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
No, but the block log reminded me of jellyfishes, the link is on Kel's comment. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 22:23, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't know what to think of Joaquin. He seems so lost. Like Ken, I see him as an adult with the mind of an adolescent. Here's a guy who can't grasp the concept of painting, which most of us understood quite well by the time we were 5. I mean, does he realize he's giving his time and effort to a bunch of people who would likely put a bullet in his head if they saw him running towards the border? DickTurpis 22:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Wonder if he gets a charge out of banhammering a gringo? SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:16, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I stood up for Tom on Joaquin's Talk page, so start the block countdown for DinsdaleP in 4,3, 2... --SpinyNorman 22:22, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, what a dishonest, self-serving little turd Joaquin is. His response to you is lying at best. --Kels 22:37, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Er, what happened to Kels' first link there? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

No clue, I don't think it was that before. It's supposed to be Tom Moore's block log. --Kels 22:36, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I was wondering the same thing, but I can picture it quite well. I have a feeling he cut/pasted the wrong thing. I have an inkling of what she was looking for when she made her error. And looking at the edit history, it was your mistake, Kels. So be it. DickTurpis 22:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Fixed, then. --Kels 22:46, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

In other news[edit]

Go Dan! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 22:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Gotta love Bodhan there, saying he asked the guy to improve the article, but he shouldn't have kept improving the article 'cuz that's outta line. Editing over there is like running in a mine field. --Kels 22:58, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, I just checked the 4th June revision, the one from right before Tom got to work. One would think it was a 6th grade history assignment. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 23:01, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Just went over JM's talk page and noticed this hilarious bit of deceit:
“”He has been warned 2 times not to delete valuable materials. Sometimes I spend hours searching for them. It is not fair to loose this work just because some one does not care.
Hours, JM? You spend hours to find... things to copypaste from Wikipedia or the first few Google hits for randomly related search terms? Seriously, what the fuck.
Someone on CP has to realize that JM does nothing more than rabid copy-pasting from copyrighted sources. All those mostly-italics sections and the Mysterious Blockquotes are completely copied, and most of his other sentences are extremely minor rephrases of other sources. And yet, he is praised as being one of the greatest editors on the site. Hell, even Conservative is a more valuable editor, even though his articles are simply chains of "Regarding [subject], [name] stated that [quote]" with highly cherry-picked and quote-mined sources.
And even when you look beyond that, it doesn't get better since this is an open admission that he abused his powers because of a petty content dispute normal people would hit the talk page for. But not our JM, noooo, he's above justifying his copy-pasting! Bah. --Sid 05:50, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
No bullying Sid, or you'll be blocked. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:01, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I think we're missing a "valuable" point here - Tom didn't delete anything, he just removed it from the page. It doesn't undo any particular work by JM at all. The image is still uploaded, which Tom is incapable of changing, so it's not like it's lost.
When I think of JM, I think of that old anti-drug commercial with the father and the kid who says "I learned it by watching you!" JM seems to be trying to emulate his compatriots, but over such piddily shit like a non-painting in "Painting" rather than, say, a list of the dead in "Hollywood values."
On a side note, JM is a novelist? Please tell me it's not in English. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Of course, he can make sculptures like nobody's business. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:12, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Entities[edit]

Wtf.gif is this all about? SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm. They seem to be some kind of entities... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 23:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

A Largely Successful Event of Dinner[edit]

intro[edit]

Half of the Conservapedian leadership

  • 3 or 4 people

came together for a successful event tonight filling the hall and hearing six talks

  • the hall at Andys between the kitchen and lounge

. A public school student

  • Phyllis S

mentioned that she had used Conservapedia to help her complete an assignment concerning a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • Which was taught and marked by Andy himself.

Ace McWicked 23:31, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

wait, what - his daughter goes to PUBLIC SCHOOL!?!?!?! No freakin' way.PFoster 00:03, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
  • TerryH = creepy. I should've taken a picture.. :(
  • The hall was rather big. It's the upstairs level of a firehouse.. included a dancefloor (not much dancing however)
    • 9 per table * 20+ tables total = at least 150 people attended
  • My wife does not use CP to do her homework, and she hasn't studied the Supreme Court yet.
    • I don't think I noticed the student... she wasn't sitting at my table.

=-= Candlewick 00:11, 6 June 2008 (EDT) The food was awesome!

I love carrot cake :( Wish I was a Conservapedian...<font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 00:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Do live anywhere near Northern NJ? =-= Candlewick 00:21, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Ooooh, I'm around NYC... Lyra § talk 00:24, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
@Kettles: not even close, sadly. I shall expect my carrot cake by mail.
@Lyra: Not planning to practise deceit, I hope? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 00:30, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
And what's this "disturbing ending" you mention, Kettlewick? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 00:32, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Mentioned where? --SpinyNorman 09:33, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
In an edit summary. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 10:03, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
That's interesting, Kettleticket, I wasn't expecting so many people, but I suppose most attendees were his homeskoolerz and their parents? Other than Creepy Terry, who was there? Glorpus (aka Ed)? I don't suppose Himmler and Heydrich were there (Karajou and Crock-o-shite). Oh, and does your better half go to public school? How is it that Andy can bash public school constantly, literally dismissing all such students as dumb, and not at least send his daughter to private school? Crazy. DickTurpis 09:51, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
It is not what Ashfly does that is important but what he says Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 10:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent)[edit]

The "disturbing ending" was this breast surgeon talking about puberty, breasts increasing, and menopause... with little kids around (aka homeschoolers without sex education). One homeschooler couldn't stop giggling (a guy), and another homeschooler said, "What? Are you making fun of my small breasts?!"
Yes, attendance consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Schlafly, Phyl, myself, the homeschoolers (I will be one in the fall, xD), their parents, and their siblings.
The private school ordeal you speak of, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to specify the reasoning of that. =-= Candlewick 11:23, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the information (though you've just given away one of the six parts of the contest below, no matter (c'mon guys, how could you not have guessed breast cancer? It's a gimme!)). No need to go into details of why your significant other is public schooled; I was just looking for confirmation that she is. Lacking any other details, I will use it to mock Andy as a hypocrite, however. Nothing against Phyl; she's probably getting a better education this way. Now, um, you're going to be homeschooled in the Fall? Or jut taking one of Andy's classes? Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. And you were doing so well....
Sad.
sad.
DickTurpis 11:35, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm taking one of Andy's classes so he can hopefully, when the time arrives, approve of me marrying Phyl. I also have three other reasons:
  1. To see Phyl more
  2. To prove I'm not a dumb public schooler
  3. To attend the homeschool parties
She attends one college course each semester for transfer credits.. does that count as public school?
I forgot who was a sysop. Ashclafly, DavidR, DeborahB, BenjaminS, BethanyS, PhilipB, SharonS, TerryH were the ones I noticed. =-= Candlewick 11:56, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Aw fuck. I forgot you can unblock yourself. Human, make me a bureaucrat so I can desysop Kettleticket for the duration of his 5 minute blocks, so he actually has to sit them out like a good boy. Anyway, if all Phyl does is take one college course then, no, I guess that's not attending public school. How does she get the rest of her education? So will you attend public school next year, and if so, how will you get away for Andy's class each week (or are they after school hours)? Oh, and I gotta say, doing anything so one can "attend the homeschool parties" just strikes me as hilarious, for some reason. Those homeschoolers must throw the awesomest parties (giggling uncontrolably at the word "breast"). DickTurpis 11:58, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm a college student, it's where I met Phyl (in person); I purposely scheduled my six classes (17 credits) to revolve around seeing her. Well, her friends said I couldn't after I attended one [homeschool party], so I hope I could get along with them better if I force myself into their "society". Infiltration!
Phyl receives her education from tutors and her parents. =-= Candlewick 12:02, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, so you're in college. Sorry, I thought you were still in high school. This clears stuff up. And if Phyl does get her education from tutors and her parents, and takes one college class, then yeah, I guess that counts as homeschooled. One less thing I can make fun of Andy for now (only 4356723856487239 left). Won't you feel a bit out of place in Andy's class? It seems most of them are substantially younger.
And what did her friends say you couldn't? That sentence isn't very clear. DickTurpis 12:17, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
4.3 quintillion things?! Dang.
Sure, I might feel out of place, but since he called me out on the 25/50 final exam for his American Government class (which I took for fun and didn't think he would say, "Oh look, everyone in my class did better than someone in public school), I felt I have to prove I'm not a dumb public schooler like he makes everyone in his class think. I never took American Government, nor have I had any care for it. I don't like politics. =-= Candlewick 12:39, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
They said you couldn't attend their parties? Sounds pretty snobby to me. Never knew homeschoolers were so elitist.
50% on the final exam? Not that good. Is that posted somewhere where I can try it? If I recall I did well on his mid-term. Anyway, it's hardly fair to compare results on a final exam between people who took the class and those who haven't. Even if you had taken a American government class somewhere else, I'm sure Andy stresses much different aspects than most teachers. DickTurpis 13:01, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, it was more like, "No, Jon, you shouldn't attend.."
cp:American Government Final Exam. I actually think I did pretty well for someone who didn't take the course. This fall will be different, it's American History and I think I was the only one to pay attention in all three years of classes of my high school... I was the only one to voluntarily answer questions. =-= Candlewick 13:13, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
That test is pretty easy except for the questions that are extremely biased (although you can still see where Andy's going - i.e. affirmative action) or the ones specifically about homeschooling or other bullshit. BeastmasterGeneral 13:39, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Where can you find the answers? If I'm lucky I'll get at least 15 right. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 13:45, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I just took it (pretty sure I took it before). I don't know exactly how well I did without an answer key (or looking up the answers elsewhere), but most of it is pretty easy, with a few more difficult questions on specific terms. I know I missed at least 3, but I don't think I missed more than 8 or so. But I guess if you didn't take the class, and you have no interest in or keen knowledge of politics (which would explain why you're conservative ;)) you can't be expected to do well. Good luck on history though. I hope you're looking forward to learning how liberals have been the cause of all the country's woes for over 200 years. DickTurpis 14:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Hey, I'm apathetic-liberal/liberal-conservative. I only really remember the miscellaneous stuff. Alaska is the eastern most state and Ray Kroc = McDonald's. =-= Candlewick 15:08, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Holy shit. You use the "L" word to describe yourself? There goes any chance of getting her father's consent. Luckily that's not needed so much these days. And what the hell is a "liberal-conservative"? Would that be "moderate"? "Libertarian"? I guess the "apathetic" is the operative word. We can solve this easily, with the official 3-question political binary result test:
  1. Do you believe in censorship of prayer in public schools?
  2. Do you believe in taxpayer-funded abortion?
  3. DO you believe in every person's right to own a largely defensive weapon of gun?
Who you spend the rest of your life with may well hinge on your answer to these questions. Think carefully. DickTurpis 15:51, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
My answer to all 3... "hunh?"
I'm liberal-conservative due to: minor evolution/adaption, pro-life, using the term "cooperative living" in place of "gay marriage". =-= Candlewick 15:57, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

(UNDENT) - You know, Kettlelick, your comment above really struck me - where else in the world does believing, even in a limited degree in evolution have any bearing on one's liberalism? That's pretty messed up, when you consider it - that a political ideology is associated with belief in accepted scientific principles - I would argue that there are very few self-styled "conservatives" in most of the world who don't accept the theory of evolution. PFoster 16:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Diplomatic answers there, Kettleticket. Nice. So you're not YEC (good) and maybe a bit more Behe than PJR. Pro-life (I assume that's a must in the Schlafly household), and prefer gays have civil unions over Gay Bowel Syndrome. Not bad. Practicing Christian, I assume. You didn't answer the gun question at all, but I assume you believe in gun ownership rights, but with some restrictions. I'm guessing you're going to vote for McCain, but don't think Bush is doing a great job. Not the ideal son-in-law, but not too bad. I wonder if Andy reads this. DickTurpis 16:12, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I am 97.4356% certain that Dick is spot on in his analysis.PFoster 16:14, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmm.. I agree with Young Earth though. And I wouldn't even like calling it Civil Union... cooperative living is my preferred term. I was pro-IdunnoIduncare, but a dream I had changed me to pro-life. I also learned something nice and found out that Andy once disregarded his politics to pursue something else.. amazing!
I think Andy already likes me, I just have to find out if there's anything, even if it's minor, that he doesn't like. =-= Candlewick 19:08, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I almost hate to lead the discussion in this direction, as it can tend to lead pleasant discussions in less pleasant directions, but I'm wondering how you believe in both a 6000 year old Earth and evolution (albeit limited). I gotta admit, pro-YEC views make me lose a tiny amount of respect for you (but if I found out you gave a shit about my respect, I'd lose a lot more respect for you, so it's okay). I certainly understand the pro-life position (though I'm rather inclined to disagree with it), but YEC, well, I won't dwell on it.
As for taking Andy's class, I don't want to be too discouraging about it, as it isn't my business at all, but if you're doing it just to spend more time with your lady and to go to some parties (parties there is no logical reason for you to be excluded form already), I have to wonder if that's really a good reason to do so. I imagine Andy is smart enough (in at least one sense of the word) to know there's nothing to be gained letting the class be a cause of tension between you and him, that being a bad thing for everyone (especially Phyl), so I'm not too worried about a "Behold! The ignorant public school student!" situation. Intellectually/academically, I think there's nothing to be gained, however. On the other hand, if you've already committed to taking the class, backing out (particularly for anything that could be construed as an ideological reasons) could be a cause of tension. If you do take the class, my advice is to remain (mostly) silently skeptical, and not take it to seriously. Don't blow it off completely, but don't put much into it. You're in college, homeschool class aimed at teens and tweens isn't going to help you in any meaningful way. But why listen to me? I'm a nameless asshole on an internet site whose raison d'etre is to mock your potential father-in-law. DickTurpis 00:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Its trivial to back out - have a class that is required for your (intended) major overlap Andy's class. --Shagie 03:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't do it[edit]

Far be it for me to try to advise anyone on anything regarding relationships, if it isn't too late - back out of takeing that class. Yes, you would get to see PS more, but there is a difference between 'more' and 'too often'. Secondly, if Conservapedia is anything like Andy teaches his classes, you will either be held out as an example for wrong/liberal answers or when you argue a point with him (and win) he will 'ban' you. Conservapedia thats a minor annoyance - real life that could take the form of "I forbid my daughter to see you." On the subject of homeschool parties, point out that if you shouldn't attend (as the date of someone who is there) counter with 'should homeschoolers be allowed to participate in public school things such as sport or academic events?" Consider also that by next year, many of the homeschoolers will be dispersed to the ends of the country at different colleges, and PS will not be taking classes there either (think I got the ages right) and there won't be homeschool parties. The downsides of annoying Andy (in this case, it is a downside) compared to the upside of spending more time with PS likely weigh more on the downside. --Shagie 19:01, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm quite surprised to be saying this, but I think you're overestimating Andy's meanness, Shagie. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 19:09, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Not if he's as mean in reality as he is in CP. (Though from what I can tell with Kek's comments, this is not the case.) NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:22, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm sure he's much nicer in real life. We get a distorted viewpoint from associating him with his political views around the clock. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 19:24, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure about that. It wouldn't be so hard to not associate him with his political views if he didn't associate his political views with pretty much everything. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 19:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I prefer not to argue with people, so I will probably be avoiding any/all confrontation. I was shut-down as a public schooler for my wrong answers, so you won't see much hand raisins from me either.
And according to my parents, I already see her enough. On a typical week, I would see her for 2 hours every day. On Monday, that amount shall increase!
There will be homsechool parties... still many students left.
I never really talk to Mr. Schlafly. Maybe an occasional "Hey, <insert my real name here>." or "What did you think of <insert event here>?" =-= Candlewick 19:20, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
There is a fine line between devotion and stalking, and between interest and obsession. I'd agree with Shagie on not taking Andy's classes in order to be close to Phyllis and suck up to Andy. It could easily backfire on you badly. Also, your reactions at this moment are not necessarily your reactions in six months, since at your age you're finding yourself in much different intellectual environments from high school. Don't count on always being as passive, people do change and sometimes dramatically. --Kels 19:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm basing my "don't do it" on a few things:

  1. Andy will take any opportunity he can get to prove that homeschooling is better than public schooling.
  2. Andy would take it poorly to have someone challenge his indoctrination of homeschoolers
  3. Someone with independent thought would take it badly to sit through such an indoctrination
  4. Sophomore year is one that weighs fairly heavily on getting into a degree program - writing papers for Andy's class that you won't be getting credit for won't help you. Maybe you could find a prof that would given independent study or undergrad seminar credit - but if you do, take it pass fail.
  5. Seeing a person too much can be hazardous to a budding relationship

I suspect that Andy can be reasonably pleasant in the family environment. But once you switch to an environment where there is only one right answer (his) and lastwordism and 90/10 would factor in (I remember HS history classes where people debated an issue for an entire week (3 classes) that wasn't part of the lesson plan from the start of the semester) this isn't the environment where you want to spend time to impress anyone. With #1,2,3 I don't think that Andy would be 'mean' as such, but rather asking awkward questions that he can't handwave away would meet with some disapproval. --Shagie 20:00, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Rationalwiki: Internet Academic Advising
That being said, I do agree with the above comments, I think Shagie made some point worth thinking about. And Kektklik: would Phyl really want you jeapordizing your education to spend just a little more with her? Well, I don't know if it necessarily would have a negative effect, but if it might then that's something to consider. UchihaKATON! 02:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Do it[edit]

You know what I mean. "get to know one another better" before making lifelong decisions, kids. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I've probably spent an entire week's worth of hours over her house.
And I hope you're not implying anything crude, because I am not one for that. =-= Candlewick 12:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't do it![edit]

Kettlelick, a word of advice: your REALLY need to stop talking about your relationships in general, and THIS ONE in specific on online forums. Your girlfriend is family to someone that many people who come here consider to be an ideological enemy. While I'm pretty certain that the regulars here would never do anything that would embarrass you, and more importantly HER, you have no idea who else is reading this and how what you write here could come back and bite you in the ass. Read what people say about Mr. Schlafly on this site - go poking around in the edit histories for really nasty, unfounded cracks at him....do you think the people who do that sort of thing wouldn't be thrilled to use your relationship with this girl to score a cheap point? Seriously, for your own good, as well as hers, and yes, Schlafly's, stop it...PFoster 12:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
What he said. Twice. SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) Sadly, we jellyfish must agree with FPoster here. Although we're a little annoyed that he and Susan left us nothing new to add. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 12:50, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Ibid and amen. I find it fascinatingly bad form for Jon aka Kektklik to be using the supposed "lovling" as (what amounts to) troll-bait. It will end badly. I am tempted to "archive" this all but will refrain due to extreme laziness. 13:13, 7 June 2008 (EDT) CЯacke®
I'll second the idea. I won't do it quite yet, despite sometimes being the rash sort, until I see it affirmed by at least one more person, so we've got some justification. --Kels 13:15, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Thirded. As the guy who brought this up in the first place, I think it should be memory-holed. That being said, we don't "do" that - so maybe one of the BIG FISH can do it? PFoster 13:19, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Quick contest[edit]

This should be fun. Without looking at CP's main page talk, who can guess the topics covered by the 6 presentations at the dinner event. If you've already seen it, you cannot enter. State your guesses below (it's not difficult, really). DickTurpis 09:55, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Home schooling, Abortion, Liberal Rectal Cancer? RedDog 10:28, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Gun control. Abortion. Something homophobic. Maybe, presidential election? The evil of public schooling. Not sure what I'd pick for a sixth. Is it a trick question, and the six topics were all just on guns or abortion? Alt 10:31, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
That's quite good. Two are exactly right, two are basically right, and only one seems to have not been discussed. Let us not forget Andy's favorite issues. DickTurpis 10:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Hollywood values!! Dmyerken 10:56, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Aww.. but I don't remember all the speakers. Hmmm... I didn't realize there were 6 presentations... I guess that's when I was making a deviation for dA. =-= Candlewick 11:31, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm just going by what Andy said. It's a bit unfair for you to enter, as you have inside information. But you're basically right, of course: Abortion, guns, breast cancer (and abortion, I'm hoping he mentioned Hollywood too, that would be fuckin great), gay marriage, and "the political process" or something vague like that. There's one more though, and it should be pretty obvious. Well, prepare for a minor pi block for breaking the spirit of the rules, if not the letter. Besides, it's 11:40 in a Friday, shouldn't you be in school? DickTurpis 11:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
By the way, what does "the 'keki' was 'oishii'" mean? DickTurpis 11:46, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and isn't the irony of asking you questions and while simultaneously blocking you delicious? More delicious than carrot cake, I'm sure. DickTurpis 11:47, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I believe both--'keki' (kay-key) and 'oishii' (oh-ee-she)--are Japanese for cake and delicious. I might be wrong about keki though. =-= Candlewick 11:49, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Never cared for carrot cake. Whose idea was it to put vegetables in a cake, anyway? I don't suppose they offered much in terms of vegetarian food, did they? DickTurpis 12:02, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Carrot cake is the food of the gods, Mr Turpis. Do not blaspheme in my presence! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 12:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Yup ke-ki is indeed cake. My 2c before kicking off my weekend. PsygremlinWhut? 12:08, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
They had a vegetable platter and salad. Nothing soy/tofu, unfortunately. =-= Candlewick 12:11, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I'm gonna play, haven't checked CP yet this morning. My vote goes to....Bias in Wikipedia/Censorship of Religion? DogP 12:15, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Of all of Andy's fave topics, the only one I see missing is ....vaccines????? PFoster 12:18, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
We have a WINNARRRR!!!! (prize pending) DickTurpis 12:21, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

""the 'keki' was 'oishii'""? The fangirl Japanese! It buuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrnnnnnnnsssss!!! --Kels 18:54, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

A Shout - Out to Karajou.[edit]

Thanks. You did the right thing.PFoster 12:20, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah. So when does Ed get banhammered? DickTurpis 12:21, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Or TerryH with his "multiculturalism"? NorsemanWassail! 12:25, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Chapter Five, in which I selfishly use TWIGO to send a message to PJR[edit]

Oh, come on! Am I not even allowed to just say "I told you so" to banned users now?? Grumble grumble grumble... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Tsubasa-Jelly 12:46, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

PJR and research and fixed views[edit]

I have to disagree with this one. PJR is not afraid of reading or debating opposing views to his own. Just because he sticks to his beliefs (like most people here do to theirs) doesn't mean he has a closed mind. 69.158.108.218 16:34, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Ignoring the post above me, and on a related note, I don't think that entry is WIGO worthy, as PJR is acutally doing something good (and yes, I mean good, not well); he's reprimanding another user (who might be a troll/sock/parody) for being racist and against mixed marriage, which is a position I don't think I've ever seen PJR hold. ThunderkatzHo! 16:38, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Agreed! But if you're ignoring my post why didn't you just write your comment in the post above it? 69.158.108.218 16:45, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm... not sure about that. Reading or debating opposing views to your own does not preclude having a closed mind. Not saying that PJR does, but many very ideologically-driven and close-minded people are remarkably well informed on the opposing view. You may find that PJR reads a lot on evolution, for example, having already decided that it's wrong but is doing so to formulate arguments against it. In fact, having seen his various postings, I would say that's exactly what he and people like Behe do as a matter of course. Ajkgordon 16:52, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
I didn't read the WIGO entry (?), but let me say it, if nobody else does: PJR is incredibly close minded. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 06:49, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
  1. ↑ "The Identity of the Unicorn"
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Archive51&oldid=484586"