Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive55

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <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>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <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)

More JM and Greek influence[edit]

I feel sorta bad laughing at this since English isn't JM's native tongue, but this edit cracked me up. While reading it, all I could think of was SLJ's line in Pulp Fiction: "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it??" Jrssr5 19:35, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I look at it this way: It's all about knowing your limits and working within them.
Icarus had wax wings, got too close to the Sun and died. The moral of that story was not that wax wings suck, it's that you shouldn't exceed your limits.
Likewise, simply being bad at English isn't too bad. However, being bad at English and then editing at an English-only project where "being good at English" is one of the key requirements is just plain idiotic. Sorry, but it's the truth. If your English sucks, stick to the talk pages. Suggest non-trivial changes there and let others do the editing. That is working within your limits. JM on the other hand is clearly ignoring his limits. He inserts incoherent crap and randomly copy-pasted material into articles and then refuses to listen to people who try to clean up his mess.
The main problem is that this particular Icarus will not die - Andy will simply move the Sun further away and slap down Daedalus for bullying poor Icarus. --Sid 20:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
He's not that bad... is he? 'cuz I'm not much better than him. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 01:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes he is. (Wrote a lot more but realised that I was sounding racist so deleted it. But he shouldn't be editing an English language project when his comprehension isn't up to it) SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:09, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
He's now protected (again) His epic Greek influence thing. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
The real joke of course is that if he moved in next door to any of our (CP's) sysops, they'd probably move heaven & earth to get him out! SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
And of course, we are only bringing this up because he is acting like an authoritarian prick. If he was struggling with the language to try to work with whatshisname to actually improve the article, we wouldn't even notice. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, it seems he gave up trying.Ganado = Cattle NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 09:08, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


It will be interesting to see if Bohdan's new crusade to make Conservapedia encyclopedic causes him to actually confront/butt heads with any of the other sysops. He almost offers to back up a delete request for Liberal Hysteria here, but that's a TK creation, not one of ASchlafly's brain-children-abortions. When it comes to Liberal Style, he merely advises a "delete discussion" (like that's been real effective in the past anyway). If it weren't Bohdan saying it, I'd say for sure "It's a trap!" but he's harder to predict than the others. Here's hoping. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I think Bohdan is only doing it because he thinks he's arguing with a Danishist. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
That's some good stuff, but I just have that gut feeling (where I get my facts from, not from here *points at brain*) it's a trap. Like telling someone to light a torch so they can read the letters on a barrel full of gunpowder. NorsemanWassail! 01:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Damn, my edit got crashed out. Weird. Anyway, nah, Bohdan loves to play, and whether that is "our" Danelander he is debating with or not, it looks just like what they do over here. Bohdan will protect him, he just loves a good round of wikilawyering. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


CP's stat page says 49M views, last I remember they were over 60M? Also, someone has been pumping atheism, over 3M. - Icewedge 02:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, as I recall Schlafly was boasting of 69M and change. Still is, in fact: "Conservapedia has had over 69,400,000 page views and over 470,000 page edits." ħumanUser talk:Human 13:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Kucinich, articles of impeachment[edit]

Moved to Debate:Should Dennis Kucinich have brought articles of impeachment against Bush

DLerner 23:06, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Catching Up[edit]

Atheism not a religion?

Reading all of the above it looks like I missed a lot of fun while I was away. However, I just noticed that this image advertising Ken's spank plank "featured article" on atheism rather undercuts the argument that atheism is a religion. Also as mentioned above, yesterday's pageview count was 69.4m but this morning only 49.1m. I wonder if CP's main page will be updated to reflect this? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 04:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


I love Phil as much as the next guy / gal. This is some of his best work. I bet he covered the screen as he typed some of those words. Matt 08:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

He even deleted what could be clean (or even propaganda) articles just because they're vaguely related to sex.Shangrala 08:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Idiotic, Phil. While I seriously doubt that anybody outside of Andy's homskulled class uses CP for research, any user of CP that wants to know what condoms are will have to look at those dark, deep rescesses of the interweb called Google or Wikipedia. Bondurant 09:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I needed that laugh, PJR doesn't like buttsex :) Isn't whore in the bible? Whore of Babylon? I wonder why they haven't blocked Sex and the city yet? Playboy? DLerner 10:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe we should set up a "red telephone" article for PJR to list all the naughty terms he should be protecting. I'd do it, but I'm at work and the firewall would probably pick up the concentration of bad words after a while. Bondurant 10:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
"Red Telephone 2: Telephone Harder."? Barikada 10:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Can someone tell me if the following link works, as I'm too chickent to try it from work: [1] If it works, then PJR could use it for research for all the pages he'll need to protect. Bondurant 10:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Ok, wait....his comment on the sausage article is hilarious and clearly innuendo. Unintentional humour, or intentional - You Decide! DogP 10:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski Dialogue Redux Reducks[edit]

So - why is it that after 24 hours, not a single old-school editor or sysop - not even lickspittles like Ed and Conservative - have signed on to Aschlafly's latest epistle to Lenski? Why are they hanging Fearless Leader out to dry with a bunch of red-link-username editors nobody cares about? PFoster 11:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Now that is a good question. Bondurant 12:09, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
And it might be worth noting that six of the current twelve intending signatories share their names with English professional footballers. Clearly a well-qualified bunch of biologists. GNUSMAS : TALK 12:11, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
While one of the others would appear to be a largely defensive weapon of gun. Interesting. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 12:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I do hope that you're not suggesting subterfuge. Gnusmas. SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
HOw come he deleted TVenables?? That was mine! I think he's on to us! Oh but I see someone has added KKegan. This is gold! I haven't laughed as much at CP since - well - last night actually. RedDog 13:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps you shouldn't have deleted some other esteemed signatories, eh? You would have got away with it otherwise. DogP 13:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Did I? Ooops. Just shows my poor wiki skills as I'm afraid that was a happy accident. RedDog 13:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh no. He hasn't got a clue has he? (One could actually say 'clueless') I almost feel sorry for him. RedDog 13:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
This one goes into Best of CP when it's done. Thought someone over there would have noticed by now, but the force has power over weak minds, ya know. --SpinyNorman 13:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Not my lucky day is it? Just had PGascoigne blocked too. Have to grudgingly admire his sense of humour though. 'The block was made by Bugler. The reason given is Parodist: haway back to Gateshead, Gazza.' RedDog 14:31, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

(Undent) - Schlafly finally got a couple of regulars aboard - Crocodile Rock and Multicultural TerryH. But, he's also PROUDLY trumpeting the fact that he's got 20 committed signatories, even though most of them are English soccer players. I almost feel sorry for the guy - how clueless can he be? PFoster 14:35, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Nadgers. Just had DMaradona blocked too. Bugler is obviously monitoring new accounts and doing a VERY fast (and actually quite funny) job of banning paradists. I'll leave it a bit and try again later. RedDog 14:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Andy's radar is not set to detect non-American football references, but Bugler seems to be on the case, all right. Time to switch context, perhaps? --SpinyNorman 14:42, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I think this will be being watched like a hawk and will be difficult to subvert further. Really looking forward to Andy having to delete the (many) paradists and reduce his count to about 3 including himseslf. To anyone who was more succesful than me at getting a name posted - thank you. You really made me laugh until I changed colour tonight. RedDog 14:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Back to 6. I think the party is over. RedDog 14:56, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Seems like he missed Aaron Ramsey though...still one to go. DogP 15:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Another irony--Lenski doesn't own the data in all probability; MSU does. Andy'll probably have to petition the university. I'm not sure what exactly he wants anyway. Printouts? Notebooks? Someone should press Andy on that point. Sterilesnore! 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, at this point all they're asking for is to have the data made available through Lenski's website, and even Andy seems to have backed off the whole 20-years-of-data nonsense. What I'm wondering now is that since the draft email seems okay to all, why don't they just send it? --SpinyNorman 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
"Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look." asks Philip. Like a set of twats Phil, that's how. So why not go ahead? SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Undent) No comment. (Andy's a BSE? Isn't that Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis) SusanG  ContribsTalk 09:50, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I do find it funny that Andy feels it is necessary to add his undergraduate degree to his signature. I also hold an engineering degree and wouldn't be able to tell you what is going on in the results. Jrssr5 12:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists[edit]

Have a look at cp:Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists Ymmmm..whatever is having a really good bluster, and not doing very well. SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Altough, I must for once agree with the creationists in this discussion, the "challenge" that JackSmith presents is quite stupid. There are a lot of better, and more interesting, arguments for or against creationism. Etc 14:02, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

For TomMoore's Stolen Image Thing[edit]

JM seems to get a lot of his pictures from PBS. Here's PBS's copyright page. Seems like JM is violating that. Jrssr5 13:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

JM is a thief; He nicks from all over & claims fair use totally without justification. SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Here's one for his list, I tried to email him but it didn't work: No way that is "web resulution", hell, it's bigger than my screen! Although, maybe the NYPost would give them permissions to spread the propaganda... ħumanUser talk:Human 14:13, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Notable Andrew Schlafly Links[edit]

Probably in the wrong spot, but I found this interesting. Did a quick google search for CP's Leader-In-Delusions, and came across this: "Had an Abortion? Call An Attorney!" That's the actual title of his "article" which contains the "link" between abortion and breast cancer, and tells women who have had an abortion to call a lawyer and sue the doctor! This is worse than ambulance-chasing. I wonder what his views are on trial attorneys...--Jdellaro 14:24, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I think we have that link over at the article on Andy. I know we've found it a few times before, at least. But thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 14:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I think that "article" is even linked somewhere on CP... ah yes, here, in the "Andrew Schlafly uses CP to advertise his services" section. --Sid 14:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Err... What?[edit]

What just happened? Barikada 15:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

It was the petition thing mentioned above. Loads of people created accounts with footballers names and signed the petition adding amusing puns in the comment. Andy proudly tumpeted 20 sigs! Sadly there were mamy parodists. I was TVenables, PGascoigne and DMaradona. I don't claim it's clever. RedDog 15:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Well yes, I get that, but why'd Danny get burned? His name wasn't even on the list. Barikada 15:43, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Erk-- I see how you'd miss what I was saying. I dunno how to link to the block logs right. I was aiming for the part where Bugler blocked DannyRedful. Barikada 15:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes I see. I just thought you ment the general banniness of it, but then I am off my dish. I think it's a new rule over at CP you will be banned for not bahving like a power hungry, mini-me, sysop. RedDog 15:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Danny, just like Andy, posted on the talk page without removing those sigs. Unlike Andy, he doesn't have the power to fight back. So he gets charged with "sabotage of the Lenski email". --Sid 15:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
And just as I posted, Danny got unblocked. --Sid 15:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Kudos to Bulger though. He got the joke and made one of his own. Ajkgordon 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
He apologized, too. ... and then blocked Jareddr. *sigh.* He also banned Danny's IP and then never unbanned it. Barikada 15:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
It looked to me like Jareddr was removing people as Bugler blocked them, which would've been a helpful thing. his comments just added humor to it. I'm waiting for bugler to go all mexmax on them. Jrssr5 15:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, what a nut job! --Jdellaro 16:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler has fallen upon his sword for the boy. DogP 16:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler was just unblocked. Really "fell on the sword" :rollseyes: --Jdellaro 16:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, many of the above links have been burned so, a few questions. Exactly what did Danny do that got him blocked first by Bugler, and what sock did he use and what for? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 00:17, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I see Jallen reinstated the block to infinite, and deleted the user and user:talk pages of DannyRedful. Bugler literally accused him of not removing false names on Andy's Lenki mail list crap and Danny's response was that even if he did, he'd get in trouble anyway (rock and a hard place)... Bugler blocks him then does a complete 180 degree turn, apologizes on his talk page, unblocks him, then blocks another user out of the blue for the same thing (???). Jallen swoops in, blocks him forever and ever AMEN, and salts the lands so that nothing may ever grow again. The end. 02:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I've not seen it mentioned but did everyone get the pun in Danny's name? Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 10:17, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Take it you mean "Dreadful". Yup! SusanG  ContribsTalk 10:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I know that not much gets past a smarty-pants like you Susan. :) Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 11:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Deborah in the danger zone[edit]

Deborah believes Obama is a Christian. That isn't going over so well. I fully expect this to fizzle out, but it's kind of exciting to watch, eh? 17:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, because we ALL know Jesus was a registered Republican. :-P --Gulik 18:02, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Um, deborah is going on a "redirect to main page" binge... I just got a screen shot of her doing it with every permutation of small and cap letters in the word "Main Page" (example: "MaInpaGE") heck, here's some more examplitude:
  1. (diff) (hist) . . New! MaIn PaGe‎; 20:02 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
  2. (diff) (hist) . . New! MaiNPaGe‎; 20:02 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
  3. (diff) (hist) . . New! MAInpAgE‎; 20:01 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
  4. (diff) (hist) . . New! Main Apge‎; 19:57 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
  5. (Block log); 19:56 . . HenryS (Talk | contribs) (blocked User:Calypsos with an expiry time of infinite (): Per user request)
  6. (diff) (hist) . . New! Main page/‎; 19:56 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
  7. (diff) (hist) . . New! Main Page/‎; 19:56 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
ħumanUser talk:Human 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that user is probably a bot --Jellyfish 20:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I understood most of the redirects (index, home, etc.) but "Human Page"? Is that a term I just don't know? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

She even added User:Mainpage, User: Main, Mainpahe, Mainpaghe....just waiting for her to update her "stats" in order to achieve admin-dom. --Jdellaro 20:27, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

She is now moving along to other idiocy... and I don't think she's a bot:
  1. (diff) (hist) . . Judaists‎; 20:24 . . (-2) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (correcting mistake )
  2. (diff) (hist) . . New! Judaists‎; 20:24 . . (+22) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Main Page)
  3. (diff) (hist) . . New! Judaist‎; 20:24 . . (+20) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Judaism)
  4. (diff) (hist) . . New! Atheistical‎; 20:23 . . (+20) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (Redirecting to Atheism)
Yah, I think she's trying to up her edit/creation count. Or just read something somewhere about complete accessibility regardless of stupidity. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Read cp:talk:Human_Page --Radiation Afikomen 20:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'd just like to echo Danny's sentiments. Cuckoo! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Why do you even need redirects to the main page? You click on the jingoistic logo and there you are! DLerner 20:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Human! I think she's talking about you! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:56, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Clicking the flag violates flag protocol! And is Unconservative! And Unamerican! And Unchristian! And probably treason! -- 20:57, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
You mean "(I found a vandal site and one of the ring leaders is named human)"? This is getting way too self-referential! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
image:human page.png ħumanUser talk:Human 21:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Deborah is either a Twitter addict or Conservative's daughter. See here for WTF-ish reference. --Sid 21:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Got to love the degree of doublethink required to rationalise these statements. If foo were genetic, that still wouldn't make it moral. Oh, yeah, that's right. Your all loving god made people immoral and then commands them to do the right thing. Sick. -- 21:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Completely off topic.... but Mwahahahahaha SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 00:46, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
That should go up above the Biggest Idiot discussion! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:47, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


Don't know if anyone else saw the Colbert Report, but he was interviewing one of the lawyers from an earlier Gitmo trial. He had a little back and forth that reminded me of Terry H and Conservapedia:

Stephen: We don't know that there are any innocent (people in Gitmo) Interviewee: We don't know there are any guilty ones either Stephen: Exactly, so we should just keep them all in there for safety's sake.

I watched it twice, and laughed like crazy everytime SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 01:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Watching in rerun, hopefully I'll catch it. I was wasting that half hour of my life watching the Celtics bench run up the lead on the Lakers... ugly... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:49, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Can be seen online here DLerner 02:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia's going soft[edit]

One of my socks not only showed major dissent on the main page, but I openly insulted Conservative.... not so much as a warning or a demand for a writing plan.... They've gone soft with TK.... Maybe we should get a bat signal or something and summon him back. SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 05:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

CP Style and Cliff[edit]

It's not really WIGO worthy but the new article on Cliff (genuflect) refers to him as Richard which to any Brit sounds bizarre in the extreme. Silver Sloth 08:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

And strangely it was written by a (non typical) Brit (Bungler). (I always think of him as Harry Webb anyhow) SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:46, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
It's technically the correct style. Wikipedia does the same thing in their article on him. Actually, at WP it's not too rare to see people referred to by first name throughout an article, which irritates me ("In 1984 Bobby attended Boston University..."). Cliff Richard isn't like "Madonna" or "Cher", really, is he? Not any more than "Britney" I would think. DickTurpis 08:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I think that's just it. Cliff Richard is exactly like Madonna and Cher. The voice of Madonna, the face of Cher. GNUSMAS : TALK 12:38, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I was trying to help out on the Linda McCartney article at WP over this issue... it gets funny, though, typing "McCartney and her husband...". But they do discourage the overly-familiar use of first names only in bio articles ("Linda and McCartney...", "Linda and her husband..."). ħumanUser talk:Human 14:32, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ron Paul supporters[edit]

This is from the top of cp:Talk:Main Page. These are some pretty serious charges, is there any truth here? DLerner 10:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure there are some neo-Nazis behind Paul. Probably more behind John "Bomba bomba bomb Iran!" McCain. Claiming that the entire party is made up of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, holocaust deniers (!?), and truthers is unreasonable, however. But hell, considering it's a splinter faction of the Republican party, you never know. Barikada 12:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
The white-motherfuckers that support Paul remind me of Republicans like Charles Lindbergh during WWII, they want America to stay out of conflicts that don't involve them. Complete isolationists. They would not want to bomb Iran unless it was for the sole purpose of killing Muslims without any occupation. DLerner 12:20, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Holy shit[edit]

Check out this edit and notice who made it. What the fuck is going on? Will Andy stand for a bit of sanity from one of his sysops? And where did Ed manage to come across some sanity? Something weird is happening here. DickTurpis 11:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Either somebody hacked his account or he's no longer a moonie. WIGO worthy? DLerner 12:17, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, that didn't take very long. DLerner 12:52, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Longer than I thought. I was getting worried there for a second. DickTurpis 13:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
It's a shame Andy doesn't know how to read diffs to see that Ed did that switch. Jrssr5 13:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I suspect he does, which is why he used the word "reluctant" other than "censorship" or "vandalism". He lets admins walk over everyone else's edits, but not his. DickTurpis 13:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Haha, "(reluctant reversion which may have lost some good edits; but this is Conservapedia and we don't imitate liberal placement bias and we don't repeat as true self-serving, dubious liberal claims)" (bolding mine). He could have just done what Ed did and copy/paste the section, no "reversion" needed. Anyway, what an idiot. Uh oh, the voting above is gonna get twisted! ħumanUser talk:Human 14:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Could that edit by Ed be his Jeremiah Wright? Hey folks, not too late to switch your votes from Ed to Ken! He would never have moved Obama's minor gaffes out of the lead. Though I suspect this would likely be the biggest boost for Andy. DickTurpis 14:46, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Then again, although Ed "did the right thing", in the Schlaflyverse, it was wrong - idiotic, even, soooo..... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:08, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Now this guy, on the other hand, just dug himself a nice little grave. DickTurpis 15:18, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

And that's the article protected. Pathetic isn't it? Protected from what? Truth?? RedDog 15:23, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
This is how fundamentally stupid Karajou is: He cannot understand that because Obama was never a Muslim, he could not convert from Islam (one would have to be a Muslim first to do so, no?). What a moron. Maybe I need to change my vote.PFoster 15:34, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
That's a special kind of stupid. The Conservapedia kind. The kind that's delivered with bluster, arrogance and a God-damn air-strike if need be. A special, newly developed stupid that drives round to your house and pokes dog feces through your letterbox on a stick. Pure red-neckary. Stupid stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Dear Karajou. You're really stupid. Love RedDog. RedDog 15:51, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Tom Moore trying the impossible[edit]

Tom wants to get an apology from Joaquin, and to be treated with respect and dignity. Good luck. DLerner 12:31, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I applaud Tom for his diligence in fighting with JM, but as the quote goes, don't argue with an idiot, they'll drag you to their level and beat you with experience. Jrssr5 12:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
You can almost hear the ice creak. Taking on a sysop like that does not lead to longevity on CP. Silver Sloth 12:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Block in 5..4..3..2.. DLerner 12:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
..1.. 20:41, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


I haven't seen too much about this yet, but it's getting fun. I love it when assfly gets stupid in a really big way.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Unhand me, scoundrel! 13:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

This response cracked me up: "Schafly demanding data from Dr Lenski is like a 7 year old demanding his mother drive him to NASA headquarters to ask the chief commander there what kind of cheese the Moon is made of." DickTurpis 13:52, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry Sterile, I thought it was going to let me add a comment that the link was right up there. Jrssr5 14:31, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
(Ne'er mind. Can't read...) Sterilesnore! 14:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Someone needs to sock up and post the link on the Lenski Dialog talk page so they can see all these people laughing at them. I'd be curious to see Andy's reaction. And Phil's, as he quite accurately predicted this. DickTurpis 15:47, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

At the same time, Andy is working hard to let everybody know of his quest. From the letter he sent to the guy: cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications --Sid 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm surprised he's not cc'ing Nat Geo, Sci Am, and the NYT (and the LAT!) as well. I'd almost give odds that one of the 3 science rags would publish his letter just for the "lighter mood" it would bring to their letters pages... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
This comment about Andy amused me:
I have considered his wife Phyllis a slimy crud long before I knew of him.
Obviously someone who hasn't got the full picture. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 17:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Great comment on Meyers' blog:
Scene: Schlafly opens a package.
Schlafly: What's this?
Minion: That's the data you ordered.
Schlafly: This is data?
Minion: What did you think you were going to get?
Schlafly: You know, kinda, well...
Minion: You have no idea what data is, do you?
Schlafly: You're fired! --SpinyNorman 20:20, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
More blog reports are here and here. Sterilesnore! 17:41, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Its all over the place now.[2] --Shagie 04:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski sweepstake[edit]

So, assfly has sent his incredibly rude letter to the good doctor. The question is, how long will it be until the inevitable front page headline trumpeting "Deceitful evilutionists trying to hide fraud!!!111!!!". Entries in elapsed time since the quoted post please.

(He needs to add the new letter, as sent, to the project page itself) ħumanUser talk:Human 17:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT) (thanks, Tom! Now get mainpageright updated!) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
(Also, the bloggers need to be alerted to letter #2) ħumanUser talk:Human 17:30, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • My best guess: 2 days, 13 hours -- 16:14, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I'd put it at the middle of next Monday afternoon... let's see (counts on thumbs)... 4 days 20 hours. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I'll throw in for Friday evening --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Whenever the next low-pressure system moves over Andy's house. Barikada 17:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Monday morning EDT. Sterilesnore! 17:47, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • 24 hours. I'm betting on a prompt Lenski response and Andy declaring victory whatever its contents. --Robledo 18:19, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm thinking 24 - 48 hours as well. Lenski was prompt last time, but I think he may suffer from not knowing his enemy. He's trying to answer in good faith, which of course Andy lacks. PS: Is anyone else really tickled anytime Andy signs "BSE." Personally, I think Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis could explain a lot of Andy's issues. Stile4aly 15:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I think by now Lenski has probably been informed of what a "conservapedia" is. And the blogs are full of new definitions for BSE ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 15:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly's Editing[edit]

Hey guys, you might want to look at PJR's talk page... Schlafly's gone a bit far this time.

eh, what? I don't see any edits by Schlafly... 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Heh, I'm vaguely proud that I caught this one. — Unsigned, by: User: / talk / contribs

Recent changes is pretty funny over there at the moment. Ymmmmmmmmmotorbike is busy deep-sixing all the silly/naughty pages. At the time of writing, Schlafly Style, Debate: Does Andy have a brain?, and Evangelical Values just got nuked. --Robledo 17:19, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
RationalWiki also got it. So did Kissing. I get censoring RW, but kissing? Is that part of some abstinence-only program? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:47, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Are the cracks starting to show?[edit]

PJR goes after Andy, the regulars seemed lukewarm at best about going after Lemski, Ed tries to put the largely defensive weapon of truth into the Obama article, and now Azriaphail calls the Lenski letter "disappointing." Question - is CP showing some signs of wear and tear? I know that previous reports of CP's demise have been exaggerated, so I'm not calling anything, but it does seem more tense than usual.PFoster 16:47, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it reminds me of the pre-Night of the Blunt Knives feeling (except without TK...) Sterilesnore! 16:50, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to add to the conversation, Bohdan earns a bit more respect from me (not that he cares, but it's there if he wants it). Still, I think there are too many sysops involved for a NotBK style purge. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree with Sterile. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree also, blocks are being handed out thick and fast (AdenJ, Az, TomMoore - although Moore was the agent of his own demise) DanH expressing concern about the Obama content, PJR calling out Andy on his blocks, TerryH never got around to banning everyone he said he would..YmmotrojaM fucken with all Ken's articles, Aschalfly trying to prove lenski is lying....I imagine soon Andy will give the order for everyone to drink their Kool-Aid. 22:18, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

I've been wondering if the plan is to force a self-induced purge (kinda like with TomMoore - push them until they can't take it anymore), though I attributing any sort of organization to their insanity is probably giving them too much credit. I don't dispute that there is a high-level of discontent over there, and while I don't doubt the little guys will go (especially the ones who signed the new petition), the sysops can't be exiled as easily. They'll have to be driven away, and I think that's the course of action currently being carried out, consciously or unconsciously. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:32, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I think it's time for someone to suggest a new CP contest!!! Anyone got a healthy, respected sock? (I love how Andy boasts of his contest points, without mentioning that his team lost...) ħumanUser talk:Human 23:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Kens's emails[edit]

This is WIGOed but what on earth is this gibberish meant to mean?

Going to be soon wanted to email back and forth a bit before retiring. I will be sending you a email soon.

Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 17:41, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I figured it out! Using an ancient Ken-to-English codex, it translates to: "Going to bed soon. Wanted to e-mail back and forth a bit before retiring. I will be sending you an email soon." --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:46, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh good lord - it's getting worse! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
OK, seriously? LOL. That's awesome. The inevitable conclusion:
"I just wrote a message on your talk page. Conservative" — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
ROTFL, that's about right, yup! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:38, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I wrote a second message on your talk page to alert you to the first message about my email. 19:25, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

I got an email from Nightflare earlier today: "I just posted for you a very important comment on your talk page." Nice. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:48, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  1. REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[]]]]
Should've put the "on your talk page" on parenthesis to make it kennier. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:54, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I just quoted it as I got it, is all. Maybe...
I was talking to myself, don't interrupt. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 03:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

You should send me an important email about an important comment you left on my talk page[edit]

"I just sent you an important email alerting you to an important comment I left on your talk page!"

Shit, now do I have write NightFlare an important email, and alert him on his talk page, or vice versa? Hell, the next Ides in still in its infancy! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Why can't I have a very important email? Everyone else seems to be getting them. Its not fair. Somebody send me one please. 00:17, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I just tried to send you a very important email! Hell, I "welcomed" you, what more do you want? I can't email you until you join![edit]

I just tried to send you a very important email! Hell, I "welcomed" you, what more do you want? I can't email you until you join! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Red Alert: Parodist in all sectors[edit]

I won't name names, but my god, they've been hit with a lot of parodists lately, my alarm is going off at an alarming rate, and may have to be disabled SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 21:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Yah, well, they kinda got blogrolled over some important emails, didn't they? The best part is when the parodists argue with each other! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Funnily enough my CP alter-ego had a debate with someone who I am fairly sure is here also. 22:07, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

Ymmotrojam going on delete and protect spree[edit]

Apparently he is taking up Deborah's cause. DLerner 22:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Yah, I checked RC, and all there was pretty much for an hour was mtmryroamdj redirecting and protecting. Ground control to Major Tom: WTF? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Golden Oldie From Lyin Ed[edit]

I totally missed this when it first appeared. Ed has Chuck Norris go back in time and break my irony meter Did we WIGO this? BTW, It needs to be BoC'ed ASAP. YKWIM? Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 01:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Go to the archive from then, open it to edit, and search for the diff number to see if it's there first? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler v PJR[edit]

Can't see PJR taking Bugler's latest lying down. Educated (if mistaken) Aussie versus right wing pom. Could be interesting! SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

StatsMan wades in (brave? foolish?) but, at the end of the day we have PJR's reasonable approach vs Bugler's foaming at the mouth. Silver Sloth 08:08, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Closed for business?[edit]

Is it just me, or is CP closed for business? Are only sysops now allowed to edit pages? On all pages, I now see "view source" in place of "edit", and a scan of "recent changes" suggests that the only contributions today have been from sysops. My socks are getting itchy. GNUSMAS : TALK 06:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

It's probably just the night time shutdown. SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
But the nightly lock-down doesn't normally (hitherto) show up like that, and if you're right Andy is clearly having a lie-in today. It's already 07.00 in New Jersey. Surely only liberals lie in so late. GNUSMAS : TALK 07:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
They've just (couple of days ago) upgraded their software - so anything's possible. SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Nobody's edited in the last 30 minutes! SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, their no-night-edit schedule changed a few days ago, it now starts about three hours earlier, and the edit button becomes "view source" and tells you specifically what user rights are needed to be able to edit the page. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 07:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


For all the RW users who don't speak Yiddish (and are too lazy to luck it up...) I'll explain. Drek (who received the one day from PJR), is the Yiddish equivalent of "crap" or "shit". DLerner 08:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

It has also entered colloquial English as simply meaning "nonsense," I believe.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:38, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Or "trash", "debris". While it may not be a "dirty word", I'd certainly agree that is inappropriate as a CP name (unless one's real name is Daniel Reck?). Fine here, of course... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Pleased to meet you, although I concede that I wish my first block hadn't been for such a cheap shot. -Drek


Who is NathanG and when did he get block privledges? And what is this for? Jrssr5 11:12, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Nathan is our old friend Kettlelick, I believe.PFoster 11:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Yep. --SpinyNorman 11:21, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Question on L'affaire Lenski at this point[edit]

I wrote off Andy's deletion and 90/10 blockage of the DinsdaleP comments as his typical response to a point he just doesn't want to deal with. When I saw this though, it actually started to occur to me that some of his remarks could in fact be libelous. Lenski seems like a class act, and sometimes the best way to let someone know their B.S. is not worth the time is to not give any time to them. I think Andy's going to start kicking up the "he's withholding data" and "the peers didn't even see the data when the reviewed his work" accusations with each passing day, though, so here's the question: at what point would an objective person say that Andy's crossed the line from idiot blowhard to someone who can be legitimately prosecuted for libel? He's making some versy specific allegations about Lenski's professionalism and credibility as a scientist, and as a lawyer, he can't use the "I didn't know this was libelous" defense. Thoughts? --SpinyNorman 15:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

(The irony is that Andy's probably doing more damage to his reputation than Lenski's, if that's possible.) Sterilesnore! 16:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Or, teh assfly is spreading his disreputation wider... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:32, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
as a lawyer, he can't use the "I didn't know this was libelous" defense....What makes you think Andy knows anything at all about law? Lord knows he's never shown any particular knowledge re same...--WJThomas 17:58, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
One of the requirements for a libel suit to be successful is that they need to be able to show that the victim's reputation has suffered as a result. I think that would be very hard to prove. Unless Andy wants to go on the news denouncing Lenski. -Lardashe
Ah, I think you nailed the answer - unless Lenski chokes on a chicken sandwich laughing at the letter, there's no chance of him suffering any actual harm from this nonsense. --SpinyNorman 20:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I emailed Prof. Lenski to warn him, if he didn't already know, of Andy's nefarious intentions. Hopefully, he'll have nothing else to do with teh Assfly. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 08:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Libel in America is tough. I doubt that crosses the line :-/-caius (decider) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

My (and others) history RIP :([edit]

Now that CP has upgraded and can prevent the creation of articles, the old policy of blanking, redirecting to "deleted page", and locking is no longer necessary. And, so, I must sadly report that I can no longer visit my old user & talk pages for bouts of pre-cabal nostalgia, via the "history" links. Luckily, I went through them a few days ago, so at least I enjoyed my last chance to do so. Foolishly, I neglected to save them anywhere :( ħumanUser talk:Human 16:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Argh, sorry to hear that. :( Maybe you can mail somebody with sysop powers (Bohdan?) to send you the last or most relevant copy of your pages for the sake of archiving? --Sid 16:43, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh, good point, it ought to be easy for Dear Shabby to spend a few minutes copying the sources from the deleted history in to .txt files and emailing them to me. I will have to send him a very important email requesting a dump of the raw source data! ħumanUser talk:Human 17:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the suggestion, Sid. I now owe one "Hank Heinkel Hendricks PhD" 10 yen for his troubles. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:25, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Our deal now requires me to donate 0.09 USD (ten yen?) to RW, and credit it to my ever-helpful friend, Bohdan, a/k/a user:SHahB. Thank you Heindricks, for your help in this matter. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
The act has been done, let it be known in public that I donated 0.09 in the name of Bohdan/SHahB on this day. Rounded up to 31.50 for convenience. This is in honor of his helpfulness in obtaining my talk page archives that were recently deleted. Thank you, Seignor Heidricks, and his Baritones. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:48, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

It burns the eyes...[edit]

AAHHH! (Sorry if this is old news...) Sterilesnore! 16:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

The video itself is old news (it had even been mentioned twice on the CP mainpage and here and there on RW), but the Eagle Forum having its own YouTube account is news, at least to me. So nice find! :D *bookmarks for later* (Also, fully agreeing on the eye-burn... and my ears also start bleeding whenever I hear Andy talk.) --Sid 17:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
(EC) Yeah, but it's always fun to burn them again. My favorite line "We even got more traffic than Rush!" (yeah, on a weekend, when his visits crash, and only for that one blip were you even close). You know, we should just transcribe all the words somewhere... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Probably part of my non-reading/editing phase. Sterilesnore! 17:05, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm-- video allows comments.... Sterilesnore! 17:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

"Man the harpoons!", as the saying goes. --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 17:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually the above link is to a copy of the original which already has nearly 300 comments. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 17:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Including one or two from Ratwikians! SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:23, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

CP Boycott?[edit]

There was talk of such a thing a while ago, but it strikes me that it kind of died in committee. Is it time yet? PFoster 17:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

No fair! I'm too busy to boycott right now! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Make me a bureaucrat! 17:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
No! It's too much fun! — Unsigned, by: Magrat Garlick / talk / contribs
While I am usually all for boycotts whenever anyone suggests them (and we are overdue), I think looking away while l'affaire Lenski is going on would be too difficult. But perhaps we can agree on sometime in the near future? (Remember no one is expected to "abandon" healthy, active, "logins") ħumanUser talk:Human 19:27, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


While bugler may be foaming piece of British National Party garbage he does have an interesting grasp of his native English..... " for addressing points that you have made in your repeated servings of word salad.."

i must remember to accuse people of offering me word salad in the future. 17:51, 19 June 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

It's a real thing, actually. A psychiatric term, I think. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Make me a bureaucrat! 17:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I've heard that plenty of times, even in this here wiki. Basically, it's words strung together to look important, but with a net meaning of zero. The Time Cube guy is the perfect example. --Kels 18:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Good old WP has a pretty good explanation --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

And interestingly, Bugler is still in what might be called his "salad days" at CP; still "green in years."--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

But he has a bright future! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Make me a bureaucrat! 18:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
TIMECUBE = word salad. Someone accused the Null physics guy of "math salad"... Speaking of which we really need an article on that guy. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

BIG NEWS[edit]

DanH is leaving! who will be next? 18:32, 19 June 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

DanH, you're my hero. NorsemanWassail! 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I am reminded of a line from a Talking Heads song I believe, "As things fell apart, no one took much notice" Ace McWicked

Mm. the rush to beg him to stay is over underwhelming.(But then he is studying to become a teacher) SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Somebody sock up and tell them (Talk:Main Page maybe). Chances are that it will take a good while for anybody there to notice the change to his user page. On the other hand, they maybe need a few more hours to discuss behind closed doors how they are supposed to react. You know, the entire "sysops must present a united front" issue and all that. Or they're going to do what they do best: Pretend it never happened. "DanH? Who is DanH? We do not speak about DanH in public." --Sid 20:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It's a real pity to see Dan go, but it's also nice to see a sysop taking a stand. The problem is that Andy is most likely going to push his anti-Obama agenda, even if it means losing a sysop in the process. After all, he has more than enough 100% loyal sysops who are either as nuts as he is or at least willing to enforce his will no matter what, so he can afford to piss off a sysop who often enough shows that he is still thinking for himself. --Sid 20:45, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I think his decision to leave will turn out well. DanH will almost certainly be better off not being associated with an extremist blog/hate site, and the loss of one of the few remaining sane sysops is bound to make Conservapedia even more nutty and even less credible, if that's still even possible. assume  21:08, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
It's almost sad watching HenryS beg DanH to stay and try to reason with Andy. As if that's ever worked about anything, ever. The plea of "can't we all just get along and let the crazy people do whatever they want" is pretty pathetic, really. --Kels 22:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, talk about truth in advertising, though: "Just make your disapproval known. It's the best you can do" - Indeed it is, and that's exactly why Dan is leaving, I think. --Sid 07:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Aw, Dan was the first guy who ever blocked me. And the last. Then, when I immediately created a sock, he congratulated me on my fine edits. I'll miss that sissy KU fruitcake. Czolgolz 02:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Interesting Video[edit]

[3] I'm sure someone put it up here somewhere, but I'm wondering why Conservative goes out of his way to look like an immature child during the whole Austin Cline doodad, yet this video was there and instead of any "debate" or "discussion", he just edits the shitty article after seeing the video. Sort of like "Whoops, under the rug you go!" NorsemanWassail! 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

First I've seen of it. Bootiful! Thanks Norseman. SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Check user and Oversight[edit]

CP's Check user and Oversight (which they didn't have before) pages are red (and vandal-able *hint*). What is the meaning of this?

And... do we have oversight? Because that would be creepy. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 22:14, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Linus and Human[4] - Icewedge 23:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Checkuser is disabled site-wide, even though it turns up on permissions list. Oversight is equally creepy, and neither of us knows how to use it. OK, we could probably figure it out. Actually, I'm sure Linus already knows, just because he's smert. I think we used it once, early on, to protect someone's identity. Hopefully we will never use it again. Our policy is, after all, transparency, otherwise why would we be playing on a wiki? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:51, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Oversights emergence on our Wiki was a TK joint during one of our darker periods. It is the only time it has been used except once as a joke that failed miserably. There is a certain rational perhaps for having it available I suppose, but no stronger rational than checkuser which we have removed from the site. I am all for starting a discussion about removing it. But WIGO is not the place. tmtoulouse oppress 23:53, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thought so, but what does it mean that CP's respective pages are red? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 01:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
It means that nobody there filled out the explanation pages for those rights yet. See cp:Conservapedia:Administrators and cp:Conservapedia:Bots for examples of such pages. But the link being red or not doesn't influence the right itself. It just looks a bit silly. --Sid 07:06, 20 June 2008 (EDT)


Noticed this gem tucked into an uploaded photo of a Noah's Ark model: "It is believed that lower resolution images count as fair use." Okay, you can steal as long as the goods are low-res? --SpinyNorman 09:41, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

I hate to say it but I think under some circumstances using a low-res image is classed as 'fair use'. I thought that applied more to things like reproductions of art work etc so I'm not sure if it applies here. Also I don't think the picture they have used is low enough to really class as 'low res'. Yeah I'm talking I know. Clearly I don't. I know as much about copyright law as I do about peanut farming. RedDog 11:50, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Try looking at Kookoojoo's talk page #Barnstar up top. There I had a short convo with hisself. He seemed to think that pictures of works of art, are not, per se, copyrightable, as they were themselves merely two dimensional copies of two or three dimensional objects d'art. I'm sure Margaret Bourke-White is spinning. CЯacke® 17:06, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a photographer and have some familiarity with the laws around copyrights and photographs. Short answer: the Noah's ark is copyright infringement and can get sued for take down. However, thats probably it. Its unlikely the creator registered the copyright which would entitle them to punitive damages. There are no damages (the picture has no commercial value). For photographs of pictures out of copyright, legal types should look up The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). A non-legal summary can be read at [5] The key bit is that the photograph is not original and not entitled to a copyright. The work that is in the public domain is in the public domain. Photographs of sculptures that are not in the public domain though are derivative works of the original. The right to prepare derivative works is held by the copyright holder and thus publication (on a web page) of these is a violation of copyright. While the photograph may be a derivative work, it is has some original work done in it (chosing of perspective, exposure, etc... ) and thus is entitled to its own copyright, even if the original is in the public domain. --Shagie 17:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

PJR & Kajaraw[edit]

It's been WIGO'd but this little tiff could get interesting. [6]. Will PJR cower under Kajagoogoo's usual bullying, or will he show some welly? Only time will tell. --PsygremlinWhut? 11:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

This is a really good one isn't it? I can't see PJR backing down - I just don't think he's that type. But I do think he will argue in a non-provocotive way and eventually the heat will go out of it and it will get forgotten (or taken somewhere private). RedDog 11:35, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, I'm actually a bit shocked to see Karajou being such an obvious ass to a fellow sysop. Until now, he usually reserved that tone for people without sysop rights. If I had to pick only one indicator for a change in CP's general atmosphere, this "discussion" would be it. --Sid 12:46, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The 57 states nonsense[edit]

Snopes finally covered the 57 states junk that was added to their Obama article. Anyone want to try persuading them? Or maybe they'd just claim that Snopes is obviously biased. - Lardashe

Snopes excellent as ever - good find. CP won't give a figgy pudding though. RedDog 11:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
The Snopes explanation sounds logical, as always. Being logical, that means it won't sway anyone at Conservapedia. Occam's razor should apply here -- if he was talking about having traveled through a number of states, and that he had just returned to Oregon without having visited Alaska and Hawaii, the simplest explanation would be that he was thinking the number of states in the United States and he screwed up. But, being Conservapedia, they insist on going with Andy's version of the truth. (By the way, has Obama even traveled to any Islamic countries lately? Why would he have been thinking about Islamic states when he was so busy in the United States?) --Elkman 14:47, 20 June 2008 (EDT)