Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive59

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>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <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)

To prevent going over the same conversation over and over again if you think one CP editor is a bigger idiot than the rest of the idiots leave a comment at:

Debate:Who is the biggest idiot at CP? Closed

New debates on recurring themes welcomed.

Unfunny Vandal

Isn't that our phrase? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 17:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, but the block earned him a treat.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Haha, and the reason is because they turned off account sign-ups again! I go to sock up and make fun, and only users with edit rights can make new accounts for now. I guess that's one way to "win;" ensure no new people can edit.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

What is the likelyhood that all these new accounts (its seems theres been a great deal more lately) are all Bugler creations to get in good with Andy? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 18:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it's all the attention from the Lenski coverage on the blogs. We have a lot of non-account IP address people and new accounts here recently too.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

It just seems like he's getting to them, and is recieving more praise than anyone ever has from Andy. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 18:18, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

It's true that Ed or Conservative usually have had to beg. "Here are my articles, sir. We hated a lot of gays, sir. Thank you, sir."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:29, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

And my conspiracy theory continues on that Bugler is a troll... Before he used tinyurl to get around the spamfilter to point to us. Now he's using our trademark 'unfunny vandalism'. And yet, all of this is circumstantial evidence and would never hold up in a court of law (though science can give you a good theory). Again rubbing Andy's nose in it, making jokes back for us. And if Andy blocks him after praising him so much and people don't see him doing anything wrong. The only thing he could do to make it more obvious would be to start quoting Poe in edit/block messages. --Shagie 18:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, the block reason sort of implies that "funny" vandalism won't get you blocked. "Unfunny vandalism, nevermore!" "The [whirlpool] sucks down your bad goat edits!" ħuman 18:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Let's face it, Bugler is doing exactly what we all wish we were able to do - making fun of Andy without him even noticing. Etc 18:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

The problem is, I would never in my life expect Andy to get satire. Thats why all satirists and parodists are closet liberals (Colbert, Voltaire, parody vandals). Conservatives (at least Andy, Karajou, Ed-like ones [I've met conservatives who do get parody]) don't see funny vandalism, Unless they are actually fake. Like Bugler. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

@Shagie. Er, no. Bugler did not insert the tinyurls on the Lenski page. it was Macaddct1984 Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Super Bugler

My God, is Conservapedia some sort of video game? And Andy is so gullible. --JayJay4ever^??? 18:19, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

YOU'RE WINNER! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:32, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

VICTOLY! --Sid 18:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I just don't get it. Bugler is either a parodist, or completely insane, and Andy doesn't even seem to suspect anything. Etc 18:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't "You destroyed the vandals! They won't be back now!" exactly what the Romans said? --81.187.75.69 18:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

To answer JJ4evuh, yes, it is, for many. ħuman 18:57, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and then they lost, because there were no more barbarians. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:59, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to see the flurry of emails going back and forth between TK Bungler and Aschlafly. CЯacke® 19:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I imagine Bugler being someone who hosts and is the lone attendee of his own LAN party; creating vandal socks for pure joy of blocking them and being congratulated by Aschlafly. I don't think he ever blocks IPs. ^{— Unsigned, by: Kettle-come-lately / talk / contribs}

He doesn't have Check user rights. By the way, 'sup. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:16, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't Karajou jealous? --JayJay4ever^??? 20:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Where've I seen this edit pattern before? Hmmm

Nothing but vandal revisions; talking down to editors; and blocks. My mind is made up. Buggerer is a sock of an ex-sysop trying to make me think it's another ex-sysop socking up. CЯacke® 13:50, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No no - that's just what he's trying to make you think. Etc 07:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Or, rather, that's what he's trying to make you think that he's trying to make you think! Etc 07:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Insight

Whats the bet that this is due to be another Schlafly Insight. Liberal Creep describes how liberal values can creep into conservative values or some shit. - 203.96.84.33 19:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

Full article here --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Good call Mr McWicked, if i do say so myself. conservative creep- Andrew Schlafly. Ace McWicked 19:19, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I was very disappointed, I was hoping the text "Lord Almighty" linked to Ronald Reagan, but when I moused over it that wasn't the case. --81.187.75.69 19:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I like the reference to Galileo and Christianity in that article. Everyone knows that the Catholic Church were great fans of his work! Alt 19:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Nah, Lord Almighty would have been more likely. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Off topic, but "Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans."[1] Orly? Projection, much? Feel free to WIGO if it deserves it. ħuman 20:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

More publicity (Guardian)

Does Andy relise he has linked to an article that someone in the comments has linked to us? $\approx$$\pi$ 19:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Talking of the Guardian, that's the link they used for the Mugabe Steals The Election story. Now I'm a big Guardian fan. I've been reading it for forty years or so and I like it's blatantly liberal bias but I hardly feel that its appropriate for Andy's home skollars - they might learn some inappropriate truths! Silver Sloth 12:53, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Dear Lord

The simplest wiki on earth has a new template. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 21:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Aw, that's sweet. The story of teh assfly's public life: "don't confuse me, put in third grade English!" ħuman 00:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

TrueValues

[2]

Is he a parodist? Or just insane? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 21:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

He absorbed new vocabulary at a silly rate (edit summary "Unsupported liberal creep drivel" used twenty minutes after Andy created the article), so I'd guess he was going for fairly obvious parody. Kinda sad that he was only banned for removing the Lenski claim. --Sid 21:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Can't think of proper snark, but I think this is WIGO worthy

KevinM seems to be sort of a slow learner:

• Monday: I can has block/edit rights?
• Tuesday: I can has page unlock (to ask JM why the fuck he used a Holocaust denial site as a source)?
• Tuesday, minutes later: My block, it has a flavr.

Poor kid, he apparently means well and did some good work. His only flaw is that he doesn't say "You're absolutely right, Andy!" or "Liberal atheistic evolutionists are teh devil!" every couple of minutes. I hope he realizes just how wrong he is on CP. --Sid 21:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed finally sees his award

I finally got ed to see his award. Very subtle Ed. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Huh? Really? ħuman 23:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Good work, though chances are he saw it before. Any change to his talk page will render a "new messages" warning. Not seeing any new messages he likely would have checked through the edit history to see what it was. Nice to have real confirmation though. By the way, does this mean his name isn't Edward? Edwin, then? Edred? Edgar? Edmund? (Special) Ed? DickTurpis 23:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it's actually Edmund. Searching for "Ed Poor" on wikipedia gives you this. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

That was his grandpuppy. right? And he wuz probably named after him. Can we play simple and smart and write the barnstormer to "Ed Poor" and leave it at that? ħuman 23:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Sure put I am out of socks I am willing to get dirty. Does anyone else have one? $\approx$$\pi$ 00:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow! You are SOOOO cool! Can I be your friend? 67.135.49.116 00:45, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Sarcasm, Jinx? Haven't you even read Liberal Style? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 00:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Jason, we would be happy to be your friends. That is very sweet. You can feel free to make an account.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:58, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Now, now, Jinx. Just as soon as you do something as good a Ed you will get an award too. We're not running a charity here. But as Tom said feel free to join up. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yep, apparently it's Edmund. There's an Edmund W. Poor on Amazon, aka Uncle Ed aka edpoor.--JayJay4ever^??? 09:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Huh. Reading his book reviews on Amazon, he seems almost a normal, sensible man. Some of those reviews are 3 years old, others from 7-8 years ago. It is really scary that someone could undergo such a transformation. All because of the sect he belongs to? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's for reasons such as that that I thought Ken was a much better candidate for idiot-king than Ed. At times (rare times, certainly at CP) he does seem like a somewhat normal person of average intelligence. I haven't thoroughly examined his WP contributions, and from what I saw he generally writes brief sub-par entries there as well, but he was not the Ed Poor we see at CP. The fact that CP sysops are not only allowed but encouraged to go on powertrips and abuse what little authority they actually have with displays of intimidation that would do the SS proud has altered his CP personality. Ken, on the other hand, is the same blathering idiot whatever forum he's on, as we've all seen in various forums on evolution and atheism across the entire internet. DickTurpis 14:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

"Member of the Unification Church since 1977." He joined the Moonies the year Star Wars came out. Coincidence? I think not! --81.187.75.69 13:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah it is Edmund.W.Poor[3] - Icewedge (*bleet*) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Gee, he kissed Jimbo's ass as he kisses Andy's. --JayJay4ever^??? 17:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

KISS

Please write about the subject so that a child (or uncle Ed!) can understand it. Never mind that it's so effin complicated & non-intuitive that (some of) the greatest minds of the last century couldn't hack it! (If you can't simplify Quantum then why not try something else? (Barbie Dolls perhaps?)   ^Contribs_Talk 23:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I think she's whinging about what I keep whinging about. But I'm not sure, due to the lack of links. ħuman 23:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

And Ed is considering that he may be stupid. I wonder where he got that idea from.Damo2353 09:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

In checking out his Quantum article, it's not bad compared to most of the CP articles. It needs some editing to make it a little more straightforward, but it's hardly obtuse. - Lardashe

If you want it approved quickly, figure out a way to use quantum physics to condemn Liberals. --Gulik 15:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

My take on Andy & Bugler

After the latest in a long series of over the top thanks to a relatively new member; after all the warnings to Andy, even by CP Sysops, that Bugler might a parodist, I think that Andy is just having fun: at the expense of Bugler's victims who, in Andy's mind, are enemies of CP regardless; and at the eventual expense of Bugler, who will be banhammered with "I knew right from the start that you were a parodist but I still used you for the dirty work. Godspeed!". Too far-fetched? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:20, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Another possibility is that Bugler is a sock of Andy, who is using Bugler to demonstrate the level of sycophancy demanded of his acolytes.Antifly 09:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

It looks as if Andy knew Bugler is a parodist. Or Andy's fapping getting too excited lately. --JayJay4ever^??? 09:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No way Aschlafly could write British as well as that. Ajkgordon 09:57, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. If Andy wanted to create a sock to do that, he'd use good-old American! Bondurant 11:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

For me, this brings out a larger question about Andy's psychology. On one hand, there is some reason to think he is a reasonably intelligent man (e.g. Harvard Law). On the other hand, he believes some very, very, stupid things. But if he can't tell that Bugler is a parodist, I might have to give up the "reasonably intelligent" assumption.Bjones 13:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Being smart doesn't mean you don't believe crazy things, it just means you can rationalize them really well. And I don't think Andy is smart; he's what Dr. Gene Ray would call 'educated stupid', having that sort of mental constipation people get once they've decided they already know All The Answers and stop asking any questions. --Gulik 15:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, you can find several examples on this very site. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

If you look back to last summer when the 'S' sisters where active, Andy gave similar high praise to them for blocking vandals. --Shagie 14:00, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's problem is his pride, and this prevents him from recognizing that his views are extremely unpopular. Thus the appearance of Bugler just helps him rebuild any damage that his pride has taken. When Bugler is unmasked, he will take it as further confirmation of his beliefs. A win-win situation doesn't require any of his intervention. - Lardashe

Fermoklump's Petition

Full marks to the guy for trying, bit I fear this kind of approach will only end in tears. --Psygremlin_Whut? 11:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah there we go, Andy's little pitbull lapdog makes his appearance --Psygremlin_Whut? 12:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed and math

He's really fighting hard to defend his title as "Biggest idiot at CP".....Shangrala 15:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone happen to have the diffs for mathoreilly's edits saved somewhere? Also, one of you might want to invite him. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 15:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Did so; stay tuned. His opinion of CP is legit (i.e. same as mine and all the rest of you), but he's on vacation now. Gauss 12:40, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You have to love the irony that he has this on his user page: I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution. Looks like "I have no idea what you're talking about" also qualifies as deletion. --Psygremlin_Whut? 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think Ed(mund) is actually quite proud of his award! Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

This, of course, assumes he understands it. CЯacke® 16:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Do we have anyone adept enough at mathematics to be able to assess whether or not MathOReilly was actually "inserting false information," as Karajou says, or if they just didn't understand?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 16:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the edits were real and true, (though I do not have the expertise to know), I think the "problem" was that Edmund wanted it dumbed down so far that all real math was eliminated from the article. The math PhD obviously didn't want this, but he wasn't a sysop → wrong. CЯacke® 17:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm (hopefully) coming towards the end of a PhD in theoretical physics. I've not reviewed every edit Mathoreilly made in great detail or anything, but I didn't see anything wrong with the stuff I did look at. I think Karajou's talking nonsense (I know, I know, try to hold back the gasps of astonishment) Alt 17:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know any physics but I do know my maths, and his math entries and changes are all good. Especially his position on Dedekind Cuts. We have more proof of Kara<insertwittinesshere>'s ineptitude.Antifly 17:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Everything I've seen him delete from the gradient and integral articles was bullshit (probably added by a parodist or a sysop). I admit I don't understand the properties of the gradient but the rest of the article is correct (and the original article was utter crap). NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, everything he did on the relativity page that was reverted was completely true. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think I see now, whoever wrote the gradient article got "slope" and "gradient" mixed up. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

You scarcely have to had a Ph.D in Maths to correct their mathematics articles, I think the majority of them are laughably wrong. For example, from my own subject area, I notice their explanations of primality testing is completely wrong. Whoever wrote it couldn't read or understand Fermat's little theorem (or even notice it was called the little theorem) and apparently has no idea what a monte carlo algorithm is. And this is the material from which Andy was proposing to teach his (long abandoned) critical thinking in maths course? --81.187.75.69 17:41, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

What is even more ridiculous is they article on manifolds, Ramanujan summation and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory from axioms, but they don't have simple articles like limit, summations and other elemenatry topics. 219.90.219.105 19:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

DanielB undid Karajou's idiocy, think he'll get in trouble? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

How the hell do people let a buffoon who cannot understand this teach their children? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 10:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Mathoreilly is totally legit and totally correct about his stuff. I'm very impressed with what he was trying to do. He's as knowledgeable as any of the science/math contributors that have tried to fix the CP math cesspool. (And I should know; I know several of them.)

BTW, the derivative page appears to have been brought back from the memory hole, complete with its history.

I'll have more to say later—this whole thing deserves a new chapter of the Conservapedian mathematics page, but I'm busy just now. Will wait until things settle down.

Gauss 12:40, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know that this really says anything about Conservapedian Mathematics, other than that they don't understand mathematics, which we knew already.

Also, aparently "meritocracy" means that if you block a bunch of filthy libruls for bashing creationism, then your mathematical expertise trumps that of a PhD.Antifly 13:44, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Someone named Sam directed me to this website. Thanks for the support. I guess CP didn't like the liberal slant I put on the derivative. Or my spin on quantum mechanics.

I'm still not entirely sure what the final straw was that got me permanently banned. But then I noticed that they also banned a creation "scientist" from contributing to the science sections of CP. So the real surprise is that I lasted as long as I did (a few days). It's a shame because as much as I detest the point of view at CP, it bothers me to see uncontroversially false scientific information being disseminated. I never even got the chance to write any of the pages the way I thought they should be written--the immediate task of editing out blatantly wrong statements proved too overwhelming. Once you find one statement like "exp(x^2) has no anti-derivative", you find yourself compelled to search randomly through the other math articles to see what other abominations are there. At first I was depressed by the whole endeavor, but having become a little more familiar with CP, I now realize that the only people paying any real attention to these articles are the sysops. Certainly if they continue along their current trajectory, the whole CP project is bound to self-implode. And their fall will be that much greater because they had the opportunity to receive quality submissions and they threw it away with both hands.--Mathoreilly 14:53, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

The injection of reality has been attempted, is being attempted and will continue to be attempted. The reason you got was "Inserting false information: Mathoreilly needs to learn his math back in grade school, and UCLA needs to give him his money back until he does" Which basically means "We're too stupid to get it so BAN!!!!!!!!". So, give us a good QM, Gradient, whatever else you can think of article. Have fun. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 15:00, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

We were following your adventures there; well-done. I know what you mean... it was painful for me to see their articles on English Critical Theory and the like. I even recently grew quite irritated when one of their sysops took my carefully created article on Gertrude Stein and turned it into a thing about her being Jewish, - even citing a holocaust denial site as a reference! To think that some children might actually use this as a reference, and that they purport to be accurate... it couldn't be borne. It's the only reason why I think vandalism on their site, intentional disruption, and so on are ethically correct.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 23:57, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I think vandalising the site is only good if it is funny, preferable one of the non-encyclopedic articles. Vandalising it because children use it is detrimental to the child's education. A better thing to do is do a side-by-side refutation here, or write for one of the better established encyclopedias. Or as a final option wait until the sysop gets bored of protecting the article and fix it, they generally do. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:10, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It is far more detrimental for CP to exist, and so in my eyes messing with their pages by inserting either the truth or amusing lies is entirely justifiable to help make sure it is widely regarded as unreliable. It would take a very long time to force CP to just disband, but making sure everyone, even those in the echo chamber, never can use it as a reliable resource for anything would accomplish much the same.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 13:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

"Vandalising it because children use it is detrimental to the child's education." - If kids find out that they cannot rely on it then I think that is a huge contribution to their education. Learning to question what they read rather than taking things for granted and thereby learning to think for themselves is a very valuable lesson. Andy and his Waffen sysops actually do more damage to kids than the most of the vandalism. (I would exclude some of the images posted there in that generalisation.) They also set a bad example by condoning plagiarism, preaching hate against those who are different from themselves, stifling dissent and generally being mean-spirited. The more we can do to make them a laughing stock the better. Alhough they often manage to do quite well at that on their own. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:38, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

More math

I followed the WIGO... cp:Multiplier_ideal_sheaf is teh brilliant. Maybe Andy can get Roger to vet these things? Andy historian, Roger mathematician, after all. ħuman 21:24, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

That looks like exactly the type of article they like...Antifly 21:34, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

That's what I thought! Every edit he (?) has made that I understood was legit (about 10% of them...), except he has a typo over at derivative, it says "velocity" where it should say "acceleration" in the lead paragraph. Which may already be fixed. ħuman 21:37, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow! "Lemonpeel" is really on a tear!!!! Multiplier ideal sheaf, Kaehler manifold, Nadel vanishing theorem, Cartier divisor, plurisubharmonic function! I hope Ed is happy with the schoolchildren-accessibility of all this. And to think the Mathoreilly (by the way, welcome!) got bitched out over a gradient! I note also that DanielB apparently got permission to do all the things that Mathoreilly was forbidden to do and permabanned for. Oh, well. Life is unfair. Especially in loonyland.

Gauss 00:58, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

More Ed - He asks, "What did Lenski do with E. coli?"

Weeks after the Lenski debate started Ed asks: What did he do with E. coli.

Yes, please do!

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ARichard_Lenski&diff=486034&oldid=486033 Fretfulporpentine 17:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

This is "good enough"...I'll do it. CЯacke® 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT) Thanks fer the heads up.

This is priceless. "Hey Andy, you made a total ass out of yourself, but some people might still think there is a shred of sanity left on CP. So here is my suggestion to drive the point home!" With sysops like Conservative, who needs wandals and parodists? --Sid 17:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Side note: In typical Conservative Style, here is the crosspost to Andy's talk page. --Sid 17:45, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before, but RW's Lenski Affair page is now linked to from Lenski's own site [4]. Dmyerken 18:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Fame indeed!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:14, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Sweetness. :) King Lenski Meets Ratwiki Uptown (little help?). In other news, Ken is definitely autistic. Somewhere in the lower-mid range - such spectacularly tin-earred social ineptness is a stone-cold clincher. --Robledo 20:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm still holding out that he got the Asperger's syndrome...High functioning autistic but lacking a developed sense of humor, empathy or irony. CЯacke® 22:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey! Don't insult us aspies by making him one! --_transResident Transfan^form! 23:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) And in other news, this entire line of speculation is distinctly tasteless and unfunny. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 23:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Speaking as an aspie, I second both AutoFire and Chaos. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it's called "thirding" if you do it after two people :) _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 23:11, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I've yet to meet a self-described aspie who is as bad as the clinical definition, which is what Conservative seems to fit in with. Far as I'm able to tell, most of those who self-describe tend to be near borderline, if even truly aspie at all. Big C generally fits in with the clinical archetype pretty firmly, and I don't mean that as insult to anyone. --Kels 23:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

FYI, Asperger's is my actual diagnosis; I am not a "self-described" Aspie. That said, I am very high functioning. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservative is a little obsessive

Is it me or his going completely mad? He is so fixated on one little thing. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

A little obsessive seems like gross understatement to me. He's never satisfied with his atheism or homosexuality articles, they're never finished, he keeps on expanding them to infinity to the point where I don't think even a true believer could possibly trawl through them. I don't think I've ever met anyone like him, just think what he could achieve if all that singular focus were channelled in to something sane and productive! Sadly, however, he strikes me as the Hans Reiser type, but without the saving grace of actually being good at something. --81.187.75.69 20:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's publications

• So far, all I've been able to find is a "White Paper of Medical Financing" from the Journal of the AAPS. -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:10, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

• And "AMA's Secret Pact with HCFA" in Vol 3, No. 4 of Medical Sentinel . . . also published by the AAPS. -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Two possible hits; anyone know what sort of engineer he used to be?

• Control logic and cell design for a 4K NVRAM
• A 5V-only 4K nonvolatile static RAM

Alt 19:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally, amusingly enough, that pair of papers are peripherally related to my field. I can't get access to them online, but will try to pop into the library for a quick read tomorrow if I get the chance. Alt 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think those two are from him, as he's clearly A L Schlafly (ie, there's the extra disambiguation of the middle initial). So those two are in journals, but are they in peer reviewed journals? The two one of the ones I found is a conference proceeding, and they're not always reviewed. I will attempt to do some digging. Alt 19:38, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

• Did Flawed Science and Litigation Help Bring Down the World Trade Center? - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 8, No 3 (Link is to Google's HTML version) -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Invoking 9/11 for a bout of ranting about how Asbestos Is Our Friend. Classy.

(He should apply the same risk tolerance to abortion's breast cancer link... --Gulik 22:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

The conference one was in ISSCC, which is, now at least, peer reviewed. It's only two pages, (one of figures only), but it's in a "digest". Coarb 20:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Engineering isn't my area. Is the fact that he is towards the end of the list of authors significant?Antifly 20:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm inclined to think it means he did some menial stuff as a student and didn't have a terribly big contribution to the work. If I remember rightly, some of the IEEE journals have brief biographical info on the authors and a note about what contributions each author made, though I don't know if they did so back then. Alt 20:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

In large research groupings it is usally; authors who did the work and writing (2-5), research assistants who did not write the paper probably did not know what they were doing (2-50), head guy lab manager biggest name in the field does too much admin to even know what is going on. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:20, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I thought authors were listed alphabetically? So "S" would usually be late in a list... ħuman 20:22, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Authors are generally list based on their contributions to the paper. The closer to the front, the more the person contributed. Of course, Andy would probably tell you otherwise just fulfill his delusions of grandeur. Sandman 20:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

It very much depends on the field. In some fields, it's alphabetical. In some, it's like pi said. In some, it's randomized. Coarb 20:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Right. In my field it is always alphabetical. But if you follow the link the first paper, the authors are not listed alphabetically...Antifly 20:38, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

In maths they are alphabetic, in more practicle research there is a seniority aspect to the naming order. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Domestic goat (Capra hircus). The brown one is Stacey

Did this little gem sow the seeds of discontent? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 20:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't get it. How does one go from being a greasy nerd with a real job, as depicted on the left, to suddenly deciding actually you've wasted your life and what you really want to do is retrain as a lawyer and get a pathetic sinecure from mummy (he's a fine one to talk about affirmative action, unless he seriously expects us to believe the honourable association of Harold Shipman wannabes advertised his job, and he really beat out all the other candidates fair and square.) As someone from whom you can pry greasy nerdom from his cold dead hands, it makes no sense to me. --81.187.75.69 20:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

That's the true tragedy of Andy. He had every chance of doing something useful and meaningful with his life. :( --Robledo 21:21, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Like his brother who has a love hate relationship with sausage? --Shagie 22:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

For the order of authors, I'd expect this sort of paper to begin with the people who did the bulk of the hands-on work first, ordered from largest contribution to smallest, and to then have project manager(s) at the end. In the case of multiple managers you'd normally then have them in increasing seniority towards the end, leaving the middle for those who did less. Let's see:

• First author: MS in electrical engineering from University of California, Berkeley
• Second author: MS in electrical engineering from University of California, Berkeley
• Third author: BSE in electrical engineering from Princeton University (guess who!)
• Fourth author: Manager of design team at Intel
• Fifth author: Department manager at Intel

so Andy looks to be the least significant author. As I suspected the issue which that paper is in was specially for work presented at a particular conference. The time from submission to publication was about 5 months (looks typical for that conference issue), whilst flicking through the rest of the volume suggests their normal review time is anything from 9 to 14 months. Surely Andy's paper wasn't subject to less meaningful review than most papers in that journal? (the 2 page "conference digest" one is just a summary of the longer paper by the looks of it, which is normal)

Also, the typical measure of paper quality is the number of times they've been cited. That paper has been cited twice, so is clearly a highly significant work. Alt 05:45, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

(Oh, in my library I found that journal under the classmark "TK". Surely highly significant, no? Alt 07:09, 3 July 2008 (EDT))

More Hypocrisy

So when the courts rule that Strip clubs and porn shops can't advertise near schools because it's potentially damaging to the children, conservatives cheer. When the court rules that the Bong Hits for Jesus banner was within school jurisdiction, conservatives cheer. This sets up a standard of the school being able to control speech and behavior.... However, when the court rules that Anti-Choice groups can parade around disgusting photos of aborted babies, they still cheer How the fuck do they rationalize this stuff? really? someone on that side give me a clue. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 02:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Not quite on target, but here's more Schlaffluence: [5] Inspired by his epic victorious battle against the forces of deceit and evolution! ħuman 02:41, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It's funny how that article seems to be part of a deliberate strategy of "argumentum ad nauseum" The Lay Scientist 07:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems like Andy is going insane trying to rationalize his epic pwning.... Everything about this debacle screams historical rewrite SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 07:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Planned Parenthood should respond to that billboard by making a giant image of something like this with the intent to discourage having your teeth removed.Shangrala 08:36, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia challenge

"A Conservapedia challenge is an unsolved problem or task that offers the promise of bettering society when lawfully accomplished", and "The first Conservapedia challenge is to find a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's federally funded data". Can you come up with other as worthy "unsolved problems or tasks" to better society? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 10:06, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

That was going to be the point of my WIGO on this, but I was beaten to it. The heck with feeding the poor, building homes, curing disease or solving conflicts - THIS is the top priority for the betterment of society! --SpinyNorman 10:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Feel free to change the WIGO entry! (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 10:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, here's my Rationalwiki Challenge - come up with additional Conservapedia Challenges that are accepted additions to Andy's page, which cannot be distinguished from idiocy based on a Poe's Law test. --SpinyNorman 10:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Hah! He's gone over the edge in to obsessive stalking territory now. Lenski should just run `dd if=/dev/random of=~/keepbigbabyoccupiedforyears.bin count=1048576 bs=1024` and tell Andy its his data. He'd never know the difference. --81.187.75.69 10:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a Conservapedia Fatwa! --SpinyNorman 10:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You have to appreciate the style. Talk:Lenski_Dialog gets too full of people telling him he is wrong? Move to Talk:Richard_Lenski. They follow? Move to Talk:Main_Page. They are still following? Create an entirely new page. It's a sort of iterated version of the Schlafly Rearguard. It's ingenious tactics like these that keep CP bias free--ShooFly 10:31, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, he seems to be being chased around his own wiki at the moment.--Bob^{bing up} 12:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Bonus Conservapedia Challenges:

(Anyone know how to put these on a page where they can be voted on?)

• Curing J. Schlafly's homosexuality
• Proving Barak Obama's a Muslim after all, proving he was born outside the USA, etc.

Feel free to add to the list... --SpinyNorman 11:10, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

• Proving abortions cause breast cancer
• Proving that being a successful woman who is an entertainer or somehow related to an entertainer causes breast cancer -Shangrala 11:59, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Proving that sculpture is painting. --SpinyNorman 12:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Prove that all "blacks" are where they are because of affirmative action and that going back to the days of slavery would be better for all concerned.
• Achieve an outright ban of all pornography, ranging from triple anal to flashing an ankle.
• Making Jesus Camp a manditory activity for kids in the summer. Armondikov 12:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Proving that every released Gitmo detainee went back to terrorism. --SpinyNorman 12:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Publishing the Conservapedia version of the Bible, with Andy's edits applied. --SpinyNorman 12:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Unearth kangaroo fossils between Turkey and Australia. --SpinyNorman 12:24, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Obtaining a copy of the cheque that Richard Dawkins paid to be made a professor.--Bob^{bing up} 12:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Have women renounce the wearing of pants, and only dress in modest skirts again. --SpinyNorman 12:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
  • I second the firrst part of this challenge. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 12:41, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Find out what the FBI actually did with Andy's complaint.--Bob^{bing up} 12:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Get blocking rights on Rationalwiki --SpinyNorman 12:40, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Establish Conservapublishing^TM to print and distribute all the books Andy's Homskollar kids write. --81.187.75.69 12:41, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Find out what pretzels have their shape. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 12:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Find the Earth's 4004BC date stamp. Ajkgordon 12:42, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Have President McCain appoint Andy as Secretary of Education. --SpinyNorman 12:43, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Establish an endowment to provide every homechooled student with their own laptop and handgun. --SpinyNorman 12:45, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Invent a Conservative Calculator, which sets pi= 3.00, and 40/8=6. --SpinyNorman 12:48, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Get the Pope to Beatify Saint Ronnie, citing the miracle of the Berlin wall. --81.187.75.69 13:00, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Have a textbook version of Andy's final American History Lectures be adopted in public schools. --SpinyNorman 13:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Modify state laws to restrict marriage to the union of a conservative man and a conservative woman. --SpinyNorman 13:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
• Prove that Blacks and Women were always eligible for presidency--Damo2353 21:40, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know what all this is, but maybe due to minor brainwashing (religion) I think the points about pornography and girls not wearing pants are good ideas. ^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:Dues ex Kektlika|Dues ex Kektlika]] / [[User talk:Dues ex Kektlika|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Dues ex Kektlika|contribs]]}

Explain the logic, Guns kill millions of people every year.... But we need to ban the pron... Amazing SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 15:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

And is "pants" here used in the US or UK meaning? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:44, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I suspect Conservatives would be less in favour of women wearing skirts amd not pants in the British sense. --81.187.75.69 16:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Dear god, what a thing to wake up to. I am drooling over the prospect of very public Schlafly Embarrasment. Ace McWicked 16:31, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

They stole our fucking template!

We worked hard to steal that thing! -- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 17:11, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Been away for a while PalMD? :) Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

See t'last archive>   ^Contribs_Talk 17:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It may have been discussed before, but I still think Assfly has got away too lightly on this one. Does anyone really think putting a note on the page saying "this table is allegedly licensed under the GFDL, but it's too confusing for me so I can't be bothered to comply with the terms" constitutes compliance? The page is a derivative work, motherfucker. --81.187.75.69 17:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I was up in the friggin' woods...c'mon!-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 17:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Eh, it's one of those "pick your battles" thing, we poked him, he danced, c'est toute. tmtoulouse ^persecute 17:25, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Bah, push for the full terms. He needs to attribute that shit, link to rationalwiki. Common, it'd be hilarious. --81.187.75.69 17:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You caught the whole "evil canadian graduate student threatens us" posts on the main page right? That was classic Andy :). tmtoulouse ^persecute 17:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually that was the sanest thing Andy ever said. Can't trust them Canadians. For example, have you ever wondered why so many of them are comedians? Hint: I don't think its their "your mama" jokes . . . ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 21:47, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy Runs Away!

When Andy posted the posturing "Conservapedia Challenge" he hardly thought anyone would come up with the goods!

First off, I accept. Posting under my real name (Tony Lloyd - Geeky spam warning: [6], aesthetic warning - they're is a picture of me)

Next someone claims to have won, posting links to huge amounts of (totally incomprehensible unless you're a biologist) data.

Andy tries to dodge my acceptance. I reply. Andy tries to dodge again. I reply again. I am banned ("Come back when you're ready to act like an adult..") and my reply deleted.

Andy claims "it's obvious to me that Lenski will not allow public scrutiny of the publicly funded data,". That isn't obvious to me. What is obvious is that Andy is desperate to avoid being seen to be ..er..wrong. Karl Popper: "I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation", what odds on something like that coming from Andy?

Just to use Rationalwiki's storage to preserve the deleted reply:

"Back on a PC. so I can sign and use the spellcheck)

“The value in public scrutiny is to allow many to review the data”

No one, but you, claims to want to review data that they are unable to get hold of. Your actions suggest that even you do not want to "verify or replicate published findings".

The purpose of my “single hypothesis” is to test it, not merely to assert that “it's obvious to me that Lenski will not allow public scrutiny”. That, particular, hypothesis has either not been tested or it has been refuted. You asked for data. There was data in the paper. You asked for more data. Hipparchos gave you links to more data, made public by Prof. Lenski. That was too much data: an attempt to “obscure by burying the reader with volumes of meaningless or less meaningful info”. What data do you want? You refuse to specify it in a manner such that the statement “Lenski has not complied” is falsifiable. You have not given the meaning of your request, we are unable to clearly stipulate what your request entails. Thus it is untestable, thus it has not been tested. Under other meanings of “data” that are clear, that data has been made available to you and thus the hypothesis is falsified.

You have issued a challenge. I have accepted that challenge. Once again we can moan all we like about the lack of potential for review of Lenski’s findings. The question now is “do you want these results scrutinized?” If so then, for the price of a pint and a pinch of internet glory, I have undertaken to enable that scrutiny. That scrutiny will not be as good as thousands reviewing the data in detail but, and boy is this a big “but”, it will be better than you have right now and are likely to get by posting entries on the main page of Conservapedia.

Do you want these results scrutinized or not? I could murder a pint right now!"

--Toffeeman 17:43, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

This can only end in tears, but someone has given you a second life. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

and the jerky cowrdly one reverts in ten seconds flat. apparently he really can't handle the truth. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

(EC) What a pity that your posting was deleted. It only shows what a coward that "brave" ex-naval office Karajou really is. Looking back at the talk page of the Lenski Dialog on CP it is Karajou who has deleted the vast majority of comments. Not because they were vulgar or offensive, but just because he didn't like what was said. He claims to have served many years in the navy to protect American values but freedom of speech is probably one of the greatest. Yet our "hero" cannot stand a dissenting voice. That is the hallmark of fascism. Karajou you should be ashamed! You claim to be a patriot yet you deny the greatest of American liberties. If you were any sort of man, rather than a lickspittle furtzlewanger, you would reinstate all those deleted comments and debate them honestly, but you have neither the wit nor the integrity to do so. If I knew you Karajou, I would be embarassed to call you a friend. You hide behind a pseudonym and deny the right of appeal by failing to activate an email address. Sir, you are a sorry specimen of humanity and a disgrace to America. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

well said and right on the mark. The cowardly jerky one, AKA Karajou, is the typical bully. Full of bluster and afraid of his own shadow. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:33, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, if Karajou had been born in Germany 1920 he'd certainly be a very enthusiastic SS officer. While I remain unconvinced that he would have any leadership or other skills to advance to a high level, no doubt he'd be one of the excessively brutal ones who would have been hung at Nuremberg. DickTurpis 20:05, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Sadly DeanWert, the chap who reinstated the post has been banned, for ever, by our brave Karajou. I emailed him, but I think that's been disabled aswell! --Toffeeman 18:56, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah you can see that karajerk shut down his email to keep our ranks from swelling (hehehe . . . sorry). ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 21:33, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Threats and intimidation

These of all things have become the standard excuses the cowardly Karajerk uses to block people. What the heck? It seems as if he being quite explicit in say anyone who disagrees with Andy or I are intimidating threats? this seems quite at odds with his bully persona. any clues? precedents? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 18:39, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

"any clues? precedents?" Just about any authoritarian regime ever, anywhere. Mugabe back to the Spanish Inquisition. They are all terrified of people talking, thinking, questioning. Discussion scares them, scares them shitless.--Toffeeman 19:02, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

"any clues? precedents?" Schoolyard bullies who claim they were provoked as an excuse when caught. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:03, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Calm your collective selves. Let me rephrase the question. I have a theory that these weird fixations Andy and the jerky one adopt have particular and singular origins. Much like pit bulls they latch on to these things and won't let go. I meant to ask if anyone knew of the particular incident that caused Cap'n coward to start adopting this notably whiney excuse (threats and intimidation) to block any and all comers regardless of whatever prompted the block. Did someone, for instance, accuse Karajerk of threats and intimidation? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 21:33, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Besides his mommy, his schoolmates, his Navy co-workers, his wife and his kids? Noooo... Oh, wait, yes. Us. ħuman 21:40, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Right, but he is a red-blooded 'merican (or so he fashions himself) and we are, to varying degrees, commie pinko faggots. How can we intimidate him? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 21:51, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

I was answering your question "Did someone, for instance, accuse Karajerk of threats and intimidation?" emphsis mine. See? ħuman 22:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Some trains have difficulty changing tracks

Obligatory *snrk*. By the way, has anyone been keeping track of the number of articles directly created due to the Lenski affair?67.170.155.176 19:21, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Where, CP or RW?   ^Contribs_Talk 19:24, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

And are you counting all of the thing's added to articles like professor values and liberal monkey bastards? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Another train always on the same track: Conservative has some projects, important enough to keep an IP range blocked new user from contributing for the next two weeks. Any idea what these projects might be? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 19:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Depends some have bee a bit tangential. I'll give it a go. Conservapedia:Articles related to the Lenski affair. 219.90.219.105 19:54, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Good start, 219xxx. Thanks! ħuman 01:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Speechless

They hate us. They really hate us. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 00:54, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You only just noticed? $\approx$$\pi$ 01:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Nah, that's just some nationalistic Dane-wannabe toeing the fuhrer's line in case the fuhrer might buy dinner. ħuman 01:01, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't fully agree with the policy, but the filter blocks it. What's the problem? And my dear, dear Welsh friend, please stop calling me a nationalist, stop calling me a Dane-wannabe, and stop using Nazi comparisons. And nobody bought me dinner, so if you would be so kind... (you can use paypal). Bohdan2 01:10, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

How much do you disagree with the policy? How much do you agree with it? And you're not a wannabe, you are a Danish imperialist, and you don't think teh assfly runs CP as a fascist, if not a form of government, at least as a system of control? ħuman 01:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll have you know I am deeply opposed to Danish imperialism. Withdraw your accusations, please. Bohdan2 02:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Ignoring the Dennishland and their pastries and overseas adventures for a moment, how do you stand on the "policy", exactly? ħuman 03:02, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Allow me to rephrase.

They consider us an actual threat. They really consider us a threat.

It never really hit me until now that they actually might fear what we say. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Um, no I don't think anyone fears you. You might want to email Aschlafly and ask why the name is blocked. Bohdan2 01:11, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You think he'd answer? I emailed him on the CPversary last Nov., did I even get a "thank you"? No. The assfly is a rude, clueless, authoritarian loser. ħuman 01:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

No, they really do fear us. JosephG 01:17, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

If they wanted open dialog, they wouldn't have started their own echo chamber to begin with.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 01:07, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

That is so true. Everyone here has pretty much been blocked for not repeating back to Andy or one of his acolytes (Lenski is a genius) what they want to hear. They don't fear us, they hate us because we document and debunk their theories and crazy assertions and highlight their hypocrisy. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:31, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I've been working really hard to get my Metro Liberal club to invite him to campus for a debate... everyone wants to, but I can't get the president and advisor to sign off on using funds.... I really wanna pwn him in public, where he can't just block his way out of uncomfortable questions. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 02:14, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

If you actually manage to pull this off, I will nominate you for Discordian Sainthood. If you get it on video, godhood. :D --Gulik 02:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the whole reason CP exists is so that Andy can actually WIN arguments for once...even if he has to do it by blocking every single person who disagrees with him. --Gulik 02:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Having seen his history as the "dumber" of "dumb and dumber" on various places on teh webs, I agree, absolutely. The power to absolutely block dissent has corrupted him absolutely, as it were. ħuman 03:05, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Andy is in an extreme state of denial and I believe that having surrounded himself with yes men for so long he has actually developed a mild psychological disorder. He is certainly presents a different personality now from a year ago. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:20, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I am beginning to worry our taunting has made him worse. The more we make fun of him here and go on there and disagree with him, especial trolling or vandalism. The more convinced he is of his hypothesis that liberals are deceitful and trying to undermined his beliefs, the more indrawn he becomes and the more he relies on Ed and Conservative and his cronies to keep the liberal hoard at bay. $\approx$$\pi$ 04:28, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

He is insecure, I think. Not that armchair diagnosis by a layperson has any validity, but I notice that he sticks to any issue when he has any traction and opposition. The Lenski thing is a good example: it threatened his ego and he thought he had a case, so now he is dead-set on proving himself right. Anyone rational can see how this is going to end; the best response the creationists could give was that of Behe, who essentially said "this doesn't matter anyway." Instead, Andy has tried to make it about the validity of the experiment and the data, in which he is laughably out of his element. He keeps raising the stakes, probably on Conservative's advice (the "challenge" thing smacks of Ken).--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:37, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of Andy's power, has anyone noticed that he has installed extension even Wikipedia doesn't have, like nuke.$\approx$$\pi$ 04:03, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Could you explain what that is and what it might mean. You might be all fancy with the wiki-editing and your transcendental number (THAT DEFIES THE BIBLE!), but I have no clue what that even is.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:37, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

These are the details for Nuke. There is a list of (nearly) all Mediawiki extensions here. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It basically allows the sysops the power to delete in one foul swoop every article you edited. Take Ed this week deleting derivative. He had the power to delete every article Mathoreily went near. It would take days to clean up that mess. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:20, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Gawd. And Andy is the guy who banned 60,000 ip's as a test fuckup. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 05:21, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Is anybody else fearing (or hoping!) that having Nuke in his closet is one step nearer to eventually blow CP up? Another stressful Lenski case, the whisky bottle on the table, that Nuke-button so near and inviting, and... BOOM! (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 05:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Somebody might want to social engineer his/her way up to that Nuke button. Hopefully soon. --RuffNekk ^Arrr! 06:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Say, is there a history eraser button as well? --Kels 19:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

That is Oversight Andy just installed. $\approx$$\pi$ 07:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

The Rationalwiki Challenge

1. Whereas Andrew Schlafly has issued a “Conservapedia Challenge” that asks for a legal way to secure data from Professor Lenski.

2. Whereas he has f**king data

3. Whereas if that isn’t enough data he can get loads

4. Whereas he thinks that’s too much

5. Whereas he shows no interest in actually getting data, just some support for “he hasn’t supplied it”

6. Whereas Mr. Schlafly’s comments seek to cast doubt on Professor Lenski’s research, honesty and professional integrity.

7. Whereas, since his second reply to Mr. Schlafly, we think Professor Lenski is “up there” with Alan Sokal.

8. IT IS PROPOSED That we write to Mr. Aschlafly and challenge him to substantiate the claims made against Professor Lenski.

I suggest (having taken Schlafly’s first letter to Lenski as my model):

Dear Mr. Aschlafly,

Scepticism has been expressed on Rationalwiki about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that Professor Lenski is withholding data on his findings that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in his study.

Specifically we are left with the distinct impression, echoed by editors on your site and Professor Lenski, that you are acting in bad faith. The impression is that your data requirements have been left deliberately vague in order that, whatever data is made available, you may still claim that they have not been met. In support of this we would cite Professors Lenski’s first reply which directs you to the data in the paper itself and the data links supplied on Professor Lenski’s own website (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski ). You claim that the former is not enough, the latter too much and yet do not specify what is “just right”.

In addition, there is scepticism about your use of the term “available”. For data to be made available does not require that it be made available free of all conditions. The DVD of the full first series of “Heroes” is available to the public provided they pay for it. Grants, scholarships and bursaries to fund college education are available to the public, provided they meet the qualifying criteria. Professor Lenski has publically stated that all his “data” is available to the public provided they meet the conditions required and defray reasonable costs. As you have neither met the conditions required nor offered to defray reasonable costs receipt or non-receipt of data by you is irrelevant.

Your own submission guidelines, given in the “Conservapedia Commandments”, state that “everything you post must be true and verifiable”. Also, your claims may be seen as casting doubt on the professionalism and integrity of Professor Lenski, providing further reason for either verification of your claims or a retraction of the claims.

Please specify the data you require sufficient to enable Professor Lenski to know how to comply, meet the conditions he imposes and undertake to defray reasonable costs so that your remarkable claims can be tested.

I will post your reply, or lack of reply, on rationalwiki.com and direct to Professor Lenski.

Thank you.--Toffeeman 07:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Organisms

Lenski's second letter makes much mention of the real data being in the organisms. Shouldn't we refer to this at some point? Secondly, shouldn't we question what he would actually do with either the (alleged) additional data or the organisms? Surely this is where the issue of "bad faith" comes in?--Bob^{bing up} 07:22, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Exactly Bob. Like I told Aschlafly, he really doesn't want the data to be there for multiple reasons -- one of them being he can't really do anything with it (and Lenski knows it). --RuffNekk ^Arrr! 07:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy is being fairly "smart" in that he has totally ignored the organisms issue ( as far as I can see) and has managed to get people to concentrate on the alleged missing pieces. It seems to me that many people accepted the game on his turf and are talking about his "list of missing data" which he can go on expanding and imagining for as long as he likes. The questions to nail him on are "Is the data in the Organisms? (And, if not, why not?) and "What, exactly, would he do with the organisms if he got them?" "Cause that's what Lenski challenged him with. --Bob^{bing up} 07:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

The danger is that we risk giving him "wriggle room" by being over-prescriptive in what he asks for ("I never said I wanted the organisms, you've specified the organisms because you know I don't have the equipment and want to engineer a situation where I can't but fail your challenge") . The thing is that Achlafly hasn't actually asked for anything that he hasn't got. He asked for "data" he got data, he asked for "more data", he got more data. The "bad faith" goes deeper than not having a good reason for the data: he's not just trying to waste someones time, he's trying to give a lie credibility. --Toffeeman 07:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

If we ask him "is the data in the organisms" can he not answer "no"? "If not why not" has already been answered by him, or at least he has the answer to hand. Recent posts have dodged the idea that he wants the data or wants to do anything with it: he now claims to want it to be "publically available".

The good Professor has stated that "the data" is "publically available". Aschlafly is, basically, saying that he is lying yet shows no support for that statement. What support could Aschlafly give? Well he, as a member of the public, could ask for some data, comply with conditions and see whether or not he gets it. If Aschlafly does not get it, after having told Lenski what it is, complying with all conditions and offering to pay reasonable costs then Aschlafly has proved his point. He doesn't need to ask for anything in particular for this test(does not need to be all, does not need to be what we think he should be asking for): something simple would do. But we all have enough confidence in Lenski that if Aschlafly actually takes up the challenge he will fail, and fail miserably. --Toffeeman 08:03, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Qualifications

As was noted Aschlafly put all the initials after his name that he was entitled to (whereas Professor Lenski just signed "Richard Lenski"). Is there anyone who would be willing to be the signatory who has absolutely loads of initials after their name?--Toffeeman 08:07, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Sign it by multiple individuals and have every single one use as many as they're entitled to use. I can probably do MChem(Hons), MA, amRSC, DipABRSM. Armondikov 13:20, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

We could get ordained as reverends prior to sending the letter. Barikada 17:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

How about Popes? I'm a Discordian, I can harelip everyone reading this RIGHT NOW. --Gulik 17:25, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Letter to Andy

I agree that a letter like this would be good. But I won't hold my breath that he would answer it. As things stand he'd just ignore the whole thing. Is there any way at all we could embarrass him into answering it? Perhaps a multiwaved vandal of CP mentioning the letter on every other page so that even the faithful at CP would get curious as to what is going on.Damo2353 08:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Well he did publish the second reply from Lenski! I'm guessing that that was because he would get worse publicity if he didn't publicise it. So we can post his reply or non reply here, oh and Pandas Thumb, and PZ Meyer's place, and Dawkin's site and send it to the Guardian and ......--Toffeeman 08:22, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

He can't answer it, so don't get your hopes up about that. Maximum, he will respond with a couple of words, but more probably it will be ignored. He can't publicly acknowledge a group that CP tries to pretend doesn't exist and whose name has been stricken. So you should only count on the lack of reply and being able to laugh about it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I know that, I was just trying to get people thinking as to how we could encourage him to answer it. On further thought the vandalism idea is not a good one, but there may be other ways of shaming him into answering. I'm just not clever or internet savy enough to think of one.--Damo2353 08:35, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

While I do really like this idea, we have to realize it is going to get zero traction. Emails will be ignored, anything posted on CP will be instantly reverted (probably with deletions) and bans will follow. This will be just like all the FBI inquiries. The faithful at CP, at least the sysops and other acolytes, will enforce it's mass removal and memory holing, and the others (ie "liberals") will get blocks or bans for even mentioning this. Posting it on other sites will at least likely not be deleted, but there the audience i people who already know what a complete moron Andy is, and are aware that he's not acting in good faith. Posting Andy's lack of reply is hardly riveting material. I think we should go ahead, but be fully aware that the overall effect will be the same whether we do so or not. The Lenski affair only get interesting because he was a decent enough person to respond to an idiot like Andy. Andy has no decency, and this will not yield interesting results. A person with no shame cannot be shamed into any action. DickTurpis 08:37, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Whatever you write, he'll publish it and the response will be something along the lines of "This shows a lot about Liberals and their Attitudes" and probably publish it with the links removed. History doesn't repeat, but it has very little originality. Armondikov 13:13, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm. So we have very different ideas on the approach he'd take. I'll actually lay a wager (say pi times pi dollars to RW?) that he censors rather than responds. What do you say? To be fair, I feel i should warn you that if you want any sort of response from Andy other than deletion and banning, mentioning R*t**n*lW*k* is decidedly not the way to get it. DickTurpis 13:26, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't think any sort of dumping of the letter at CP is appropriate, if you guys want to move forward with this I would recommend more just posting an "open letter" in the CP namespace. He will know about it. tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:27, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

PJR's inactivity

PJR's recent activity: a few talk page edits, another disagreement with Andy, a few reverts. But all-in-all, he's been averaging less than a dozen edits per day for the last week or so. What Is Going On? Bondurant 07:20, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting, but way too early to read anything into it, I think. It bears keeping an eye on.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps he's on holiday?Crookedmouth 09:17, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

As one of the few people on there who uses his brain, he's probably realised that he's in a really silly place & ought to get out. Anyhow the great Kenservative seems to be taking over the defender of creation mantle (see below).   ^Contribs_Talk 10:07, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

On the other hand, he is the only creationist who uses his brain over there. Leaving that place in the hands of people good at harassing but unable to discuss would be a defeat for his dear creationism. It's not easy to be a PJR, is it? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 10:14, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, he's arguing about biblical inaccuracies with me via email. (I think they exist--he doesn't.) So he hasn't been Raptured yet, anyway. --Gulik 15:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Ken's latest

cp:Creation science - 24 edits so far today (09:15, 4 July 2008 (EDT)). (Beware all you Liberal Evilutionists; Ken's coming for you) [see Image:Creative Ken.gif]   ^Contribs_Talk 09:25, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Interestingly, if you read through the article you'll encounter this statement: "...it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 55% of scientists believed there is a God." This is then footnoted with a reference link to this article to back up that claim. But nothing in that article explicitly claims 55% of the scientists still believe in God -- this is probably a false deduction by Ken. In this article he is referencing it is explained: "It's being spun in different ways," he (ed: the author of the poll) said. "The Christian Science Monitor ran an editorial exhorting the fact that scientists still do believe -despite the fact that well less than half of the scientists in my survey believed in God - while the Journal of Humanism ran a piece proclaiming that they do not. Is the glass half empty or half full?" (emphasis added). Unfortunately I'm blocked at CP right now, but someone may want to point this out on the talk page there ;) --RuffNekk ^Arrr! 09:51, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy & the SDI

[7] My recollection is that Patriot was more spectacular than successful. I may also be incorrect here, but I thought that it was actually a Tactical weapon, rather than a Strategic one? Crookedmouth 09:17, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

But it was Saint Ronny's & therefore beyond criticism.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:29, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

That naughty Wikipedia!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I seem to remember some classic doublespeak from the first Gulf War, when the Patriots failed to intercept Scud missiles fired at Israel - some Pentagon bloke defined "intercept" as "they passed really close to each other" --Psygremlin_Whut? 09:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Re the Gulf war, this from the article referred to in the "Greatest Nation" bit: "America must be defended and her liberties spread abroad when possible." Aargh! Empire building or what?   ^Contribs_Talk 09:59, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You are correct in that the Patriot is a tactical weapon, not strategic. The SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) was basically a euphemism for Start Wars, sorry Star Wars, which would have been a black hole for mountains of tax dollars. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:07, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, the Patriot Missile was funded, developed, adopted and deployed all before Saint Ronnie came to occupy his throne, which kind of puts a dampener on the whole theory. Star Wars is fundamentally a whole different thing, you can't intercept an ICBM in its terminal phase, because by then it has split in to potentially 100s of different warheads, including some decoys and a whole load of extra stuff to confuse radar tracking. For Star Wars ever to work, you have to kill the ICBM in its launch phase using bizarre ideas like GIANT LASERS... IN SPACE. It's insane. Aslo, happy jingoism day Conservapedia, enjoy your GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH! Don't let what the Bible says about pride get in the way of self congratulation, will you? --81.187.75.69 10:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

“”Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

—Samuel Johnson April 7, 1775

  ^Contribs_Talk 10:40, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

For all you kids out there and for you OLD people who has forgotten: Once, during microphone tests for the weekly presidential lie fest radio address, his holiness, St Ronnie quipped, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've just signed legislation that would make outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes." CЯacke® 15:24, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I've got a techno remix of that! Barikada 17:28, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia police

There's an entry called Wikipedia police which doesn't appear to have been referenced here on RW judging by a quick search on the phrase. My brain almost exploded from irony overload. Daecon 10:13, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Classic Andy. As you said earlier, he thinks neutrality is a kind of liberal bias because it doesn't promote conservatism. But, more alarmingly, he also leaps one step further and turns the whole situation into a conspiracy as well. What's that quote about "the delusion that your enemies are organised"? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ <blink>▽</blink> ←} 10:21, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

(ec) POT, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:24, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

We have this, too bad the most amusing line was removed. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 13:57, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Poor chap. He's so blinded by his paranoia, that he's unable to see the real danger that is Wikipedia. JayJay4ever^??? 14:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Is Andy actually right?

Regarding the whole blacks and women could always be President discussion, is Andy actually right on this one? I'm quite sure he's right that women were never legally excluded from the Presidency, though they couldn't vote until 1920 (sure, the probability one one being elected for the first 150 years were basically zero, but that's not the issue). I don't know about blacks, though; I haven't looked too closely at Dred Scott, which seems to be the key factor here, but did that decision say all blacks weren't citizens or that slaves weren't citizens? DickTurpis 10:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

According to WP, "According to the Court, the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." "^{— Unsigned, by: JDellaro / talk / contribs}

He's right, but only in the most crudely explicit sense. The Dred Scott decision states that blacks don't have rights, but really that isn't necessary to rely upon; it is absolutely implicit in denying suffrage that the victims are also denied the right to run for office.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 13:36, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, guns don't kill people- bullets do!Shangrala 13:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Unless you pistol whip them. Which you almost certainly would. --81.187.75.69 15:47, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It really depends on how you look at it... Women were not specifically excluded from running for president, but it was really along the lines of The constitution does state that gravity is also in effect for the entire United States. In several places, they write things such as:

The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

and

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."(emphasis mine)This use of gender selective langugage was not an accident. It was chosen because at the time, the founding fathers assumed that only men would be running for president or vice president. Also, by not giving women the right to vote, they assumed that women would not be interested in (or not capable of understanding) poliics. With us negros however, they were not even considered full people (see 3/5 comprimise) Is there really a point in arguing whether or not they could really run for president? and when the supreme court issued the Dred Scott decision, they concluded that African Americans were not citizens of the United States, so that would also disqualify them, as they could no longer claim they were legal citizens... hope that clears things up SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 15:56, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

While I do agree that it is absurd to claim that women could have run for office, I believe lack of suffrage is good evidence. But I have to disagree with your linguistic analysis above... the male pronoun is gender neutral in English.

Andy has a case, but only the most laughable one imaginable. To wit: the same reasoning can be used to say that there has never been any prohibition against a moose running for President (and by that I don't mean Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party, but a real moose).--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm for this moose for President! See here! Auld Nick 03:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Just because I love a good debate. Even though in some cases he is gender neutral, for the most part it isn't. Also, there are several passages where he could be used, but "The People" is used instead, especially in the bill of rights, where the 5th amendment opens with "No person." If they were using the gender neutral version, they could have easily wrote "No man." SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 02:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Especially at the time of composition, "he" was almost inevitably gender neutral, although that is colored by the fact that they never would have dreamt it could apply to women. And "the People" refers not to gender inclusion, but to the idea of the American colonists as a coherent body whose will was sovereign. This would essentially come down to your philosophy of approaching the Constitution; if you interpret it literally and strictly according to what is written, then one must admit that women are not excluded because "he" is gender neutral unless otherwise specified. If you believe in trying to determine the author's intent, then one must admit that they absolutely would never want a woman to run for office. Either way, it is absurd to suggest it was ever an actual possibility until now.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:59, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

“He” as a gender neutral pronoun wasn’t an absolute at the time the US Constitution was written. Actual prescription of “he” as a gender neutral pronoun doesn’t seem to go back any father than 1795. Though the practice is much older; even at the time of writing it wasn’t the only option. The idea that “he” was always gender neutral in english simply isn’t supported by historical facts. Rylon

It's actually a more interesting debate than I thought. I figured that since they couldn't get on the roll that was the end of it. Perhaps that's not the end of the issue, but what pisses me off is Andy never makes any positive points, all he does is affirm that he is right and thats the end of it. He even calls that Damian guy illogical (not me by the way). I bet he was on the debate team at school and lost every time - now he can get his revenge.Damo2353 03:55, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I seriously doubt that anyone at Conservapedia was ever involved in serious debate (maybe Tim) partially becuase they have no idea of how debate actually works and partially because in order to be a successful debator, you have to be able to take either side... including the side you might not agree with. As hard as I try, I can't picture the Assfly arguing for gay people and abortion. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 05:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I would love to see the debate wherein our friend Sir Chuck the Dark Skinned argues against affirmative action, and sad Andy argues for it. I know who I would lay my money on winning. (Chuck, I hope I did not offend you with my "dark skinned" thing, if so, I am very sorry - but I think you won't be) ħuman 04:52, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Not at all, and actually, I not only argued against affirmative action, but the speech got me voted best speaker, and I would kick Andy's Assfly back to momma.... and as many comments as I make referring to myself as a darkie.... you'd have to try pretty hard to offend me. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 05:15, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Back to the original subject for a second, Tom Moore stated that "it is absolutely implicit in denying suffrage that the victims are also denied the right to run for office." I'm not sure that holds water. "Implicit" laws don't stand up too well. While I certainly won't deny that the founding fathers never intended anyone dark-skinned or female to be President, it seems they did not explicitly put anything in place to prevent a woman from becoming President (probably because they felt it was unnecessary, as no one would ever vote for a woman). There are really few criteria one needs to be President, and women have met every one of them except the being elected part, which is the real hurdle. Absent a Supreme Court ruling that they could not be President, I'd have to believe they legally were not prohibited. The question of whether black people could is trickier, and it looks like the Dred Scott case decided blacks were not citizens, though I'd like to look more closely into that. Does that mean that no black person was ever a US citizen until the 13th amendment was passed? I'm curious about this now. DickTurpis 13:55, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Didn't you also have to be a land-owner to be a citizen? If that's the case, then women and blacks couldn't have qualified. I could be way off, but I thought I remember learning something about that. Jrssr5 09:22, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Feedback request

Those of you WIGO buffs might be interested in a call out for general feedback on a new element of the site at RationalWiki:Proposed Article of the weak. tmtoulouse ^persecute 14:38, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Spinny Thing

I vaguely remember having a conversation about this when it was first used... but isn't that a violation of like eight different points of the flag code? SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 16:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

The entire incident is one huge deja-vu. Also the short exchange at the top of Andy's talk page. --Sid 17:05, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I remember seeing an article on the "flag code" (no, not semaphore) in USA Toady a year or so back. To a European's eye it struck me as a bit odd. In the UK the only rule is that the broad white stripe at the top is next to the flag-pole. Of course the veneration of the flag only makes it easier for swarthy furriners to goad the US by burning the SSB in the streets. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:12, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It's been my general experience that the people who get angriest over "desecration of the flag" are the ones who leave their own flags out in all manner of inclement weather until they're basically rags. When I was a Boy Scout, we used to go around the neighborhood collecting worn-out flags to be burned (one of the two recommended methods of disposing of the flag.) I had one fella yell at me for "wanting to desecrate the flag"--which he had let become tattered, mud-spattered, and generally crap-looking. --Phentari 18:54, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Also see Flag Police ħuman 21:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Note, too, that on CP's Main Page the current featured article features a logo featuring a backwards American flag. This is a Karajou abomination, as is the backwards flag on all of his Civil War articles (an etiquette error that was pointed out when said article was the featured article many months ago, which still hasn't been fixed [if memory serves, the user who pointed out this error was banned for doing so]). Given his proclivity for backwards flags, Karajou must hate America.--WJThomas 08:06, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I remember that one.... It was my the first time one of my WIGO items got a direct response from CP.... let me see if I can find it... Ah yes:don't bother trying to follow the links, they're broken*Obviously, retroactive application doesn't exist in the netherrealm that is TK's Brain Update: Looks like someone is paying attention, even if not actually learning anything. I was so young then SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 16:58, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

CP apparently set the page caching to "Infinity+1"

I just noticed this in the Recent Changes: "Template:Mainpageright‎; 16:51 . . (+459) . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (Jesse Helms passes away)"

So I go to the Main Page and... nothing. I hit F5 and... nothing. Again... nothing. I go back, click the "Template:Mainpageright" link, and there it is, right at the top. Back to Main Page... nothing.

I'd guess that, in order to prevent the server from crashing every 2.5 minutes, the CP backstage team fiddled with the refresh rate of transcluded templates, or just with the general cache settings. Anybody else noticed anything like this? It may be something on my end, but I really doubt it because other things (also on CP) work just as expected. --Sid 17:11, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It's the same for me too. Weird! Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:16, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

And me!   ^Contribs_Talk 17:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Same here.. on my talk page I reported something missing that was there earlier and later it was back (no it wasn't edited by anyone). --RuffNekk ^Arrr! 17:48, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

's there now!   ^Contribs_Talk 17:52, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You're right! So it only took, what, an hour? Wow... --Sid 17:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Red telephone message for the Gentleman at a liberal website!

While it lasts...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative/Gentlemen-you-are-being-grossly-deficient-about-Conservapedia-reporting_-again

"You are being grossly deficient regarding Conservapedia's Alexa rankings once again in your article about Conservapedia. Given your great penchant to hide you[sic] head in the sand and ignore reality, I would not be surprised if you did not update your article.

Please see: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/conservapedia.com "

Cp is apparently showing quite a spike at around 6/30 (when they got their server working again post-Lenski reply #2).

Ken, those hits may not be something to be proud of.

Also, there is now apparently only one of us... One more thought, Ken, why don't you just make a sub-page called red telephone and email one of us each time you update it? Heck, we coudl even put it on our watchlists! ħuman 17:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey! if you reduce graph smoothing we beat 'em on the 26th.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:15, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You need to grab the link from the "Permalink" link at the bottom right of the graph. Like this (Oh, and you're right, of course!) --Sid 18:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Deborah doesn't seem to like this page. Alt 18:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It's just one of three messages she doesn't like:

(diff) (hist) . . User:VictorD/Yes Ken do not worry RationalWiki got your message and you can stop spamming your own site now‎; 18:16 . . (+9) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (delete this)

(diff) (hist) . . User:VictorD/PS Congrats on any potential spamming and viral marketing you did to boost the reach‎; 18:15 . . (+8) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (delete this)

(diff) (hist) . . User:VictorD/PPS Although we think it is all just because of Lenski‎; 18:14 . . (+7) . . Deborah (Talk | contribs) (delete this)

Lame wandalism, but still fun to watch, I guess. --Sid 18:24, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Undent We actually beat 'em two days on the trot last week. Thanks guys for sending traffic our way!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:41, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh and Fuck Off Ken!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:55, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

sorry   ^Contribs_Talk 19:56, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I have fixed the site statistic on Conservapedia' page. $\approx$$\pi$

One More Thing Gentlemen

First edit:

"Could you please state in the article about your own website that Wikipedia will not permit an article on you because you are not notable. Et tu, Wikipedia? It seems as if even your fellow liberals want to keep you mired in the muck of obscurity. :)"

Huh? We simply haven't been reported on by any "reliable sources", unlike the pile of dreck known as CP. We get mentioned, however, in their article about CP... I must admit, however, I liked your little "muck and mire" bit of writing. You should try to write better, like that, in the brief bits of text interspersed between the quotation-stripmining projects you call "articles". ħuman 21:13, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Who cares if we arn't on Wikipedia? $\approx$$\pi$ 21:17, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Ten edits later...

"I see you updated your article on Conservapedia. Now could you please state in the article about your own website that Wikipedia will not permit an article on your website because Wikipedians do not believe you are notable. Et tu, Wikipedia? It seems as if even your fellow liberals want to keep you mired in the muck of obscurity. :) If you could face this unpleasant reality in your article on your website about yourselves, I will be impressed. However, I do not expect to be impressed lest you I allow you to disappoint me. "

Wikipedians? They are just following policy. Absent a notable source, things don't get written about at WP. The article on CP barely makes it, but it has been the subject of a newspaper article or two, and some mockery on teh tellytubes. I don't understand, however, why it is an "unpleasant fact" that RW does not have an article about it on WP? By the way, Ken, you are writing to us, correct? Or are you writing to your friends at metapedia? You really should make this clear when you dial your red telephone. ħuman 21:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I go to CP's Recent Changes page, and the first thing I see are seven edits to Ken's shout-outs (they stick out even more because of the mandatory long-as-fuck name). Yes, Ken, keep it up! Spam your own site! --Sid 21:22, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Agian who cares? How about we have something like this,

RationalWiki is a small site and rearly makes it into the top 100,000 site at Alexa. We come up usually on the second page on a google search for a topic we have a page on. We so far are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Our objective here is not to collect "hits" but to disseminate true and accurate information whilst debunking pseudoscience and other anti-intellectual "information". Remember the truth is not a popularity contest.

Just because we don't have small dick issues and post everytime we show up in a search engine on the front page doesn't make us wrong. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks pi, I mistranslated what you wrote at our RW article. I came here to copy Ken's effluent prose, but liked yours better! ħuman 21:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

the truth is not a popularity contest. Can we make this the site motto? Or at least a quote on the front page? It's a good one. --Gulik 00:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Il like that, let's at least make it one of our "slogans"... Now where are they hid? ħuman 02:51, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk page for the actual Conservapedia article. -Az

Because all publicity is good publicity amiright? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 12:40, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Finland and Conservapedia

I was checking how's CP doing on Alexa.com, and I it's curious that 5.6% of its users are from Finland, after USA of course, but above Canada. Anybody knows why? --JayJay4ever^??? 19:04, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

A large proxy site, maybe? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:09, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

It's the Nokia Mafia.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:53, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Fins enjoy lulz?Antifly 21:03, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Traffic irrelevancy

Rationalwiki.com users come from these countries:

• United States 32.8%
• Finland 24.1%
• Ireland 12.0%
• United Kingdom 9.0%
• Canada 8.4%
• South Africa 6.0%
• Australia 2.3%
• Venezuela 1.5%
• Dominican Republic 0.6%
• Philippines 0.5%
• Singapore 0.2%
• Other countries 2.6%

ħuman 21:45, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Well this is bizarre - at LayScience.net Finland is pwned by... North Korea!

35. North Korea, 0.30% (614 visits)

36. Ireland, 0.29% (605 visits)

37. Finland, o.26%, (534 visits)

The Lay Scientist 12:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

KEN. PZ MYERS IS THE REASON FOR YOUR TRAFFIC. FUCKING CHILL.

KEN. PZ MYERS IS THE REASON FOR YOUR TRAFFIC. FUCKING CHILL

Ken. Do you wonder why you got a traffic spike at the end of June? I'll tell you why, because I benefited from, and helped DRIVE, your traffic. PZ Myers covered the Lenski debacle and I did too; when PZ linked to me, I got 5,000 hits more than usual per day for half a week. Since CP was the subject, you probably got more than what I did out of it; it's NOT from the atheism articles, it's because you're getting MOCKED for the Lenski debacle.-caius (mission accomplished!) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

You are wrecking Ken's delusions his high google rankings and linking to blog sites is driving up traffic. Its not nice upsetting he is compensating. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:01, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Aw, don't spoil Ken's birthday party with "facts"... ħuman 01:36, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Everyone knows so called "facts" are liberal. God damn Commies! Ace McWicked 01:44, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Remember: "Sentences should not be facts." Daecon 13:10, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Religious Education

Oh noes! Prayer in schools!Antifly 12:11, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I seem to be rather slow today, because I just realized the almost sublime irony. This is exactly what people keep telling Andy would happen with school-run prayer, but he won't listen. *facepalm.jpg* --λινυσ^(☮) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

To be fair to Andy, he has always stated that he is in favor of voluntary prayer. He's been explicit that anyone who is offended or doesn't want to should be able to leave the room. Certainly he has never condoned punishment for refusing to do so. DickTurpis 13:31, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I can't recall Andy's exact words. But if his position is that schools should involve prayer and those who don't like it can leave the room temporarily, then it amounts to the same thing...Antifly 13:52, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

No, because unlike the example given, kids who don't pray aren't punished. Think more like the Pledge of Allegiance, at some schools it's said daily, but they can't force people to say it, or punish them for not saying it (hence I probably haven't said it since elementary school). DickTurpis 14:52, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the teacher in this case was out of line. It was hardly school policy to make kids pray to Allah. But teachers are human and these things will happen occasionally. I'm sure it also happens in homeschool classes where kids are made to pray to Jesus/God and probably get walloped if they refuse. However, the real issue for CP is that it was to an Islamic god rather than the Christian one. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:05, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Dick. It depends on who is doing the praying. If it is students praying voluntarily then good for them. If it is the teacher leading a prayer then I disagree with you entirely. Students given the freedom to opt out of a classroom prayer must identify themselves as unwilling to pray in order to opt out. A student who does not have the confidence (for whatever reason) to live with being "outed," as such, is either being punished by forced prayer or punished with exposure. Your example of the pledge is apt. There are parts of the country where not saying the pledge would identify you as "anti-American," as ridiculous as that would be, and there are potential social consequences attached to that label.Antifly 15:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly has said that non prayers could sit & do nothing, I recall him being 'against them leaving the room.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:32, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Right. But I also seem to remember that he is for vocal prayer, as silent prayer is "not as effective." So doing nothing still identifies you.Antifly 15:41, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Which is exactly the result that Aschlafly would want.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:44, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

The point is if they opt out they are not punished by the administration, as the children in question were. Yes, they might leave themselves open to ridicule or the like, but that is not the same thing. I'm fully aware of the problems with school prayer, and I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm in favor of it. But to say that Andy supports a "pray or get detention" policy is to misrepresent what he has stated (repeatedly). DickTurpis 23:11, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. I didn't mean to mischaracterise Andy's position. I just found it to be ironic...Antifly 08:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

It is a bit ironic. And, let's face it, if it had been a Christian prayer it would certainly never have been on the front page. In such as case, if pressed, Andy would probably reluctantly say that the kid should not have been punished, but he should have prayed. DickTurpis 10:46, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it would've been in the front page... pointing out how the poor teachers are being persecuted by critics who, by the way, are liberals attempting to remove God from schools. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 12:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Bert's new rights

Cut from WIGO:

“”(Note: no he didn't - look at the author of that message - and also look at his user rights logs)

Actually, he did. The diff showed Andy's post and the reply, so it possibly looked as if Bert made a fake post. I added the user right log and changed the diff to make it more clear. --Sid 14:35, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Sid. I thought I was going mad for a moment or two there but took it that Iduan knew something I didn't.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:00, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Less evidence burning?

Is it my imagination, or is there less talk page deletion going on with the Lenski case?--Bob^{bing up} 16:28, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

If he deleted any opposing post that made a good point, the page would be basically empty. :P And I think Andy lost some support from his loyal followers when he kept insisting that Lenski is holding back The Mysterious Data Which Is Not The Organisms after the second reply hit its mark. By now, I think most people realized that Andy's simply an attention whore and moved on. --Sid 17:19, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the other thing is the increased traffic more people are watching so it goes noticed. Alot of people complain when they nitice comments missing. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:48, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Open Letter Written

Taking tmtoulouse's advice I've created a page as an open letter to our pal Andy. Following Armondikov's suggestion I have created a space for others to counter-sign the letter, please remember to put as many valid initials after your name as possible!

The Letter: Conservapedia:Open Letter to Andrew Schlafly

Right, off to mail PZ and ask him to give it a bit of publicity.

--Toffeeman 16:55, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Naval values

Good to see Kowardjerk upholding the rule of law with his nostalgic venture into Pirate flags:

Flags used during the Golden Age of Piracy

Ah, the good old days! Eh, Bryan? Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:12, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Wonder where he copied that article from..... SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 18:47, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Pshaw. It's knowledge gained from his rich first hand experience. It's not all just leather parties and cottaging in the navy, you know. --81.187.75.69 19:16, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Apartheid

I love this comment by Andy about warning a user about his editing in soften the articles on apartheid. Hasn't that been what Bugler is doing? Some warrning giving him the sysop lite, block, edit and upload. On the topic of upload it occured to me why CP looks so amaturish, in that there are few pictures because of this policy. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:53, 5 July 2008 (EDT)