Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive60

This is an archive page, last updated 7 April 2012. 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>, <59>, <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)

What's Andy getting at

What's with this edit? At first I thought it was about deceitful liberal students trying to cheat, but it seems now it's about lazy professors nd their professor values. Is Andy condoning a site posting answer to college exams?

Gives me an idea. We should post the answers to his exams. Though I guess if his students want to cheat they can easily do so without us. DickTurpis 23:21, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

You don't need rationalwiki to cheat on Andy's exam, you just choose the option that's synonymous with "Liberals are Satan himself." Anyway, if it weren't for tenured sloths, how would people ever get undergraduate degrees. I remember once when we had an exam where the lecturer left the marking scheme in the paper when he reproduced it. There was a general confused murmuring for about 5 minutes, and then everyone buckled down to some serious expanding and copying. Then about 10 minutes in, some blasted suck up alerted the invigilators and a halt was called. I swear if we'd all just sat quietly, and remembered to take the exam papers with us when we left, no one would have been any the wiser. --81.187.75.69 23:31, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems I'm defending Andy a bit here, which is leaving a bad taste in my mouth, but here goes: actually, the liberals are evil answer is probably true of no more than 10% of his questions. Most are pretty mundane. DickTurpis 23:51, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

While I've not yet found his exams, his "classes" on history are only "mundane" if you are cool with total revisionist history. I was shocked to figure out Conservapedia claims to be some kind of homeschool student guide, since his facts on history are not only either skewed or flat out wrong, they read like a 3rd grader would be writing them. There is no coherency, even internally to Andy's whacked out reality. Frightens me so much that this man considers himself a teacher. --WaitingforGodot 17:40, 7 July 2008 (EDT)( I bez a damned liberal academician on state-funded holiday.

Check out this discussion, talk about revisionist! CЯacke® 17:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Dear goddess, i thought i'd heard everything! So, Columbus lands on Christmass just in time to help Jamestown out of dreaded socialism (the evil it doth be) only to find out that Mass did indeed NOT have slavery. and that's only the first 3 topics on this page. I really hope some of his students fail their GREs and sue the hell out of him.

Andy: "Is it better to bash cheating liberals or lazy professors? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" --Sid 07:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, there's a ton of shit in his lectures to be sure, but if you look at his cp:American Government Final Exam, there's no as much "liberals are evil" questions as I thought (though there are some, to be sure). Most of it is pretty basic and unimaginative. Sure, anyone who knows anything about Andy will get #14 right, and while it's a relatively factual and straightforward question, only Andy would consider #18 worth being in a final exam on a introductory government class. The bias is more towards the sort of things he concentrates on than in the questions themselves. DickTurpis 18:03, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with DickTurpis. I saw this earlier and thought "eh?". I reallly don't see what point he's trying to make with it. The Lay Scientist 11:37, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

AHAHAHA

AHAHA. Be sure to visit both of the sites. I wonder who put that link in? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

One of the sites is more interesting than the other--Damo2353 07:29, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Caterine moves her lips when she reads. Betcha Andy does the same.--WJThomas 08:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly's strategy

Not just another bit of shameless self-promotion, but something I really want to bring to peoples' attention. I don't think Schlafly cares that he looks like a moron in the Great Interminable Lenski Debate - I think he's playing a long-term strategy that's a bit more subtle (see here). The Lay Scientist 11:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

An interesting point (I'm not sure if this actually belongs in WIGO, but I won't touch it). My main objection is that Andy is overestimating his influence. A meme needs to be picked up by people, but I don't see anybody touching this one. I also think that nobody will touch it - not the Creationists, not the Climate Change Deniers, nobody. The reason? They claim to have science on their side, too. So Andy's meme will hurt them, too. The moment they hold up "science", the meme would turn against them. It's a purely political meme, but politicians apparently picked up science (in a slightly warped way) as their own weapon of choice, so in the end, only Andy will push it, and that's not enough. </quick opinion> --Sid 11:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I disagree with you completely. The climate change deniers are using precisely these same tactics as we speak - attacking science and the scientific process. You have to realize that they're not trying to build scientific arguments, they're trying to spread obsfuscation and confusion so that they can claim it's "open to debate". The Lay Scientist 12:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm, I do see your point, but I mostly have to think about the occasions when "Creation scientists" come up with wild theories, allegedly based on "data" and "science". (And before I get angry mails: This sentence is just the equivalent of what CP does with "claims by secular scientists", so whatever.) Not 100% sure about the climate dudes, even though I think I remember Ed spewing stuff about "real" scientists having "evidence" based on "data", too. I readily agree that they try to seed distrust in "secular sciences" or whatever they call it, but what Andy is doing is seeding distrust in ALL sciences. He may lean towards specific sides, but his accusations are so broad that they hit everybody. The first scientist (no matter what he advocates) to back him would be the first one to get a ton of "Your data! All of it! Now!" demands in his inbox, if just to show him what slippery slope he chose to follow. --Sid 17:12, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The key point though is that it doesn't matter that Andy is seeding distrust in all science. Suppose you're a tortoise, and you're in a race with a hare. ANY speed restriction is brilliant for you, because the more restrictive it is, the closer to parity you are. Does that make sense? Undermining all science, even if it undermines creation science too, simply levels the playing field. The Lay Scientist 17:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, okay. I wasn't thinking in such dimensions (my tactic usually prioritizes keeping the own losses low). That approach reminds me a bit of "Scorched earth" - destroying assets that would have been valuable to you, just to make sure nobody else can use them against you. Interesting argument, then. Self-destructive, but I can see the "reasoning" now. Thanks for making me see things from your perspective! --Sid 18:34, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"Scorched Earth" is a great term for it, I'll be using that in future :) The Lay Scientist 03:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

This would be more suited to According To. It doesn't reference any specific event on CP. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 12:02, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

My understanding is that Conservapedia related stuff shouldn't be on According To. The Lay Scientist 12:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe not, but in this situation it is a much better fit than WIGO. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 12:48, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Well maybe so, but it's not allowed there! Perhaps you should implement a new page for "blogging about Conservapedia"? The Lay Scientist 17:01, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with lay Scientist on this one. It's much easier to vaguely imply that data is being withheld than it is to actually do something about it. That is the point of his challenge - "look how difficult it it to get all teh data! I've had to set up teh challenge to tey to force them to give it to me! They can't be teh trusted! Whether it works is, of course, another question. But it would make sense as a strategy.--Bob^{bing up} 15:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

From what I can see, Lay Scientist is exactly right about the strategy. However, what he seems to be short on is Andy's actual ability to use it properly. He's got the loaded gun of sowing distrust of science, but he's aiming squarely at his own feet, as usual. While the Discovery Institute, the climate change deniers and so forth are using it on a daily basis, to varying degrees of success, Andy's ham-fisted attempt to use the same weapons come off as laughably transparent and actually harm the cause he's trying to champion. The tactic is a threat, but Andy is a joke. --Kels 16:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, you're right there, as I conceded in the comments on that post as well. Schlafly has found a good strategy, but Conservapedia is the worst type of tool to promote it, because he's investing more energy keeping his Conservapedes in line than he is in actually spreading the message. Yet said, if it does eventually escape the factory, it might pick up. The Lay Scientist 17:01, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Not a chance that Schlafly is playing the long-game. He is just being every bit a stupid as he appears at first look. Look at his entire history, he's never been calculating just really really reactionary. Matt oblong 18:40, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The beauty of the long-game meme strategy is that you don't have to be calculating, you just have to be persistent and repetitive. And stupid people are good at being persistent and repetitive. Stupid people are very good at being persistent and repetitive. That's the beauty of playing the long-game. You just have to be persistent and repetitive. Stupid people are great at being repetitive, and they're pretty good at being persistent as well. Get it now? The Lay Scientist 03:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, the test will be to see how far Andy takes it. If he really firms up his definition of the alleged "missing" data and really starts to begin some "legal action" to obtain it then I'll stand corrected. But I bet that he'll just keep vaguely complaining about data being withheld without explaining: (a) exactly what it is (b) why it's important (c) what he would do with it if he had it - and that's more consistent with what Lay Scientist maintains. So lets start taking bets - will Andy really go for it (and look stupid) or will he just keep vaguely whining in order to try to discredit it by the back door? My money is on the latter.--Bob^{bing up} 04:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm with you Bob (unsuprisingly, since you were agreeing with me, lol). The Lay Scientist 04:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, come on guys, -5???? 200-odd of you came to read it, it got a bunch of Diggs, several comments and a trackback from ScienceBlogs, and I get -5 here? Pfft, conservatives the lot of you. The Lay Scientist 04:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's twiddled the knobs wrong again

CP is down. AGAIN. Holy Hell Batman, that's some unreliable website - it's up and down like a whore's knickers. Ken - your wave of anti-atheism is never going to work if Andy keeps knackering the server.... DogP 15:00, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Thought it was just my crappy wireless broadband.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Right when I was ready to read two days of WIGO. :-( (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:19, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps it has become overwhelmed by Christian Apologists? Or perhaps the Rapture is under way and the server has been whisked to a gleaming white server farm in Heaven? DogP 15:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Not Deep Thought? It's probably all those UK Theists that Ken's been spamming have overwhelmed the server!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:31, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

It's been patchy for me for the last couple of days; it's not unusual that I just get a blank screen instead of a page. And the front page briefly gave me a "database error" followed by lots of php-looking stuff I didn't understand yesterday, too. Alt 15:44, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I checked with this and get "URL doesn't exist", (sigh) if ONLY. UPDATE:Ping and trace route get responses, one trace when 19 hops to an .se address and 15 hops to my IP (via the command/tracert) in W PA (USA). So the IP is answering just not the website, (IOW, it ain't the hardware.) CЯacke® 15:49, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but it's resolving to theplanet.com, their hoster, so it's either a problem with their block or they've simply dropped a spanner in the works again.... DogP 16:00, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia is the laughing stock of the intertubes for many reasons, but increasingly it is also becoming lulz-fodder for total technical incompetence. Among the sites I regularly visit, none are down more often than CP. DogP 15:45, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

It's been ropey all afternoon and it's down again (that or my steam dial-up). Fretfulporpentine 16:34, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I've got Amish neighbors who have a wood burning computer. Actually, from what I hear, the Amish businesses can use computers, they're just not allowed to OWN them, (or use them @ home). Any hydraulic machinery is okay too; being powered by a diesel engine. CЯacke® 16:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

In NZ we have the Exclusive Brethern which are kinda like the Amish except they try and get political. They also cant have TV, radio or computers. They do however have businesses and my girlfriend (who is an advertising executive) had a meeting with some Brethern in an attempt to get them to use online advertising. She claims she didnt notice the dusty computer in the corner of the office and the prominence of the bible on the meeting table. Ace McWicked 17:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Still down. Maybe it's strategery to "destroy" vandals.--JayJay4ever^??? 18:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

There will be no more vandals now! Ace McWicked 18:41, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know much about the Armish but I know a bit about the Bretheren. These guys are not only technologically backward but they rank with Scientology in terms of breaking up families. I had neighbors who were with the Bretheren for 30 odd years, then left. No-one from the church has talked to them since, including their parents, kids, brothers or close friends. Its very sad.

It's up again

Downtime: Roughly six hours, going by the gap in the Recent Changes: Last edit: 14.20; Current time: ~20:20 (both CP server time) --Sid 20:31, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Amusing that, as yet (almost an hour later), no-one's mentioned the slight hiatus. Have they all decided not to question the ability of their lord & master? or did nobody notice?   ^Contribs_Talk 21:37, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Down again

And back down. DNS is resolving, and it's got decent ping times, but it doesn't want to respond to the TCP SYN. --Interiot 18:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Voice in my Head

Much as I am continuing to find the whole Lenski thing hilarious thanks largely to the cracking RW coverage - is there not a huge part of you that just wants to walk up to A Shafter and shout 'Never before in the 6 - 5000000 thousand year history of this planet has ever so much an argument been lost in such a complete and irrifutable way. Just please now, f***ing leave it!'. Matt oblong 18:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt oblong, you're clueless if you imagine that the Earth is any older than 6,000 years. Make some meaningful edits or you'll be banned for talk, talk, talk. DogP 18:45, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The above rant by "Matt Oblong" is too long to be taken seriously. Condense your remarks into a few good points instead of using liberal talk pollution on my talk page. Godspeed. Ace McWicked 18:57, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I admit to maybe being tricked into a bit of Liberal Ejaculation. Matt oblong 19:05, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Its striking that liberals rely on obscenity when cornered. Do you have Breast Cancer? Ace McWicked 19:08, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt oblong, you're clueless if you think that the way that you misspelled "irrefutable" doesn't invalladate you entire argument. Please educate youself. Posing as an intellegtual is a well-known Liberal debatering tactic. Godspeed. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt oblong (not likely your real name), this will remain a high quality site. I can tell from your behaviour that your theres a 99% chance of your being a liberal. Let me guess though, you wont admit it and claim your a conservative right? "Sic him Bugler!" Ace McWicked 19:17, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt, as you have not yet received permission to edit at this encyclopedia, your comment are not only unwelcome and immoral, but a violation of US Code 18 sub 3 against proving me wrong obscenity. Godspeed.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 20:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

If you insist on posting gossip and obscenity, "Matt", then perhaps the National Enquirer of the Internet, Wikipedia, is the place for you. I wish you Godspeed in your endeavors. DickTurpis 20:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"Matt" you follow your liberal playbook to a tee. I urge to open your mind to conservative values. Ace McWicked 20:58, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"Matt", learn to spell "irrefutable" and open your mind before filling the place with your Liberal Fluff. --λινυσ^(☮) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

And you smell funny too. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Oblong, Our Leader has written many times here what this site is about, but you still insist on continuing this argument. It stops now, or go elsewhere, understand? Able Seaman^{(In my dreams)} Kowardpoo 04:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

"Matt", your arguments wouldn't hold on court and would be instantly rejected by a non-activist judge, you would have to deny logic to think otherwise. In Christ! NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 10:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey

Don't make fun of me :( --_transResident Transfan^form! 00:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT) ;)

?   ^Contribs_Talk 00:41, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Old news but made me laugh.

Remember Robert Turkel? Did you ever read the sycophantic drivel from Ken on it? (Oh Ken - don't bother deleting it, I've got a copy)   ^Contribs_Talk 00:57, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Re Quantcast

Quite revealing are the "Audience keywords":

conservapedia 990.2x

santorum 122.4x

debate topics 79.8x

debatable topics 54.4x

worship lyrics 44.5x

theory of evolution 32.7x

president pro tempore 28.8x

debates 28.8x

plant cell 19.5x

judicial review 12.6x

cerberus 10.2x

nationalism 10.0x

translation 8.7x

mls 8.5x

fascism 8.4x

Strange (plant cell!)!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:31, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh yes - their Alexa's dropped to pre-Lenski values as well!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, their Alexa stats have tanked. I think a lot of the spike previously would have been down to the article about them in the Guardian (no offense to the Pharyngulistas, but the Guardian's web audience dwarfs the whole science blogging community combined).

By the way (I mentioned this above as well), the Finland crowd aren't coming to TLS - for some reason, on my site Finland is being pwned by... North Korea. The Lay Scientist 03:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I kinda share the boggling feeling, as I note that my slowly reviving webcomic seems to be getting hits from Denmark second only to the US. Heck, Canada comes third and I live there! (Finland, oddly, is 7th). --Kels 18:05, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Seems like both CP and RW had big boosts during the Lenski affair but they've dropped. Unfortunately Lenski's actual site doesn't appear on Alexa and I'm rather pissed of that putting Richard Lenski into google gives you the Conservapedia article. They must have done a massive amount of google bombing to get it there, probably why Assfly links to everything he mentions in his talk pages. If Google's page rank stopped counting links from wikimedia talk CP would die. Armondikov 09:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Before you complain too much, what exactly do you think is the effect of all the RationalWiki and science blogger links to the land of the Conservapedes? 81.102.156.177 10:40, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

WIGO vs the amount that Schlafy insists on overusing terms like "liberal XXXX" in every other one of his replies? Probably negligable. Armondikov 11:36, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, just for the record Conservapedia's Lenski article doesn't appear top ten when I do a Google search for 'Richard Lenski'. Lenski's own website comes top for that. It may be that you're getting tricked by Google, which is pushing the Conservapedia result higher for you because you're spent more time on that site? This is the Google skewing that Kenservative keeps forgetting to take into account when he makes grandiose claims about his pet articles. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Lenski's own site is the first hit for me, some time later WP then RationalWiki and a bit after that CP.--Bob^{bing up} 15:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

But you get some great hits if you Google: lenski RationalWiki.--Bob^{bing up} 15:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

For me I get Lenski's website, WP, RationalWiki "Lenski affair" and then a indented "Richard Lenski", and then (4) Conservapedia "Lenski dialog" under the title is the text; "Richard Lenski. P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1000000000) E. coli at this very moment?". Real good advertisement for CP that. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't run a sock account on CP and only check the pages flagged up on WIGO, I think by page hits I spend at least 3x as much on RW, so I don't think I'm really on the site enough for google to skew it (Though I didn't even know google did that). It could be biased to whether its .com or .co.uk or whatever. Though I do get Lenski's site as no.1 and Wikipedia as no.2. Rationalwiki.com/wiki/lenski_affair is no.8. The wonders of the internet... Armondikov 04:57, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, but I must be missing something, since the average user appears to be 12-17, Asian, making 100+k/yr and has an education of grad school or higher? -Smyth 11:57, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Olympic

Has anyone else noticed Croco'shite getting ready for the Olympics? Much room for jingoism there!   ^Contribs_Talk 02:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to make a little prediction now, that we'll see a whole wave of anti-China stuff hitting the site in the near future, in order to reinforce "American supremacy". If China get more medals expect articles on brutal training methods, etc., or widespread drug abuses. Any athlete that beats an American will be accused of cheating. Stuff like that. The Lay Scientist 07:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

You're probably right. But, I've always felt that these tables, as presented, are pretty meaningless anyway. It's seems somewhat obvious that bigger countries are going to get more medals. It's always seemed to me that they could be calculated per head of population or something of that nature. I did this last time round and Australia did rather well I think. Also, (again from memory) if you did the calculation with the European union as a "country" then the EU came top. --Bob^{bing up} 07:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

No, that method is flawed as well, as in most competitions the number of athletes for each country are limited, thus favouring small countries. A united EU would send much less athletes and get fewer medals - or on the contrary if each US state was by themselves, their total would exceed the US medal count by far.(Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 08:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's a good point. Thanks. So I'll happily withdraw my second point about the EU. Nevertheless larger countries have a larger pool of potentially good athletes to pick from, so they obviously have an advantage, don't they? I mean, if you've only got 500 people in your country the possibility of your having gold-winners among them is small. If you've got millions to pick from them your chances obviously improve.--Bob^{bing up} 08:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that's right that smaller countries are favoured. Limiting the number of athletes is just sensible because of the limited number of sports (even if the actual number of events is quite massive). If the country is larger, they tend to have a larger population base from which to select from; higher odds of having someone with natural talent. Assuming, of course, that the rate of people with "natural talent", i.e., the US, with ca.250million people will have 4-5x as many naturally capable athletes as a European country with ca.50million people. Talent is a subjective measure certainly, but a necessity for the standard of the Olympics, I doubt anyone can be trained to that level regardless of how much time they put it, you have to have the right kind of person. Multiply this by the finances they have available to put into equipment and training facilities as well as bursaries for people to do the sport full time and you're clearly favouring the larger, richer countries. Armondikov 09:23, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure studies have been done on this. Anyway, the problem is that the winner is not selected based on a "quality" value alone, instead there are many variables which determine the medalists: race day condition, interaction with other competitors, tactics, environment, pure luck, injuries, trials (if the USA could bring as many athletes as they wished they wouldn't keep trials and Tyson Gay would be competing for the 200 m run as well as a heavy favourite), etc. Having 30 athletes (EU combined) competing against 3 (USA) means that EU have a higher probability of winning medals if the variable factors are relevant (that is, everything can be perfect but EU athletes won't win the 100 m run). (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:52, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

In addition, smaller countries, even if using a proportional amount of money, can concentrate it better on few targets. How many javelot medals has Finland won in the history of Olympics? They found their niche. Anyway, I think Bob's suggestion is not too far off. Medals per population should be a better indicator than medals alone. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

But the EU isn't a single country so it's not really a good comparasom Armondikov 11:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I have already acknowledged that the EU comparison may not have been the the best. But it seems pretty obvious that bigger counties have an advantage. In the last summer Olympics the three "leading" countries were the US, China and Russia. This would seem to be a somewhat improbable outcome if the rules put bigger countries at a disadvantage.--Bob^{bing up} 11:44, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Bets that Andy will argue that in events where American athletes lose, it's because they went to public school? --Phentari 12:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

If you want a fair comparison, go with medals per competitor. --CPAdmin1 13:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

True, but that makes it all substantially less interesting :) _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 13:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

<-- Re: Kookoo's list, how come it is missing so many events? I think it's weird that he has "hockey (not ice)" but no hockey! Oh, wait, that's a winter Olympics competition. Still... And in regards to the statistical discussion above, there may be a threshold in general populations at which one can expect an Olympic-caliber athlete (say, at 20 or 50 or 100 million population, you're bound to have a few good swimmers or sprinters etc.). That's ignoring the "specialists", like the Kenyan long distance runners (?), or the above-mentioned javelists (?!). What's funny of course is that it's supposed to be about a celebration of all of humanity (I saw the Visa commercial), but competitors still represent their countries, and medal totals get tallied by country. It would be amusing to divide the world up into chunks of, say, 50 million people, which is about the same as the number of countries, and let them go at it from a roughly equal population basis... ħuman 14:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I suppose you could do it by continents - but then continents with more countries would have an advantage. I still like by per head of the population.--Bob^{bing up} 14:58, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

'Twould put Antarctica at a very unfair disadvantage. And the day that the US and Canada say "we're all just North Americans really" is the day that Mr Schlafly confesses to running an abortion clinic :P. It'd be nice just to see individuals compete and not countries, although that's still pretty impractical. Armondikov 04:51, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Here in Aus we get very jingoistic come Olympics time. During the Sydney games, Channel 9 took to showing a "per capita" medal table rather than the straight one. To do so, they took the leading countries on the pure medal count, converted the numbers to a per capita basis, and voila - Australia on top of the world. Only problem, as I delighted in telling their switchboard, was that they hadn't bothered checking for really small countries lower down the tables. The Bahamas beat us by a mile with their one (or was it two?) golds in women's athletics. The table disappeared for the next bulletin. Matt 05:45, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Lol, that made be chuckle The Lay Scientist 20:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Anti atheism bloggers and Christian Apologetics

According to the Main Page of Conservapedia we’re going to be treated to yet more silliness that passes for rational argument. Probably we’ll answer some of it and laugh at it a lot of it.
Definitions:-
Christian Apologetics………………An apology for a rational argument
Proxima Centauri 05:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

FBI

Hey, is this accusation true? Did Rationalwikians really get called up by people pretending to by government agents?^{— Unsigned, by: 158.143.193.4 / talk / contribs}

I don't know, but everything up to that point was true. Also, see here for Karajou's mature, compelling response. It makes sense when you consider that he was responsible for some of the most moronic stuff during the FBI thing. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 08:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Details may be up for debate, but it is generally true that legal threats were flying, people were contacted IRL, and the implication was made that the FBI was looking up everyone's arses.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 08:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Really? You would think a lawyer (granted, little Andrew is not a very good one) would know it is illegal to impersonate a federal agent.--Franklin 11:18, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. I'd heard about the FBI thing, but never about the impersonations. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:31, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well let's not all assume it's true just because it was mentioned. The editor who brought it up on CP might just have mis-remembered the details from our FBI Incident article. Does anyone who was here at the time want to weigh in on this? _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 11:42, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

As I recall it one Sysop (who shall remain nameless TK phoned 1 Ratwikian more than once but never impersonated the FBI.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I've never heard of these allegations...and I'm not sure they're true. I wrote and compiled the FBI Incident article at the time it was going on and the article and Talk page threads there do not reveal any "impersonation of FBI agents", although I vaguely remember someone saying CP seniors had directly emailed some senior RW'ians. I think the allegation is false. DogP 14:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I was e-mailed by several CP sysops, stalked on wikipedia by one, and did receive a phone call at my lab. But there was no impersonation. Either pure anonymous cowardliness or open about who they were. A few others had similar experiences. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I think people are confusing the "FBI Incident" (Andy being all "I'MMA CALL TEH FBI!") and the RW 2.0 History. The talk page post there seems to relate to the latter, especially the case where Andy sent take-down requests when we copied one of their articles for side-by-side treatment and the case where Andy's goons snuck into RW 1.0 under false names, copied various pages and then tried to report us to law enforcements (better known as the 1.0/2.0 transition which happened around the time of the Night of the Blunt Knives, IIRC). That time was also when most sysop harassment took place in form of phone calls (again IIRC - this didn't happen to me personally (edit: but see tmtoulouse's comment above) and blog comments (claiming that there was an FBI Investigation and that the Feds would soon knock at our door with cyberterrorism charges). --Sid 14:59, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I seem to remember a snarky comment on CP with "FBI case #blahblahblah" in it somewhere...Antifly 17:06, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

If you mean the RW 2.0 time, then yes. Somebody (I think it was Kara, but I'm not sure if that's correct or if he was the only one) waved around some ominous "FBI Case Number" as an "You're in trouble noooooow!" sign. It later turned out to be just some automatically generated ID assigned by the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) site where Kara (or whoever) likely filed his complaint. --Sid 18:02, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It was an auto-generated ID from a tipline website. I was told by some (i.e. he-who-shall-not-be-named) that my hospital director and other bosses were being contacted and that law enforcement had been notified.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 18:49, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Good Lord, I never knew that, PMD, that's dreadful, whether it was true or total horseshite. What a deep pond of scum they are. DogP 18:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

They contacted the president of my university as concerned tax payers about the use of university resources, my university is in Canada. The idiocy vibe they give off is so intense it acts as protection to anyone they go after. tmtoulouse ^provoke 18:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It's almost like Poe's Law, but even dumberer.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 19:09, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Should we not have some of this stuff documented on the Conservapedia:FBI Incident page? Otherwise it just becomes a folk memory. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:51, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Lazy Tenured Sloths

On the main webpage, they have a blurb that links to this story. As part of the blurb, they claim that One former student declares, "The only people who will find this website to be a threat are those lazy tenured sloths that like to recycle old material on their exams."

Is it just me, or does that comment appear nowhere in the story or in the posted comments underneath it? --Phentari 11:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Someone pointed that out on the relevant CP talk page too, but strangely no-one has replied.. Alt 11:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It's in the first comment - VJ Metal on 07/03/2008 at 8:13 a.m. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't see that comment at all when I call up the article...weird. --Phentari 11:19, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Seems to take a few seconds for the comments to appear after the story itself has loaded. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that threw me for a minute, going back and forth, article to quote, etc. But then I saw the comment. It's a tiny bit misleading, but it is a quote from the page they link to. They should have said "commented on the article" instead of "declared", but that's a minor point. ħuman 14:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Didn't something like this happen before? Dunno if it was on their main page or in an article, but I have memories about people pointing out this exact same screw-up in the past. --Sid 18:03, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) It's not really a screw up... it's very intentional. It's a modernization of one of the tactics conservatives have used to discredit newpapers for years. Basically, the original was "anything that was printed in a newspaper can be attributed to that newspaper" For example, if someone wrote a letter to the editor, saying GW Bush was a terrorist, and the New York Times printed it. The New York Times just called GW Bush a terrorist. This is simply a new version of that. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure I've met the Lazy Tenured Sloth - personally I'm three toed. Silver Sloth 17:34, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Wise words for Andy.

In the process of ranting about Wikio's inclusion of denialist sites like Climate Audit and "Love Global Warming" in their list of the top 100 science blogs (and failure to include TLS anywhere even though I crap all over LGW's audience figures, damnit), I stumbled across this notice on Steve Milloy's now defunct climate skeptic blog at Junk Science:

"JunkScience.com Blog is broken, again, perhaps irrevocably. Unfortunately it requires far too much of our limited resources maintaining and defending an interactive component. Discussions continue but current thinking is that the skeptic community is best served by our concentration on disseminating information via the more secure static site, where significant improvements remain to be made."

Mr Schlafly, you might want to read this and take note.

The Lay Scientist 17:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh ****. Just realized that Drupal sent an automated trackback to ClimateAudit when I linked to them in my ranting. Now I'm going to get an infestation. The Lay Scientist 17:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I, apparently, have, with my co-bloggers, slot #21. Given your linkage, I wouldn't be surprised if you are up there by next year. After all, in the blogosphere you're still an adolescent. Of course, the ScienceBorg may have something to do with it too.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 18:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my complaint about my ranking. What concerns me more is that Wikio vet the sites before they add them. I've submitted LayScience to them and had no reply, while Milloy and ClimateAudit and unbelievably Love Global Warming have waltzed onto the list. Even aside from that nonsense, your Denialism has come 21st behind an automobile blog, and a science fiction magazine! The Lay Scientist 05:51, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Challenge of the Day

In light of this (already WIGO'd) comment, Ed asks for sources that Andy is a "supporter of creation science" (a term he replaced with "evolution critic").

Now, I'm fairly certain I recall Andy having made a talk post somewhere in which he outlined how he turned away from evolution after "examining the facts" or something. I'm not sure if it explicitly said that he supported Creationism, but I think so.

The challenge: Find it. Please. :D

(We will need Andy's own words since CP's arbitrary sourcing rules will be able to label ANY other source as not trustworthy.) --Sid 18:12, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

(Pro tip: Going through his contribs may not work since several pages have been conveniently deleted in the past, thus removing those contribs from the list. Stick to archives. --Sid 18:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT))

Then again, this may be a "nevermind" case since Andy openly hates the term "creationist" or even "creation scientist", if I remember correctly. So this one may be tricky. --Sid 18:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The only source you need that Andy is a support of creation science is that on Lenski's page it read "open-minded scientist" and when you click on it it takes you to "Creation science" here is Andy's diff link(sorry that is just Andy restoring something Shagie has the one you want). This is Andy's normal definition of open-minded, agrees with him. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

And the original inclusion of the material[1] --Shagie 18:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Something I found whilst looking for the Challenge. I think the is the first case of a bona fide true believer being turned off, then away, then BANNED all based on the vibes that CWilson might have been sending. CЯacke® 19:15, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this is what you're after, Sid. --Robledo 20:10, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not the comment I had in mind, I think (However, my memory is spotty, so I might have just misremembered the one you linked to), but it does show Andy's Young Earth alignment. Nice job! --Sid 20:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The moon talk page is a little scary. He seems to be saying that it does not matter how old the moon is, we should teach YEC because you would more likely be a Christian then if you were taught that the moon is older. It seems to Andy the truth is unimportant, making as many people as possible Christian is even if you have to deny the truth to get it done. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems like the "measure of validity" according to Andy is how it impacts the strength of one's faith... ħuman 21:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The Moon talk page also gives us yet another sterling example of Andy's flawless command of the English language: "Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories." Yep: none Catholics or Christian promotes.

Just looking at that makes my grammar hurt. --Phentari 13:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed an American Jew?

Ed an American Jew? Surprise, surprise. --JayJay4ever^??? 22:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I thought he was a Moonie? --Gulik 22:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Guess he converted -- but still sees himself as a Jew in terms of ethnicity._{..the preceding comment should be read in the light that ethnicity is a social construct with no inherent meaning...}PFoster 22:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I noticed long ago him making a statement about "we Jews", which made me wonder. Is he a convert to Moonieism? Or do Moonies consider themselves some sort of "lost tribe"? My guess is he's just a dick, and this is some sort of cover for his anti-semitism. DickTurpis 22:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Probably he's a jew, and crazy too. He's also antisemite, and hates himself for being a jew. Typical of conservapedians. --JayJay4ever^??? 22:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe he owns Conservapedia in some remote way? O_o (that was a joke there) Javascap 22:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

<JewTalk> He's an assimilated Jew, his mother is a Yehudit and his father is a sheygits (spell the word how ever you like it has many spellings like Hanukkah) , he admits to marrying a shiksha</JewTalk> see CP:Talk:Goy --Jellyfish 22:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

If he's a yid, I'm the fucking pope. Not that I'm the arbiter (pun) of all things Jewy, but his voice (both on the phone and in writing) doesn't give away many of the usual tells. That being said, perhaps he's a littler further away from it generationally than I. I know plenty of very assimilated Jews---I am pretty assimilated, although still with lots of yiddishkeit. I'm surprised he's never mentioned this before. I'm a little suspicious.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 22:36, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

You've spoken to actual CP sysops on the phone? PFoster 22:44, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Wait a minute, Ed is one of my people! Well, I'm pretty sure I'm the only yeshiva educated one at CP (don't know about here, seems a bunch of are chosen). Not knowing what Kashrut is means you know nothing about your claimed heritage, Ed. well I learned the Semicha curriculum, and if I had any time/interest/patience could write articles for every one of the redirects... but I digress.

Question: Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to include all information, especially the unfamiliar concepts? If you redirect everything just because you didn't know about it, what the fucking point? DLerner 04:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we make Ed provide proof that he's a Jew, (provide the raw data, or at least the foreskin) DLerner 04:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

No thanks. --JayJay4ever^??? 11:24, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"Dear Ed, Many of us here at Rationalwiki are sceptical about your claimed status as a red sea pedestrian. Your continued refusal to release data pertaining to the status of your cock leads us not only to question if you are a yid, but in fact whether you are a man at all. Yours Sincerely, Col. Arthur Blenkinsop, OBE and Gibbon (Mrs.)" --81.187.75.69 12:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

You are making the mistake of thinking that CP is intended to be an actual encyclopedia, instead of a collection of rants on the topic of Why Liberals Suck. --Gulik 04:38, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Come on guys. So, one CP sysop may, or may not, have some connection with some alleged "race". And having this "race" we assume that he must also have some other views on religion or education? Or not have? Have I understood this vital question correctly? Have I misunderstood its importance? I mean - well - this is important because ....... Or is being Jewish or not being Jewish very important in the US? --Bob^{bing up} 12:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not important on the face of it, what one's faith (or lack thereof) is nobody's concern but the person themselves.

Then again, what with the old Jews control the media canard, waving slowly in the breeze it does seem strange (and oddly, more impressive), him winning the ALL IDIOT award. Usually, as per said canard, the Jew on the scene is the kingmaker toiling in the background.

CЯacke® 13:52, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It is Paramount. -Smyth 12:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the Jew issue is interesting given the scary tone of the blog wiki. They have Messianic Jews (Jews4Jesus) of course (fox). And yes, I've spoken to Ed on the phone. He "vetted" me durning my "credentials" debated with teh assfly. He agreed that I was probably a doctor, and decided that I was probably not an expert in, I think, cancer. -- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 14:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Do you deny the obvious fact that abortions lead to breast cancer? Well, how you can be any sort of expert on anything medical? Just having qualifications from some (doubtlessly) liberal university doesn't mean anything. Alt 15:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Debbie, sweetheart...

...that's not a "MAJOR PROBLEM," it's standard operating procedure. Don't get your knickers in a twist.PFoster 22:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT) (not WIGO worthy...)

.....How would she notice that unless she tried to create an second account....?--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:32, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Speaking as someone who logs in and out of Conservapedia all the time, the missing "new account" button is quite noticable on the login screen.

Not that I've been on that screen recently. Lord no... _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 22:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I've been going there every five minutes to see if Andy got some sense and allowed me to make a sock alert vandals. Then I looked at this sentence. Andy? Sense?--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Blimey, I think I might have had a kip to do with that... I recently made Fun:Game/Olympics, and for a joke, put Conservatroll at the bottom (I still may follow through with it!). Reckon that is why he removed the new account button? Javascap 22:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, I think they aren't supposed to affect their policy or anything by what happens on other sites, but that is bullshit and it has worked good so far --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Although you can probably just chalk it up to paranoia, it's happened before and it'll happen again. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

STS: She might have had a friend who was trying to join. Java: I'm going to go move the olympics thing now, and delete the redirect. So I changed your link, you might want to chase any others. ħuman 01:20, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Aw hell, why'd you have to go and ruin my conspiracy theory? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

What is Roger up to?

I just noticed this, this and this in the Recent Changes. Aside from apparently having decided that the category "Native Americans" should be called "American Indians", my Whitewash Sense is tingling slightly. However, history is one of my weak points, so I'll leave the actual analysis to others. Opinions? I'm honestly curious whether this is whitewash or more accurate. --Sid 13:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow. There's a certain Orwellian feeling to the rewriting of history to purge anything that might be seen as anti-American. The Lay Scientist 13:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, "Orwellian" is the word.--Bob^{bing up} 13:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The whole "vast liberal agenda" game is extremely useful in such cases. Want to claim that the Supreme Court did NOT rule that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign, and that Andrew Jackson did NOT refuse to enforce the decision? Simply say it's a lie. Massive numbers of historical sources say you're wrong? That's because they're all liberally biased. --Phentari 14:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

ALso, america never had slavery and someone stole the actual constitution that was a bible. Roger apparently thinks the Navajo tribe likes curry. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 16:54, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Navajo like curry? I missed that. His (Andy's) entire "history" lesson regarding Indians had me shaking in my boots in anger. If you really want to have fun, go look at the section on Wounded Knee. There's not one fact in there. well, except that some Indians died, but it was their own damn fault for being drunk and all. shudders. The IRA commentary has taken any sense that Indians are their own sovereign nations and that we actually had ratified treaties with them which we of course broke, and made them simply resisters to being moved to the wonderful Indian territory we saved for them. How do these people live with themselves?--WaitingforGodot 17:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't have the difflink handy right now, but I recall Andy saying that the Democrats supported slavery, so that one would be yet another case of "Everything evil in the world is liberal, and everything liberal is evil". See also: cp:Liberal Slavery (I didn't check, but I hope that that article does NOT exist.) --Sid 17:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Not yet. --Gulik 04:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Why does Roger seem to have an issue with native people? I notice he seems to share Andy's literacy problem. He has been provided sources yet seems unable to read them.--Franklin 16:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks everyone, for the moral support :). I thought that maybe an actual rational debate would do the trick over there, but so far, no dice. 98.206.181.143 17:18, 9 July 2008 (EDT) (Fishal).

Won't work. A better strategy is:

1. Invite one of the sane sysops (PJR or CPAdmin1) to join the battle. You seem lucky, Karajou joined your cause and he's definitely not sane, you usually have to suck up to them to get their support.
2. Slowly creep some truth into the article and hope he doesn't notice.
3. Wait until he's not around and change the article.

2 and 3 are risky as they may get you blocked, and he'll definitely notice if he has the articles on his watchlist. I haven't had much experience with Roger so others should give you better suggestions. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 18:16, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Meh. Not worth it. I'm incredibly offended by the article, but I suppose it's one more offensive site on a very offensive Internet. Maybe Karajou will happen upon the debate again. 98.206.181.143 18:49, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

JEWISH CONSPIRACY AT CONSERVAPEDIA

Deborah recently put up on her user page she is a seventh day adventist, but ever notice she edits so many Islam and Judaism articles, I am telling you she is a red sea pedestrian or a towel head (jk) --Jellyfish 15:06, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

What is your view on all these Jews being significant members of Conservapedia, Fox, Deborah, and Ed Poor, I tell you there is a Jewish Conspiracy --Jellyfish 15:11, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

How do we verify her choseness, though considering the fact that women don't have foreskin --Jellyfish 15:13, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

PLEASE COMMENT --Jellyfish 15:17, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The clitoral prepuce is the female analog of the male foreskin. I can get pics.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 16:20, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

We cannot comment, as the Jewish Conspiracy won't let us. What...? No, I wasn't commenting. Ugh. Argh. HELLLLLLPPPPP!!!! 92.18.84.135 15:42, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it is essential that we force all Jewish editors to wear a 6 pointed star on their signatures, so we will know who they are. (Now why has no one ever thought of such a brilliant idea before?) DickTurpis 15:43, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh dear. Keeping a low profile as ever, I see. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 15:51, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

She has recently expanded the Kosher article a lot, she earlier expanded the Orthodox Judaism article, and she never edits early on the saturday or late on friday (keping the shabbat) (she claims to be a seventh day adventist but she can't fool me, I am Jewish and therefore have Jewdar) --Jellyfish 16:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

[headache] Will the real Jellyfish please stand up... or swim up... or float up, or whatever it is they do? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:05, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

She even has a Jewish name --Jellyfish 16:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The evidence:
1:She never edits on the Sabbath
2:She has a Jewish name
3:She recently did a major expansion of Kosher
4:She in the past did a big expansion of Orthodox Judaism
5:She recently copied the articles for Hillel and Shammai from Jewish Encyclopedia
6:Most people who edit articles about Judaism are Jews
7:My Jewdar says she is Jewish
8:Fox's Jewdar says she is Jewish

--Jellyfish 16:36, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Let's be scientific. Are we sure when the Jewish Sabbath begins and ends where she lives? Proxima Centauri 04:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't think "scientific" is the right word for what we're doing here. "Scientific" refers to a very specific methodology (the scientific method), which we are clearly not using here. A better word would be "logical". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:48, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

She says she is seventh day adventist, which could explain why she doesn't edit late on friday, or early on saturday. --Jellyfish 16:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Problems in my conspiracy theory

She may just be interested in Judaism or religions in general for example 1.She created countless mythology articles 2.She has expanded many Islam articles, though not as much byte size 3.She may have simply wanted to expand the really short articles on Kosher and Orthodox Judaism 4.She may be mastering in Theology at her university 5.She expanded John Wesley (the founder of Methodism)

--Jellyfish 16:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Is she intelligent enough to master in any subject at any University? Yes at a low grade Christian university she could do a master. They don't mind if she can't think for herself there. ~If she is Jewish that proves Jews and Jewesses arn't always intelligent. Proxima Centauri 04:32, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

What makes you think she is unintelligent, I look at her edits, Bugler's, and others, often, but I haven't seen her say she is a young earth creationist, denies evolution, or anything like that in her edits --Jellyfish 16:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Are you implying that just because she is ultra-conservative that she must be unintelligent?

I know intelligent computer scientists at my university who are ultra-ultra-conservative! --Jellyfish 16:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

That is quiet possibly the most offensive statement I've heard from you, PC. Because the very fact that you felt the need to express that suggests that you yourself bought in to the stereotype that "all Jews are smart". By the way, I cringe when I see the word "Jewess"—I have never heard or read a Jew that actually used it, and it is a distinction Gentiles pulled ex nihilo out of their butts. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:48, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

She used to edit a lot on Hindu deities, didn't she? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 16:37, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Why do you reject my theory?

Why do you think Deborah isn't Jewish? I think you're simply denying evidence. Please, make your case that she is a goy. --Jellyfish 18:47, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Fine. I accept your theory. You can stop sulking now. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 18:53, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

He can't say it much louder than this

Bugler is a parodist. Wake up people! We can't really make it any more obvious. DickTurpis 15:57, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

You have to admire the sheer audacity of the man. --71.186.197.144 16:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Bugler is no doubt a parodist --Jellyfish 16:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Not so. And I can argue about this forever, so you people lose by default :P _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 16:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Poe, poe, poe poe! Poe, poe, poe poe! Glorious poe! Wonderful poe! --Toffeeman 16:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

No, I don't think he'd put in that much effort, and besides, if he really was a parodist, why would he block the decent non-sock-wearing users like me. DLerner 07:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Natural logarithm

I'm having a hard time believing it is about their reading level (or Ed's), does anyone happen to have it on their caches or whatever? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 16:24, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed's being more of an idiot than usual. Apparently he took 2 years of physics, which apparently makes him an expert. Note that he later references his physics education as going back to high school, meaning he never took it at a college level, and apparently failed it in high school, having to repeat it. So if something doesn't quite jive with something Ed sort of remembers learning more than 30 years ago (after failing to learn it once), then it must be deceit. DickTurpis 16:47, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget, Ed is old. He doesn't seem to believe in wave/particle duality. I mean, this was the Radioactivity page a week ago (no clue if it was expanded in the mean time.) It's not exactly a masterpiece, but as far as it goes it's an accurate description of our understanding of radioactivity. I guess that Ed was educated before duality was accepted enough to be a commonplace part of secondary physics lessons. Yes, Ed, physicists now think that alpha, beta and gamma (and all other EM) radiation have a particle nature, so describing them as such is accurate. --81.187.75.69 16:52, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Shit, Ed just managed to block three editors within 33 minutes - all of them for not agreeing with his view that it's better to delete than to improve (which goes against common sense and CP's own guidelines). That's got to be some sort of record. If the Award Voting was still going on, I'd totally change my vote. Good thing that he won the vote anyway - he deserves the award. --Sid 17:19, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh look, he ran out of targets and now harasses random other editors. --Sid 17:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

His two years of physics were probably Moony seminars, which obviously means his understanding trumps any number of other editors' opinions. I should just give up trying to subtly improve CP and take up something more fun. Heathen 17:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

No need to back his claims with Moon Rays - he's a sysop and thus right by default on all issues. And if a sysop says he doesn't understand something, you're not allowed to understand it, either. --Sid 17:26, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

To be fair he deleted the radiation article for a reason other than it being incomprehensible.

For his student's sake I hope this 3-weeks old version was expanded (it probably was, as it doesn't contain any proof). NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:36, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

You can sure tell why Ed didn't get on well at wikipedia, can't you? All those pesky rules must have really started to be a drag on his power crazy authoritarianism. His mini rant about wikipedia's "anti-elitism" that has been on his user page since forever is amusing in context, when you realise by elite he doesn't mean knowledgeable but in fact powerful. --81.187.75.69 17:37, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, the new Radiation "article" is starting out badly, even by Ed's low standards. --Sid 18:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

He has done worse. Seriously, how did Ed manage to survive at Wikipedia? He definitely cannot edit articles and is a power tripping asshole, I'm considering heading over there to ask. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 23:13, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Lemonpeel Block

Ed has blocked Lemonpeel for violating CP's "reading level" which at this time is a red link. I think Conservapedia needs to get its act together and decide what it wants to be. At the moment it is a blog with a pile of definitions attached. If they want a home-schooling resource like they say, then they need a plan. You can't write a text book by hoping someone comes along and write the next chapter the way you want. Instead of deleting articles Ed doesn't understand why doesn't he write articles he does and find someone to fill in the intervening steps for him. $\approx$$\pi$ 02:08, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's Secret Identity

.... is J. Jonah Jameson, of Spider-Man fame! Just take a look... http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/image/JJonahJameson_1.jpg Imagine that he's talking about Obama. Jameson's insistence that Spider-Man is responsible for every evil that happens to the city is uncanny in accuracy. I might have to photoshop some comic pages soon. - Lardashe

JJJ's looking pretty wall-eyed in that shot. --Kels 18:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Rutm

Link from WIGO.
Er. What does Andy think "Rutm" means? The only thing I can think of is "Rage under the machine". Which is stupid. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 19:15, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems Andy is pulling an Ed here: if I don't understand it, it's bad. DickTurpis 19:26, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

It took CP months to read the fucking name backwards.-caius (ninja) 19:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The time between Andy's last warning that he wouldn't accept unblocking the old account (nor clarifying why the account was blocked in the first place). This would make it rather difficult to say "ok, change the account name to" in that time span. Of course, this was then deleted to destroy the history and cover up this unreasonableness. --Shagie 19:39, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. Now he's deleted the entire page on the grounds that "offensive, non-family friendly material posted and left on this page; user has been blocked for persisting in an insulting name." Weirdly, I didn't see any "offensive, non-family friendly material posted there." Rutm must have slipped it in in the midst of being so insulting. --Phentari 19:41, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Chances are it was this bit: --Shagie 19:53, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"With the bannings of StatsFan and Hatton, Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case. Never in the past year has there been a clearer declaration that this resource is nothing other than the personal blog of ASchlafly. This party is over, the goose is cooked. ASchlafly has attained the status of the Pope, as he clearly believes he is actually personally infallible. When you're done with rewriting the Bible and restructuing all of science, perhaps you can come over and fuck my wife, as I imagine you are shit hot in bed too? BKronky 16:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)"

I screenshotted that ages ago -- can't believe it lasted so long. _{↳ ↑ <blink>⇨</blink> <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 19:55, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Me too, I was amazed when it was there still after 3-4 days - I took to screenshotting it with my computer calendar showing to see how long it had survived. I think I called it "fuck my wife.png" to make it easy to overwrite... ħuman 21:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

And sysops "Karajou", "Conservative", "CollegeRepublican" and "Freedom777" nod in approval of the naming policy being enforced so strictly... --Sid 19:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Re. this image: Damn, I didn't know there were any messages after Andy's first last warning. That makes the timing even sillier. --Sid 19:55, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Note the time difference between Andy's edit and Ed's block. --Shagie 19:58, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

OMFG, no wonder they had to burn the page! --Sid 20:01, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what was on his user page? The BKronky thing?-caius (ninja) 20:04, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

User:Rutm was apparently never deleted or created, actually. And the BKronky post (like everything else) was on the user talk page (it can also be seen in the first image backup). --Sid 20:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

So he was blocked for someone ELSE'S obscenity?!-caius (ninja) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

And the absolutely unacceptable username, of course. --Sid 20:11, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Any idea on why it was unacceptable, anyone?-caius (ninja) 20:21, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I think..."Rutm".......Roo-tim.......root 'em! Ace McWicked

Andy was likely taking exception to the definition of rut. Side note - its funny to get a Canadian and an Australian in a room talking about cisco products. The Canadian pronounces 'router' like 'rooter' (with the sound of 'ooo' as in "look at those boobies" rather than "ow" of "you stared too long") and the Australian pronounces 'rut' like 'root'. --Shagie 20:48, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I like to think I'm pretty savvy about figuring out obscure obscene elements, but the only thing I can think of is "Are you TM" No idea. - Lardashe

Shagie, no offense, but those had to be the worst pronunciation examples I have ever seen! oo as in look or boobies? ow is in.... what? Or was that your intent? ;) ħuman 21:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"oo" as in "boobies" or the sound made prior and "ow" as in the sound made when you get your face slapped for staring at said boobies. --Shagie 21:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

there is, in fact, nothing offensive about it. It's the reverse of his/hers previous user name - mutr. Ace McWicked 21:08, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The first name last inital will be amusing once you get a person with latin roots with a name like Jesus. Or a name like "Lia Dang" (perfectly valid name - 529th most common female baby name of 2007[2]). For fun, track the changing political tendancies in America by the names of the babies. Using Data from 1900 to 1950, can you predict anything about the population of 1960 or 1970? For example, Noah has moved to 14 in 2007 from 100 in 1995, 217 in 1985, and 312 in 1975. You can also see the increasing latin american population by searching for "Jesus". Olivia has a a resurgence (7th most popular? Top 10 since 2001? Will "I went to school with 27 Olivias" be a top song in 2030?) --Shagie 21:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The half-generation after me was crowded with Michelles, and their best friend Jennifers. Beatles and Donovan, I think... ħuman 21:50, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"Megan" is seems to be one of the most common names for girls in my generation. Unfortunately, so is "Jacob" (which is my name) and it's still popular. (I still respond automatically to anyone who calls my name in an exasperated voice—'cause I still live with my parents—and there's been this explosion of five-to-nine-year-olds who have the same name as me, which keeps things interesting. *someone's exasperated voice* Jacob! *I snap my head around and almost shout "What?!"*) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I have exactly the same problem, I even have the same name! Etc 07:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, not to be a pig, but the later generation was very full of Megans, Mehgans, etc.... Sorry, Jake. Ask me sometime about what I had to go through in 5th grade, along with my classmate, "Jake"..... trivial, I guess, but still... ħuman 06:46, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Could the "offensive" nature of Rutm be that the old name, Mtur, = "empty you are?" 64.165.22.43 16:24, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Acronym?

Is it possible "RUTM" is an acronym that Andy recognizes? Some guesses:

• Roger unable to marry? (I thought that was John)
• rice under the mattress?
• rather ugly titmouse?
• ride until the morning?
• red umbrellas taste meaty?
• rough udders tickle me?

(for reference, some of the more common "u" words are: udder     ugly     ultra     umpire     uncle     under     undo     union     unit     unity     until     unto     up     upper     upset     urban     urge     urine     urn     us     usage     use     user     usual)

--Interiot 18:58, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

rough udders tickle me - TMI TMI TMI TMI --Sid 19:51, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

EHHH

Isn't this shit supposed to be over? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:24, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

No, that will never get old. Like a fine wine, that will only improve with age. We need one a month (but no more) for the next year and a half, I think. Has anyone hit his wikipedia page yet? DickTurpis 23:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh come on, what has wikipedia ever done to us? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, they DID give us a lot of ideas and formatting help for writing articles... but on second thought, that doesn't merit launching an offensive against them. Javascap 06:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT) (EDT:Forgot to log in.)

I highly doubt his Jimbo-ness would like it. Of course he wouldn't approve of...anything we do really. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 20:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Ken is thinking again....

[3] He shouldn't give ideas. And anyway, how the hell will that help? Can wiki even do that? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:55, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I was about to post the same thing. What a fucking idiot. DickTurpis 22:57, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Brilliant idea ;). Who here couldn't write three paragraphs on, say, tribbles or slinkys, also lauding their conservative values, in order to "get in the door"? ħuman 22:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

The greatest thing about conservatives are their good values

George Washington was a conservative.

PIe.

Although, if they could do it, they'd just not let anyone through. Say no to everyone. Which I doubt WikiMedia would even allow. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:02, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I for one would enjoy the challenge even more with such a system. The added advantage of such a system to the professional wandal is that one gets the chance to immediately place material into the Trustworthy Encyclopedia, rather than having to slide in the door unnoticed and begin making unnoticeable edits. Policing such a system would utterly overwhelm the sysops, as to properly judge new registrants for wandalistic traits, they would have to read the three paragraphs fully, instead of simply banning them on their name or "ICEEEEEWEDGE STRIKES AGAAIAAAAIN!!!' hits. DogP 23:06, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I highly doubt they would ban any less. Just stop getting any new users. How long has it been since they've gotten a real honest conservative user? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:11, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

BUGLER!!!!!!1111!!11 DickTurpis 23:16, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

And the Lord did say... "Let there be Brain Damage, and let it be inflicted unto my most fanatical followers." And like all the other things the Lord did say, it was so. Javascap 23:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Ken

It is possible to do it, Creationwiki does something similar (they removed the user requirement for recent changes, by the way). It might work to deter random vandals, but 1)parodists wouldn't mind, 2)new users will have an even more uncomfortable start and, 3)unless the number of reviewers is considerably greater than the number of sysops, the system will be really slow... on second though 2 and 3 have synergy! NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 23:26, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

<-- @NF, 1) Parodists would think it was better, 2)New users (real ones) wouldn't bother, and 3) Profit! ħuman 23:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, my first thought when I saw this header added was, "yeah, I can smell it from here"... rubber burning, gears grinding, etc. ħuman 00:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

How many seconds would it take any one of us to defeat that system? Five? Six? I mean, it rests on the assumption that libruls won't bother because they might accidentally be productive? This is why they are so bad at spotting pdrsts...their first commandment is actually Poe's Law.-- -PalMD ^{--Do I look like I care?} 00:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Deb is inserting a little intelligence into the idea. Like the fact that it's a stupid idea. Bless her heart. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 00:37, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes. Let's face it, if that were the "new rule", Aschlaflhead would be swamped with "new user submissions" so badly he'd never have time to pee again. At least as it is, his acolytes clean up the vandals for him (with relish... and mustard!). It gives the sysops something to do besides lock their pet pages. ħuman 00:56, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, the possibilities for denial of service would be endless. One bot, and the RSS feeds of the world later and Conservapedia would never have a new user ever again. MWAHAHAHA! --81.187.75.69 04:29, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be an excellent oppotunity to get a script to randomly generate three paragraphs worth of conservative or even Conservative thinking drivel to save time. It'd be quite a while before they notice the same sentences cropping up as the sysops appear unable to communicate. Armondikov 08:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservative is a parodist

Read his user page, he has a whole rant about peanut butter

"According to a peanut butter and jelly granola distributor, American consumers prefer creamy peanut butter to crunchy by a 60% to 40% ratio. Also, American children and women prefer creamy while most men opt for crunchy (for verification/details call 1-866-374-4442). Since many liberal American men get bossed around by their feminist liberal wives, it appears likely many American liberal men may be eating creamy peanut butter even though they prefer crunchy peanut butter deep down. :) These American liberal men are likely afraid to ask their liberal feminist wives if their household can stock crunchy peanut butter in addition to stocking creamy peanut butter!

It also appears as if liberals suffer from arachibutyrophobia more which is the fear of peanut butter getting stuck to your mouth. For the Bible declares, ""The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, but the righteous are bold as a lion." :)

In addition, it appears as if many liberal atheists have nightmares about peanut butter. :)"

He also a link claiming that peanut butter is proof of God's existence --Jellyfish 00:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

No he is not a parodist. A parodist would have gotten past the joke by now. Nobody could spend as long as he has working on something he didn't believe in. He is just very close to Ed at being the second biggest idiot there. (I am now convinced Ed is the stupidest as he deletes maths articles he doesn't understand instead of accepting the fact he just isn't that smart). $\approx$$\pi$ 01:54, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, Kenservative is no parodist. After all, he has Wikipedia history also. Now, that Ed Poor, what a fucking numb-nuts. Following the radioactive/maths/block crusade he went on really makes me think he must have suffered some kind of severe head trama. Ace McWicked 02:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Any chance he's playing the long game... so long that he started before Conservapedia even existed? Hey. I think Kendoll maybe our new messiah. --81.187.75.69 04:31, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't there a proof (or a spoof proof) against evolution or abiogenesis involving peanut butter? I shouldn't be surprised if that's what's behind his muddled thinking. Seeing what he thinks is "humour" on his user page I wouldn't put it past his infantile brain at all. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Yep. Peanut Butter: The Atheist's Nightmare! from Way of the Master. Barikada 17:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this little example is a perfect example of Conservative thinking. As a hypothetical, If I had a wife or girlfriend I was living with (I don't, too much time on Rationalwiki) and we had a dispute like this, the simple solution would be to buy chunky AND smooth peanut butter and eat as we see fit. Conservatives think there is only one way to do things and someone has to be the winner in everything. Ken, it's called COMPROMISE, look it up sometime you idiot. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 00:47, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Yep. One of the things I notice about conservatives (both the ((semi)) rational political types and these wacky conservapedians) is that "compromise" is a dirty word. To them most issues are black and white, so to compromise is to give up a principle. I wonder if part of the reason is that to them most issues are moral ones. For example in the issue of reducing crime, a liberal would take a practical approach (what methods are effective in reducing crime?) whereas a conservative considers crime a moral issue and asks what is morally demanded (an eye for an eye etc). Thus any departure at all from this "moral solution" is a sell out. Wow, I'm rambling; sorry about that. --Damo2353 00:32, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Account Creation Possible Again!

Andy has unlocked the "Create Account" feature at last. I've created my very first Conservapedia sock! Now to see how many edits I can go through before I get blocked... The Lay Scientist 07:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

With an edit like that (if you are who I think you are) you won't last long... (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 07:54, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Well you lasted much more than I thought. Now, to be consistent, Tim should block Bugler too as a parodist. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 04:21, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not blocked, as far as I can tell... Oh no, wait, I am :( The Lay Scientist 13:56, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

DLerner's days are numbered

Surely, Ed's not going to like this. 78.16.142.46 08:18, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Quite frankly it speaks volumes about his ability to walk on thin ice that he's survived since early March. Silver Sloth 08:38, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I can't wait to see what will happen. Perhaps a screenshot of this and the next reply might be a good idea (I've no idea how to do it)--Damo2353 09:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Damo to get a screenshot make sure your browser has focus - i.e. is the active window, and then press Alt-PrtSc (two keys together). This copies an image to the clipboard which you can paste into an image editing program so that you can save it as an image. I find that text compresses quite well and keeps its sharpness if you save it as a gif file. But something with a lots of colors like a photo on screen needs to be saved as jpeg. I am giving you an image saving assignment to practice this so that next time you see something worth nabbing you will be ready. :) Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, Shift-PrtScrn copies your entire monitor display, if you prefer. ħuman 18:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The reply is priceless. Apparently Ed only wants articles homskolars can understand.Antifly 23:27, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Why a Jew thought anti-semite Ed would listen to him is beyond me... DLerner, it's sad, but where Ed's concerned, you were doomed from the outset-caius (ninja) 23:30, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal deceit throughout history

This change to the entry on Trojan Horse is hilarious. 78.16.142.46 08:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHA! Ajkgordon 09:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... I wonder if, by extension, this means that Paris's kidnapping of Helena was a result of early Conservative Values? "Marry a Conservative" and all that. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:37, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I couldn't understand how someone can create a user id and make a parody edit soon after and not get reverted or blocked. But then, he does claim to be a Conservative on his user page. Bondurant 09:41, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, actually the Trojan Horse was deceit, wasn't it? And if it was deceit it must have been liberal. So one could argue that it's not parody at all.--Bob^{bing up} 09:48, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

You could argue that, yes. Just as you could argue that Bugler isn't a parody too. I'd believe neither, though. Still, I'll lay odds that with a handful of edits like that and some spattering of the words "liberal" "deceit" and "clueless" on some talk pages, and he'll be a sysop before August. Bondurant 09:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Remember that we're dealing with people who think that even the Bible has been infected with Liberal Deceit. Even if this guy is a parodist, it might well be a while before someone who realizes that it is parody comes along. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:59, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

It's pretty obvious who it is, actually. Bondurant 10:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

JM has reverted it. I'm surprised such obvious parody lasted as long as it did, really. alt 10:35, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I didn't know the Trojan Horse was computer science! Norseman^Wassail! 13:38, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Interestingly, the user hasn't been banned, blocked or even spoken to. Not that I'd know... The Lay Scientist 16:10, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Of course, TLS ;-) Bondurant 16:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

@Norseman, I have a front end loader made by a company called trojan. Searching for "Trojan loader" is next to useless due it being a CS term. @Everyone, "beware of Greeks bringing gifts". Someone please to add to article... ħuman 19:01, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh come on...

Buggerer has just sent my parody alarm into overdrive again. Read his comments on the talk page of Xkcd [4]. The guy is so OTT he makes the rest of them look positively normal. Is it just me or does he just seem to talk and block (ok, and tweak architecture occasionally)? --Psygremlin_Whut? 18:14, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Dude, is he sloshed? His typing gets worse as that thread goes on.... Barikada 01:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmmm Ed?

What is he suggesting with this comment on KevinM's talk page....? "If you need quick attention on vandalism, try alerting a sysop by email. I have two accounts: one I check a few times a week, the other is refreshed automatically every 5 minutes. (Friends get my cell phone number, hint, hint.)" Ace McWicked 21:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked 21:43, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not gay bashing... but is Ed a faggot? --JayJay4ever^??? 22:51, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not bashing those of subnormal cognitive abilities, but, no, Ed Poor is an idiot. ħuman 22:59, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

That edit contains another gem: "plus I use my real name" - How odd, and here I thought that KevinM obeys the naming policy more than... uh... Karajou, Conservative, CollegeRepublican, Freedom777, Learn together, etc. In fact, it obeys the policy exactly (first name, last initial). Seriously, how can a guy sound so caring and so condescending at the same time? --Sid 06:41, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

More ed-iocy. Ed poor says "We need an entry on ruling class. JJacob (whose ass-licking sock is that?) creates one. Ed deletes because it is 'Jargon laden'. WTF? Ace McWicked 23:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Another Ed Gem....[5]

“”Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

Um, no Ed - we didn't leave in a huff, we were banned. --Shagie 23:16, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

WOW. Diff for that one plz? That's almost 1984 level self-delusion.-caius (ninja) 23:31, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't wigo it, it's already there under the "Bohdan" edit link. I fell off my high horse and choked on a dumpling when I read that... ħuman 23:33, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Oooh boy. It wasn't Ed who did it, but "This title has been protected from creation by Ymmotrojam. The reason given is . " was what I found under RationalWiki. Can you feel... teh Lulz tonite? Javascap 23:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I've added the link to the diff into the Bohdan item. I've got to think that Bohdan is a parodist too now (as if he wasn't before). One can assume that he's given up on all of his past ways and repented along with an act of contrition. --Shagie 00:00, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

@javascap, what are you talking about? ħuman 00:03, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this is an excellent opportunity to reach across the intertubes and offer support. Mr Poor, I think I speak for several of us when I say we would glady come "help... point out where CP and they disagree." We would even sign up under our same names so there is no confusion. However, some things would have to settled first. Feel free to leave me a message at my userpage and we can set ground rules for our glorious return. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:03, 10 July 2008 (EDT)not holding my breath

Pffffffbwahahahahaha. Right, Ed. You offered to cooperate... if we admit our guilt first and beg for mercy from the Great Ed! Fuck, I still got your mails where you heavily implied that I would get unbanned if I admitted that I indeed broke the rules and apologized! Oh, and once we would have been unbanned, we would have been under "parole", and you would have given us "writing assignments" for things like "Why the German Shepherd and dental floss played such a vital role in the 1992 Presidential Election" or "Why Global Warming is a complete lie". And we would have been completely forbidden from editing any article touched by a sysop. And our edit/talk ratio requirement would have been 1000/1. Yeah, gee, thank you, Ed... but no thanks. --Sid 06:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Human - Ymmotrojam went on a deletion and protection spree, so you can't even create an article called RationalWiki anymore. And Ed, full of it. Like Conservative, he hides on CP and makes his own claim because he's wrong everywhere else on teh internetz. Norseman^Wassail! 06:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed, as you may recall, I extensively documented how CP and I disagreed on the Conservapedia Column, both before and after I "left in a huff". You are as always welcome to go there and see for yourself - the material is as true today as it was at the time of writing, I'm sorry to say. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:05, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

An Open Letter to A Person At A Certain Website

From: Gulik
To: Ed Poor
You wrote, with your bare face hanging out, "Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently."

Um, no, Ed. I didn't "Leave in a huff", I was BANNED. Repeatedly, in fact. And I'm obviously not the only one. Because anyone who DOES point out where they disagree with the Gospel Of Andy Schlafly invariably gets threatened with a 90/10 block, "Talk Pollution", or just "insulting behavior", and you are the second-biggest hatchetman on the site. This site can't be improved because people like you and Andy don't WANT it 'improved', except in the sense of "Adding more reasons Why Liberals Are Bad".

All those editors leaving in a huff? A lot of them might even be Conservatives, though not as Conservative as you. (Nobody is, not even that hippie subversive Richard Nixon.) They're just sick of repeatedly banging their heads against the Great Wall of Schlafly in a vain attempt to get some facts added to articles so idiotically biased that they are obvious parodies to everyone but you sysops.

I do not actually expect any sort of reply to this email--I just felt like venting. Enjoy Conserapedia until such time as Andy gets tired of paying the bills, as it is the ONLY place you'd ever 'win' an argument, as no fact or logic can stand before the raw, naked power of The Banhammer.

Yours in Hopeless Obscurity,

Pope Disturban the Vth
Aka "gulik@conservapedia"
(Yes, I did email this to him. I am 95% Certain I won't get any acknowledgement or reply.) --Gulik 05:43, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

More Conservapedian Maths

Am I the only one who thinks these three articles are the best mathematics articles on Conservapedia. $\approx$$\pi$ 04:25, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, there's nothing in them that makes me grind my teeth in frustration at their obvious idiocy, which is certainly a HUGE step up from anything Andy's ever written. --Gulik 05:47, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, even a stream of random characters is more likely to contain useful information than the average article on CP. These articles do look about the same on the Khmer Wikipedia, and I'd guess the author just copied them to raise his mainspace/talk ratio and mess with Schlafly.

More importantly, I can find no Conservapedia Commandment or policy that says articles has to be in English. (only that American (spelling) is preferred over British, but not necessarily preferred over any other language). Etc 07:35, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

With that in mind, what do you reckon the reaction would be to an article in Spanish? Or French... wait... Czech! =D Javascap 08:25, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, a foreign language written in phonetic English should get through then.--Bob^{bing up} 12:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I've also experimented with a few different ways to insert nonsense into CP before, but in the long run it's not a very interesting way to contribute and you usually just get blocked and that's it.

CP doesn't need vandalism to be funny anymore, I think the best thing we could work with on CP now is to shorten down articles - removing everything that isn't funny, that is. (In other words, removing truth/liberal bias) Etc 14:30, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Although for some articles, removing "liberal bias" makes them longer : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:33, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't see why Randy doesn't step in and improve the maths articles. He seems content to spend all of his time revising history...Antifly 18:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps he can edit the eating competition articles. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 21:13, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Lockdown

This site is growing rapidly!

I see they still haven't opened it up for editing - almost 2 hours late now. Wonder if there's a reason for that. --Psygremlin_Whut? 08:47, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

The Recent Changes look almost exactly as they had five hours ago. Is it still "night" in Andyland? --Sid 12:20, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Added screencap. More than 12 hours (as per CP's server time) into the day, and there are just eight mainspace edits. Slight WTF. Where are all the people with edit rights? --Sid 12:31, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

He's probably saving server space for the Lenski data.Shangrala 12:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey Shangrala. Great explanation. I love it.--Bob^{bing up} 12:55, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, the hamster's been fed and put to the wheel again. --Psygremlin_Whut? 13:18, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Andy's testing his slaves--who works and who doesn't. Evidently, nobody's interested in building Conservapedia. --JayJay4ever^??? 13:24, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Wheres Wally? errrr, Andy

It seems that all the other sysops, even Andy, have gone leaving Ed Poor to fumble around by himself. Edpoorapedia? Ace McWicked 17:52, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I imagine Andy's still on vacation. While I had voted for Andy being the worst at CP, I think I'd have to change mine to Ed. He usually seemed a bit more bumbling and less of a jerk, but over the last week or so, he's gotten really out of hand. His actions aren't just mean, they're counterproductive to his own goals. This suggests that he values being a bully over getting any work done. - Lardashe

Yeah, Ed's recent behavior also made me reconsider my vote (I had voted for LT). It's lovely to see what happens the moment Ed is only one around, though: He gets his ass handed to him by... Deborah! (See WIGO for links) --Sid 18:49, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

You voted for Learn Together!?!?!? Christ, just throw away your vote on a third-party candidate why don't ya? DickTurpis 19:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't blame me ... I voted for Kodos! Jrssr5 09:25, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

It had been a "heat of the moment" thing. He had gone on a complete rearguard spree just then, I think... --Sid 21:02, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

OK, Asia, I guess you're one of those guys who bases their vote on the most recent news story, rather than the greater issues. "Well McCain might keep us in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday Obama said 'it's great to be here in Milwaukee' when he was actually in Madison. I can't vote for a guy who doesn't know where he is!" Your type makes me sick! Physically sick! I'm going to puke all over my shoes! DickTurpis 09:41, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, he is total fucking clown-shoes. Another thing - Karajowls seems to think TrTran the Cambodian was our friend Tom Moore. Is this so? Ace McWicked 18:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

If so, then that was the most awesome act ever. However, it wouldn't be the first time Karajou spazzes out and accuses the wrong guy, so eh. --Sid 19:11, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Yup, it was me. I was having a grand old time, too. TrTran is one of my eight accounts I created way back in the day, which I use to insert obviously wrong information into the objective but seldom-watched articles.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:48, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Some fine work there Tom, they didn't even have an article on complex conjugate until you got there. Okay so it wasn't in English but at the moment it is more informative then natural logarithm. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:17, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

KevinM - "Karajou, you know you just blocked 65,000 IP's from ever editing Conservapedia right?" Karajou - "Yes, but I know they were all vandals" Ace McWicked 19:32, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Let's bet! What will be KevinM's block reason?

• Troll
• Vandal
• Bye
• User supports vandals
• Sock of banned user AmesG

Combinations work. I'm going for "Troll/Vandal" in that order. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:42, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm gonna go with "Troll", maybe "Whining" or "Disrespect" also. Heathen 19:47, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

"I am interested in your justification for blocking 458,752 IPs for infinity within just a few weeks." - Oh crap, this can only end in tears. My money is on "Bye", somehow. Or something to do with "talk" or "MYOB" (Croco's made-up "rule"). --Sid 19:49, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I recently wrote Karajou's song for Conservapedia: The Musical (work in progress, actually) which I tried to fill with as many Karajouisms as possible. In just a few posts here, he's expressed two of them: "picking a fight" and blocking entire states from editing. Who's got a sock and wants to try to get him to state a few more? We need a "you WILL respect this site", an "I risked my life defending ungrateful people like you", something about how he/sysops/Andy decide what's right, and maybe a "I haven't really looked at your edits but I'm sure they're bad" (a bit more of an Andy than Karajou, actually). Who thinks they can goad him into a couple of these? I'd at least like to see a trifecta in this one discussion. DickTurpis 20:11, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Don't forget "No, its YOU who is...", "This conversation is done with.", "you're attempting to subvert our..." and "insultive" which I've never seen personally. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 20:49, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

LAST BETS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! "[several paragraphs of pwn] You may fire when ready. --KevinM 20:52, 10 July 2008 (EDT)" --Sid 21:02, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

WAIT WAIT! I'm changing my bet to something that suggests Kevin supports trolls and is a troll himself.

Also, how frequent are IP range blocks on Wikipedia? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 21:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I dunno how common or rare they actually are, but here is what this WP page about IP blocks says:

“”Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours, since the malicious user will probably move on by the time the block expires. If there is persistent disruption or vandalism from an IP address, the block should be extended (with the 'anon-only' option selected) as long as is necessary to prevent further disruption. However, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Many IPs are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are periodically re-assigned or have different users. In extreme cases, consider long-term blocks over a period of months or years instead. Long-term blocks should never be used for isolated incidents.

(Emphasis in original.) I'm pretty sure that "extreme cases" is not "one guy made a few socks and is a parodist", and this isn't even about range blocks - it's just about IPs in general (including single IPs)!

It should also be noted that "/16" is the most extreme case the wiki software actually allows. Normally, range blocks are applied to MUCH smaller ranges (like /24, which would only block 256 IPs, which should normally be enough for a vandal with dynamic IPs). --Sid 21:32, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Just in case Kookajoo loses the discussion whilst archiving his talk page or something, it is saved for posterity. Zmidponk 21:35, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

And, just to complete Kooky's utter incompetence, I do believe that 'Road Runner Hold LCC' isn't a 'proxy', but is, in fact, an ISP. Zmidponk 21:43, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

It's probably just people at an ISP that allows them to get a different DHCP address just by rebooting their cable modem. Anyway, most of the admins there are doing range blocks, even indefinite /16 blocks. It looks like there are some persistent vandals (the RoadRunner guy started a month ago at least), so it's sort of understandable, but I don't think it makes sense for these blocks to last for anything close to two years. --Interiot 22:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Kookoohead: "I'll do the infinate thing, but I won't be opposed to the block being lifted in six monthss or less." First, spell infinite right. Second, how on earth are you going to "remember" to dig through the voluminous list of current blocks at CP to figure out which ones you meant to undo after six months? Third, Kookyjoob, you are an idiot. You blocked 64,000 RoadRunner IP addresses - excuse me if I'm wrong, but RoadRunner is the trademark of a major US ISP (use to be mine, years ago, before selling to another telecom) ħuman 23:12, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

I very much doubt that you can get any IP out of a range of 65,536 just by rebooting your modem. I know what you mean (I get force-disconnected every 24 hours and get a new IP when I connect again), but those IPs are usually in a narrow band. A few /24 blocks maybe, but not all 256. I honestly doubt that a single log-in point in the entire US has a complete /16 block all to itself and blindly assigns ANY of those IPs to a user. And that still leaves the other questions raised by Kevin: Even if that was possible, how are you to say for sure that such wildly different addresses are all the same guy or a proxy (which would imply that a single proxy is using the entire /16 block - something that is even less likely than a single guy being able to use the entire block)? And even if we assume everything else as true, that would mean that a single guy actually used so many blocks in his spree (like, he had hundreds of socks or somehow used a completely different IP for every edit). No matter how you look at it, Karajou's argument is full of holes and shows a blatant lack of knowledge. (Also keep in mind that this is the guy who once accused a random German IP of being me on the basis of it being... a German IP. Apparently he "knows" that I can access any IP in Germany!) Do you trust a guy with such a lack of insight to be able to actually figure out which range needs to be blocked? He's merely going by his gut feeling and banhammered half a million IPs within two weeks or so.

I know you're aiming for a compromise, and I applaud you for getting him to at least consider using shorter blocks, but that doesn't change that his frantic handwaving does little to hide his apparent incompetence. --Sid 05:26, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Favourite Ed-ism

I just saw this line, and it was just a perfect example of "fail" that I had to share. From the talk page describing the aims of the new radioactivity article:

"It should also explain the nuclear reaction which generates electricity - and why the US is safer in this than the Soviets were; see Chernobyl."

There's a nuclear reaction that generates electricity?! And I love the concept of comparing 2008 U.S technology to 1980s Soviet tech to make it look good. And WTF is all this doing in an article on "radioactivity"? Probably best not to mention Three-Mile Island. Is it really possible for one man to contain so much ignorance?

Maybe to celebrate this unique individual, people can nominate their own Ed-isms? The Lay Scientist 20:47, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Definitely two meters. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 20:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

So many to choose from - I really liked two meters but his recent "Toes Rights Society" edit summary was pretty funny and also when he mentioned he was going to par-tay for 4th july. Ace McWicked 21:05, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Should we make a page similar to when we voted for CP's greatest idiot? Javascap 21:32, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Considering how many people Ed has pissed off for more than a year, a dedicated page might be a good idea. This could take a while. XD --Sid 21:35, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the 80s is when the last US nuke came on line. But they were built far, far, safer than Chernobyl. Chernobyl had no containment, for instance. Chernobyl makes TMI look like a flat tire. Anyway, I also cherish that Ed line. Here's how: core makes heat. Heat makes steam. Steam drives turbine. Turbine makes electrocity. (Some use hot water...) Ironically, my brother is in the neighborhood for a class reunion, and a buddy is taking him on a tour of the last US plant to go on line, the infamous Seabrook Station. ħuman 21:42, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I think it'd be a good idea to make seperate pages for every major CP editor. When I look over the WIGO entries, with them all mixed together, I don't get as much of a sense of personality for each of the characters in this comedy of errors. - Lardashe

This is one of those situations where wiki software is not the best and we're making it do something it wasn't designed for at all. Something more like http://ihasahotdog.com/ with the tag cloud and the dogs by breed would be better for this type of thing. This could then be made so you could add the digg this and blog comments on particular bits of stupidity. --Shagie 11:55, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

New account registration

Moratorium on new account registration is unusually long this time. Wonder what is going on. I will run out of socks in a week or two in that case. Can anyone see the new account link? --Didacus 07:57, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

CP is barely functioning right now anyway. Since I discovered I could edit last night I've been doing a few things for Bohdan and Sid, and it's a nightmare just getting a page to load. Andy on vacation and hamster out of food? ħuman 18:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not even a pleasant experience for lurkers - when the minor fireworks were going on on Jpatt's talk page, it often took me five or more attempts to even get it to load (only got a blank page the rest of the time)! I don't even want to think about how maddening it must be for people who are trying to force edits to go through... --Sid 19:03, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Heh, thanks for your sympathy ;) I also had to do a long-overdue fix at the Beatles article. Basically two edits (though I broke the second one up in frustration) required about ten attempted pageloads and at least one copy/paste to save my edit for another try. It took my three tries to load their article on the Eucharist. I know it's not an aspersion on their belief systems, but it's still embarrassssing.

Oh, and hey, did you know that apparently CP's orange box is a deep blood- red? Weird. ħuman 20:00, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

What? The "You've got a new message on your talk page" thingie? CЯacke® 20:27, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Yup. I grabbed a screenshot with my back button...

ħuman 21:52, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Considering how often this box directs people to their Last Warnings, I find that style very fitting. It at leasts puts them in the right mood. --Sid 05:31, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Logo

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I just noticed it myself... Isn't the Conservapedia logo a huge violation of the flag code? I mean, in the fist place, it's being used for advertising purposes... I huge no no. (see point I here) and on top of that, they've violated point G ("The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.") by attaching their name to it... maybe we should point this out to Andy SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 08:49, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm no expert (in fact, I find the whole flag code sort of nit-picky and silly; I'm well within the "who-gives-a-xxxx?" camp) but is there not a distinction made between the actual flag itself and a depiction of it? The logo itself is not a physical flag. Not sure if that makes a difference, but it's a thought. DickTurpis 09:07, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes. I think it is a clear breach of the code, including: The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. We need to raise this vital issue! --Bob^{bing up} 09:28, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I actually agree with you Dick, I think that when you put your faith in an object rather than what the object is supposed to stand for, you simply open yourself up to your enemies for attack (see debate:Did PZ Myers Cross the Line?). My larger point here is one of total hypocrisy. The same people who scream the loudest seem to be the ones who violate the code inadvertantly. I'm not saying that the flag code should become law with serious penalties for violation, I'm just pointing out that the logo is an obvious breach. One last note to DickTurpis, the code doesn't handle only literal flags, but the representaion of the flag as well. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 10:15, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I certainly didn't mean to imply you were advocating legal standing for the flag code. Anyway, it's your final sentence I wish to address. So the flag code does cover any and all representations of the flag, even partial ones? Does that include photographs that include a flag in them? What if someone decorates a cake with a pattern representative of the flag? Looking at the code, it seems to at least implicitly refer to a physical flag, not so much its representation. DickTurpis 10:26, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Teh code also says - "It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard." Isn't that about other representations?--Ban^{Vote for me} 10:48, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, those are. However, the logo does not fit any of those descriptions. In fact, that it specifies disposable items as prohibited implies that its depiction is allowed on non-disposable items. Certainly the code doesn't say if you have a photograph of, say, a school with a flag flying in front of it, you can't put that photograph on a desk or the floor. DickTurpis 11:04, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, if the flag doesn't have to be an real flag, but can be something else (like a logo) then they fall fowl of this one: "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."--Ban^{Vote for me} 11:15, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Again, you're assuming that the image in the logo is a flag, and not merely a depiction of one, or that the depiction falls under the same rules as the flag itself. As I read it, that section of the code prohibits someone from, say, spray painting the word "America!" on an actual flag, not using a depiction of the flag as the background in an image. I admit I don't know much about it. Someone's brought up this point on CP's main page talk, and I'm curious to see the reply. However, it's likely the reply from that intellectual powerhouse will be an insult and a block. DickTurpis 11:26, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Coincidentally, as I write this the ad below is a political ad depicting a blue background with white lettering on the left, and a couple red and white stripes on the right. Clearly representative of the flag. Is it a violation of the code? DickTurpis 11:29, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

No doubt one of teh smartest legal brainz of the century will have teh answer. (edit conflict) I would say those examples would be, I underestand that it is difficult to prosecute. --Ban^{Vote for me} 11:33, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Jeez, already on the main page.... that's faster than emailing an admin. In response to the above posts, I say at the onset that I am no expert on the flag code. The problem here is that the flag code seems to jump between speaking of actual flags and representations. For example, they say that the flag should never touch the ground or item below the flag, but they also say that the flag should never be worn as an adornment. But what makes a representation a flag? If I steal a flag off a pole and sew it into a shirt, well obviously. But what if I buy some flag print material and sew that into a shirt? isn't it just as bad? This is all kind of pointless, as the flag code is simply a set of guidelines, not really a law... but it is an interesting question. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:20, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The legal minutiae are unimportant because the flag code is not enforceable, and is not enforced. Colbert waves the U.S. flag in the opening to his show, he's as "guilty" as Conservapedia is. Also, the code says you can't use a flag horizontally, or have it touch any surface — both things that are "violated" when a flag is draped on someone's casket.

So it gives moral guidance, that's all. If there might anything to this at all, it's that conservatives tend to be the most passionate about informally-defined morals, and about outrage over the flag in particular, so even if Colbert does it, maybe Conservapedia shouldn't. But, since that's something that's ultimately not too hard to blow off, this may not be that big of a deal. --Interiot 12:36, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I think I said something very similar to that... but I'd take a moment to point out that Colbert isn't in violation of the code. If the flag waving was part of an advertisment, that's one thing... but he simply waves it as part of his opening. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:43, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

(playing devil's advocate again, sigh) Advertising usually implies banner ads, 30-second television commercials, something like that (things directed at people who aren't yet customers, and separate in time and space from the main product). As far as I know, that's not what Conservapedia is doing. Conservapedia's logo and Colbert's intro are branding (directed at current customers, and integrated into the main product). (granted, making the flag part of the logo that shows up on every single page makes it much more prominent than a 5-second clip that shows up once per show) --Interiot 13:15, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

No one's arguing that there are any legal ramifications here, it's merely a question of hypocrisy. Certainly CP would be in the vanguard of pointing fingers should some liberal ever violate any aspect of the flag code. I think much of the flag code is dated anyway. I mean, horizontal flags are common, and I believe there's even a guide on how a horizontal flag should be displayed (blue field on the right side). Flags are constantly used in ads, and a bunch of the other rules are broken routinely. I certainly don't think it's a big deal if the CP logo does violate the code, though I'm curious to see their response. DickTurpis 13:06, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

"The same people who scream the loudest seem to be the ones who violate the code inadvertently" - I agree, and it's the weird part. People who aren't "flag nuts" probably don't have any, and don't care. But those who are into the flag are the ones with the T shirts, the stickers, and the raggedy dying post 9/11 ones on their car antenna. I had one once, and when it got a bit old looking I burned it, respectfully. I do have a large 48 star flag in storage, folded correctly, and I suppose there's one on my old Boy Scout uniform (but that's allowed). Also, the lag draping procedures for military funerals are specifically delineated. Technically, anything with white stars on blue and some sort of red and white stripes are not appropriate, where such a display might be desired, "bunting" is allowed - not enough ingredients to be able to make a flag. So, yes, the CP logo may not be "against the law" but it is a disrespectful use of the flag. So are the little stickers I get in the mail that are US flags with "made in the USA" printed on them. All that said, I'm glad it's not the law (as in a crime to violate), and we'd (the USA that is, not "us") be better off not getting so bent out of shape by it. See also Flag Police. ħuman 13:18, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't say it is hypocritical. As far as I know, nobody has stood up for the code, with the exception of Karajou who I suppose is hypocritical on a personal level. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 18:37, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

The only good Indian...

After I withdrew from the "debate," Roger took his agenda even farther: Look! So the Red Man was, it seems, an essential casualty in the "advance of civilization." I knew CP was bonkers, but I didn't realize they were actually pro-genocide. 98.206.181.143 14:37, 11 July 2008 (EDT) (Fishal)

Anything that makes America look better is welcome on CP, even if you're talking about genocide or historical whitewashing. --Sid 19:00, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll be banned over there but I'm going to war over this as soon as editing opens up again (and after the rugby of course). I am not a native American Indian but I am Maori and have studied the plight of aboriginal peoples all over the world. It's not right that people should seek to revise history to serve some bogus patriotic end (and its bullshit anyway - aren't Native Indians Americans too). That Rshlafly guy is some asshole.--Damo2353 03:33, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Best of luck... ħuman 03:44, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Death comes to us all one day.--Damo2353 03:47, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

There is death, and then there is Death? ħuman 03:50, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Edmund Poor, Maths Expert

Ah geez. Just when I thought I'd found all the funny bits on CP, I happen across this gem. Matt 22:08, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Luckily for us voyeurs Tedmund overcame his stated reluctance to write about maths and had a crack. Simply magnificent. Matt 22:15, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes Ed is a maths expert and I am an expert of 18th Century Prussian Philosophy. What that man does everyday on Conservapedia is a desecration of its already poor maths articles. He is the single biggest demonstration of the information theory principle of the loss of information and the increase of entropy. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:34, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

I took a poetry class in high school, and then another in college. If your rhymes don't busta groove, understand when I bust your move. I also took "lots" of math courses, so if I don't understand your 'quations, don't be shamin' if I delete your raisins. Oh shit, double busted, gotta go block myself to Rockall for eternity, just in case. Can I get a skipper? Can I get a sailor? Can I get this pile of turds mopped up jiffy quick? Oh, this is so wrong, I might just have to eat my schtick... ħuman 01:31, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

I have nothing intelligent to add, just wanted to say Human, that was genius :) The Lay Scientist 20:26, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I don't get. Is there some culture reference I'm missing here? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:02, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Fifteen or so... I don't know which you might have missed or not... And thank you [blush], M. Lay Scientist. You make a blah day suddenly all worthwhile... hehe ħuman 02:16, 13 July 2008 (EDT)