Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive66

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <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)

Andy vs. PZ Myers debate?

Andy says he would be willing to debate PZ Myers. Does anyone know how to get ahold of him? Lets set this up and get the ball rolling![1]--Franklin 06:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't know tho why PZ would want to debate Andy. Timppeli 07:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure PZ has no interest in debating Andy, for two reasons. 1) Andy is a nobody. 2) PZ knows that to debate a nobody like Andy only draws attention to Conservapedia, even though he would undoubtedly own Andy (you can't block somebody in a debate for "talk talk talk"!) And so it may go like this:

Andy will puff up with the idea of debating PZ Meyers and have his ego massaged by the parodists on CP like Bugler.

Andy will issue a "public" challenge to PZ on the main page at CP

PZ ignores it. Life goes on

Andy will claim that PZ refused to debate with him because he was scared of losing

Conservapedia continues to be ignored.

Bondurant 07:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Drawing any attention to Conservapedia at this point is obviously to fuel the lulz of white-collared workers during their smoke break. Lenski owned him, everyone laughed at him (except socks like Bugler), and that was just through letters/email. PZ Myers in a debate with voices, maybe even video? Oh man, who the hell cares about Conservapedia's traffic, that would embarrass Andy so bad. Norseman^Wassail! 09:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Of course PZ's afraid of debating with him - because people might think that he (PZ) believed that Andy was worth debating and that'd be like arguing with a baboon. e wouldn't want to be brought down to that level.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of baboons, PZ has expressed some embarrassment that he is going to debate Ray Comfort (you know, the "bananas are an atheist's worse nightmare" guy).--Franklin 13:41, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Either Andy thinks his devilish good looks will make up for his utter lack of factual support, or he's completely divorced himself from reality and doesn't realize how batshit crazy he sounds when he speaks. Or more disturbing, some combination of the two?WilhelmJunker 21:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

All so quiet

Am I the only one getting the feeling that it's all dust and echoes now? It does seem to just be sysops arguing with socks over there, in a rather futile battle over the site. I mean, there's hardly anything coming up on wigo anymore. Hmm. Maybe it's just the weekend.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.158.221.125 / talk / contribs}

Smeg Ed has just crawled out of the sewer woodwork, to kiss Andy's ass. Maybe we'll get another slew of one-sentence "articles" soon. IIJM, or has PJR thrown in the towel? Haven't seen him on there in ages. Maybe he finally saw the light. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

PWNED!

Kenservative's comprehensively pwned by JohnyGoodman. Suck on that Kenny boy!   ^Contribs_Talk 13:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Too late. MH. Ajkgordon 13:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Er, not yet. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

He really is out of his depth, isn't he? Ajkgordon 14:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Of course, you can't be owned if you don't understand it. Ajkgordon 14:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Since when have they understood anything they post? In a matter of hours, *all* of those "great minds" will be dismissed along one so-called reason or another. Course, I do have a bone to pick about DeBeauvour not being a philosopher--Waiting for Godot 14:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT) or Feminism not a philosophy. hehe.

This was predictable. What a freaking moron. Ace McWicked (unsigned in)

"Well gosh, Solomon isn't in there, and umm... ummm.. Plato, and you know, that other dude, what's his name... well, he's the greatest and he was a christian... August or something..." Wonder what *would* be considered "demonstrate" that they are great, then.--Waiting for Godot 18:11, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Looks like Conservatives decided to go with an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. --Gulik 06:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I dunno about that, but his rant surely deserves to be quoted here:

"You mentioned Dennett. Have you read Daniel Dennett's commentary on Stalin located here: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/07/boba-digest-part-2-daniel-dennetts.html I believe Dennett is acting quite illogical for a so called "great philosopher". Dennett has quite the penchant for using the favorite fallacious modus operandi of a great deal of atheists and that is the exclusionary fallacy. I do intend on creating an atheists and logic section for the CP atheism article."

As if that is a response? ħuman 06:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It's a response. A non-sequitur one, but a response. --Gulik 23:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

PNAS letter

The letter to PNAS has (allegedly) been sent. So we now wait for publication.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Which of course, it will be, since it's such an amazingly well written, well researched, and well argued reply, do'n'cah know.--Waiting for Godot 15:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to reiterate my previous statement on this though. While part of me would enjoy a public smack-down, the fact is that PNAS will not and should not publish this letter. They have standards to maintain, and to indulge a random internet fantasist would be an insult to the many thousands of genuine researchers like myself who would love to have their professional material published. The joke is over, Andy is irrelevant even to other Creationists, and it's not the job of a serious journal to indulge random internet cranks. The Lay Scientist 15:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

What he said, double.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

My guess is, they will send him a letter which they follow Lenski by saying 1) you don't know what you are talking about 2) you have no idea how to be a scientists or work within scientific framwork, but if you'd like to learn, here's a university near you, 3) you don't know what you are talking about, 4) here are a few arguments to let your READERS know about the facts. Then they may publish said reply on their page in some link, or provide the letter to such sites as NCSe if they wish to use it in furthering the goal of science in the classroom. just a hunch, of course. They may simply ignore it all.--Waiting for Godot 16:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

What WaitingforGodot said much better than me and in less time (damn edit conflict) :-D I can just imagine what happens if they DON'T publish the letter: "Liberal censorship!!!" (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm hoping they publish something too, not because cranks should be taken seriously, but because every once in a while you need to make an example out of someone, and this is prime material to work with. It also serves a purpose in educating people as to how science really works, especially when legitimate science is constantly being attacked by fundies. --SpinyNorman 16:43, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I am guessing that they will just send a form letter rejection. If they were to personally reply to every crank letter they received, they would never publish an issue... I would be really surprised if they sent any form of a rebuttal, surely that is not the editor's job.

Well, Lenski took the time to interact with Conservapedia. And I don't really know how many crank letters they get, it's not that PNAS is read by as many crank people as Reader's Digest. So there is still hope for either publication or a private answer. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 17:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I was mostly responding to WfG's hope that they would send him a crushing reply, a la Lenski. I don't think this will happen as it is not really the place of editors to rebut attacks on papers written by their authors. As I understand it, if they feel the letter is worth a rebuttal, they will print it and give Lenski et al a chance to respond. As to how many crank letters they get it's anyone's guess.-Antifly 18:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure that any reply wouldn't present pretty much the same information already brought up in the talk pages. However, I wouldn't mind if Blount et al. did reply. I just wonder whether the letter will be forwarded to them (They didn't cc Lenski or any of the other authors).--Neon 19:48, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, does anyone know what the response time is like for letters. For articles it can be up to a year or so, can we expect lulz sooner?-Antifly 16:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I updated Lenski affair to show the current revision of the letter and to indicate that it was mailed today. ħuman 17:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I normally ignore this page but the whole letter saga has fascinated me. It's like Thomas Hardy done for laughs (looming tragedy, or in this case, looming lulz). Totnesmartin 17:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I was doubly amused by the "cc" list. Judicial watch???? ookkaayyyyy...--Waiting for Godot 18:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Random plug - I've blogged about the letter here. The Lay Scientist 21:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Lay Scientist you are a kind of less creepy reverse Ken. Go over to CP and try to slip your blog in as references and see what happens, tell them it is a creationist blog. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:23, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Haha @ the pi guy, and that is a very good idea. Although, how much do you like wasting your time? ħuman 05:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

ROFLMAO at Pi, I'm going to assume that was a compliment! Funnily enough, I just put up a post about China oppressing a Church leader. I was tempted to link to it on CP, and see if they noticed what the wider site was about, and that the previous article calls Schlafly a moron. The Lay Scientist 07:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It was intended as a joke, although now I think of it editing opens in an hour.... Quick Jinx sick'em. $\approx$$\pi$ 07:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

CC List

The moron has sent 3 copies to PNAS, and 2 to the PNAS editor.. WTF? Also, Judicial Watch, fascinating choice, and Brian Baird, who last time I checked is a Democrat? The Lay Scientist 19:49, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

The editor one is amusing, I suspect Andy is trying make sure he does not use the excuse he never received it to not publish it. (Like saying is letter is a poorly argued pile of crap is not enough reason not to publish it). Judicial Watch is probably his favorite right-wing lobby group. You have to try to see this from inside Andy's mind. As far as he is concerned there is a wide spread conspiracy going on trying to publish inflated results for evolution and censoring dissent. Like the left-wing groups when you can't get your opinion through the normal channels, in the case of same-sex marriage for example legislatively, they go fight it in the courts. Andy and his creationist crowd can't get their pseudo-science published in journals or taught in universities, they try to get the legislators and high-school boards to teach it at lower grades of schooling. It of course stinks of hypocrisy as Andy would be the first to claim "Activist Judges". I wounder what term we could invent for a legislator who wants to legislate his opinion as a scientific fact? $\approx$$\pi$ 05:17, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"A politician"? It's really, REALLY common for them to try to get their half-baked opinions about testable hypotheses enshrined in law. Everything from Lysenkoism to second-hand smoke scares qualifies. --Gulik 06:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well yes... but he's writing to a democrat?! The Lay Scientist 07:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well that is not surprising as the Democrats have control of both houses so I should imagine they would chair every committee. Maybe he thought it looked impartial sending it to the head of the committee concerned regardless of affiliation. You have to think Andy like. He is sure that the legislators are ignorant of the fact that bodies they fund are biased and once it is brought to their attention there will be a mass legislation spree creating "academic freedom" (read teach creationism).Or maybe he is hoping that the Democrat guy tells him to piss off as well so he can say "look how high this conspiracy of liberal evolutionist deceit goes". $\approx$$\pi$ 07:37, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

He also sent it to New Scientist on an 0171 number, a prefix that went out of service about a decade ago. Pseudomonas 18:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Another possible factor: The evils of word counting methods

I would love to see the organization replying with "Your letter is too long!". The official limit is 250 words, and as a disclaimer, I didn't check their site for special guidelines. I just copied Andy's text (including the references, of course) into my editor, cropped some indents and replaced the URLs with a dummy string ("URL") to be on the safe side. The result with the editor I use to count words in my fics (Tex-Edit Plus for OSX): 257 if you also erase the list numbering, 254 if you also remove the commas in the numbers, and 262 if you leave everything in. Removing the "+" from the "Cit+" words doesn't change the count.

I'm very sure that this number will change slightly depending on editor and counting method, but it seems that Andy went with a very optimistic counting method there. Not terribly wise when you're working with strict limits. --Sid 17:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

The word count is fine. I don't think I've ever submitted a paper that didn't try and cheat the word limit a little. It's just there so you don't take the piss basically, and they can fit it into X pages or Xth of a page. If it was a few words over in a letter, they'd probably just edit it slightly. There are bigger reasons to reject it. Like the fact that it's a letter from an internet crank. The Lay Scientist 19:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy would have been better writing two letters, one on the statistical problems and one on the procedural problems, he would have more chance of getting one published. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

People tried to tell him not to just cc:spray it, but to write separate letters... but you mean something different. You are assuming, dangerously, that he could have cobbled together two coherent letters on a topic he is woefully mis/uninformed about? I wish I had your faith ;) ħuman 05:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Revisionist History revised

I loved Andy's line that "only tiny things have been found, small enough to carry". 1) I'm not sure how 8 buildings are portable, unless I suppose, they are tipis...2)if an anthropologist found a nail that proves Jesus was crucified just like the bible said (nail holes in his hands, and all), you know that little artifact would be enough! portable and all!--Waiting for Godot 14:57, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

The whole discussion is a gold mine. Another thing I noted is Andy's point about "artifacts being used by Norse women". Whereas my immediate conclusion would be something like "Okay! So maybe either they did have women along or it wasn't just women who used those", his is "Okay! Then they can't be authentic because there were no women there." An interesting small insight into his views on gender roles, perhaps? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, which one of you bundles of wood was Jinxy94?

If you really want to cover my "knob" with peanut butter and lick it, just come out of that closet and say so. Stop trying to project your fantasies on my non-existent dog. 67.135.49.198 15:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Duh, Jinx. It was AmesG, wasn't it? --JeevesMkII 15:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

1) The vandal suggested YOU cover your "knob" in peanut butter.

2) The vandal said "I let a dog", not your (possessive) dog.

3) From 1 and 2, sounds like you distorted the statement to make it look like you want us to...

4) Did you try it yet? :D (no, that vandal wasn't me) Norseman^Wassail! 15:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because it's a proven fact that nobody other than us ever wandalize CP, right? Maybe it was someone from the Something Awful forums. Why don't you run over there and ask if anyone wants you to cover your knob with peanut butter? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:35, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

This wazzock has offspring? Poor little sod(s)!   ^Contribs_Talk 16:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Jinx - I missed your wandalism 'cause I was laughing so much about your Pwnation. Which happened, ironically, while you were stuffing your tongue so far up Schlafly's rectum that he'd be able to feel you tickling his throat. Still, Trent wiped up your faeces, so no harm done.   ^Contribs_Talk 21:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Jesusshit, Susan! Some of us want to have an appetite sometime in the next century, and don't need such images in their heads! Christ, I want to pour Drano into my ears to try to clean that out!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I concur with Tom Moore. Susan, I cannot speak on behalf of others, but I myself am a desperately single male. I find your choice of words to be intoxicating, and I must ask that you say no more! :P Norseman^Wassail! 09:29, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Fox comes clean

"I do not drink alcohol habitually. Sadly, as a consequence, when I do, it, has a greater effect upon me than one would expect. I wish to apologise to Andrew and the greater CP community for my lapses in behaviour when I've "had a few". Alcohol disinhibits my behaviour and I am sad to say it makes me more aggressive towards CPs detractors than they deserve or would normally expect. I'm sorry about this; it normally only happens every 6 months, and I again apologise for this." [2]

I guess at least some of our theories were correct. Fox, it was big of you to apologize (ok, on CP, but the red telephone is a dedicated line to our teletype), and we all have lapses. Some of us much more often than ye ;) ħuman 16:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Always good to have clarity, and yeah, apologizing was a cool move. :) Now, will you sign the "Differences with Wikipedia"? ;) --Sid 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Leave it to Jinx to fuck up the one nice moment on CP in what feels like an eternity... --Sid 17:50, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Either Jinx considers himself one of CP's detractors or his reading comprehension (or mine!) is not very good. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 18:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's less a matter of reading comprehension and more one of context. Jinx apparently thinks this is about the whole clash where Fox brought up Jinx's WP history (plus the speculation about that WP user with the odd name), but I think it's pretty clear that Fox was talking about the recent ban orgy on CP (and of course, the very weird exchanges here on T:WIGO). --Sid 18:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

But Fox is up the the challenge of Jinx--Toffeeman 18:11, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Hilarious. Jinx refuses to accept Fox's apology, and the Foxy One pwns him by pointing out that the apology did not include Highjinx! [3] ħuman

The blows just keep coming, and the Block Log also sees some activity. I seriously regret that I have to go to bed now... --Sid 19:54, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Writing assignments: Conservative Karajou vs. Ed Poor

When I read the latest WIGO item, my first thought was "no way!". But the diff link is a strong case in favour of Conservative Karajou winning an eventual writing assignment war. Now, this is the first Conservative Karajou's writing assignment I know of, but if his standard stays the same, will he be "better" than Ed Poor in this special race? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 17:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

...you mean Karajou, right? (Feel free to erase this message if you correct the initial post or at least tell me where Conservative dished out an assignment if I missed something.) --Sid 17:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Argh! Karajou, I publicly apologize here for my mistake! If it is of any help, let me tell you: it was just an error on my part. Don't worry, I really know what you're worth of. I'm sure that my error won't hamper your race for The Biggest Idiot at CP version 2.0. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 17:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

This is actually the second case for Kara I can remember. The first (I can remember) was with TomMoore about the "Kool-Aid vs. Flavor Aid" thing. That one actually had a deadline of just a few hours. --Sid 18:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh right, how could I forget that! Yep, Ed Poor shows quantity, but Kara wins with quality. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 18:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

References to THAT SITE!

Is it just me, or have CP references to us increased almost exponentially recently, even without Jinxy's contribs?   ^Contribs_Talk 18:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

What I'm wondering is, how do you finish a peach without getting all the juices on your hands? o.O The real sock ^{of a sock... known as Chaosfish} 18:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Bloody colonial: you eat it with a knife and fork after the butler's taken the stone out.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Innuendo: Ur doing it wrong.... Or are you??-Antifly 19:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I could eat a peach for hours... and sometimes it is just right to get the juices all over. The idea of taking a fork and knife to a peach is an abomination. --Shagie 19:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

With some things, it's better to just immerse yourself in the experience and clean up later. Ah, summer.--SpinyNorman 19:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I believe those are the words that open the serial killer's manifesto. --JeevesMkII 19:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, eating the peach has ... err ... how shall I put it .... connotations? Well, I know it begins with 'C' ... what was that word ....?   ^Contribs_Talk 20:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I assure you that was fully intended on my part... and I hope you were referring to the flesh of the fruit instead in your comment. Otherwise... well, thats kinky. I'm still wondering if the sock was aware of the implications of what he said/suggested. --Shagie 00:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Doubt that Nate still has any clew what's being referred to - if he has he's a very naughty boy!   ^Contribs_Talk 06:18, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

So go give him a present ;) ħuman 06:36, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"(Block log); 11:22 . . Jinxmchue (Talk | contribs | block) (blocked User:JGreene with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled): Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages: Some irrational troll from some loser website obsessed with CP)"

This site is obsessed with CP? Shouldn't they be thanking "us" for all the wonderful popularity "we" give it? o.O The real sock ^{of a sock... known as Chaosfish} 11:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

hahaha great

Nice one! Ace McWicked^Interesting 19:54, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Lol. Still there. Uchiha^KATON! 23:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

"earn't?" lulz! Frickin' morons. 67.135.49.198 12:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

You had to look on this talk page to find it. Frickin' moron. :P Norseman^Wassail! 12:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Only because your nitwits dishonestly like to hide your vandalisms in other edits. 67.135.49.198 14:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"your nitwits"? Lulz! Frickin' moron. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"...nitwits dishonestly like to hide your vandalisms..." Like you did? lulz! Norseman^Wassail! 17:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It took the wandal a whole six minutes to correct the error. I usually let Schlafly's typos live for a couple of days before I fix them... ħuman 19:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Am I the only one who finds the suggestion in Jinx comment that there is such a thing as honest vandalism a little strange? Maybe we should just blank every page and write "Jinx I have a jar of peanut butter" on it as that would constitute honest vandalism. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"Like you did?" Okay, now rub your two brain cells together and try to put one and one together. You can do it. Come on. Oh, no! Your head burst into flame. Sorry. 67.135.49.198 21:33, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

That was the weakest retort I've ever seen, Jinx. You were pwned hard here. Better go wandalize some more to save face, you lovely little hypocrite. :D Norseman^Wassail! 23:46, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx just let it go. You come around here vandalising this place in retribution for things it might not have been one of us doing. Also stop changing WIGOs about yourself. If you don't want us laughing at you stop giving us reasons. Calm down and think before you post something on CP about "the other place". Stop blocking what could possibly be legitimate user by screaming "sock of blocked user" all the time. And stop coming around here using abusive language and calling us name. I can't believe some of the things people around here have said about you, you be have like you are about 16. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

*loud buzzer* Wrong! It's not retribution. 67.135.49.198 23:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

So what do you call that pathetic childish shit I just had to clean up? $\approx$$\pi$ 23:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

That was mainly my fault, actually. Teasing Jinx is more trouble than it's worth... ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 23:18, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It's CYBER TERRORISM! Quick, call the FBI, the NSA, the Justice League, and the California State Department of Furniture and Bedding!!@!!@!!11!@!one! --Gulik 00:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

"Oh, no! Your head burst into flame." -Jinxmchue Quote of the year.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Bob Jones University

Why is Andy so upset that people are writing the truth about redneck Harvard, they were/are a racist organization and should not be recognized! SockofCPuser 21:08, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Hehe... I restored it, though I'd guess I'll be following it out the door in a bit.

For someone who blocks...

For someone who has block rights, it's pretty big to say that liberals get out of arguments they can't win because there's another guy. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 21:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Dear god Andy, aren't you supposed to be a History teacher? Democrats used to support slavery. NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Back when they were..... Republicans. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 21:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

@SST, Ames turned up and accepted the challenge. Now Andy wants a deposit to ensure Ames turns up... I am so glad I invested in the new RW 3.0 heavy duty irony meter (for sale in the back of this issue!), its special protection circuits stop it from blowing up or otherwise failing when overloaded. ħuman 21:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Of course, this being Conservapedia, they'd probably have bouncers to exclude him from the venue and then claim he'd forfeited his deposit. --JeevesMkII 10:17, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again, after a truly nice swipe from 'DParker', Karajou proves what a class act he is, by banning him so The Boss doesn't have to. --Gulik 00:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate Topics

Has Andy specified which topic he wants to debate about? Because if not, I'm sure we can suggest a few:

• Relativity: Communist Plot?
• Liberals: Deliberate Traitors, Or Just Blithering Idiots?
• Evolutionary Biologists: Deliberate Satan-Worshippers, or Accidental Ones?
• Openmindedness: Either You Agree With Me About Everything, or You're A Deluded Fool
• Which Parts of The Bible are Liberal Forgeries?
• Ben Franklin Was NOT a Deist, and I'll Ban Anyone Who Disagrees
• Science: Threat or Menace?
• Ronald Reagan: Great President, or GREATEST President?
• Liberals: Shooting or Hanging?
• Conservapedia: Alternative to Wikipedia, or a hypocritical, abusively POV-pushing project?
• Gay marriage: Wrong because it's in the bible, or wrong because I think it's just kinda creepy.
• Humans: Descended from monkeys, or descended from two humans made out of dust who weren't allowed to commit incest?
• Is George W. Bush as great a President as Ronald Reagan?

Add your own! --Gulik 06:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you pretty much nailed it, Gulik. ħuman 06:37, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Hows "Has a conservative ever been guilty of wrong doing? This is of course a trick question designed to show how clueless the debatee is. Ace McWicked^Interesting 06:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia: Alternative to Wikipedia, or a hypocritical, abusively POV-pushing project? - I added this one, though it sounds a bit biased ;). All those uncomfortable questions where Andy never replied (and used his infamous rearguard to save him) or answered with insults, "liberal" this and that, or simply responded that broke so many of his own commandments/policies in one go. There's so much he simply can't respond to without lashing out with some "LIBERALS ATE MY BABY!" claptrap. Norseman^Wassail! 09:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I like this one: "Is George W. Bush as great a President as Ronald Reagan?" On the one hand, Reagan must be affirmed as the greatest President of all time; on the other hand, nothing even remotely critical of George W. Bush can be uttered. It'll create a feedback loop which will cause Andy's head to explode. --Phentari 17:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Added a line about dust & adam. "monkeys, hell no. but yes, i'm descended from dust!"

Good one, Phentar. Added. --Gulik 17:30, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Technical re:article itself!

I just added a couple of subheaders to make editing easier. Once in a while we should move the "section end" one up. Now that the WIGO voting isn't one huge tagged thing, we can use these little buttons to make adding items/correcting typos much easier, since only a small section gets edited. If anyone thinks up better names for the edit buttons, just improve them. PS, whoever did the 0807 archive, thanks! ħuman 21:57, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Hooray for buttonz! Yay! *pushes* -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 21:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Ummm....How about for edit "Interupt". Kinda funny, amrite? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 21:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Kinda funny, but it should be reasonably intuitive to people what it's for? I dunno, I guess there's only you, me, and AmesG anyway... One could say poop and the other pee for all it matters! "Interrupt"... hmmmm... hmmm.... hekk, it's not up to me ;) Anyone here can improve this rapidly growing internet resource! ħuman 22:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Obama picture on "Featured Article"

The CP article for McCain has the official portrait, whereas Obama's has a less flattering one. Andy has a great explanation of how this isn't photo bias. I would like to point out how much I love that the Obama article, with it's "affirmative action president" racist nonsense, is on the front page. "Welcome to Conservapedia. We're racist!" Corry^Talk 13:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

The left and right side of the main page seem to be competing who can smear Obama the most. Just look at how many of the current news items are anti-Obama. And while the image swap in the Obama article had been way in the past (along with interesting discussions on the talk page), Andy actually overrode Croco's image choice on the main page. I'm actually mildly surprised that the caption wasn't changed to "Obama's obvious anti-American stance" or something. --Sid 14:05, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

What's with the "alegedly born in Honolulu" bit? Is there actually controversy over his place of birth, or is that just the usual CP stupidity? Smyth 14:36, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe they they think the word should be "spawned"?--Bob^{bing up} 14:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I love it, "welcome we are racist" as Corry put it. Just makes more people roll thier heads at the lunitics, other than the "tried and true", but those people will vote the same way no matter what facts are presented. If nothing else the "allegedly" makes it priceless, when even teh most conservative of politicians admit he was born in the US.--Waiting for Godot 15:03, 5 August 2008 (EDT) PS. Smyth, if you didn't know, there was a big "to do" in the consev-o-sphere about how Obama's BC is a fake, and why won't they release it, and yadda yadda....

See this talk page section for a brief rundown of the "allegedly born in Honolulu" part. --Sid 15:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh for crying out loud. This line is awesome: "If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution." I suppose it's probably a good sign that so many are so scarred of him. Still, the weirdness is almost too much to believe. Smyth 15:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if you noticed, but if you live out side of the US for more than 10 years (or 5, if you were under 18 at teh time) makes you NOT a US citizen! rotflmao. These guys are a riot.--Waiting for Godot 16:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

To add to the hilarity, John McCain, the Great Really White Hope of the conservatives, was born in Panama. --Gulik 17:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

(-about 120 years ago!)   ^Contribs_Talk 18:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Interesting: "...Obama enrolled at Harvard Law School. He became a member of the liberal Harvard Law Review in 1989, which used racial quotas for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990." Schlafly was a member of the Law Review as well. I wonder if it was less liberal when he was in? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

The photo is also mis-captioned. They were singing the Stars and Bangles when it was taken. ħuman 18:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Oddly enough, they got it right in the Obama article itself. --Sid 05:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Escher

It pains me greatly to see Escher's work on that pile of crap. Why can't they just leave the good stuff alone, and stick with the vitriol? Smyth 14:36, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Magritte, Escher... there's some subversion going on at masterpiece of the week - is there a sekrit librul artz lover on CP? Or someoneone just going "ooh pretteh" and not realising the seeds of corruption they are sowing? For the homeschooled kids reading CP, this could be their first taste of modern art (which welcomes alternative ideas). Next week: wp:Tracey Emin! Totnesmartin 05:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

It was me, ergo, JJacob that suggested Escher. Ace McWicked^Interesting 05:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

M.C. Escher's stuff is still under copyright and the estate is quite strict about granting permission for use. Pseudomonas 18:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm terrified

Andy threatens a user with being reported to law enforcment. What did he do? Harrass? Threaten to kill? No. He offerered to give him a blowjob. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 14:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, once the cops stop wasting time on all those feminist-inspired restraining orders, they'll get right on this one. --SpinyNorman 14:56, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

So is the message here "wife beating good, BJs bad?" Corry^Talk 15:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Kind of. What's interesting about PS's views is that beating your wife is bad, but forcing her to have sex against her will is not, because you consent to that when you get married. (And this is the special tradition they want to deny to gays?) --SpinyNorman 16:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I think Phil sees it another way. It's okay to beat them in order to show you place as man of the house, should she decide to not make you a sammich. It's also a great way to show the world how strong and awesome you are than you can beat your wife. So go ahead. When they mouth off, just smack them a little bit. God says so. It's actually disgusting really. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{I can has rank?} 16:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

She basically wants a greater burden of proof to take out a restraining order than there was to carry out the Iraq war. Corry^Talk 17:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

She also wants people actually convicted of DV to have ready access to firearms... bright, really bright. Also, she is being sexist about laws that are not gender-specific. ħuman 19:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

In the interest of clarity, he offered to give Jinxy a b.j. Smyth 15:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Probably because Jinxy reiterated that we're "mouth-breathers with a morbid fetish" about CP. Next time, I'll offer Ed Poor and Karajou a ménage à trois. Yuck. JayJay4ever^??? 16:42, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

As if those two knew enough French to figure that out. They'll probably figure its some dish with snails in it.--Waiting for Godot 17:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Correction: the offer was of a PBBJ! Um, yum? ħuman 19:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

This is a thing of beauty...

It would be a shame not to preserve itfrom the deletion that will inevitably follow. --Phentari 18:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

See here.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I suggested that the discussion be moved to its own page (like we often do here), in order that it can be continued with hassling Schlafly with boxen d'orange every time he loads a page. I hope someone there picks up on the idea. ħuman 19:41, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I read the comments, and what flabbergasted me is that Jinx insists that Obama's goal is to play magical trick of "don't look at my hand, look at the pretty girl". WHAT THE HECK IS SO WRONG with trying to both reduce consumption as well as deal with the supply? Dear lord in heaven (or lordess, as the case may be) this guy and other conservatives simply do not live in the real world where oil really is disappearing and we need long term solutions. Does he not understand the idea that drilling takes time?--Waiting for Godot 20:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I loved when he tried to steer the discussion back to his idea of what we were supposed to be discussing. I really like my "free air" idea, I actually had it a few weeks ago while listening to some PSA on my college radio. Also ignored is that we need new refineries if we are to process more oil... right? Oh, and WFG, isn't a female "lord" a "lady"? ħuman 20:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup! H, it's about time you Murcans caught up with us (taint compulsory - it just happens, mostly).   ^Contribs_Talk 21:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not an American, I just live here... ħuman 21:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry, I thought that as soon as I'd closed the tab. :-(   ^Contribs_Talk 21:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"lady" sounds so weak and impotent. Like french "femme" for both wife and woman. ;-) Course, i'm sure "ess" means "little" so goddess and lordess are likely to be denegrative anyhow. heheh. You made good points with the free air... and I had no idea that accidents could be caused by too low air pressure, so maybe it's as good a thing to "push" state wide as "seat belts". --Waiting for Godot 22:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

There is no such thing as a Jewish religious right

According to page 8 of 23 of http://www.ujc.org/local_includes/downloads/4983.pdf about 40% of Orthodox Jews are under 18. According to http://www.rjchq.org/news.asp?FormMode=Detail&id=1187 about 30% of Jews under 55 are Republicans, 40% of Orthodox Jews are Republicans, and older Jews tend to vote Democrat. Therefore Orthodox Jews are just as likely to vote Republican as other Jews, when they are compared to their corresponding age groups in the Jewish population. --Jellyfish 19:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Among many of the Chassidic groups, they vote for whoever their Rebbe tells them to, thus, in many neighborhoods in NY, there are large voting blocs for whichever politician can "buy" their vote. (Before you write off all Chasids, remember that my group doesn't work like that (at least in American politics)...) אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ ^{What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish} 21:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Why I love you guys

This is why. The irony is hil-frickin-arious! I'm "failry" certain that kids with a first grade "eduction" can spell those words correctly the first time. 67.135.49.198 21:38, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx, you're an asshole. Typos that last for a second before correction are the result of fast-typing, not idiocy.-caius (tailor) 23:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

(As per your CP talkpage) Jinxy Jinxy, My laptop cost $800 NZD. My connection is $50 per month NZD. My mother has no basement but my apartment costs an arm and a leg (the economy, whadda gonna do?). The cost of calling you a fagnuts - priceless. The cost of watching you make fun of someone elses typing when your fearless leader can has largely defensive weapon of gun - Priceless. Ace McWicked^Interesting 21:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

How long did it take you to see the mistake and fix it Ace? 30 seconds, 45 seconds?--Damo2353 21:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx when you dedicate your user page to the website that must not be spoken of and come around here telling us how stupid we are, it is probably prudent not to call us obsessed and have no lives. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Making fun of spelling errors rather than addressing the substance of an opponent's argument is the last refuge of the damned. Stile4aly 22:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Specially when such errors are addressed immediately. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 22:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

That should be "especially" you godless-muslim-liberal-communist-anti-school-prayer mouthbreather. Stile4aly 22:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

At least I'm not a professor.

On topic: also, it is not ironic unless typos reflect negatively on the writer's intelligence (hint:they don't), or if the writer agrees that's the case. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 22:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

And another thing Jinx, you fucking cock-knocker, I am sure you are having a laugh at my typing errors despite the fact they were fixed immediately but do you realise that Ed Poor cannot understand basic physics, math and sports? That Andy makes glaring errors of his own and he is meant to be a teacher? You can take this piss out of me all you like but you fuck-trousers over at CP are the most irrational bunch of uneducated no-hopers that I have ever had the displeasure of laughing at. Now call the the FBI you cumstained donkey-mounter. Ace McWicked (unsigned in for now)

(ec x3)Thing is Jinxy, we're not pretending to be EDUfuckingCATIONAL and better than anyone else. By and large we're here to extract the urine out of wankers like you, we make no claims to be perfect (well, I don't - even though I am). Your constant referring to us is only likely to bring us more custom so keep it up. (Hasn't your mentor chided you about it yet - or are you so far up him that you're safe from criticism?)   ^Contribs_Talk 22:17, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx - the "tyop arguemtn" was lost on buth sides about a year ago. We've farily longly stopped using thinks like that. But your boss still haz some of the bets:

"See if you can learn out to spell "superior" - that's a nice one. You can find many, many more of your boss's tyops on our tyop secshun here. My favuourit remains "You don't see how sometime can estimate when the truth when someone else conceals it???? Don't ever become a cop, then, or a judge, or a juror, or a teacher, etc. Godspeed". BA-DOOM! DogP 22:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It isn't just that one makes typos or spelling errors (just watch any post I make)... it's that neither he nor anyone on the site really make an effort to correct the errors. That's just bad when you say or imply that "we are a modern on-line textbook". Your boss clearly does not re-read his posts, or at least have someone competent to come and check them over. --Waiting for Godot 22:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for losing my cool gals and guys of RW, sometimes the sheer hypocrisy and stupidity of CP users causes me aggression. Also I am at work and its a long day. But, on the bright side, Seaman Stains (Karajou) has given me a shoutout! "Hey Karajou! You wank!" Ace McWicked^Interesting 22:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh, I love the slightly more elaborate "no u" retort Karajou uses. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 22:41, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

By the way, a more accurate reply would be "I wish I could've used an eraser during my spelling tests" instead of this". NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 23:30, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

You're an idiot, Jinx. Keep dancing. :) Norseman^Wassail! 23:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Sweet Larval G'BroagFran, Jinx, you came across as a total ass there. --Gulik 00:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

By the way, Jinx, that should be "a person's intelligence," not "people's intelligence." Barikada 00:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jinx! Just want you to know that I'm here. Here's a tyop for your amusment. אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ ^{What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish} 20:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

OK, covered to death, but...

I was looking at the archived bit about how touchy Andy gets when you mention any connection between him and Eagle forum, specifically his denial of being in their employ. Then I remembered how he was introduced on the video clip where he debates someone over the HPV vaccines during a news broadcast. He was introduced there as "Andy Schlafly, counsel for Eagle Forum". Interesting how that retainer was left out of his "affiliations" on the PNAS letter. -SpinyNorman 22:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Gave me the idea of sending a companion letter to the PNAS: "To Whom It May Concern: You may recently have been contacted by Andy Schlafly, counsel for his mother's Eagle Forum homeschooling site and owner of Conservapedia.com. Knowing this, we would like to apologize to you on behalf of the whole Internet. We let him out and he got into some things. You know how they can get. Sincerely, the Interwebs."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

If I cut and pasted that right, wc says that is 60 words. As an aside, suggest that the letters be published in 9 months for the April issue. See if the readers think its a joke or not. --Shagie 17:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hello!

I've been reading you guys and Conservapedia for Lulz for a while now and finally got up the nerve to edit conservapedia. So, what happens? I get blocked as a 'sock.' Lame. Can someone add Dinsdale's story to the Marry a Conservative page? HMcTavitch 22:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Welcome HMcTavitch. They are sure everyone is one of about 4 people. It is even funnier when Jinx comes around here accusing us of being someone who has never been a user of this site (we can only assume this happen as we can't be everyone laughing at them). I was trolling and vandalising CP before I knew this place existed. I have since given it up as it is not really funny to laugh at things you intentionally did. Oh well welcome any way. 3.14159 (not signed in)

You have offended me sir. My edit was, in fact, hilarious. HMcTavitch 23:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

It was funny. It was just like Andy, however they are watching that now. The more paranoid sysops block before they become the next JJacob or Bugler. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:07, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

In my case, it was the exact opposite, for a while RW prevented me for becoming a wandal as I spent time learning about CP (and that IP range blocks are common over there) rather than wandalizing it. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 23:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

And he's banned again

Himmler went ahead and banned Ames, which I guess is predictable. Sure didn't take Andy long to lose that debate, did it? You going to back out of every debate, Babyshakes? What's even worse is he was backing out anyway, using the Ken excuse: "I'm too great and powerful a debater to bother wasting my time debating anyone but the biggest names". I guess in Assfly's case he at least can make the claim that he is somewhat well-known in a very limited and completely disrespected capacity. What a fucktard. DickTurpis 01:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

No more "well known" than any of us, really. Kan we haz CP: artikle? ħuman 03:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

He is, though. From being his mother's son and from his blog, which is widely mocked on the internets. He's not any sort of social theorist or anything, and no one of any stature would ever waste their time debating him, but he is more of a name than anyone here. Though that is not exactly a high bar to clear. At least he's above Ken "I'd debate Dawkins but no one of less stature is worth my time" DeMyer. DickTurpis 03:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Boycott?

It has been a couple of weeks since we last suggested one so here it goes. Conservapedia fails to amuse me any more and we have three nice new WIGOs that need our attention and to be honest looking at Jinx just encourages him to come round here, so here is my proposal,

9

Boycott Conservapedia from the 16th of August until the 26th of August in the 2008th Year of Our Lord Goat

7

Amendment to the Boycott act of 2008: Bring the boycott forward a week.

-3

A rider in order to provide funding for a museum to commemorate soybean production in America's Midwest.

3

A rider in order to use $40 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts

13

Have the boycott be active while the Olympic torch is lit in Beijing. As in ancient Greece, hostilities are suspended for those weeks so folks can run around naked and work up a good healthy sweat

• Boycott the olympics!!!! Auld Nick 06:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Comments

• I was hesitant to earlier for fear of missing more high-profile hilarity with the PNAS letter, but that's been sent now, and it seems certain there will be no formal response to it any more than there would be if a young, retarded half-wit had sent them a letter calling them poopheads (wait a minute, isn't that basically what happened?). So it seems now might be as good a time as any, unless someone sees some other imminent hilarity. Clearly the debate with Ames isn't going to happen, and I don't think anyone else pays any mind to Andy's rants, so it's unlikely he'll get another offer (he'd back out anyway). Why not? DickTurpis 01:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Might I suggest we simply get to this sooner? How about we start Friday 8th until the 18th. Why wait? DogP 03:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hear hear @ DogP!!! ħuman 03:20, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Last time a boycott was mentioned, it was shouted down largely because of the PNAS letter. Are we in danger of missing some lulz now that it has actually been sent?Bondurant 04:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I wanted to give it time for debate oh well. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

• I don't really understand the purpose of a boycott anyway. In what way is the actual boycott supposed to be acted out? Are we supposed to stop reading CP during the boycott, or just stop editing? Etc 05:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The boycott has two effects; 1) it is strongly suspected that we make up a huge chunk of CP's traffic so it gives us a gage of how much activity is our viewing or trolling, 2) it forces us to expand our site. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

A boycott of CP means no WIGO, and that should also include TWIGO, so that there are no referrals from RW. It also means that we should refrain from even looking at their site. If we ain't looking then there's nothing to talk about. Some of Andy's history lectures have been ported over here so we could work on ripping them to shreds. Just ensure that we have the latest version before the boycott. Socking and trolling is also discouraged although it is recognized that our deep-cover socks like B-----, J-------- & D------ should carry on to maintain their cover. Meanwhile we get on with improving other aspects of RW. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Only socks sanctioned by The Cabal (there is no Cabal) should be run during a boycott. $\approx$$\pi$ 07:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Alright, it's starting to sound like a good idea. Etc 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Yea

1. Sadly, yes. Let's focus on our new AdvanceWikis. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 01:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
2. Let's do this thing. We need to boycott in order to generate something else to do. I like the idea of a full 10 days boycott.--Damo2353 01:23, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
3. I'll give it a try. They keep sockblocking me anyway. --Marty 01:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
4. I am always "for" a boycott - and now it means something, since I can edit there, again. I say "Yay". ħuman 02:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
5. Sure! I'm going be busy anyway, so the timing is perfect. DogP 02:53, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
6. Why not? I think it's time for a detox, and enforced group therapy is the only way I'll stay clean. C'mon everyone, cleanse yourself of the stupid!
7. It's so quiet there that this will help drive home the true nature of that echo-chamber. They haven't been catching any of my sock edits these days when I put in lies, so it's getting a little boring at the moment, anyway.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 03:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
8. Last time a boycott was mentioned, it was shouted down largely because of the PNAS letter. Are we in danger of missing some lulz now that it has actually been sent? Other than that, Yea. Bondurant 04:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
9. The continual snark at the CP sinking ship is my least favourite thing about RW, so yeah, everyone contributing to the new WIGOs and Article of the Weak will be good - especially as we've been getting some praise for this move on the interlogdrums. Totnesmartin 06:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
10. I think we can go ahead now. Besides, I'm bored with my sock too - maybe I should just out her for once and for all. Ok, Deborah - launch Operation Exodus whenever you're ready. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 06:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
11. Sure, why not. Let's do the fifth one - the Olympics and getting naked and sweaty. Susan, will you be my running partner? :3 Norseman^Wassail! 09:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Sorry Norse - it's your second syllable. I shan't be watching the Olympics, although I'm often naked & sweaty.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Well, I wasn't caring for the Olympics, either... just referencing. Was more interested in the naked and sweaty part. :P Norseman^Wassail! 13:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
12. I'll mostly be working, traveling, and moving, during the next few weeks, so that would mean de facto boycott for me, anyway. I also hope they notice the decrease in traffic. OneForLogic 09:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Nay

1. Can't we just read about CP's craziness without stoking it through socks? It's my main source of Teh Stoopid. --Gulik 06:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT) (Nooooo! I made a typo! Now Jinx gets to make fun of me FOREVAR!)
   • Actually, that would be a lot worse than our traditional boycotts (where the people with socks kept socking while the rest stopped reading). Hilarious in a way, but it would mean that every editor who suddenly stopped editing during those days would be banhamm-... OH HELL YEAH! :D --Sid 06:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
2. Establishing how much activity is our viewing or trolling can only be established if it can be established that no one here ignores the boycott. It does not force us to expand our site, there are inumerous other things people could be getting on with. Who really cares about who views CP? That celebration of ignorance is only good for a source of lulz. Only the Assfly and his handful of acolytes take it seriously. Stop trying take something as idiotic as CP serious and enjoy the lulz! Auld Nick 06:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Meh

1. I dont really mind either way, sorry to be a fence sitter like a god damn agnostic, but there we have it. I have enjoyed taunting Jix (Hey Jinx - you prick) but, yeah, meh. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 03:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
2. Agree. Etc 05:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
3. AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:11, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
4. Since I'm already "boycotting" both CP and RW, Meh is the most I can say on the issue. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 06:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Question

1. If we decide to boycott, am I obligated to according to the RW guidelines? Remember, I'm still a valuable member at CP אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ ^{What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish} 20:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You can be exempt from the boycott if you get permission from the Inner Circle of the Cabal -- specifically, both ColinR and TK. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 20:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have a few short term blocks at CP. You could observe the boycott and amuse us at the same time by getting another. $\approx$$\pi$ 03:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Consensus

As the Olympics is now just over 24 hours away do we have a consensus that we are going to get naked, oil up and wrestle stop trolling/reading Conservapedia? Also as a logistical thing should we archive and lock both pages to discourage activity? $\approx$$\pi$ 03:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

The olympics are pretty close now, I take it the consensus is that the boycott will remain for the entirety of the olympics. Archiving and locking of the WIGO CP pages seems like a very good idea to me.--Damo^Hi 00:51, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm all for it. It saves me from accidentally getting banned on CP for editing drunk (OK, only Andy can edit drunk, editing is turned off when I am :() ħuman 01:17, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

It has been normal practice to lock the cookie jar when we go on a diet. Just to avoid the temptation. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 04:23, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

The Invisible Hand of Say What?

Ah yes, I've sucked another random concept out of my arse and it must be right, because even Google has never heard of it. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

as they said, they made it up. sounded good to them... "the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best" -- my hubby would call that particular thing, "nagging". ;-) The intent here, I suppose, is to prove why marriage is important so they can argue the "defense of marriage" crap.--Waiting for Godot 11:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not even sure what the point of it is. That marriage provides intangible benefits? Any particular insight? -Lardashe

The point of it is to begin to codify why marriage of a man and a woman is socially unique and critical to socity - thus having some kind of argument why gay marriages should not be allowed. --Waiting for Godot 11:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I would argue that most of our states are only allowing the right invisible hand of marriage to work. Maybe if we let gay people marry, the unfettered left hand will sweep away this recession! My guess, however, is that this essay is not meant to argue for any societal benefits we may enjoy by granting homosexuals basic human rights. Just a hunch. Corry^Talk 12:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

And an update- he drops a big homophobic turd in the punchbowl. Corry^Talk 12:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Sighs, did i call it, or what. I guess gay marriages that last for 50 years are not as good at Britney's that lasted for what, 48 hours? "There is no invisible hand of marriage if the spouses have the same gender. Virtually none of the above elements exist in same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a recipe for unproductive activity, anxiety, depression and addition, with the enormously beneficial checks and balances provided by traditional marriage." Oh, and by the way, gay couples clearly never clean thier house, or work to improve thier life style or take care of thier kids cause they are slothful without a woman there!--Waiting for Godot 12:36, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Now commence lulz. Corry^Talk 13:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy should just admit his point from the start - he made the article for Google hits and traffic. What a tool. Norseman^Wassail! 13:20, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I hadn't seen this before and now I wish I hadn't. The man's mad.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah ... but who ever searches for that term? Not many, I suppose, or there would be something written about it. He's gotta be drunk this time, something's unusually strange about this. Etc 13:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, that was predictable, now atheists aren't the only ones who cannot feel love. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 13:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

CP guided by the Invisible Hand of Idiocy! [4] Auld Nick 17:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I think whats going on here is Andy is trying to establish Conservapedia as a leader in conservative thought. For instance they take credit for coining the phrase "Affirmative Action President" but unfortunatly didnt establish ownership of it at the beginning. So this time he's getting it on record right from the beginning that there are no Google hits, then when the bloggers start using his wonderful phrase he can take credit.

Personally, it reminds me of some sort of conservative trading card game: "Invisible Hand of Marriage" +1 to couples (Not effective if gay). ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.75 / talk / contribs}

Andy may be trying to establish Conservapedia as a leader in conservative thought, but, alas, he will fail miserably because he is incapable of thought (through). He opens his mouth (strikes keyboard) and all that is generated is wackiness. [5] Auld Nick 17:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I think that's very much what he wants to do. Some articles suggest that he fancies his blog as a burgeoning clearinghouse for conservative thought. Corry^Talk 19:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Regarding The Invisible Hand of Marriage, RW sysop Sid points out that using the full term of The Invisible Hand of Marriage will raise the Google rank for RationalWiki when users search for information on The Invisible Hand of Marriage. Maybe we will even need a dedicated article for this extremely important term! --Sid 17:17, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Haha, right now RW is the only thing that comes up in a Google search. Smyth 10:50, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Yea, for some reason it[Google] doesn't like it when I submit comments and the CP url. Well, maybe, it just doesn't accept it unless a certain number of other people submit the same results. Time to spam with my multiple GMail accounts! o.O The real sock ^{of a sock... known as Chaosfish} 10:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Do we need to mention "The Invisible Hand of Marriage" in every post or should we just mention "The Invisible Hand of Marriage" when we think it is necessary to spell it out in full? Getting the intertubes to recognize our article on "The Invisible Hand of Marriage" as the most important one eva means we should have other people also writing about our article one "The Invisible Hand of Marriage" and linking back to Conservapedia:The_Invisible_Hand_of_Marriage. (Is this how to do it Ken?) Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 04:35, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

WIGO-worthy?

I take this topic a bit personally, so I'm holding off on adding it WIGO myself. Andy went to his mother's defense on her "restraining orders are sooo unfair to men" BS, and made an interesting statement to the effect that a restraining order is a good component of the punishment after a conviction for a violent crime. I had to point out to him that the whole point of restraining orders is to prevent violent crimes from happening in the first place, and I haven't gotten a response back on that yet. He also got the details wrong about the case his mother based her article on - is it really a surprise that he's a teacher instead of making a living as a lawyer? --SpinyNorman 10:50, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I really don't see how restrining orders "harm" the men. "stay the fuck away from her". ok, so you can't go to her house, and you can't go to her place of work unless you show you have legitimate business there. In the average city of 100,000 people or more, I'm quite sure you are not "harmed" in having to avoid one single person. As for wanting to see the kids, there are ways the state works with that from a 3rd party pick up/drop off, to monitored visitation. I just don't foll the "harm" aspect. anyone?--Waiting for Godot 11:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

This is a very sticky subject... With my group of friends, I've run into the same problem many many times... Usually, a restraining order is received after a long on again, off again, relationship. What has happened many times to friends of mine is that the female initiates contact with them (while under the restraining order) and may have several meetings with no issues, but when something goes wrong, they call the police on the restraining order and, even when they admit that they broke it first, they guy usually gets arrested. I understand the point behind the orders and I recognize the purpose they stand for. Sadly, they are often ignored until it's too late.... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 11:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

There's potential for abuse in it, just as there's the potential to falsely accuse anyone of a crime. The harm to a person falsely accused is that it effectively kicks them out of their own home and may deprive them of shared property (i.e. if they shared one car). It also does make it hard for child services to set up visitation if they allow it all. These are real problems, but they don't put anyone's life in danger if done on false pretenses. When weighed against the need for restraining orders with a low burden of proof, it's a no-brainer.

I can also see the scenarios that SCB talks about, but if I was on the receiving end of a restraining order, I'd have to push back on any attempted contact from the other person until the order is lifted, no matter how sincere the overture seems. These are emotionally-charged situations, so slow, deliberate steps are always best. --SpinyNorman 11:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

That's a great idea Spiny(Dinsdale!!!!) but it runs into one huge problem... When two people are in a relationship like that, they often delude themselves into thinking that they're in love and that this is just a "normal" argument for any relationship. They don't see that they're in a very dangerous relationship. Also, when they get that first overture of reconciliation, they assume it's forever and move on emotion rather than logic. Standing outside, we can look at it and see what's going on, but when you're in the situation, it's easy to lose sight (Yes, I am a Psychology major) SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You both make great points, and we all know life and the law is sticky. But I'm still in favor of a law where the majority of the cases are for the real protection of a woman or child who is otherwise threatened. I know that it seems like "male bashing" to say men are more capable of beating women than the reverse, but it is the truth in this society. And a large part of that has to do with how the society still sees women. Until society at large changes, we need laws to protect those who are otherwise under capable of self-protection. By teh way, could the courts require that people who are on *both* sides of DV seek councling? my folks run a councling center for DUIs that are state ordered. it seems the similar thing could be set up to teach or aid both side to prevent the very scenarios addressed?--Waiting for Godot 12:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Obsessed much?

Jinx... get some help. He blocked the user JGreene which, for the record was me. But note the time. He blocked me at 11:22 [CP time (snort)] Assfly reverted my attack at 10:19 and removed the whole post two minutes later. This means that Jinx went back through the history and blocked a user that Assfly had passed over just so he could make his little comment in the block summary.... Come on Jinx, get some medication and relax.... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinxy, settle down. Men are talking.

Jinx, I'm trying to work out a debate plan with your leader, something he himself has expressed interest in. You shouldn't meddle in the affairs of your intellectual betters. That's right. Even Schlafly's smarter than you.-caius (tailor) 12:49, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Even Schlafly's smarter than you. Ouch, even I felt the pwnage aura from that one. Norseman^Wassail! 13:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Intellectual betters? But then he could only speak in the zoo aquarium arboretum geology lab.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT) edited by wfg cause i'm being snarky. heh--Waiting for Godot 13:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, good one, you two. Very teh funny! ħuman 17:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, just read over this. Nice how Assfly keeps going on about how 'liberals are always backing out from debates because they often lose', but, as soon as someone mentions an open, freeform debate, which would make the most important thing your actual argument, he starts talking about putting down 'security deposits'. Sorry, Andy, but putting barriers in the way of people who want to debate with you by insisting it has to be a 'live' debate, then saying they have to lay out money to participate is an alternative method of 'backing out'. Zmidponk 15:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I really don't see why Andy would object to a "closed" debate betwixt himself and Ames on CP (with family-friendly language, of course) if he is so convinced he can pwn anyone so easily. It keeps the overhead to approximately zero, maximizes the potential audience, allows for chronological freedom, etc., etc. ħuman 17:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

You know what really pissed me off was Andy's blase, elitist, clueless comment about AmesG's finances/budget, where he assumed that a modern law student (probably well over 50k in debt by now) can afford to take their meals at restaurants. Sorry, too lazy to dig backwards for the diff (unless someone insists). ħuman 21:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Sadly, Human, my finances are worse than that - despite generous summer salaries, I'm at about $50k per YEAR of these three years. It REALLY pisses me off. Andy clearly found the only way he could wiggle out of this, and took it, by rubbing my mediocre checking account in my face. I guess we weren't all borne into dinners with Chief Justices & bribed through law school.-caius (tailor) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The final story - Andy insults me for not being married, lets me respond, and blocks & reverts my response. Classy guy, that one.-caius (tailor) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

The saddest thing about this is it didn't produce anything bloggable. It's just outlandish douchery, which makes for bad reading.-caius (tailor) 21:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Never fear, Caiames. The story of these recent events becomes a lot more interesting when you consider that it was all part of Magneto's plan from the beginning... ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 21:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

True! Also, I'm changing my mind slightly. Is this bloggable?-caius (tailor) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes! Go for it! ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 21:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Wait, I'm not sure. Oh, curse my ambivalence! ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 21:54, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

It certainly is a great example of Andy's hypocrisy/stupidity/naked contempt for civility, logic and consistancy(that got a bit out of hand). But it's also quite short, and vaguely out of context for a wider-focused blog like ACandid. Still... worth a try, eh? ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 21:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

That edit Ames links to, where teh assfly deletes his last comment is such a bizarre way to exhibit Last Wordism. The crazy thing is, Andy probably thinks he handled the whole thing like a complete gentleman, as opposed to the weasel we observed. ħuman 22:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, the cowardice of Aschlafly! Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 21:52, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I was taking a wild ass guess, Ames, since I don't how far undergrad set you back, and have no idea what law school costs or how long you've been there. Anyway, did Andy ever name a "figure"? Was it a hundred bucks? How about you agree to that, get him to also agree to place a deposit, with third party, then work out the terms of the debate. Once a date/venue is set, surely the Mob of Mouthbreathers at RW can come up with that between us? After all, it will be returned as soon as the debate takes place. We could do them as donations to RW, so the money would then go straight to site expenses, simpler than sending it back to several people. ħuman 21:55, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Put me down for $20 to some sort of third party escrow. I will NOT pay a dime to Andy, whom I have no doubt will put up further barriers, and, when Ames can't meet them, will pocket the money claiming Ames backed out. Also, I will not pay any money for a debate that takes place on Conservapedia, where I have no doubt Andy or one of his brownshirts will block at the first whiff of defeat. Anything else I'm good for, though Andy has still refused to say how much this "deposit" is expected to be, and is quite a shithead about avoiding all questions. DickTurpis 22:28, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I really appreciate that idea, Human... and it might be a good one. But I'm honestly loathe to make this involve any money at all. I don't feel comfortable putting money anywhere near Schlafly. That's why I thought my "I'll debate you at a CP Convention" idea was such a winner... And I think I've pissed him off too much to consider it now. I'll keep it in mind though, subject to what you guys think.

Oh, as to finances, I know :-). I didn't mean to come off as angry at YOU when I corrected you on the moneys, of course you have no idea of knowing! I was angry at Schlafly, and I hope I didn't accidentally make it seem like I was angry at you. How could I be mad at that face??-caius (tailor) 01:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)01:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, no, I didn't think you were angry at all. I didn't want to intrude on your personal finance picture anyway, and I appreciate being corrected to within a few Schlaflies. And I agree with you really - my idea of us "backing" you was mostly a thing to let you keep toying with the clueless over at CP. None of us want any of our money anywhere near him/it either, really. PS, did you know that you are forcing Jinxy _Hijinks! to block endless proxies, for no good reason, and it's all your fault! ħuman 02:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind donating a bit towards a venue, but perhaps an alternative could be found. For instance, my university lets student groups reserve rooms and auditoriums outside of teaching hours. Sometimes local councils also have meeting facilities available for the public. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

My NZD wont go far but, more to the point, Aschlafly - for all his bluster, would never go for it. Any excuse to back out. Next he'll ask for all your questions in advance and the ability to cut your mic when he feels threatened. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 05:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

If others are willing to chip in as well then I would help Ames with his deposit. I presume that it would be refunded when he actually showed up and I could get my Paypal account credited (minus any handling fees). I remember that during my own university days I was often strapped for cash as I had a restricted budget and as a scientist spanning two different subjects you need a lot of expensive textbooks. Unlike some people I didn't have a rich mom and dad to keep me in the lap of luxury. I also didn't get my first car until I was 25 and as a student rode a second-hand Honda 50 which did 120 mpg and which I paid for using alsmost all my savings from a summer vacation job.

I saw that someone asked Andy how much he had in mind but haven't seen a reply yet. But I expect him to set a "high barrier to entry" to dissuade Ames from taking up his offer. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:02, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Not only did he not answer, he blocked the account for a bogus 90/10, which is as clear a way of saying "I never intended to actually go through with this" as I can think of. If Andy won't debate Ames at a Conservapedia Conference (Ames could even purchase a damn ticket) then there's no way he'll agree to a public debate. His response to the suggestion, "why don't you arrange a venue and 150 guests!", is the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" and a debate-loser right there. It's pretty sad that Andy, a "lawyer," is afraid of a law student. If, by some miracle, a debate does happen in the NYC area, I'll attend and record the entire thing. DickTurpis 12:10, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

[Unindent] You need a venue (surely your College would let you borrow a lecture theatre for free, for a couple of hours). You need an audience. But then you're in a College. I don't know what American students are like these days but in my day in England it would be standing room only (and we had to lick the road clean wit' our tongues). You need a referee to control the debate - don't any of your teachers have contacts with judges? Or a Jesuit priest (no "Professorial values" there). You need a topic. "This house believes Andy Schlafly is a complete git" probably won't do. Organise the hall and the referee, then you can present him with a "sign here" proposition. If you leave any of these things out before the commitment (ie the deposit) Andy can use them to render the proposition hopeless (I want the Carnegie hall, I want Ray Comfort presiding and I want the debate on "has a liberal ever done anything wrong, at all, anywhere).

I'm in for £20 (proper money, none of that devalued dollar rubbish), give the money to RW when returned.--Toffeeman 15:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Not WIGO worthy, but quite telling

This is vandalism. Editing there truly is like playing Russian roulette. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 14:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, Jinxy (hi Jason!) discovered another parody, and wonders why this wasn't removed. For the same reason that CP is full of crap, Jason: total and unequivocal incompetence.

By the way, is this you? [6] [7] [8] --JayJay4ever^??? 14:42, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

From one of the links above: "We long ago established that Jinx McHue Hi Jinx! is one of the dumbest motherfuckers that God ever created, and nothing you write in his comments section is ever going to change that." That about sums it up. Bjones 15:43, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

@@

His spelinge on the Am\zon one is pretty good - NOT!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Ok, christ these people are paranoid. I just got blocked cause I dared mention that NGS sponsored the National Geographic Spelling bee. You have got to be kidding me. Hello jinx, what the fuck are you on?--Waiting for Godot 16:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Even without the comment on evolution and global warming, your edit was better than what is up there now, including ages etc. instead of the current version and its phrase "reward the school aged child". I've heard of school-age child, but never "school aged" child. Friggin morons! --Jdellaro 16:10, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't even trying to parody, by the way... NGS is listed by them as a bad group. But come on, in general these fools write like highschool students. like "test on geograpcial knowledge" insetad of a "geography test". what is so hard about doing a tiny bit of research... grrr. See, this is why I don't edit there. :-)--Waiting for Godot 16:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Junx has KIDS? Those poor, poor tykes. Depending on politics, they'll either end up as soldiers in the next set of Oil Wars, or as cable-tv installers. --Gulik 18:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Eksellent encoragement for Conservapedians. --JayJay4ever^??? 16:31, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Nightflare, you're not thinking like a creationist. You see, evolution can't possibly have happened, therefore suggesting that all horse-like creatures evolved from the horse baramin is vandalism. They actually arose by descending from the horses Noah took on board the Ark, and the reason there are so many different kinds now is due to small differences arising through mutations, amongst other things, then being selected between in some kind of naturally occurring selection process and that selection going in different directions due to different populations of horses specialising to fit different ecological niches, or being under different ecological pressures. As you can plainly see, I did not have to make any reference to 'evolution' there (apart from, effectively, describing it), and the horse did not turn into, say, a penguin, so it's NOT that the horses evolved. Zmidponk 17:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

So....how come horsebreeders never end up with zebra foals these days? --Gulik 18:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Brown paint. Shhhhhhhh... ħuman 20:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Mouthbreather

I just have to say, I absolutely love their use of the word in trying to demean us. It reminds me of this girl I liked back in 5th-8th grade, who was a literal mouth-breather. Using it as in insult is roughly as effective as "cake eater" - Lardashe

I agree. What exactly is supposed to be insulting about "mouthbreather"? Perhaps Jinx Hi Jinx! could enlighten us? Bjones 16:19, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

It goes along nicely with his Hey Jinx-y! insulting another user for misspelling (and then correcting) two words. I feel like I'm back in the lunchroom when he's commenting. --Jdellaro 16:29, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

At least around here, public school starts tomorrow. I think we'll see him a lot less, since he can probably only log on during study hall. Bjones 16:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Wait-am I NOT supposed to be breathing with my pie hole? DogP 03:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Better a mouthbreather than a mouthbreeder. And, no, PD, please to breathe through your snot holes. ħuman 03:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Picked up from CP Main Page

I actually saw this linked on CP's main page. All I can say is, if this is true, the man's got style. Zmidponk 16:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Mentally ill homeless men do not have "style." 67.135.49.198 17:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

They do if they sue God! Bjones 17:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't feed the Jinx. His comment is barely even on the right subject. ~ Gloom_{(is never asleep)} 18:01, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Ooh Jinxy! Nebraska's longest-serving state senator, having served for more than 35 years and then he sues God, that's style baby, that's style. (and sorry Chaos, Jinxy baiting is a recognized sport nowadays) Silver Sloth 18:05, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Have you applied for your Chinese Visa to put Jinxy Baiting in the olympics? or is it a winter sport?--Waiting for Godot 18:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hm. Where do I need to apply as an amicus curiae? (I think that's how it's spelled. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Jinx will be along to mock me viciously for it.)

Now that I think of it, how do you make something like this a class-action lawsuit? That old chiseler's had it coming for a LONG time now....--Gulik 18:30, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I always thought Jinxy Baiting was a small village in Dorset, where the population are all inbred. Ah well, I was half right. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 20:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Indeed it is. I believe my second cousin (twice removed) has a small caravan there. I'm reliably informed there is a gastro pub in the village which does a nice line in bar snacks, although in general we avoid it as they are known to place bacon bits and "complimentary" pork pies on the bar if they see candles lit on a Friday. Not that they are anti-semitic, of course, good grief, no: they just have a thing about Hebrews. Fox 21:03, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Off topic but you live in the UK right Fox? I used to live in London in the suburb of Golders Green above a supermarket called Kosher Kingdom. A massive Jewish population round there. The place was madness around passover. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 21:24, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Heh then we've both done our time in Barnet =) I feel like there should be a Billy Bragg song about that =/ I'm more of a Mill Hill boy, however. Not a great deal of difference, geographically =) Fox 21:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT) Unfair, he has some great tracks, as I know many UK RWians are aware. - Billy should be linked with another anthem, especially for JinkMcpuke - Jinx, hear it and weep. Fox 21:48, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I am back in NZ but i spent a year dealing with that bitch of Northern Line!

Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 21:51, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Trains... hmm, I can't comment on your individual experiences. I can say that I became "friends" with Billy Bragg on his journeys between Waterloo and Exeter St. Davids on the Salisbury line, and that I stood with my guitar and led a mass chorus of "Powerr In A Union" at the Exeter picket lines and alongside my buddy Bob Crow... I actually do have principles, despite what the hierarchy may have you think. Fox 22:04, 6 August 2008 (EDT) I also wept and got horribly drunk and morose when Greg Tucker passed away. George Galloway? Champagne socialist. Greg Tucker, Bob Crow, countless unnamed others - working class heroes =/ Fox 22:08, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I confess to having lived for five years in Temple Fortune Hampstead Garden Suburb and frequenting the same butcher as Maureen Lipman. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 02:18, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jinx you dick!

What is whats taught? hahaha you fool! Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 18:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Calm your jets; I think he's mebbe just stoned. Give the dood a break till he's had some pizza or whatever. Notreallyfoxyatall 18:13, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, check this out. 67.135.49.198 18:27, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

We should forward him some fan mail :P Armondikov 18:33, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I won't don't think this is worth a spot in the WiGO poll, but I still found it funny. this is how Jinx ends a discussion... Please forgive the reference,but I keep hearing STOP ZIT, YOU ARE UPSETTING DER FUEHRER SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:58, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

"He shouldn't have had to made the corrections" ORLY? ħuman 19:14, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

"the point is that the misspellings of two simple words shouldn't have happened in the first place for someone criticizing someone else's intelligence" is that grammatically correct? Should it not be "the misspelling of two simple words" as the subject of the sentence is misspelling which is singular? 192.43.227.18 20:07, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, how cute. One of you mouth-breathers tried to hack my account.

Got this in my email tonight:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 92.21.189.105) requested that we send you a new password for Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php). The password for user "Jinxmchue" is now [password removed]. You should log in and change your password now.

If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.''

So which of you mouth-breathers wants to own up to this? Anyone? I'm guessing the coward won't step forward and probably used a proxy. Pathetic. I'm not the least bit surprised one of you tried that. Good thing the person who programmed the password change function is a hell of a lot smarter than any of you. 67.135.49.198 00:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

_{same IP requested mine on CP... did someone unblock the IP when I blocked it? o.O The real sock ^{of a sock... known as Chaosfish} 10:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)}

Wasnt me Jinx my sweet. I dont like such tactics. I prefer to just say "Get fucked" to you. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 00:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Knowing the limited intelligence of this tit (eg the WP affair), he probably did it himself for CYA insurance, after trying to hack my account 13/14 hours ago. Noob. Fox 00:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you should call the Feds Jinx. Perhaps even mobilize the National Guard. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 00:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I confess. It was me. It was on account of my chronic oral respiration. Sorry. RobertTurkel 00:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

You know, he/she could've done it simply to (admittedly slightly) annoy you, no real attempt at guessing your password required. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 00:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Did he change his password from "reaganisgod"? That's what I get for not keeping up...--Gulik 01:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

It wasn't me either! But that's a nice new way of being annoying, thanks for the tip, Jinx _{hi Jinx!}. Etc 04:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

This is bizarre. Why does Jinx come around here every time there is a hiccup at CP? Also I had to look up mouthbreather and now I know what it means this has caused me to downgrade my estimate of Jinx's age from 16 to 13. Jinx if you are older than this you might want to consider improving your behaviour to kepp in line with your aging. $\approx$$\pi$ 05:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Remember fellow mouthbreathers, we're only allowed one 'Please e-mail my password' attempt a day. Please form an orderly queue. Silver Sloth 05:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Line forms in the rear. Oops, let me rephrase that... cue up the balls! ħuman 05:22, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Cant we just call him a fuck-o and be done with it? And I am bored of Jinx, why doesnt Andy pop over here? Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 05:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that would be so cool. We could all take turns blocking him for 3 seconds a pop, while he tried to introduce "factual edits" to our evolution article... we can dream, eh? ħuman 05:22, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I couldn't block him (begs for blocking rights) but without the banhammer Schlafly is a very poor and small individual. And a cock also. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 05:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jinx, exactly what evidence do you have to prove your accusation that it was someone from RW who tried to hack your CP account? Any? No? Didn't think so, you mouthy tosser. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 05:34, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I kinda like "cretinous microcephalic troglodyte," myself. --Phentari 10:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I've always felt "acephalous coprolith" to have a nice ring to it. Totnesmartin 10:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

The same IP also tried that with NathanG's account this yesterday, which makes me think it was some random troll. We like Nathan, so I don't think any of us would "try to hack" first him and then you. Not even to mention that even in the extremely unlikely case that any of us actually wanted to hack your account, we all know that such an approach doesn't work since the new password is simply sent to your mail address and not revealed to whoever requests it. --Sid 06:21, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinxy-boy has clearly bought into the Great Myth of Conservapedia, that RationalWiki is the Great Enemy and single-handedly responsible for all evils that befall CP. Of course, that way they don't have to face the fact that Conservapedia is the laughing-stock all over the Internet. I'll bet most of the vandals are actually from Something Awful. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:44, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict)Uncyclopedia has two articles about CP. Encyclopedia Dramatica has one. And in fact Googling Conservapedia satire gets 26000 returns. So, not just us, Jinxy (Hey, do you happen to hate meeces to pieces?). Totnesmartin 07:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Deborah regurgitates exactly the same line on WikiIndex and as a relative newbie probably knows fuck-all about the truth of the founding of RW. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think it's worthy to point out the wonderful difference between RW and CP: Jinx _{hi Jinx!} calls us "mouth-breathers", "coward", and "pathetic", and also imply that we are unintelligent - and he is allowed to do this unregistered, from a non-proxy IP address, and I don't think anyone here has even considered blocking either his IP or his user account. Now, that's free speech! On CP, we all know this kind of shout-out would get memory-holed immediately and the account blocked and banned forever. Are you sure you are on the "right side", Jinx _{hi Jinx!}? Etc 10:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Of COURSE he's on the right side! He's good because....because he SAYS he's good, I guess. And totalitarian censorship is just fine as long as it's GOOD GUYS doing it. After all, nobody dares complain!

And FYI, Jinx, it's "Mouth-breeder. Go read the Illuminatus! Trilogy if you don't know why. --Gulik 15:36, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Are you sure Gulik? I think he was referring to this definition. I am fully aware of mouth breeding tropical fish as many (~40) years ago I even had some myself. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Invisible Hand of Marriage in Google

I believe the technical term is "HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA!". Liberal Google didn't even bother to crawl Andy's silly essay. :D --Sid 08:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Even "Essay:the invisible hand of marriage turns up nothing" this is hilarious, they don't seem to show up. $\approx$$\pi$ 08:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Coming up with some asinine new "Conservapedia term" -- 10 lulz.

Writing the usual stupid crap about it -- 20 lulz

Crowing about how it's so groundbreakingly original that Google gets no hits for it -- 100 lulz

Having Google's search engine pick up the RW commentary instead -- priceless.

Gauss 12:29, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

It would be funny if some of our bloggers picked up on this with copious links to RW and none to CP. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

We'd need an article then. Right now, it's just our WIGO. Maybe I'll whip something up tonight. Might be worth some minor Lulz. --Sid 14:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

So that would be Conservapedia:The Invisible Hand of Marriage, right? All I keep thinking of is rubber gloves, mail order masturbation devices, etc... ħuman 14:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I did a basic commentary on the existing article. Not too strong on the Lulz Scale, though. Article needs expansion and Lulzification. Rubber gloves and sex toys really should be in there, if just under a header like "The real Invisible Hand of Marriage". --Sid 14:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

On top of all this, googling without quotes gets thousands of hits, but the first one is at...An Indian newspaper's plug for an astrology book! Totnesmartin 16:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I tried but I failed ;-( Etc 19:21, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Other Wikis

I have just come across WikiIndex, there are some wikis stranger than CP,

• Jesus wiki: Its name says it all
• AIDSWiki: AIDS denialist wiki, although it doesn't look like one.
• WikiChix: This one is my favourite. Andy claims Wikipedia has a liberal bias and so starts his own Conservatives only encyclopedia to address the imbalance. These women think it has a male bias and so start their own womens only wiki. Their create an account screen says to fill in a form saying you are female, like you would say you weren't if you wanted to join.

This isn't going anywhere really I just was amused by some of this. $\approx$$\pi$ 09:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

That WikiChix site apparently doesn't even allow males to read their pages; "You must be logged in to view other pages". Good luck with all that shooing visitors away! Etc 10:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Ladies! Internet: You're doing it wrong! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Women! Know your limits! D-Notice 16:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Pray Tell

So, I was reading jinxie's recent edit war, and found him using the term "Pray tell". I find it amusing when people use "high code" language (super secret words that usually are shaksperian in origin" to sound "super educated and elite" only leaving them sounding silly and "elitist". My other curious observation is that he manages to revert things he dislikes within minutes of them appearing. Does he do NOTHING but monitor the edits?--Waiting for Godot 09:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Purely off the top of my head but aren't the only articles that he has created (or made major contributions to) Brad Stine, American Family Radio, Democratic Underground and Left Behind:Eternal Forces?

Couldn't agree more. I feel the same about people who add "me thinks" to the end of a sentance. There are one or two on this site guilty of that too though...

Yea, verily, methinks that those who indulge themselves in overly florid language frequently succeed only in making themselves sound like refugees from the Renaissance Festival. Huzzah! --Phentari 10:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Language like that doesn't work on Internets because you have to say them in your best "We're having a party at the yacht club. Would you like to come over and shovel my drive?" voice. Corry^Talk 10:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Well done yacht club voice. you have it down pat.--Waiting for Godot 11:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Zoinks, you cads! The use of outdated exclamations is a traditional British pass time, what, eh? Pip pip, toodle-ooh old stick! Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 14:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Similarly, I like how used to in scholarly debate it was accepted and expected to call your opponent thinks like a "cabbage head," an "idiot thief," and a "howling athiest." I kind of wish we saw that more in the correspondence sections of journals. (examples from Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman) Corry^Talk 14:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

We do, only it's usually worded a little more delicately. But the idea's the same. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:19, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm fond of the "my distinguished colleague across the isle" and "the gentleman from Texas," etc. in Congress. You know they really mean "Asshole!" I think Jon Stewart invented a CSPAN drinking game based on this. Corry^Talk 14:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think you meant aisle rather than isle. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

No congressman is an island -Barikada (Too lazy to sign in)

Maybe the congressman is implying that the other guy take a long swim to the middle of nowhere.--Waiting for Godot 16:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Wait, I thought "me thinks" was hip or something :( NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 19:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

<undent>"Pray tell" comes from "I pray for thee to tell me" or "I pray thee tell me", i.e. I really, really want to know whatever it is you're jabbering on about. And anyway, where do you think Shaggy from Scooby Doo got the word "zoinks" from? I think we should have a "Talk Like Shaggy from Scooby Doo Week", like, crazy, man ;) Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 03:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

"Questionable Immoral Influences"

Andy gets another English lesson...[9] --SpinyNorman 10:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the content of that edit, I've never understood exactly what it was that people thought was going on in Magic. There's nothing near practicing the 'black arts' in it. The extent of demonic imagery is limited, and is not portrayed as in any sort of positive or negative light. I've tried looking for specific complaints, but I've never seen anything that was near intelligible. - Lardashe

If Andy thinks so, it has to be wrong. Etc 12:29, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

MAGIC CARDS ATE MY BABY! Bjones 12:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

For what its worth, apparently (who knows if anything CP says is true) the game used to be more "black" http://www.conservapedia.com/Magic_%28card_game%29 but good christians (TM) pressured the creator into changing it--Waiting for Godot 12:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

FWIW, All card games are derived from decks used for divination purposes and, as such, are pagan. Magic, since it was no doubt inspired by conventional decks of cards, is cut from the same cloth. I personally couldn't care less. I love pagans, especially those hams . . . mmm . . . ham . . . but card games undoubtedly have unchristian roots. So throw out your decks of old maid and go-fish you infidels! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 12:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

In the can't let it go and fans of T.S. Eliot categories, I want to add the a book called the Golden Bough by some dead white guy has a really interesting description of how the traditional card decks (used for diversion)relate to the pagan ones used for divination ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 13:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I've read some amusing ranting from seriously crazy fundamentalists who act as if they GENUINELY THINK Magic cards allow the user to cast real spells. (Berit Kjos, for example.) Sometimes simultaneously, they claim that they're bad because children can't tell fantasy from reality. --Gulik 15:43, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

By the same logic (magic == evil) they would find Sooty reprehensible. Izzy wizzy, lets get satanist! Silver Sloth 15:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

they claim that they're bad because children can't tell fantasy from reality. ha . . . Aristotle worried about the same thing with regards to common folk attending plays. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 17:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

But remember, it's the liberals who are the 'elitists'. Not the ones who think children and commoners are delusional morons. --Gulik 18:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Uhm . . I find Sooty reprehensible . . . ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 17:42, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

<geek>Ahhh, that brings back memories </geek>. I wonder what Andy thinks of comic books and rock music. NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 18:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

He seems to find them entertaining. Brent Bozell hates them though SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 21:48, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Minor lulz

This edit made me smile. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:03, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Heh. Now that's quality lulz. Bjones 13:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

This was also funny. Karajou obviously doesn't get the concept of a card trick! Bondurant 13:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I saw that too but was on my way out at the time. It's also funny that Krusty took it completely at face value. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Karathug doesn't know what a metaphor is. Let's play fair with him. Mmm... no, let's not. JJ4e^?!?!?!?! 15:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, while I'm not suprised the edit was short lived, how was it not a banhammer for obvious parody? Then again, they read this don't they? It'll be done soon :S Armondikov 17:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

What gets you longer jail time, vandalizing CP or doing magic tricks? NightFlare^{This is a talk page.} 18:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Debate!

I asked Andy what kind of money he's looking for, just to have my comment edited to hell by LearnCensorTogether. I appreciate the show of support! This could start to get fun :-). As to ToffeeMan's comment re:college facilities, I could do that, but I'm loathe to book a room just for a personal vendetta. I don't think they give them out that easily, and also, I don't really want him involved in my law school life, as far as I can avoid it. A couple other thoughts, though, are that my branch of the American Constitution Society was going to have a science & the law colloquium, which Andy could be invited to, and he could be bombarded by questions from me and other lib'rul legal intelligentsia. I'll see how that colloquium's going. Should be fun....-caius (tailor) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

1. Although I have mentioned it above I hereby make my pledge of support here. Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:54, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
2. I'm willing to contribute, though I think I'd like it to be youtubed. - Lardashe
3. I hereby pledge a small future donation to the cause. Bjones 16:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
4. Put me down for a bob or two. Silver Sloth 16:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
5. I'm an NYU (Stern) alumni, and recall that it wasn't hard for student groups to reserve rooms in buildings for their meetings. You should be able to get a good-sized room at no cost that way, and if advertised on campus for mid-late Sept., no problem filling it up. --SpinyNorman 16:21, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
6. Yes, I'll contribute a few buckaroos - as long as it's YouTubed. DogP 16:22, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
7. Will support as much as possible, and I'm looking forward to the first ever RationalWiki Sponsored Event! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:25, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I reiterate my opposition to hosting an Ames&Andy only event at the school. If incorporated into another event at the school, or off-campus somehow, that'd be fine. But the number of people commenting here just gives force to my comment on Schlafly's talk page, that we can meet a monetary requirement if there is one. Let's see how he responds. And thanks guys!-caius (tailor) 16:52, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

He's just going to put you off or ignore you. There is no way he will debate you. He is a coward just like all the sysops over there. Honest and open discussion is not thier style. Ashfly is making you dance for a change. That makes me sad. Who is more free, the puppet or the puppeteer? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 17:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but at least the more credible we can make this offer of a debate, the stupider he's going to look when he tries to back out. There's some value in that, too. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:59, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Caius, is there a specific subject for debate? Genghis^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Good question. That's the sort of things that need to be sorted out beforehand :-) Etc 19:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I think we could debate whether liberals have friends. I'll trot in my law school buddies, even the conservative ones. Andy's head will explode.-caius (tailor) 19:14, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm in a quandry here. On the one hand, it might be worth the money to actually see Assfly try to debate in a setting where he can't just wave the banstick and make everything go away, but on the other, well, firstly there's the fact that actually offering money for the privilege of debating with him just seems wrong to me, as, basically, he's just a random asshole from the internet, plus, of course, it is HIM, not you, that is insisting it is a live, face-to-face debate, and, secondly, he's already made it clear that he will only debate by his rules. If HE doesn't back out, I'd make sure all details are finalised and agreeable to both of you before you hand over any money at all, and I'd also advise making it plain that you will not give the 'security deposit' to him, but only to a neutral third party, and this third party will only give the money to him if you genuinely back out, as he stated. Zmidponk 20:06, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

People! Please pay attention. The money required is to pay a "security deposit" that Ames will show up. Andy does not get them money unless Ames reneges. It is a deposit, to be paid by both debaters and to be returned to them when they show up (or forfeited to the other, presumably, if they don't). It is not "paying Andy to debate him". ħuman 20:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

This is beginning to sound like that ridiculous prize being offered by Ken Ham (I think it was Ham?) to anyone who can prove evolution. In other words the rules are set to be impossible. Andy was just mouthing off and I dont think he has any intention of actually debating anyone. In his mind, he's already won. In saying that though - I'll give any support I can. Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 20:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

It really doesn't matter if Andy calls the money a "security deposit" or whatever. He is still demanding some sum of money be offered in order to debate him. He will set the rules to be ridiculous and claim victory when Ames won't debate him while balancing on his head on the head of a pin withiout using vowels or something equally impossible. Andy is a coward and a liar and will take a dishonest and cowardly way out. It is his nature. This is how the Schlafly's have evolved. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 07:20, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Lulz from the other schlafly

Disputing that the Cherokee Indian tribes were civilized, Roger quotes Andrew Friggin Jackson!However, given that Jackson founded the Democratic Party, he may score extra irony points. Bjones 16:39, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

They are actually trying to JUSTIFY the IRA? lovely. and no account given for the idea that 1) in "olden days" no matter who you encountered, if they did something you didn't like, or differntly from you, you called them uncivilized. if future peopel went by our accounts of CP, I guess we would be justified in kicking them off the internet, illegally or otherwise. 2) even if they were totally "uncivilized" what ever that means, we were not justified in moving them off the land, killing them, etc. Truly, trying to justify the IRA? that is just sick and wrong.--Waiting for Godot 16:46, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and Roger pretty much gets pwned up and down the talk page. I wonder if genocidal white-washing runs in the family?Bjones 17:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I have given up editing at CP. The Skankfly family is pretty much immune to evidence and common sense. As far as being uncivilized, not even close. The US government began a "civilization" program under agents like Return J. Meigs and Benjamin Hawkins that was fairly successful among native peoples in the southeast (another factor arguably, was high incidence of intermarriage with European traders). I could edit, and cite evidence, but RSkankfly would only delete it. I see no point in attempting to educate the willfully stupid.--Franklin 17:35, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy with Vikings in North America, and Roger "Speaking Bull" Schlafly on Native Americans; One has to wonder what the dinner-table conversations were like when these guys were growing up. --SpinyNorman 17:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

There's hope, though. Andy gave in on the Viking think after being buried under enough objective sources, and quietly allowed the corrections to stand as long as he didn't have to admit being wrong himself. --SpinyNorman 17:40, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe it! Actually, that is extremely surprising, even if his "admission" was (obviously) totally hushed and swept behind the curtain. So did he actually "give in" at any point? Or did he just stop arguing. Uchiha^KATON! 17:50, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

More the latter. I think that what got him was that the one source he could find with a "they were never here - there's no evidence" quote to throw around was referring to vikings landing in New England, USA - the same source says a couple of paragraphs earlier that there's no doubt the vikings landed in North America, and mentions the Newfoundland site. Skimming his sources undoes him every time. -SpinyNorman 17:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Franklin, they never had to be "civilized", they WERE civilized. expcially the tribe in question which had a fully fleshed out civilization. (hello, Cherokee were the first US Indians to have a writing system, though it was imported from Europe). and though they are totally differnt tribes and societies, the Iroquois nation was responsible for the triumvirate (sp?) government. grrrrrrrrrrrrrr Americans really need to learn something about Indian history that isn't associated with John Wayne (not you, Franklin, but the idiots over at CP)--Waiting for Godot 17:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Godot, I guess what I was getting at (rather awkwardly) is that many native people in the southeast at the time were civilized by

the standards of white Americans. Not only were most Cherokees literate, but they had farms, livestock, grew crops for market, and yes, a few of them even owned slaves. Of course native people had their own civilizations long before Europeans showed up here.--Franklin 19:51, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I got that. I was just taking out my frustration on you. bad me. This is a topic I get quite pissy about :-) (unsigned in Godot)--97.118.80.70 20:01, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy gave on in Lief Erikson? Where? The "liberal myth" is still on the main page. DickTurpis 18:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

He didn't so much give in as just stop talking about it. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:22, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll have to go fix Lieral Myths then , but the Leif Erikson page is fixed, and more importantly, so is the American History Lecture #1. -SpinyNorman 23:44, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

CP Main Page: Adam Smith bested.

So now the invisible hand of marriage is a headliner. I love the implication that Andy is Adam Smith's equal, or possibly better, having found fabricated something he overlooked. Corry^Talk 17:58, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

It's only a matter of time before he writes The Invisible Hand of Religion, and loads it with his unique insights as to why religion is the other uncredited driver of economic success compared to atheists.

Shame of it is, he made some points early on I can agree with, but went off the rails quickly enough. It's also not an original thought even though the nickname is. There were some studies done in the past year regarding the economic cost of divorce (having to pay for redundant housing, lost opportunity to leverage joint taxes, medical coverage, etc.), and I wouldn't be surprised if that planted the seeds. --SpinyNorman 18:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

There's no doubt marriage has advantages. If it didn't it certainly would not have lasted as long as it has (but that's my Darwinist "survival of the fittest" fallacy showing through; I really do need to open my mind), and he even summarizes some of them well enough. My favorite thing is he takes this attitude that this is his original idea, and no one has ever done research on it, but, oh, it certainly does not apply to gay marriage. All research says otherwise. DickTurpis 18:44, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, that what makes it amazing; Andy manages, again, to take an analogy that actually 'makes perfect sense' and twists it into something universally disagreeable. Etc 19:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Isn't the "invisible hand" idea wrong? What he's talking about is synergy - one+one=three - what Smith's invisible hand talked about was the collective pressure of a million different market actors. Terminology fail?-caius (tailor) 19:39, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

An excellent point. The comparison had irked me, too, but I couldn't quite place my finger on it until you pointed it out. Smith was talking about individual, selfish actions in the end leading to a desirable outcome (to repeat the example from the WP article: Individuals in a supermarket try to check out quickly, which leads load balancing in the form of queues of roughly equal length). The points Andy mentions are about interaction, cooperation and coordination, which can also lead to a desirable outcome, but for completely different reasons. --Sid 19:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Phew! I worried I'd missed something. w00t. Also, I'm a little offended by the exclusion of the Invisible Hand of Girlfriend from the mix. Girlfriend's probably the reason I'm at a halfway decent law school; Andy gives no props to her?-caius (tailor) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

And what about the Invisible Hand of Hooker, for when you're single and just need, um, a hand? Huh??? Andy?! ħuman 20:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I assumed he meant "individual actions benefit the group" where the group size is 2. Granted, two is a long way from a million. At the same time, I'm sure he's also alluding to the assertion that marriage benefits society as a whole, though as you point out, there's no synergistic effects in that.

More importantly, what are these selfish motivations that convince people to act in this eventually-mutually-beneficial-way? Children? Certainly not. Companionship? As mentioned, roommates can provide that. So, clearly, he's referring to sex. --Toiretni 20:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Toiretni, I see your reasoning, but I think you might be off a bit. (Though as a disclaimer, I'm not a professional economist myself, so I'm no expert on Smith's Invisible Hand. Also as a disclaimer, it's almost 3.30am by now, so it's possible that my argument has holes. However, I fear that my reasoning is still more consistent than Andy's.)

The point of the "an individual's actions benefit the group" (not "individual actions") mechanism is that these actions are driven by greed and selfishness, to use the negative terms. For example, your desire to get out of the supermarket eventually leads to balanced queues. You don't care about load balancing, but it's a direct consequence because the group of individuals acts in such a way even without group coordination. It's as if an "invisible hand" directed you that way.

The advantages of marriage that Andy pointed out are based on coordination and unselfishness, though. Sure, Smith's Invisible Hand also applies in this group of two in certain cases (Classic case: I want to rise in rank in my company, so I'll try to be promoted; but the extra money of the better position of course helps the family as a whole), but Andy clearly focuses on something else: "the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best"

This is the exact opposite of Smith's "Invisible Hand". It's very visible intervention. And things like "powerful incentive to work for the benefit of someone else" further highlight the unselfishness aspect (Applying it to the money issue above, it would start with you reasoning that your family would be better off if you were promoted, which in turn would motivate you to do better).

However, you could treat a married couple as a single actor in the larger picture: A married couple can be quite selfish in a supermarket, for example. ;)

TL;DR version: Andy isn't wrong about marriage often leading to productivity boosts and stuff, but what he describes isn't the Invisible Hand, and he is dead wrong that these advantages only apply to traditional marriage (and not to unmarried couples, homosexuals, regular close friends, etc). --Sid 21:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I re-read it, and yes, I did misunderstand it. I originally thought the thesis was: marriage is the natural order of things (a free market is the natural order of things), some people don't understand why they should get married or why it's so beneficial (not everyone agrees that we should encourage a free market, or understand why), but often marriage still naturally happens anyway (if you stop intruding on the market, it will just happen... you don't need to know the complex reasons why it's so beneficial, it will still benefit you anyway).

Now I realize his thesis is "when marriage happens, it benefits our productivity (and maybe the economy) much more than you think".

However, the other thesis fits the title way better, so I wonder if that's the essay he originally intended to write? If so, then the current "list of direct/obvious reasons why marriage is good" is the end-point rather than starting-point, and he got side-tracked and forgot to mention how people unintentionally get roped into getting married, or the initial short-sighted interests that start the process. --Toiretni 22:38, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I was adding a lot of the same thoughts to the talk page there, so I'm glad to come back here and find myself in good company. But wait - oh noes! I left out the following unsung economic drivers:

• The invisible hand of Pet-lovers
• The invisible (but busy) hand of Porn
• The invisible hand of anything related to Hanna Montana

...and the list goes on. Feel free to add your favorites. -SpinyNorman 20:28, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

There are multiple layers of ridiculousness in the essay.

• First off, he posits that Adam Smith was wrong, and that marriage is the force behind the "invisible hand," not greed and self-interest.
• Second off, the invisible hand is also a magic hand, in that it doesn't grant you this harmony if you are gay.
• Next off, Bugler claims that there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.
• Last off, Andy goes and starts screwing around with the Adam Smith page.

He does make some good points about benefits of a marriage or stable, long-term relationships. Then he just pisses all in the Cheerios. Corry^Talk 21:27, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Considering that the previous version of CP's "Invisible Hand" article claimed that the IH doesn't actually work (because it allegedly requires perfect information and stuff) and that it's "a powerful justification for external intervention in markets", I wouldn't really say that Andy's edit should be classified as screwing around. Then again, as I said above, I'm not really an expert, and it's fairly late, so I might be missing something. --Sid 21:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I like how summarizing *someone elses* work, in a correct representation of the author (be he liberal, conservative, or a martian) is somehow "liberal claptrap.". No, it's proper restatements of what is in the book. idiot.--Waiting for Godot 22:24, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm... thinking about it (after having had some sleep), the part about the "perfect information, etc." (which haunted me far too often even during my short time in economics courses) makes sense. But did Smith actually argue in favor of external intervention? That's the part of the original CP article that made me go "Wait, what?" because I think that one should have been disclaimer'd with something like "Critics of his theory point out that...". But I still didn't read fully into it, so this is still mostly my intuition, mixed with curiosity. --Sid 06:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

This is one of the funniest exchanges I've seen on this site, and I've seen a lot of funny ones. I don't know if I'll be able to sleep after thinking of the "invisible hand of Aschlafly." UGH. Side note - does Andy remind anyone of Buster Bluth? Heyyyyy homeschooler...-caius (tailor) 00:08, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

*spooky voice* ... The Invisible Hand of Aschlafly comes at you when you sleep, to teach you conservative values ...

Seriously, Andy had his own interpretation of the "invisible hand" concept, and paraphrased it into a metaphor about marriage. When he realizes the original meaning of the "invisible hand" isn't exactly what he thought it was, he edits the original definition to match his own metaphor - now, that's bias! And revisionism. Etc 04:02, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

hahahahaha

That is some funny shit! Ace McWicked^{In medias res} 22:02, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

What a senseless waste of human life sock. Etc 04:06, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

New Blocks

So "LindaM" has been blocked after making one change to the site. apparently, that was enough to let someone know she is a sock of somebody. These people are fucking paranoid. who is able to edit there, if a new account that mearly adds a date to a birth year, is blocked. no wonder nothing changes there.--97.118.80.70 22:39, 7 August 2008 (EDT)--Waiting for Godot 22:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow and such subversive edits too,here she adds a guys birthday, which was not reverted, and here she asks whether US or European date system is standard as different articles have different dating methods. I can she how she was an obvious vandal/troll with a record like that. 2 contributions and sailor boy can tell straight away. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:28, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I think SamHB has hit the nail on the head why nothing changes around there, with the open letter to Ed Poor. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:32, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Ken's ongoing pwnage

Not WIGO worthy, but I got a chuckle out this lengthy ongoing discussion. I now present to you, how to respond to rational discusion, Ken-style. First, state your ill-formed idea half-eloquently (maximum, less than a quarter on average) but make sure to completely miss the point. Next, spend quite a few edits literally seconds later making meaningless revisions that in no way address the inherent flawed nature of your argument. Finally, reply to your own post five minutes later (and before your opponent can respond) with a non sequitur insult that, aside from lowering the level of discourse to high school bitchery, totally destroys any facade of credibility you might have stumbled upon. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:37, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah I was following that exchange too. I think MCrowe was trying to negotiate a middle ground so that both sides could get their point across. Instead he finds out he is a liberal. If you were MCrowe how would you reply?--Damo^Hi 05:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)