Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive69

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>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <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)

Mad as a SPOON

Hadn't realised how totally unhginged TerryH was 'til I read that ET life stuff - The man's a certifiable idiot!!!!!   ^Contribs_Talk 20:13, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh he is nuts. I find his argument our galaxy is in the center of the universe interesting. For starts our galaxy is about 100,000 lightyears in diameter so we are still 50,000 lightyears from the center. My knowledge of cosmology is poor to say the least, but I could imagine the center of the universe is not a place you would want to live do to the forces pulling on it from the expansion. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

You wouldn't feel any different if you were sitting at the centre of the universe or not (presupposing that the universe is finite and thus actually has a centre, which is unknown). Aside from minor fluctuations (i.e. planets, galaxies etc) every point in the universe is the same. It's difficult to explain properly... alt 20:53, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Question for TerryH, If the earth is so special and our galaxy is at the centre of the universe....why then is the earth not the centre of the galaxy? Why is the earth flung out on the edge of a galactic arm? Ace McWicked^whisky 20:56, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

So your saying that the actual stretching has no noticeable effect in the local area, just globally (as in the whole universe rather than a globe as per say)? $\approx$$\pi$ 21:20, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

You've got to admire that God didn't feel he had to be utilitarian when he was creating the universe 6000 years ago. I'd have been perfectly happy with one star and a handful of planets, but God in his infinite wisdom decided that there should be billions of stars, presumably many of them having systems of entirely deserted planets orbiting them that humans will never see or even detect before the rapture. In a similar vein, you've got to admire a creationist who'll appeal to Occam's Razor in one paragraph and then moments later claim Jesus didn't mention aliens because there aren't any. --JeevesMkII 21:57, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

@alt: It's not even that not even wrong. To claim that the Earth is at the center of the Universe's volume may (depending on the shape of the Universe) be just as nonsensical as to claim that the United States is at the center of the Earth's surface. Many things have no "center" per se — even many finite things — and the Universe might be one of them. --Marty 23:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Pi, I'm not sure what you mean by this:

• "...but I could imagine the center of the universe is not a place you would want to live do to the forces pulling on it from the expansion."

If it did exist (which it doesn't according to the most accepted consequences of the Big Bang model), why would the centre be a "bad place to live"? Ajkgordon 04:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

It just seemed to me that any location near a collapsed singularity (assuming the universe is expanding evenly on all side of the original zero-point would be the centre) might be high in radiation or gravitational forces. I don't know I am just throwing out random ideas based on the pretty pictures I saw when flicking through a brief history of time. My guess is my theory is a little stupid as the singularity was the whole universe at the time, it is now spread over the whole universe now. $\approx$$\pi$ 08:45, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What was originally the singularity is now spread evenly across the observable universe... if this wasn't true, the microwave background radiation would far less uniform, right? (I'm also below the rank of "armchair astronomer", so grain of salt) --Toiretni 09:03, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't look at me I changed majors before I took general relativity. Damn. I forgot to sit in on that again this semester, oh well I have to wait another year, give me something to do next year while I am starving and looking for work. $\approx$$\pi$ 09:08, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

He is the master

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gandalf&curid=17377&diff=503649&oldid=502530.... apparently, Gandalf really was real. WDeans 21:49, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Ed's been going through and removing phrases like "fictional character" and "legendarium" from Tolkiendil's articles, apparently based on the belief that those phrases make CP sound too much like Wikipedia. This is also an amusing edit: Ed berates Tolkiendil for redlinking Théoden, and changes it to Theoden... and of course the latter is now a redirect to Théoden (Middle-earth), which is a redirect to Théoden! --Marty 23:40, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

And now he has blocked Tolkiendil - a teacher knows the best way to inspire an uppity lad, I suppose --LArron 03:12, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Apparently, Tolkiendil got blocked for this. WTF? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 03:46, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

He continues to defend the fair Éowyn against persons trying to score "ideological points". Fafucksake, Ed - IT'S FICTION!   ^Contribs_Talk 10:26, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe after he has taught maths Ed is going to teach literacy criticism? $\approx$$\pi$ 10:29, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh, Ed, assuming good faith as always. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 10:35, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Susan: is it me or is that edit more of Ed's "Girls Be Not Suited To Leadership" spiel? It's sort of hard to tell, what with all the references to fiction... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{But wishing is not enough. We live in the real world where nothing does exist. We cannot just disinvent it.} 10:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Looks like he's making the most of Tolkiendil's to savage his articles. I guess CP (or Ed anyway) has chased away another useful contributor. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:04, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the news.. I woke up really late. Kettle Kin^{Version 2.0} 13:35, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

More maths

Has any one noticed this argument about how "real" real number are? I am upset about them ragging on $pi. I give $pi to this website every month. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:51, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

That was some serious stupid... Your contribution is real and appreciated!!! ħuman 03:34, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I can't wait for Andy to chime in. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 06:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Heh. Ed points out that the word "imaginary" has nothing to do with "imagination"; mathematicians simply called i "imaginary" "because it represents a parabola which never touches the axis to leave roots."   Naturally. Look it up in the OED: imaginary, adj., from L. im- "not" + aginary "touching the axis to leave roots". Plain as the nose on a Jew's face, really. --Marty 17:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I am now worried about the US SAT test if Ed scored in the 99 percentile with, "The square root if minus one - termed i". The square root of minus one last time I looked was $\pm i$. I have never seen i defined as anything but $i^{2}=-1$ except on Conservapedia. $\approx$$\pi$ 19:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I got into a major battle with Rashfly back in the day over the whole "two roots" thing. Scoring well 30 years ago doesn't mean you have any idea about it anymore... obviously. ħuman 00:28, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's possible to do so, but it can cause some trouble. At least I think so. --λινυσ^(☮) 20:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I looked at what Ed said, and I don't see anything particularly wrong or alarming about it. Most of the things he says make me want to bang my head against the wall, but not this one.^{— Unsigned, by: 24.136.23.177 / talk / contribs}

I gotta agree, in this case it seems more like a problem of comunication on Ed's part. Complex numbers can be used to represent the intersection of a quadratic function with a negative discriminant and the respective axis, thought that's obviously not the only thing they do and not the reason they're called imaginary. It's also possible that when he said the "real numbers can't be expressed as the ratio of 2 integers" part, he meant to say "aren't necessarily" and slipped (though I'm not holding my breath on this one). Still, for Ed's standards it's a very intelligent reply.

Also, the i=square root of -1 is actually a quite common way to teach to students. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 03:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

If that is how students are commonly taught they are taught wrong. Complex numbers are simply there to form algebraic closure, it takes the fundamental theorem of algbra from,

A real valued polynomial of degree n has at most n real zeros

to

A complex valued polynomial of degree n has exactly n complex zeros

That is why i=square root of -1 is incorrect. The polynomial $x^{2}+1$ has two zeros, $\pm i$. The problem is that square root (particularly in physics equations) usual mean the positive square root operator and people are usually lazy about defining their operators as they are usually clear from the context. However it is important to remember what it is you are doing. $\approx$$\pi$ 04:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Yep, it's wrong but hey, the students aren't going to find out soon. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 04:15, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't say that it's wrong. Generations of physics, engineers and mathematicians stated $\imath ={\sqrt {-1}}$ - and I'd prefer it to $\imath ^{2}=-1$ for the lack of ambiguity. That, in fact, you are choosing one of the two primitive fourth roots of unity is irrelevant for most of them, as you can't differ between the two before you have chosen. --LArron 06:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk about nit-picking. If you want to make fun of Ed, there's oodles of better examples than this minor comment about complex numbers. Sqrt(-1) = +/- i. Are you kidding me?? Is this extremely minor mistake really worth getting so upset about? F*ck, go check out Griffiths & Harris, and notice that they write sqrt(-1) instead of "i" throughout the whole book. Yes, technically sqrt is really a function on the double cover of the plane. The world won't come to an end if people occasionally gloss over that point on a wiki talk page. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.136.23.177 / talk / contribs}

Very true. People do tend to go off at tangents & waffle, but does it matter?   ^Contribs_Talk 00:18, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Not very rational

But I think I just saw a ghost! --Kels 21:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

First post in 10 month. $\approx$$\pi$ 22:06, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Next crazy far right theory please

Hahaha. The University of Chicago is going to release the records relating to Obama and what's his face... I guess Andy can lay the old conspiracy and deceit theories to bed and trot out a new one...I'm think Obama and UC secretly replace papers with fakes, shred all damning evidence, and hide pieces in Vince Foster's cadaver, which was disinterred(sp?) in the middle of the night by the Black Panther Party (and buried again by the Jews) SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 23:47, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

I heard Bill and Hillary had 40 people murdered!!!! Prove me wrong!!! Also, Obama had several of the same people killed!! Oh, wait, you want sources!? Hell, Drudge said it was so... and Andy repeated it!!!!!!!!!!!!! It must be true. ħuman 03:30, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal voting techniques

#
# wigofraud.pl
# A very small perl script for rigging WIGO votes
# usage example: $ wigofraud.pl wigo150 -2
# 	This votes wigo150 down twice.
#

use strict;
sub int_to_dotted_decimal($) {
	my ($ip_int) = @_;
	return sprintf("%d.%d.%d.%d", ($ip_int >> 24) & 0xFF, ($ip_int >> 16) & 0xFF,
		($ip_int >> 8) & 0xFF, $ip_int & 0xFF);
}


# main program begins here

($#ARGV == 1) || die "Requires two arguments, the ID of the vote you want to rig and a number of votes (positive or negative.)\n";
my $wigo_id = $ARGV[0];
my $vote_count = $ARGV[1];

# use IPs nobody will be voting from, the class A private net IPs
# starting at 10.0.0.0
my $fake_ip = 0x0A000000;

my $vote_action = ($vote_count > 0) ? "up" : "down";
$vote_count = abs $vote_count;

while ($vote_count-- > 0) {
	my $dotted_decimal_ip = int_to_dotted_decimal($fake_ip++);
	system("wget -O - http://rationalwiki.com/wigo2.php?action=$vote_action&ID=$wigo_id&ip=$dotted_decimal_ip");
}

Nuff said, really. --JeevesMkII 08:07, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Hrm. The IP should not be a user-specified parameter... why does WIGO have the client send this? But does the above actually work? I don't see any item with hundreds of votes. --Toiretni 08:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Blame TMT :D And yes, it does work. See wigo150 now. I was refraining, because it's kind of antisocial, but you've persuaded me. --JeevesMkII 08:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Okay, yes, I see it works. It's true it's antisocial, but it's also true there's poseurs on the internet. Hrm. Tmtoulouse, why can't you get the IP address from the webserver, rather than trusting the client? --Toiretni 08:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I've put wigo150's vote count back to what it was previously now. --JeevesMkII 08:47, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Er... could somebody enlighten the technologically challenged please. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

It's trivial to rig the vote here. Normally on voting mechanisms like this, attackers need to at least find many different IP addresses to come from (usually via open proxies). That sets the bar at a minimum height so that every passerby can't rig the vote. Currently though, you don't need open proxies. You just need to tell the server "oh, I'm coming from that other IP address over there!", and it believes you, even though you're still coming from your original IP address. That makes it easy for just about anyone to play Diebold. --Toiretni 11:34, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

..so yesterday I was walking up the street to get some lunch after finishing up the wigo vote extension. About halfway up the street I say to myself (I talk to myself sometimes, it confused the Canadians) "Self you really shouldn't pass the IP address to the script that would be pretty easy to manipulate." To which I replied "True enough, but I don't feel like dealing with it right now, and besides who is going to come along and try and mass manipulate RationalWiki's WIGO voting anyway? Let us go eat a sandwich." Thank you for allowing me to put myself in my place, I told myself but I wouldn't listen. tmtoulouse ^beset 12:02, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

It was just a friendly member of the Red Team. You can probably enjoy several more sammiches before the irrational ones catch on. Now, a word from our sponsors: Not only does tmtoulouse sacrifice beer money for this site, he also thinks about you so much he's resorted to talking to himself. Won't you contribute? --Toiretni 12:29, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh it is too late for them! I have closed the gap in a most spectacular, devious and cunning manner. :). tmtoulouse ^beset 12:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Typical liberal censorship! The Constitution guarantees my right to rig votes! DogP 12:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Joe Biden

Heh, notice since he became the (assumed) Veep choice for Obama, Andy's taken an interest in the page, and that all of his edits have been negative? Watch for lots more demonizing as the campaign gets underway. --Kels 10:53, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, being right all the time is a curse... --Kels 12:07, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Er... as per your linky above, since when does "delete paragraph" = "wikify"? and why delete it for that matter - couldn't see anything wrong with it... but then I don't see the world through AS's eyes. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:16, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually, that's four or five edits in a row, so presumably the last one was to add a link somewhere. Either way though, watch for every single edit Andy makes to this article be attached to some sort of criticism of Biden, or reason why he can't win against the shiny, perfect Republican nominees, Grampy McSame and Holy Joe. --Kels 12:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

The real fun will be watch the reversal of course once McCain announces his VP pick. Right now Romney is the odds-on favorite, so that'll throw the whole Mormon-bashing crowd into conniptions. Basically, anyone but Huckabee wasn't going to pass muster with Andy, but watch the transformation of opinion and praise heaped on whoever McCain picks, no matter how unsuitable they were before. (Oh, if only CP was around when Bush I picked Quale...) --SpinyNorman 13:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't know. What will happen in the unlikely event that McCain picks a pro-choice VP? How will Andy reconcile his must-praise-Republicans-at-all-costs M.O. with his abortion-is-the-ultimate-evil (except censorship of classroom prayer) one? Andy's head might a splode. DickTurpis 13:56, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

He used doublethink with sufficient dexterity to knobslobber McCain's article since the nomination, so I doubt he would have any trouble with that. It doesn't matter, anyway, since McCain would never make such a choice. Ol' Johnny's as pro-life as they come.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 14:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

"Ol' Johnny's as pro-life as they come." This year, yup. Hell, Reagan and Bush 41 jumped on that bandwagon despite no real personal convictions or reputation that way to lock in the loony fundamentalist vote. ħuman 01:01, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

If it happened, Andy would simply never mention it, and block/revert anyone who did mention it. Presumably while going "lalalala I can't hear you!" Totnesmartin 14:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

PJR...

...might be most decent of the bunch over there, but he can still be a raving loony at times. Got to love this: "God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts." Well, I dunno... there's this whole son and holy ghost thing that are Him and yet not Him. When you add in ineffability , omniprescense, omnipotence and the omni that escapes me, creating everything out of nothing, not to mention cloning a women from a guy's rib... and having a split personality (the smite everything in site old guy from the OT and the toga wearing peace loving hippy from the NT) and it sounds like a pretty darn complicated guy to me. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:59, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I rather like the bit where he argues that the earth is literally the centre of everything, and then turns around and says it's not important that it's literally the centre of everything. --Kels 12:09, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

(conflict) Clarke's third law, god is indistinguishable from magic, trying to use our puny brains to apply logic to her doesn't work. You can't bring the god of the gaps out of the gaps. --Toiretni 12:12, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but the number you dialed is not in service or has been changed

Is anyone else getting this error when trying to edit various pages? [1][2]

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "User talk:Aschlafly".

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.

If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software.
Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.

--Toiretni 13:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Not just editing, but when trying to view them too. alt 13:57, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I thought replacing the content would fix the error, but it says there's an EC and just spits out the same crap from before. Keklik 13:59, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

At a guess, he's bollixed up oversight or tried to amend the database manually.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:16, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

If you go to the history tab from the error page and call up the last two diffs, the resultant page shows another edit but THAT link produces the error; the penultimate diffs URL http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=503485&oldid=503472
and the last diff URL http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=503485. I note the last diff doesn't have a proper edit number after the &diff= causing the error.CЯacke® 14:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Rather, every cur diff link gives an error. This indicates that the "cur" version is the one that was deleted that's causing the problem. --Toiretni 14:39, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Right, my edit was to mainly show that it isn't buggy software but ineptness using the tools by the...tools. CЯacke® 14:46, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Dawkins, Obama, and now Biden

They've uncovered another fake professor. Those guys are like academic sleuths! Though AdmiralNelson admits Biden might be an associate professor, but that doesn't count for anything because they're scabs they pull off the street and universally horrible teachers. DickTurpis 14:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Nelson Haw Haw

I love when people do that numerology. It's a perfect system.. they get to stop whenever they want... If he were doing a "true" examination, he would have to combine the 1 and the 8 to get... 9. Sorry, Admiral, but Obama is only 2/3 of the Anti-Christ..... Go fuck Karajou for a while, you're both sea-going chaps. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 14:39, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but "9" is just "6" that's been flipped upside-down. And since flipping upside-down once is indistinguishable from being flipped upside-down any odd number of times, I think it's safe to conclude that this particular "6" has been flipped "3" times, for a total of "666". With the added bonus that flipping things upside-down is super secret double Satanic. --Marty 15:07, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but AdmiralNelson sums to 137. And 13-7 is 6. and 1-37 is -36, equal to 6i times 6i. So we get 66i6i, and the two i's cancel each other out, leaving 666. Meaning not only is AdmiralNelson the devil, he's also imaginary. Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Thunder, i*i=-1, not +1. So 66i6i simplifies to -666. Thus AdmiralNelson is the negative devil, he is Jesus.--Antifly 17:10, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

i*i=-1 is Stupid maths not time cube square ignorant. Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:32, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Damn. I didn't know I was going up against the world's smartest human being...--Antifly 18:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

And just to keep going, Aschlafly sums to 87 sums to 15 sums to 6. It takes three sums to get there, so 666. Conservapedia sums to 132 sums to 6. Evangelist sums to 114 sums to 6. So Evangelist Aschlafly @Conservapedia is 666. Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:25, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Any bets Horatio is running for the post of Bugler2? I loved his comment about how McSame's name reminds him of John the Apostle... not John the Baptist of course... nooo, the guy who did the whole Revelation thing (or ate too many mushrooms, your call) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:44, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

That was actually a different John. Don't tell the dear fellas, though, the paradigm shift might hurt them. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:51, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Pshaw. Next you'll be telling us that Jesus had a (half?) brother called Jesus. --JeevesMkII 16:08, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

No, but he did have a second cousin called Brian... 92.20.110.64 17:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

The Poe Continuum (the gradient ranging between "Parody" and "Fundamentalist") transforms into a Möbius Strip: Jinx adds a spark of sanity... sort of. --Sid 17:08, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

It's probably a translation balls up anyway.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:47, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Amazing

I always find it totally amazing and fascinating that Ed Poor can log in and within 5 minutes make a complete mess of everything. The man truly deserved that award we gave him. Ace McWicked^whisky 18:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Why does he have a vendetta against people who edit mathematics articles? --λινυσ^(☮) 18:30, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

WTF is obscure about pheromones? teh man's on a one man equivalent of the inquisition - he'll be burning books next!   ^Contribs_Talk 18:42, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

He's truly the most block-happy of the bunch, and feels perfectly entitled to pushing the button on anyone, anytime, without warning, for whatever capricious reason he feels like, because there's never any damn accountability for sysop abuse. I'd love to see, just once, a couple of senior sysops chew him out for being an arrogant tool and petition Andy to have his block rights removed. The one for ants & pheromones is as good as any - that was about as legit as any edit can be, and he just reverts/blocks the guy instead of asking about it. --SpinyNorman 19:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Then his responses range from creepy (Uncle Ed?) to rude (Take your time and get it right.)--Jdellaro 19:11, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

That edit summary makes my skin crawl. Especially coming from a creepy mofo like Ed. --Kels 19:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Ed: "The last movie I saw about newspapers, the editors were constantly barking orders at the reporters." bugged the shit out of me. What, is he saying his composure gets out of whack if he watches a movie and thinks it's about him? ħuman 19:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Must make him all excieted "n'all" to be the boss. Power to the people CoolAssSysops, rock on!--97.118.65.251 20:15, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Pheromones & Ed

Where has the man been for the last 20+ years has he never heard about the tests on under arm odour on attracting the opposite (usually) sex. He's obviously not read anything, watched anything (discovery channel?) or had a conversation since leaving his underachieving school.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:00, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

And, by the way, the art says "most commonly found amongst insects" - NO: everything with a scent organ detects 'em - even aquatic beasties I believe.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:03, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Susan! Don't correct information on CP! _{Especially Ed...} <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{But wishing is not enough. We live in the real world where nothing does exist. We cannot just disinvent it.} 20:06, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) I can't decide which is worse, that Ed is devastatingly ignorant or that he wants other people to educate him rather than spend a minute with Google. Don't I remember he's supposed to be some sort of software engineer? Has he seriously never seen any of the ant colony simulations that demonstrate emergent complexity? --JeevesMkII 20:08, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

SimAnt, you mean? Those antlions were more trouble than they were worth. --Kels 20:10, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Not as bad as the spiders, though. Ugh. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:39, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

He doesn't know what a digital organism is anyhow. So that rather blows his software engineering credibility out of the water.   ^Contribs_Talk 05:06, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Semi-off topic, 2 years of my under graduate research career was spent as a lackey for a couple of the major forces behind the whole human pheromone attraction biz. I collected many spit samples, ovulation tests, and smelly t-shirts. After a shortage of female lackeys signing up I had to default take over the discussion about ovulation cycles with the subjects (I was "middle management lackey" or something, and was suppose to have people working under me, the guys all showed up on time but the girls were always calling in sick). It was a very complicated issue with ethics, the University IRB was concerned about having a male ask females about their ovulation cycle. When it was decided to allow me to do it, I was pulled aside by one of the professors and told not to ask them "if they are ragging today." And they were concerned about me....................anyway.............. hey has anyone hear heard of The Natural History of Rape? tmtoulouse ^beset 20:49, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what? Are you saying here that the human pheromone business as graces porn sites and spam everywhere actually conducts research and it isn't just a giant con designed to part idiots from their cash? --JeevesMkII 21:12, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

GOD NO.... the stuff you're talking about is a complete scam (ok, not complete... Studies have shown that women are more likely to engage in social interaction when someone is wearing pheromone, but it is not a craze inducing sex drug.) what he's talking about is the legit research done by Pyschologist and Biologist to determine how pheromones interact and affect humans... At least, that's what I assume from the scientific tone and ethics questions... you're free to insult and humiliate me if I'm wrong SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 21:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Right, and the issue of pheromones is extremely complicated too. Female preference changes across her menstrual cycle, her relationship status, and many other factors including birth control or other estrogen manipulations. Also one of the most studied candidates for a pheromone single are major histone compatibility genes which are related to infection recognition in the immune system. A females preference for MHC gene pheromones depends on her MHC genes as well as all the other factors listed above. For example, a women who is ovulating will prefer MHC gene pheromones that signal different gene combinations than hers while a non-ovulating woman will prefer MHC gene pheromones signaling similar gene combinations to her. Also homozygotic versus heterozygotic combinations are important as well. The moral of the story is, like all things, it is not simple enough just to "spray on a scent and go."

However, there is a lot of interesting work being one on ofactory delivering of neurotransmitters. For example, people who are given nasal spray injections of oxytocin will alter behavior significantly in social trust games. They become much more trusting, less likely to attribute "selfish moves" to defection, and report a much greater feeling of satisfaction and personal connection with other players. Of course, this research has led to people selling oxytocin "cologne" all over the internet. It doesn't really work because it has to be shot up the nose. I am desperately trying to get ahold of some of the medical grade shit just for kicks :). tmtoulouse ^beset 00:42, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Back to my original point: where the eff has Ed been while all this has been going on. If he's so out of touch it's he who needs teaching!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:49, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Basically, as I see it, Ed's ego got an overdose of boinks back in the early WP days, that he has not gotten over yet. He still thinks he is that "smilin' Unka Ed", without realizing that last year's - hell, last week's - congratulations only adhere to you so long as you continue to "do good things". Short version" "he's tripping". As if that was saying something new... ħuman 01:07, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

He doubtless expects his "seniority" to engender respect - but that's gotta be earned & telling folks that your 20 year old maths memory beats their degree level maths is no way to earn it. And if you've been living under a rock for a similar time so that you've never heard of pheromones - you've even less chance.   ^Contribs_Talk 03:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Oversight Overkill

Okay, seriously now, the Oversight business on CP is going too far. Right now, cp:User talk:Ed Poor (without using any sort of permalink) simply shows the usual error message ("The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found" and so on). --Sid 19:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Information age technology given to bronze age minds. It's only surprising they manage to keep the wiki running at all. Ogg smash! --JeevesMkII 19:45, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Toiretni mentioned it #I'm sorry, but the number you dialed is not in service or has been changed ref[2] above.

Altogether now: "Andy's bent the Wiki".   ^Contribs_Talk 19:46, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Hahaha. I snorted Dr. Pepper out of my nose. --JeevesMkII 19:49, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Check the deletion log at the moment it is full of User pages and User talk page. (I'll take a screenshot in a minute before it all disappears). $\approx$$\pi$ 20:07, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

What the hell

Susan asked for a cite of where Ed said he was a maths teacher. It was on his page around July when all those mathematicians showed up and made Ed feel stupid. The page history says his page has not been edited since May see. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:38, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

It still is there, it has been for ever and ever amen. See the heading 'etc'. --JeevesMkII 20:43, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

In Soviet CP Pages delete YOU!   ^Contribs_Talk 20:46, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Actually JeevesMkII he made a direct comment about going back to teaching at a school in the fall, poor kids. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:49, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

I recall the teaching in the fall, but not the math(s) bit.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:52, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

This is why the page that has been unedited since May surprises me. I have been going through the history of his user page, he changes it on average every three days boasting about his minor "achievements". He is not an interesting man but he goes on like he has changed the world or something. The fact that he was teaching again was probably in Large Letters for all to see. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:58, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of Smeg Ed's user page, where does "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless" - "Bertand Russell, atheist" come from? I googled the phrase and of course, all the hits look like apologetics sites. How accurate is the quote, what is the context, etc.? ħuman 01:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, Christ on an Easter Stick, "User:Ed Poor - Conservapedia" is like the 20th hit at google for the phrase. I call shenanigans. Russell is well known enough that if he really, really wrote that exactly that way, Smeg would not come before a link to its usage in context. ħuman 01:23, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be a Rick Warren meme, god what a putz, it comes straight out of his The Purpose-driven life "book". tmtoulouse ^beset 01:37, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems made up out of whole cloth by Warren, not citation anywhere in the book for the reference. And it is just picked up and used "as-is" by Warren clones. tmtoulouse ^beset 01:39, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

That's my impression. Anyway, I wrote Uncle "Ma, why does Undle Ed touch me like that" Ed and asked him for the source... ħuman 01:54, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

CP is full of such cases. See also all those anti-feminism or anti-atheism quotes in their articles. They're just collected from quote lists made by activists, with little to no source checking. I think some guy once tried to fix some of them (Was it for "feminism"? Dunno anymore) by sourcing the real ones and removing the unsourcable ones, but he got banhammered (though not for that, I believe) before he was done, and I think nobody completed his work. --Sid 09:00, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah yeah, see here and the section after that. Oh, and see here for the reason of his departure. I vaguely remember the "lightly mocked Ken on user page" issue - wasn't that the one with the image of Khan (from Star Trek)? --Sid 09:04, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

The Russell quote is apparently a response to a request from someone who was compiling a book on the "Meaning of Life"[3]. It sounds exactly like something that Russell would say: If you don't assume the existence of a god then the question "What is the purpose of life?" isn't a meaningful question. Of course thick and/or mendacious theists will misinterpret this as "Brainy atheist says life is meaningless." --Barnaby 10:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

How to edit your tips

Dunno about you lot, but if I wwas going to do this sort of thing, I'd get it all clean & tidy off line first, instead of demonstrating the whacky ways my brain works in public.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:58, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Tip Number Seven: Write "God is awesome, Jesus saves and homosexuals will go to hell" for 100 bonus marks, regardless of what the question was. Armondikov 07:32, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Night editing log

New toy. --Interiot 00:34, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Sweet... we should make a page to archive your results. ħuman 01:15, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

How is it getting the results? The current results look a bit fishy:

24 Aug 2008 2:37 — Public editing Disabled
24 Aug 2008 1:32 — Public editing Enabled
24 Aug 2008 0:44 — Public editing Disabled
24 Aug 2008 0:26 — Public editing Enabled
23 Aug 2008 23:58 — Public editing Disabled
...

--Marty 03:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

If you go to (for instance) cp:Railway, the "[edit]" links will disappear and reappear with night mode.

I closely examined it for the first ~24 hours, it seemed to be accurate as far as I could see. Correlated with Special:Recentchanges, we find:

24 Aug 2008 0:44 — Public editing Disabled 24 Aug 2008 0:26 — Public editing Enabled 23 Aug 2008 23:58 — Public editing Disabled 23 Aug 2008 7:49 — Public editing Enabled 23 Aug 2008 1:39 — Public editing Disabled 23 Aug 2008 0:33 — Public editing Enabled 23 Aug 2008 0:01 — Public editing Disabled

DeanS turns it off DeanS turns it back on Aschalfly goes to sleep Aschalfly wakes up DeanS turns it off DeanS turns it back on Aschalfly goes to sleep

--Interiot 08:50, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly wasn't asleep at 23:58... just to let you know. Keklik 12:04, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Wikiproject:News Update

DeanS being a big hearted man again is going to let Liberals participate in the News project. They can't suggest news items but they can do all the hard work of creating articles to link to [4]. How generous of him. $\approx$$\pi$ 09:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

(Ah sorry, didn't see the section here when I added this to WIGO) Well, they can suggest news items... but only ones that bash liberals or praise conservatives. --Sid 09:26, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I must say, it was amazing to discover that they had "codified" their borken news bias - the lists of what to report on positively and negatively, while a bit creepy, at least clarifies the "reality" they are reporting on. The drudge report and faux news were never so open about their bias! ħuman 15:11, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

News - Wanted Pages

Just making this one a sub-header to avoid clutter: Check out cp:Wikiproject:News/Wanted page - this should be interesting, considering that news items only stay on the mainpage for a day or so... Let's see if the News Project Team will actually create articles on such short notice. --Sid 09:28, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Of cause they can. Its the liberal slave labors job and if they don't they will be kicked off the project. $\approx$$\pi$ 09:31, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Witch Trials

Really? "I mean, they weren't so bad, right? C'mon!" I want to hope this is just a question-style issue (giving his students the option to rebut the premise), but with the rest of his insanity, plus the whole McCarthy reverence going on over there, it does make me wonder. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:19, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

This had better come back with 47 out of 48 students saying drowning women to see if they float is a bad idea. Has anyone here read James Morrow's The Last Witch Finder? $\approx$$\pi$ 09:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Argh! He's got the Salem Witch Trials BACKWARDS--it was the young girls doing the accusing, mostly of older men and women! And I like the question: "What, if anything, is precisely wrong about having witch trials?" (I suspect the Andy Answer is "they stopped too soon".) --Gulik 14:24, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, when I read his "notes" it seemed as though he took a dim view of the trials. However, he does then lead into "jury nullification" and "Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant “not guilty”? ". And, yes, these read like "notes", not a "lecture". I'm surprised he doesn't work on them more, to make them more like a real textbook/lecture (can still have "debate point" sidebars and such in them). I'm sure he'd love to see some wingnut press pick up his "history" book and publish it... ħuman 15:15, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Dinsdale

DinsdaleP is back again. Also while I have your attention does anybody remember a pdf from the mid to late 90s on the internet about 50 arguments against evolution, it was broken down into sections the first was mathematical arguments? $\approx$$\pi$ 09:52, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Haven't heard of it before, but is this what you're looking for? --Jdellaro 10:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Looks interesting. Did you have in mind a side-by-side refutation? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{But wishing is not enough. We live in the real world where nothing does exist. We cannot just disinvent it.} 10:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Jdellaro, I have been searching for nearly two hours. Gee the guy that wrote that must be dead by now.

Well, he was born in 1854, so by my calculations there would on average be 1.8856 of him by now. 1.9386 if he's Jewish. --Marty 14:09, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

That was what I had in mind but the guy is dead so he can't really come back so that is a little unfair. The arguments are a bit out of date. There is one general comeback and that is every argument he pretty much assumes the bible is right as a given. I just remember it because of the absurd geometric model he uses for poulation growth at the start.$\approx$$\pi$ 10:10, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Seems like the good Rev. Williams wasn't too familiar with his colleague, the good Rev. Malthus. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:18, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

You're all a bunch of type 2s - [5] 86.141.191.129 10:53, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

What a sad person. Now, why did I have to watch that, and what is a "type 2"? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:06, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

If you don't know what a type 2 is then I suggest you .... I don't know... What am I going on about? I'm lost... 81.132.68.78 11:16, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I know what type 2 diabetes is. Is that what you're talking about? I'm reasonably sure I don't have that, though. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:20, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Ken & Google

I was browsing throught the TWIGO archives (yes, Sunday's are that slow around here) and it dawned on me that Kenny has seemingly given up on trying to convince everybody how high his pages are ranked on Google. Obviously somebody explained teh violence stupid inherent in his system to him. Pictures were probably involved. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:28, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

He launched a secret long term plan involving UK theists. I not to sure pbt he may have gotten involved with the wrong people he has not been around for a while. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:47, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Mended?

Andy would appear to have fixed (!) his talk page but where'd the history go?   ^Contribs_Talk 12:57, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

It was cleaned. Why do liberals insist on page histories? Do you want to censor classroom prayer, too? Godspeed. --Sid 13:03, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Cleaned? Was it Dirrrty? & why is Ed's still in the wash machine?   ^Contribs_Talk 13:19, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Does Andy's talk page even have archives? He's stolen half our WIGO links in one swell foop! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{But wishing is not enough. We live in the real world where nothing does exist. We cannot just disinvent it.} 14:30, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

He's been periodically de-lulzing his talk page history for a while now. Odd behaviour for a man so outwardly dismissive of librul mockery. --Helena Bonham Carter 14:41, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

He does have archives, but he doesn't link to them (at least anywhere where they can be accessed easily), they're here, found them while saving his talk page's google cache. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 14:50, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

He usually links to his archives (I assume he just forgot to do so this time), but the archives (after a certain point) only contain his whitewashed history. Various cases of him being completely owned (or just of him being a total paranoid jerk who fails basic reading comprehension) were quickly removed from the talk page and never made it into the archives. That's why he keeps burning the history: It was the only place where you could still find those cases. --Sid 14:54, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

NEW RULE: Considering that we don't want any link to become dated, I suggest that all our WIGO links be screencaps, it will take longer but at least we'll have evidence. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 06:02, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

We can also use this, but the real question is, do we have enough motivated people to replace links with more durable evidence? NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 12:39, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

ET revisited

PJR might be very polite & (overtly) reasonable but things like this make me want to grasp his ears, jump up and kick him repeatedly in the groiny bits with both feet until he concedes that he's an absolute nutter. ^{(It works - I've tried it)} Sorry, but it just makes me MAD!   ^Contribs_Talk 13:35, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Has he ever explained what he means by "information"? Every other creationist I've asked just stutters a bit before telling me I should know already. Barikada 14:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Another great thing about Bungler

Bungler bans Jenga21 for inserting parody (justified; it was obvious parody), but an hour later it's up to Kettleticket to actually revert the edits. Punishment is what's important; undoing damage is hardly worthwhile. DickTurpis 15:41, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I blame Andy. He rewards his blocking people with comments such as "Wow, great block!" while never rewarding those who revert vandalism. See all those times where regular users revert vandals for long minutes until a sysop steps in - and then Andy tells the sysop that he did a great job while completely ignoring the other users. So of course people like Bungler give less priority to reverting vandalism. --Sid 15:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

It's totally pointless analysing Bugler's motives. He's a luminous yellow sock dropping fluff over the Conservapedia carpet. I do though think he's enjoying it a little too much. He might go native - an Apocolypse again. With his last breath - 'the horror.'86.129.229.236 21:30, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

My favorite thing to see is when they ban someone as a parodist, but don't revert any of their edits at all, evening going so far as to completely embrace them, banning those who do revert them. DickTurpis 23:06, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Another liberal myth

So now triangular trade is a liberal myth? I'll concede that, like so much else we learn in elementary school, it might be an oversimplification, but a liberal myth? Please explain, Andy. I suppose the next liberal myth will be the slave trade, and then slavery itself. Of course, Andy does nothing to reference this, nor apparently mention it anywhere else. And even if it were a myth, why "liberal"? I guess because it would then qualify as deceit, and ipso facto "liberal". DickTurpis 16:30, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I guess the liberals are trying to... remove... credit... for... something... from Christians! Yeah! Triangular trade is an attack on Christians! (Also, the ports weren't the "sides" of the triangle, Andy. They were the /corners/.) Barikada 16:37, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

He says "parts" not "ports", but no matter. I see from his article what he is trying to do, though it strikes me as counterproductive. The best "defense" for the actions of slave owners and traders was probably that the slaves had already been enslaved by Africans who then traded them, thus giving a share of the blame to those non-Christians (and I'm sure Andy would argue that enslaving people is a greater offense than merely buying slaves, though I see little moral difference). If Andy is denying Europeans traded goods to Africans for them, then it must be that the Christian Europeans captured and enslaved millions of people themselves. That makes them look even worse (which should be pretty hard to do, you'd think). I'm not sure why Andy thinks there would be no market for finished goods in Africa; largely offensive defensive weapons of gun would obviously be very useful to warring tribes. Either he's arguing this or he's arguing that slavery is another liberal myth. I hope it's the latter. That would be a lot of fun to see. DickTurpis 16:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I thought the triangle also included the Caribbean, and involved sugar cane and rum as well. But I guess that would be a pentagram... ħuman 17:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, the main point was that you try not to run empty boats if at all possible. So one leg is definitely the boat full of slaves heading west to the New World. What does it carry heading east and where does it go? Most likely, rum and cotton, to England, to be drunk and spun. The trick is to carry something on the England to Africa leg, which might be nothing more than "trade goods" to be bartered along the coast? Not sure on that one - and Andy sure as hell doesn't explain it in his "article". ħuman 17:20, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Africa is a liberal myth. All the black slaves in America were created ex nihilo by God. We know this is true because they were all very religious. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:26, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how it is Andy who put these liberal myth on CP in the first place. 192.43.227.18 22:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow. That's fucked up. I didn't notice that. I really think Andy is slowly going completely insane. When Andy 2008 is calling Andy 2007 a deceitful liberal you know something just ain't right in his head. DickTurpis 22:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I think his persecution complex and scewed world view are finally taking over. 2007 Andy still thought his little blog was an educational resource and was sure that people would come flocking to it for information, but he's now finally grasped the concept that this is going nowhere and will be lost to the harsh reality of life: His site is not important. As such, he's going crazy and saying everything he's always wanted to. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 22:54, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

That is because Andy has learnt The Truth^TM. He read it all on Conservapedia. Everything he has every read in his life is due to the Liberal bias geared towards the Liberal agenda being purported by Liberal deceit. Once he approaches thing with an open mined and uses logic he can get rid of all the liberal Myths he has learnt and anyone who still believes in them are in Liberal denial. In the last year his mind has just open wider, the only problem is that it is filling up with crap. Have you seen him taking that lawyer crank seriously. $\approx$$\pi$ 22:56, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Andy v. 2008 is a very different person than Andy v. 2006. I am also shocked - shocked, I tell you - that four out of five of those lib-blank links are blue.

They all redirect to the same page. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, not the same page. Truth, reality, and two CP pages. ħuman 23:06, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Really. I thought they all redirect to Conservapedia:On liberalism. 192.43.227.18 00:27, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Also Human, pretend outrage is typical Liberal style. 192.43.227.18 00:32, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't pretending, and I wasn't outraged. So go... fill in the blank. ħuman 01:11, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Liberal madness → Conservative dementia

Strange that both of the Reagan/Thatcher duo suffer(ed) from dementia.^{Not really funny at all but I like the WIGO.   Contribs}_Talk 04:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Many of us in the UK were convinced that she was barking mad all the time she was PM....now we appear to have the proof. Rumour is that Mad Cow Disease was named after her.Mick McT 05:03, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Explains a lot!   ^Contribs_Talk 05:08, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I understand the point being made here but I think this is perilously close to schadenfreude. It reads like the work of very unpleasent people taking glee at the terminally ill. It's not good is it? In my opinion the wigo should be removed. Sometimes you have to concede a point in the name of common human decency.^{— Unsigned, by: 81.157.234.203 / talk / contribs}

The wording's probably a little tasteless but the facts are indisputable. What's wrong with a little schadenfreude anyway? I have a particular detestation and fear of dementia but in this case ...   ^Contribs_Talk 05:39, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh and common human decency and Thatcher - do me a favour!   ^Contribs_Talk 05:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You do not defeat someone by becoming them. Are you going to accuse me of trying to censor facts next? The accuracy of the statement or Thatcher's record are not at question here. Just because you do not believe that Thatcher showed common human decency does not meen that you cannot. We aim to better our opponents not immitate them. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.157.234.203 / talk / contribs}

When did I accuse you of anything? I merely disagreed with you. How is taking the piss out of Thatcher imitating her? I despised the woman when she was in power and will continue to do so. It wouldn't particularly upset me to see her torn apart by dogs after what she did to the UK. The woman was and is evil.   ^Contribs_Talk 05:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

You didn't accuse me of anything and I didn't mean to suggest you did. I guess it did sound like that so sorry about that. I was trying to suggest this website is starting to behave like CP. Talk of wanting to see someone torn apart by dogs because they are "evil" to me sounds a lot like Andy - and is quite frightening. A gentle nibbling by hamster would be about my limit. I do not believe in good or evil and I do not believe in capital punishment (dogs or otherwise) - for anyone. I do not believe anyone deserves any illness. I believe that anyone (yes ANYONE) who is suffering mental illness deserves compassion. Does this make me a bleeding heart liberal? I guess it just might. But I wonder what taking the opposite viewpoint makes you. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.157.234.203 / talk / contribs}

Normally I'm a humanitarian but in her case I make an exception. If anything I'd be worried that the dogs might catch something. I saw my mother with Altzheimers so (as I said above) I detest & fear it. I do believe that there are some people who have so little empathy and are so self obsessed that their actions can be described as evil, without actually believing in G & E per se. Thatcher's actions were so treacherous that I think she deserves the title "evilest woman of the 20th century". Bleeding heart you may be, so am I on occasion - just so happens that this isn't one of them. (Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.)   ^Contribs_Talk 06:30, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Susan I'm really sorry to hear about your Mum. I think we've both expressed our opinions and understand each other. Clearly we disagree on this but there's not a huge amount more to say and I'm a bit worried you might set kill-dogs on me. Sorry about not signing. I'll create an account.

And for those of you who are UK citizens or living in the UK: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/thatchfuneral/ Mick McT 11:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

The difference between Susan and Andy in this case is that while she hates one particular Conservative, Andy hates all Liberals and everything they stand for. It's kind of like hating one black person, as opposed to hating black people in general. One makes you merely human, the other makes you a racist. I guess nobody here would demonise Conservatives in the same way as Conservapedia demonises Liberals, although to be honest this shit happening to a friend of the family makes me wonder sometimes... --JeevesMkII 18:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

One major difference between Ronnie and Maggie is that Reagan is suspected of being president during the early years of his Alzheimer's. I don't get why this makes any sense as a wigo, really, though. So an 82 year old woman is suffering the mental ravages of age? Has nothing to do with whatever she did when younger, able, & running a country? ħuman 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

If Adjunct Professors are such crap.......

If this is true,(http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Biden&diff=503935&oldid=277334) and clearly it appears to be in the case of the Biden's or it wouldn't have been posted, what does it say about the claim made by the Great Leader in the Reference on his User Page? I think we should be told. Mick McT 08:15, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy seems a little bitter about his academic career. He is always going on about how they underpay and give all the service courses to Adjunct Professors. I think he has it on his page hoping people are impressed and don't know that it is a title given to people who are only lousily associated with the faculty. Sometimes an adjunct is a professor who is in full employment of another university who visits regularly. It is title so the university has something to go down next to the person in the office' name. $\approx$$\pi$ 08:25, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I used to be/still am an adjunct professor at my Alma Mater. At my U. it is a designation given to part-time teachers who are on 3-year 'contracts' to teach classes on a per course basis. They are indeed mostly used to teach lower level gen ed courses. This seems appropriate given the large number of these courses a university of any size needs to offer to support their degree programs. The required qualifications are a graduate degree in an appropriate field and a half hour interview. This is also seems largely OK-- the vetting process could be a bit more thorough, though the adjuncts are supposed to be observed occasionally-- given that these folks teach pretty much exclusivity gen ed courses. Many people are adjunct professors full time because it is the only job they can find in their field, those people are wage slaves -- the academia has been fretting over them for a decade or so. Other adjunct professors are quite successful and accomplished in their professional lives but teach part-time because they like it. I fall somewhere in between -- I used it as a "easy" and fun part-time job to supplement my income. Andy, as usual, is completely dishonest and inconsistent in his discussions of academic titles. As "pi" (if that is even their real name) said it is likely because he is unhappy with his own place in academia. Typical Andy jerkiness is the result. Beyond that, his rationalizations on the matter are ridiculous froth. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:07, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I was going to call Admiral out on the insult to Andy, but don't want to screw someone's sock accidentally. --Jdellaro 09:26, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Some things I read just make my head hurt. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 14:41, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

PNAS Poll

Seeing as the receptionist at PNAS didn't just throw Andy's letter in the bin, what is going to happen now,

-3

Accepted as is

10

Rejected

-1

Accepted after revision

24

Revisions asked for, which Andy won't do and then claim moral victory with cries of censorship

-1

Revisions asked for every time he submits until he gives it up, PNAS claim moral victory because if it was so important he would have kept going

-4

The letter is copied and send out in December as a "Season's Greetings" card, you know, fer laughs

18

PNAS prints the letter along with a response from Lenski that completely pwns Andy. Andy dismisses the reply as "illogical" and declares victory.

Quote Mining

Link for the bewildered   ^Contribs_Talk

Did Ed and PJR just try to add some common sense to quote mining just to have Andy slap them both down? Two sysops for the price of one there I guess --BoredCPer 09:48, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

A term is not legitimate if it isn't found in the dictionary? What the fuck? I guess this doesn't apply to the invisible hand of marriage. Bjones 10:06, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Very tempted to burn my current sock on half of the conservapedia terms :) --BoredCPer 10:11, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

They will claim that each individual word is in the dictionary, therefore the "term" is acceptable. They'd not do well if I explained that spoken language (hear that, you blaster of ancient egypian language) comes first, changes happen to all "legitimate" language, and only (in some cases, years later) do the powers that be say "oh, wow, a new word", and add it to any given dictionary. Besides, they did not consult the be all end all (at something like 5 bucks a search, I'm not surprized) Oxford English Dictionary and it's 24 volumes of words... they use pocket dictionaries which are more in line with their "superior" vocab of 30-000 words. --Waiting for Godot 10:42, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

If you burn a sock, please remind them of the unreliability of the liberal dictionary. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 14:58, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Newsbusters

Anyone notice that the Newsbusters story about Wikipedia's "removal" of Biden's support for McCain as VP in 2004 says it wasn't removed at all, but moved to a section earlier in the article (where it remains) [6]? It looks like it's now an updated version of the article, and the author originally thought it had been removed (great factcheckers you got there, Newsbusters, maybe Andy can teach you to read diffs, oh wait...) but now has to concede it hasn't, thus destroying the whole point of the article. So now it's become an article on a "whitewash" of the fact that Biden campaigned for President in '04, which, considering he didn't run that year, is grasping at straws. Man up and admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, Bulmer. DickTurpis 10:34, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

What, you expected someone at Newsbusters to become well-informed on an issue before reporting it?Shangrala 12:15, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah seriously, NewBusters (much like Mediamatters) is not really a reliable source. I don't think anyone with a brain stem reads it and takes it seriously, to steal a phrase from a good friend enemy of mine, it's the weekly world news of the internet. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 12:34, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I know Newsbusters is far, far from a reliable source, but even they don't claim that the entry on McCain was deleted from the article. I see CP is still saying so on their front page, though. DickTurpis 16:15, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Telling Jinx

Jinx _{(Hi Jinx!)} is told about his pro gun control userbox.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:26, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Fix'd. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 12:36, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Who was Karajou referring to?

Referring to atheists, Karajou said: We have a number of users here who have expressed such beliefs, but have contributed to the site in a positive, respectful manner. Would someone burn a sock to ask him who is he referring to? I just don't see him respecting any self-proclaimed atheist at CP. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 12:11, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, he only say atheists have contributed to CP, not that they received respect from him or that they have managed to not get blocked. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 12:33, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Basically what it says is: "If you kiss ass enough & don't stir up any stink in the shit heap we don't care what your beliefs are". Also: "Dont ask; Don't tell." Relic of his armed forces days.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:41, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, there's me. Although it's not so "proclaimed" since I never really rebuilt my user page. And I have been helping Andy with his history notes a bit. And I did some other stuff, all quite positive and respectful. ħuman 21:33, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

To sum up

This- the first line- just about sums up Andy's attitudes to others... WDeans 15:37, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the diluter, and I decide what's dilution." --Toiretni 17:07, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

DeanS's advice

Damn that boy has serious "sysop power trips". It's truly amazing these people do not see themselves for what they are. Waiting for Godot 16:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

He's made it clear, like Koward, that he'll do what he wants. "Liberals are wrong" (not quote-mined, either!) and all that. It's nothing new, I know, but I bet Jirby's mind is spinning at what just happened, and it's just another case of users who follow the rules and try to reason with sysops to abide by them are still susceptible to abuse. Like art, it shows true the beauty of CP. Norseman^Wassail! 17:34, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

It says just as much about Andy as about Croc and Koward. Not only is he the Worst Manager Ever, letting these guys make his whole project look even more intolerant and chasing off new editors as they appear, but it underlines, yet again, just how ideologically off the rails he is that these guys apparently are his best representatives. --Kels 17:59, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

And DLerner will be blocked in 5, 4, 3 ... --BoredCPer 21:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

<edit conflict> Honestly, does he think this will help anyone?. Permablock in 5... 4... 3... SockofCPuser 21:28, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

DLerner's official statement: I'm sick and tired of watching people being bullied by the chumps who call themselves "Sysops", if you abuse, I will report you, Godspeed! δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 22:21, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, it seems DLerner's grievance actually did help. PJR agrees and unblocks Jirby! --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:00, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Hallelujah brothers and sisters! Justice has prevailed!.

Does anyone else believe that if PJR had started CP it would be a decent place to visit? δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 23:00, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Do doubt it would. I've always said, in things non-biblical PJR seems a pretty reasonable guy. DickTurpis 23:04, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Waiting to see what Croc's response is gonna be, though. Dollars to donuts he'll find some pretense to block the guy again, or one of the others will. --Kels 23:09, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Looks like I was right. His reason basically boils down to "DeanS is a twat, so fuck you". PJR gets treated with less and less respect over there. If it weren't for his looney views regarding religion and rewriting science to fit, there wouldn't be any reason for him to stay at all. --Kels 23:43, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

As an aside, is there any more effective way to communicate that there is no conflict resolution system at CP? Sysop abuse is the order of the day, and peons editors contributors have no recourse whatsoever, so just smile and take it. --Kels 23:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, the MYOB "policy" is the last nail in the coffin for any sort of plebeian "rights." When the sysops are unquestionable by the lowbies, the only hope is someone like PJR. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

And I doubt PJR will escalate the situation by unblocking him again, though it would be great if he would. Andy's useless. He's generally not too bad with the blocks (unlike Ed, who blocks people for a week or a month for asking reasonable questions on talk pages), but he readily admits he refuses to counter any action made by his sysops. What sort of leader is that? Really, Andy, grow a pair, you impotent shit. DickTurpis 00:00, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Let's not mince words here, Dean. You don't respect Philip at all. --Kels 00:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, small groups have a tendency to protect their own. It happens in police departments, and it happens among Wikipedia admins. So it would really surprise me if Andy directly reprimanded one of the sysops.

Instead, Andy's role is to set the ground rules, stating what's permissible for sysops to do in the future. But from day one, the ground rules have been "almost anything goes". If anything, the only rule has been "don't reverse another admin's actions", which tends to skew the system towards the worst sysop's behavior. --Interiot 00:45, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Someone should bring up the thing with Karajou and Wisdom98, blocking him against policy, then blocking Mevin (sp?) for asking to explain the block on his talk page, then that Lardo guy for trying to throw it in Andy's face. It's the same thing as this, except even more blatantly obvious. Norseman^Wassail! 00:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT) Oh, and look... Andy is still editing on the Recent Changes. No doubt he's reading that shit and ignoring it, as usual. Norseman^Wassail! 00:54, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, I think this post is a bad move on Bungler's part, since it makes him look even more like a parodist. If I didn't have strong suspicions already, I'd definitely have them now. Wonder if Dean's gonna tell him to MYOB, probably not since Bungler's supporting him. --Kels 08:00, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Escalation! PJR once again unblocked Jirby. Let's see what happens next. Crockoshite isn't going to take this lying down, so I suspect this could turn into a block war. I suspect PJR normally wouldn't push it, but is starting to take a who-gives-a-shit attitude towards the entire site these days. He must realize what an insufferable place it is, particularly with Andy's recent outbursts at him. DickTurpis 08:01, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

PJR hasn't really gotten much respect around there for a long time, really. It's not just Andy directly, but it's assaults from TK and JM, having to watch the utter drivel of Ed, and things like this where some guy who does almost nothing but copying blog headlines is acting all superior and condescending towards him. It can't do much for his desire to treat the place with respect. --Kels 08:20, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

DeanS's TL;DR is long enough that Andy et al will give up reading and just assume that he gave some sort of rebuttal. But the only relevant thing he says (the paragraph that starts "As I mentioned in Point 4") merely reiterates that you can block someone for not MYOB.

So "MYOB" == "Godspeed", and both mean "one more peep out of you and I'll block you". --Toiretni 11:15, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"Dis is turning into vun of DOSE plans...de kind vere we block everyvun dot notices dot we're blocking people..." --Gulik 15:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

It's getting better, even LT chimed in thinking he can save the day (of course, he knows full well that sysops ignore email most of the time, since abusers don't make any extra effort to explain themselves). Irony meter rapid-faps with Jinx's "Actions have consequences" bit... little bit of whitewash and bans for everyone involved that doesn't have powerz, and it'll be a classic. Norseman^Wassail! 15:41, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I see there's a now a fair number of people on the Abuse page, all complaining about the sysops. Including our own(?) Human. What're the current odds on him being permablocked first, as a warning to the other peasants? --Gulik 23:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Did I say that? Yes, Human on cp is Human here. See historical contingency. Permablocked? Btdt, got the silly website to play on. Was I that whiny? Blocked??? After all the helpful improvements I made at Andy's lecture and stuff???? Just check my contribs!!!!! I am teh awesome productive editor!! Oh well... sanity might have intruded, when I saw that tingly "edit" tab... Andy, make me a beachrat!!! ħuman 23:54, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Phhhht, all I did was comment on the wiki-respect level of enabling email. It ought to be required of sysops. Speaking of which, is anyone here not a sysop yet? And are are most of you (shudder) beachrats? How does it feel to operate in a place with no "power structure"? ħuman 23:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Barack's BC

They are still on about this????? Since when does having a foreign adopted parent make you NOT american if you are a Natural Born Citizen? Do conservatives have a brain? I'm quite serious.--Waiting for Godot 16:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm laughing about the idea that the GOP will officially pick up on this. It's obvious this isn't meant for the official channels, but as the seeds of a smear campaign on the blog side of things, which is why Andy's sticking with it. The GOP's gonna stay offically as far away from this nonsense as possible. --Kels 16:52, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Block reasons

Actual all Wikis have one of those, ours is just funny though. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Seems I've been pwned! :-) --Jdellaro 21:05, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that wigo made me go "wtf". And, yes, ours are far better! (we actually should create a "random block reason" option though...) ħuman 21:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

And now SirChuckRoundFiletRibsB is trying to make it so our block reason list actually does feature random block reasons... Thanks a lot. ħuman 19:31, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmmm...

First talk comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Good_Morning,_Vietnam Ajkgordon 10:52, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be hmmmmmmming about, unless maybe he's referring to Karajou? At any rate, the whole "Uncle Ed" thing is just creepy. You know, in the "Uncle Ed is here, make sure you keep an eye on the kids" kind of way. Bjones 11:24, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Given that it was written in 2004, probably not the Koward. Although it is a bit odd to see they guy who tries so hard to put on the "kindly, helpful uncle you can trust" image (and fails so badly at it) swearing like that. --Kels 11:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Mmmm not really. He's been told off for swearing on CP once or twice, hasn't he? There's something about it on the abuse desk page. weaseLOId~ 11:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

See this & this. Apparently swearing is OK if you're an old soldier. weaseLOId~ 11:48, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

(Karajou is in the Navy, not the Marines.) --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:33, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At the risk of sounding stupid, isn't the Marine Corp a division of the Navy? So everyone who is a member of the Marines is also a member of the Navy? Bjones 11:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Nope, they're seperate branches of the service. In fact, most Marines would probably kick your ass for saying they were sailors. Stile4aly 12:01, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. Soon. Bjones 12:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

See the second link I put above - Ed P's edit note says he was in the army for five years, so I don't think we need to keep conjecturing whether he was talking about a CP buddy in this WP talk. (Should Uncle Ed's army career be mentioned in the RW article about him? I don't know how much he mentions it). weaseLOId~ 12:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Just hmmmmm as in hmmmmm, what a good Christian. Ajkgordon 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

It's kinda funny that he has to mention his friend's record as a professional killer to qualify his opinion on a war film. weaseLOId~

Another old Ed Poor masterpiece: his CP stub on the subject of the closet. Sterling work, Ed. weaseLOId~ 14:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I enjoy learning from those valuable contributions! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:01, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I like this talk-page comment by Ed. :) --Marty 22:24, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I love the live edit tab... ħuman 22:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, that was ancient news. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. ħuman 22:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

It's been cleaned by Andy so... what was it? NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 19:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

More Triangles

Andy quietly removes his own librul bias. On a side note: what the hell is going on over there? You'd think that with the democratic convention in full swing, there would be more lulz to be had...--Antifly 11:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In World History Lecture Eight (one he hasn't yet updated to reflect the fact that triangular trade is now a liberal myth), Andy wrote that "European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa". Now, in American History Lecture One he asks "what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa? Nothing comes to mind". Maybe he needs to remind himself of his world history. weaseLOId~ 12:03, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm thinking what Andy means by that edit is "What would savage jungle people want with civilized goods made by Christians in Europe? They would have no idea what to do with with manufactured goods. If you gave them a weapon of gun, they would clearly have no idea what it was for. They'd probably try to eat it! And since they had no language to speak of beyond 'Oooga booga ooga' it was impossible to explain the use of these goods." This is more an Andy's subtle racism, I highly suspect. DickTurpis 12:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I'm guessing it's not quite so blatant as that. More likely, this is his reaction to people calling him on his "Christians ended slavery" by stating that yes, Christians actually were the slavers all along. He's trying to take the Christian Europeans out of the mix, as best he can. And since it's Andy, the best is none too good. --Kels 12:29, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Seems like he's just whitewashing aspects of history which bother him, and seeing how much he can get away with. After denying that Vikings discovered America, he now denies that triangular trade existed. Perhaps he will start saying that the importance of slavery is exaggerated by liberal historians or that the point of slavery was to convert the savages of the earth to Christianity. That's what it's all about: he wants to present a view of US history where everything was motivated by faith & missionary work and not by trade & commercial exploitation. weaseLOId~ 12:33, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget morally upright. Not only is everything in Andy world motivated by faith and guided by the hand of God (and only the Christian God damn it) but Christians never do anything bad. They enslaved thousands? trying to civilize them? They committed genocide on natives? No they didn't. Off subject, but a very funny story. My old boss DJ was essentially Andy in everything but name. He once told me, with a straight face that the United States did not commit a genocide, we simply assimilated Native Americans into our culture. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 12:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Obviously my example above was hyperbole, but I still think it belies Andy's racism. "What could Africans have wanted with European goods?" How about "the same as anyone else?" The fact that Andy apparently has no references for any of this, just his own lack of imagination about demand in Africa, makes it pretty clear he has no idea what he's talking about, and is speculating based on stereotypes.

Furthermore, as I stated elsewhere, this makes the Christians looks worse. Instead of trading goods for slaves (bad enough), by his logic they must have gone to Africa with empty ships and kidnapped millions of people themselves. If his next step is an argument that it was for their own good and they were going to be converted to Christians, then he's really gone off the deep end, becoming a slavery apologist, which I think would drive away even many of the insane shits at Conservapedia. Anyone feel like asking him what point he's making? DickTurpis 13:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

It's quite obvious that liberals distorted the past - no one disputes that Christians offered free cruise-liner voyages to Africans to the United States. They were luxurious and the passengers had all the Truth they could eat. Then, they were welcomed with open arms and given farms to help maintain for impoverished and physically disabled North Americans, and they loved it so much they didn't even care for rights or the freedom to roam! The Truth shall set you free. Norseman^Wassail! 13:33, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of affirmative action? NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 13:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Those with open minds also recognize that these savage negros were also given four star housing, gormet meals and all the singing their little voices could muster. It's perfectly clear that these claims of mistreatment and abuse are simply Liberal Denial of the charity of Christians, guided by god to help these poor people. It's also clear that Liberal Deceit, along with Liberal Opinion Forcing coming soon keep pushing these myths to support Affirmative Action. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 13:42, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservadictionary?

I didn' think this was quite worth a wigo... but Bugler should really learn the correct definition of a word before he throws it around. there is nothing even approaching libel in this post. I've also noticed that can't seem to tell the difference between a Vandal and a Parodist... Anyone else see that? SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 16:19, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I think that's the thing. Being a parodist, he can block while being completely wrong, such is the case with most sysops. They become indistinguishable, parodist or loyalist, which further denigrates CP's reputation since they can't tell. Norseman^Wassail! 16:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

He's just playing it for laughs. He's copying the kind of language shaftery and katchagoogoo use - even slightly exagerating it. 86.137.243.82 17:13, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, it's not that reply Bugler is referring to, it's the one about Kowardjoo, with the normal hypocrisy. Even if he didn't mention Andy, Bugler would've found a way to block 'em. Norseman^Wassail! 17:24, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Probably not WIGO worthy and extremely immature...

...but it made me laugh. You never go wrong with dick and fart jokes. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 19:19, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Dammit, MAnderson, what the f--k? I call cockblockery. MAnderson unlulzifies my brilliant article on Jack Lemmon, gets AnitaK blocked, and then decloaks as a vandal of the not particularly funny kind? That's just stupid. MAnderson, you owe me an article. Might I suggest something on Harriet Tubman's adopted daughter, Tub Girl? --Marty 22:34, 26 August 2008 (EDT) (And yes, A Twist of Lemmon is real. Jack's Hard Lemmonade is not... as far as I know.)

As a fan of Lemmon, I especially liked your version of the article. - Lardashe

I like Jack Lemmon too much to let it go. Sorry. I just couldn't help myself about the "fart on your face" thing. It seemed like a lot of the other stuff on the page was so much like that. Liberals are "bulling" and "teach that it is cool". Really whiny. MAnderson AKA Wismike 08:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Movin' on Up

Okay, I can understand Andy not wanting to admit the Founding Fathers of the US were Deists, since that messes up the whole "America is a Christian nation" justification for installing a theocracy, but what the heck's he got against Thomas Jefferson? I looked at his American History rough notes lectures, and I couldn't see where he was suggesting anyone else instead. Or does he mean it all came from the Bible or something? --Kels 23:02, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Well Jefferson is the man who wrote in a letter about "separation of church and state" as a direct quote, drafted the treaty of Tripoli, he also owned a copy of the Qu'ran (spelling?) and rewrote the bible so as to say Jesus wasn't supernatural. Maybe Andy has decided even if he was Christian he wasn't Christian enough and so is now rewriting history to claim he was not that instrumental in the US's founding principles. 192.43.227.18 23:09, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Andy is "special". No offense to the "special" children and adults living among us, I always make that mistake. ANDY IS FUCKING RETARDED! Sorry, no offense intended towards the challenged among us. Andyworld is a strange and evolving place. ħuman 23:15, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but at least it's reasonably consistent. He's already tried to rewrite the laws of physics, the Bible and the US Code. It makes sense that he'd go for world history next. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:36, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Maybe Jefferson has attained ultra-liberal status because of this.--Bayes 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh dear, I fear I my have to defend Andy again. When he says Jefferson was not the originator of the key ideas in the Declaration of Independence, he's not saying he didn't write the thing, he's saying the overall concepts weren't original ideas to Jefferson, and in that, I believe he's mostly right. I'm no philosopher, but didn't a bunch of the ideas come from guys like Paine and Locke? Jefferson wasn't a philosopher himself. I think the real error in his statement is saying that it's a common belief that those ideas are originally his. DickTurpis 10:46, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I can't speak for anyone else... But I have never really assumed that Jefferson sat down with a six pack and some quills and plucked this thing out of mid air. But even if the original ideas weren't his, he still synthesized them into a conherent document and improved the basics with flowery language... and don't ever assume with Andy, he probably thinks Jefferson didn't even physically write the document. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 11:06, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I can't comment on what he thinks, but in this case, what he said is basically true, and Jefferson was largely reiterating ideas by great enlightenment philosophers. He doesn't deny that he synthesized them into a coherent document and improved the basics with flowery language, at least, not in that edit. Doesn't Andy like Jefferson? He was anti-federalist, and, according to Wikiepdia, the father of American exceptionalism. I guess I'll have to see what the CP article on him says. DickTurpis 11:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

What he says there is basically true, but collective experience with Andy's ideology-drives-everything style causes eyebrows to be raised whenever he mentions somebody prominently in his series of "list" essays/articles, especially when they're mentioned in "myths" that, at least in this case, I've rarely (if ever) heard anybody espousing. Maybe Andy is really, genuinely interested in this particular apparent "greatest myth", or maybe he's just trying to dump on the guy that modern Democrats occasionally try to trace their party roots to. Hard to say at this point.--Bayes 13:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

But I believe another one of his big myths is that the current Democratic Party can trace its lineage back to Jefferson. I looked at Jefferson's pretty sad little article on CP, and it doesn't give much of a feel on Andy's position on him. Things like "Further, although the Constitution made no provision for the acquisition of new land, Jefferson suppressed his qualms over constitutionality when he had the opportunity to acquire the Louisiana Territory" seem like subtle barbs, and then there's the whole Jefferson Bible thing, but when Andy wants to attack someone, he doesn't beat around the bush (cp:Barack Obama). Andy's too much of a conservative to fuck with the founding fathers; they've above reproach in any conservative's mind. Maybe someone should add a paragraph on his ownership of slaves, and knocking them up? Wouldn't last long, I'm sure. DickTurpis 14:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Not much to do with CP, but I have it on good authority that Jefferson was going completely against his own political ideals when he took advantage of Nappy's little fire sale. Too good a deal to pass up, I guess... ħuman 15:51, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

PJR a "decent guy"

Yeah, right. Bondurant 06:18, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

As compared to the company he keeps, yes. More to the point he's civil, but if his ideas about religion became reality it would be a nightmare. --Kels 08:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree that PJR is the least bat-shit crazy of the bunch, but what is up with the "negro" thing? Is that the preferred nomenclature for wing nuts? Also, someone should explain to him that race doesn't have a genetic basis. Though I suspect it wouldn't be a very fruitful discussion. Bjones 09:41, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I think he used that word in response to the previous comment, which used it in a hypothetical context.--Bayes 10:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. As usual, the context is the key. Bjones 10:47, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

@Bjones: I can't agree that PJR is the "least bat shit crazy" he's as mad as the rest - it's just that he's not offensively rude with it. he reminds me of a Bond villain - all calm and reasonable but very dangerous underneath - it's his very placatory manner that makes him so dangerous - people will think that there's no harm in him and his words will weasel themselves into the mind. With TerryH, Ed & Kajagoogoo, there's no temptation to read them with any sympathy as they're so obnoxious but PJR elicits dialogue and might affect some lesser beings than ourselves . He's probably the most dangerous one on there.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:58, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

No. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{But wishing is not enough. We live in the real world where nothing does exist. We cannot just disinvent it.} 16:13, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

What is chilling to me is the idea that access to medicine should be decided on the basis of a religious definition of immorality. Once you cross that line, then there will be some religious people who will always be pushing for the line to be moved further. How about denying treatment to HIV sufferers? After all, they only got the disease through their immorality, as defined in the Bible. Bondurant 11:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Exactly, which is why I won't give on this until they 90/10 me. I just keep picturing "Moral" doctors asking unlreated, invasive questions to make sure someone passes their litmus test for treatment first. Talk about chilling. All this from people who claim to follow Jesus, but certainly don't follow his example. --SpinyNorman 11:28, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) The bible verse most overlooked by fundamentalists has to be "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." (The second would be "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'") This is just some really ridiculous shit. Also, what parts of Queens are racist? Everywhere I've been in Queens seems to be pretty well diverse, although I admit that most of the time I've spent in Queens has been at Bohemian Hall in Astoria. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 13:53, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I wonder what PJR would say if a doctor denied care to Christians and told them to pray instead... Barikada 13:56, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps a Jehovah's Witness doctor who refused to refer patients for surgery? --Kels 14:58, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

The foaming hordes of batshit insanity are way ahead of you on the "Judge not.." gambit. See here for a fairly typical forward defensive. Random highlight for the lazy:

If Americans don't start to judge and punish evil instead of accepting all ideas and beliefs as equal, we will become a nation that welcomes same-sex marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, incest, euthanasia and likely a host of moral aberrations so bizarre they're still hidden in the darkest reaches of the Internet.

Oh, and people can say what they like about PJR's beliefs, but it seems daft to question the man's innate decency. --Robledo 16:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

More "cleaning"

Bye bye Ed's talk page.Shangrala 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Then he immediately restores it. I assume there is no way to tell which information was removed. Any guesses? What exactly is the point? Bjones 10:49, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

That Talk Page seemed to be missing or blocked or something for the last few days, although it looks like it was only deleted & restored today. weaseLOId~ 11:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

(ec) It was because of the Andy Oversight cock up mentioned somewhere above - the page was not working & needed erasing/recreating. No shenanigins just incompetence (isn't that someone's law?)   ^Contribs_Talk 11:04, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. alt 12:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanx alt.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:24, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Even if we grant that this instance was a benign case of fixing a technical screw-up, it's clear that Andy has been doing a lot more "cleaning" (deep burning) lately. He has been especially diligent in keeping his talk page "clean". (Maybe his mother came down to the basement and told him to clean up his room?) In any case, it's clear that Andy has become more thin-skinned as he becomes more unhinged.

Several months ago I tried manually watching some high-traffic page and looking for censorship, so that I could post same after its next "cleaning", but it was really too time-consuming a task. Especially doing it while the history is unfolding. So I've been wondering--is there some way to set up an automated bot that watches the history of a page, say every hour, and if it has changed in any way, mails a copy to some email account? The next time it's "cleaned", someone (do I volunteer? perhaps) can go through all the versions and note the censorship. That is, make a page with big red sections "[Censored by Karajou, 13:52 25 Aug]" or something like that. Perhaps we can have a category of such acts of censorship, putting them under the Conservapedia:Burning_the_Evidence page.

I'm not an expert in the type of computer savvy that would be required. Is this feasible? Gauss 12:30, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, you'd have to be looking for edits that made the page smaller (ie, -12k or some such in teh edit history?). With "normal" censorship (deletion of "talk page pollution) it would still be in the diffs, but when they delete and recreate, you'd have to have a copy of the old version on hand. Create a mirror of the wiki? ħuman 15:55, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

You could write a bot to grab a copy of the page every time a change was made, and then have something else compare it and the penultimate copy to judge whether or not data was removed. -λινυσ^(☮) 18:08, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

It feels good to be famous...

More evidence that we are widely read. Bjones 11:06, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

As it looks like PJR is watching one wonders how he feels about our discussing his morality two edit boxes up. Come on, PJR, come and join the debate. I'm sure we'll disagree but your civility will be matched by ours. Silver Sloth 11:33, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

It's unfortunate that Conservapedia tends to discourage fact-checkers from speaking up on Conservapedia itself. Because a place like this isn't the best place to fact-check from. A totally separate site encourages people to behave worse. If we were on Conservapedia, we wouldn't nitpick every trivial mistake. We wouldn't let loose as many insults and ad hominems. This is a group of like-minded people who are trying to get laughs from the choir that they're preaching to, but it kind of looks bad if viewed from the outside. If Conservapedia allowed substantive fact-checking, then the hecklers could keep heckling, but there wouldn't be any reason for Conservapedia to pay attention to them. --Interiot 12:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

What you say is true, but you forget, if they could accept criticism and fact checking of their work, they'd still be with Wikipedia and Conservapedia wouldn't exist. Always remember that Conservapedia was created because Andy couldn't stand being exposed to non-christian views. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 12:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Still CP started out promisingly. There would be no RW, or at least no RW 2.0, if they didn't grow less tolerant and more (insert adjective here). Liar at RP^{(Ed at CP)} 12:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

@ SirChuck: What do you mean "non-christian"? Non batshit crazy, surely/   ^Contribs_Talk 12:17, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

To Ed@CP, they really didn't start out that promising. The first edit was something along the lines of tired of the liberal bias everywhere else on the internet? well come see this... not a great way to start, and Andy has said many times that he really put the Conservapedia plan into action when a student turned in a paper using CE/BCE because that's what was on Wikipedia. When simple exposure to common era bothers you that much, I don't give your project good marks in the tolerance category. To Susan, yes, that's exactly what I mean. I apologize if I offended any sane Christians. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 13:11, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Sure, the reasons to start CP are those. But what I meant is that until about April last year, everybody was free to join and contribute. They did accept SOME criticism and SOME fact checking, even by people not belonging to their target group. Liar at RP^{(Ed at CP)} 15:39, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

NPOV perspectives aren't that big of a deal. There is room for specialized wikis that are more sympathetic to specific viewpoints.[7] But they should do everything possible to ignore and minimize parodists' impact; instead, they've allowed the outside threat to affect how they interact with well-meaning contributors. They don't need to foster an atmosphere that respectful dissent isn't tolerated. And sysops should have minimal boundaries set (they shouldn't use their power to retaliate, or to advance personal goals that are different from the wiki's overall goal). Those can be fixed while still maintaining their pro-Christian perspective. --Interiot 13:24, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I actually agree that there is some liberal bias on WP, and certainly quite a few prominent anti-Christian editors as well. Not that it is anywhere close the opposite problems there are on CP.

The real difference between CP and, for example Theopedia and Creationwiki, is that CP is run by complete jackasses. If Andy was a radical left-wing atheist hippie with the same mannerisms, the site would still be just as much fun to read because it's not that much about actual politics and religion, rather an amusingly bad example on how not to maintain an internet forum. Etc 18:11, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

AdmiralNelson

I'm starting to like this guy. He pulls no punches attacking supremely shitty CP articles on cp:Talk:Mercy, the article in question being solely an unattributed Shakespeare quote. Of course, the first thing that popped into my mind was "Ed Poor". Correct, of course. I can't believe he wanted to be a WP sysop. Good that his CP contributions (including "gays should be locked up") came back to haunt him. DickTurpis 12:16, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

His idea that bigoted doctors just need to put an "I'm a bigot" sign on the door to make everything A-OK is a bit odd, though. --Kels 13:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh, he's still a nutjob (parodist?), but his willingness to call a spade a spade when it comes to Ed's sheer idiocy earns him a few points anyway. DickTurpis 14:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget this little gem. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 14:07, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Fair Use ORLY?

So DuncanB (where did he pop up from with upload rights?) uploads Asterix. I'd love to see them explain fair use and not blatant copyright infringement for that. Anybody have an e-mail addy for the publishers? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:40, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

From the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

3. How Do You Know If It's Fair Use?

There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is :decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. :The factors to be considered include:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use.

fwiw...^{— Unsigned, by: 97.113.29.32 / talk / contribs}

Hmm ... leaves 90% of JM's uploads a tad suspect!   ^Contribs_Talk 14:50, 27 August 2008 (EDT)Sorry forgot:_{(Hi Jinx!)}

JM himself is a bit suspect, although in this case since the image is being used to illustrate an article about the series, seems to be used sparingly and for no particular commercial gain (no admission fee to read the article, etc.), it seems okay. --Kels 14:57, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally, it looks to me like it's just a slightly higher resolution version of the same image at Wikipedia. Certainly based on my understanding of what "fair use" means and the unsigned comment above, I don't see that there's a big problem... alt 15:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, the unsigned comment is from me, aka Aziraphale. I've long since forgotten my password and the bogus email account I used to sign in. 97.113.29.32 16:38, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Just a by-blow comment, but if you read teh article on Asterix, it sounds as if it's written by someone who ACTUALLY READS FRENCH. French being a language of those icky frog eaters, i was dubious of this, and wandered over to wiki, and low and behold, it's virtually word for word. Just to make sure they aren't "copying" people, the word "story" was changed to "story line", "timeline" on CP is orginally "chronology". ahhhh, creative stealing. just use a thesaurus! --Waiting for Godot 18:09, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I need help getting my facts straight

Has Andy ever definitively stated that his classes and Conservapedia are or are not directly related to Eagle forum, or whether they are or are not directly sponsored by them? I seem to recall that during L'affaire Lenski he denied that CP is sponsored by Eagle Forum, but I'm not sure since so much of that talk page was wiped. --SpinyNorman 15:17, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

You're probably thinking of something that was WIGOed a while back: there was an assertion that CP and Eagle Forum might be linked, which led to a block and cleaning from Andy.alt 15:26, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

That was it, thanks. Reason I asked is that I've gotten the sense that there's some "Lawyer Andy" mincing of words going on. He works hard to avoid any implication that CP is an offshoot of Eagle Forum or that the EF directly sponsors CP. However, the new Conservapedia class in American History 101 is also the same thing as the American History 101 class offered by none other than Eagle Forum University. The first EF module is a word-for-word copy of the Conservapedia Lecture One. There's nothing wrong with Andy reusing material from CP to offer a free online class on EF, and having the material flow from CP to EF allows him to specifically say that EF is not sponsoring CP, but come on already - there's a direct relationship between the two, and the best Andy can do is play words games and block anyone who asks.

Truth is, I don't really care if there is a connection or not, other than having him acknowledge it. The only thing I've actually been curious about is what organization registers and hosts the in-person class he teaches, since that's where this all originated. --SpinyNorman 15:49, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, Andy is the "instructor" for seven of their twelve listed "popular courses". I suspect they have to be careful to keep the bank accounts separate for tax reasons, and that gets represented at the "speech" level by Andy's dodging the issue. That, and working for Mommy when your classmate is running for President is embarrassing. ħuman 16:03, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I never made an 'assertion' that there was a link between CP and the Eagle Forum. Schlafly just misread and pitched a fit. Note that the block happened a few days after I posted that comment. (Argon)--Neon 16:10, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, you were pretty indirect about it, but it still set Andy off. It'll be interesting to see what happens to DinsdaleP when he see the new question on the Talk page, because it doesn't attack anything, it just asks who runs/hosts the in-person class and how people sign up for it. --SpinyNorman 16:22, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

See also Stitch75's and Kallium's interaction with Andy under the "Affiliation" section of the Lenski PNAS talk page here. Once again, a bit of a non-answer to the question posed. Talk of Professors seems another sore point for AS. Wasn't he an adjunct professor of the type he now disparages? --Neon 16:29, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

According to some hate-filled blog on teh innertubes, "He also claims to have taught a course in administrative law as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School." ħuman 17:12, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting point, and I think that most likely Andy is hiding the connection because he doesn't want it to look as though mommy is the only person who funds his blog. However...

There may be another motivation. I don't know much about EF. It seems that they are more of a political organization than a think-tank. But they are represented on Fox news from time to time. So they must have a staff of some sort that develops policy (strangely this seems to be secret).

Try going to the EF website and doing a search for "conservapedia." The results are astonishing... in that there are none (or at least none of note). Perhaps Andy is bitter because his coworkers are so disinterested in his blog.--Antifly 17:50, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the omission of references to CP on the EF site is deliberate, but not out of disinterest. I'd say it's so the two can speak in lockstep to help create the impression that there's a consensus on key issues between different sites, when in fact CP is just an offshoot of EF that strives to look independent. When you consider how Andy is listed as a teacher for multiple EF courses, how in the YouTube where he does an online debate about the HPV vaccine he's introduced as "Counsel for Eagle Forum", and "Conservapedian Phyllis Schlafly", it's just a joke for him to act like there's no meaningful connection between EF & CP. --SpinyNorman 18:07, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget this. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 19:36, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Simpler explanation: the powers-that-be at Eagle Forum don't think CP reflects very well on their pretty slick operation. EF has branches in most states and generated annual revenues of around $2 million in 2005 and 2006 (check the net assets, too). CP, however, has a handful of True Believers^TM fighting a losing battle against the librul wandals and parodists. Hell, Andy has probably begged for promotion on the EF site to generate some genuinely "conservative" traffic. --Robledo 19:57, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Dinsdale, what youtube? Linkie? And @Robledo, yah think? I agree... ħuman 20:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Linkola: (corrected)

Sidenote: Do you think "Deborah" is Deborah?--Antifly 20:19, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

STFU and work

Nice to see the Deanwit has taken the abuse advice case to heart and improved his manner in dealing with editors. It's all warm and fuzzy now. --Kels 15:17, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. :p Norseman^Wassail! 15:35, 27 August 2008 (EDT)