Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive74

This is an archive page, last updated 4 May 2009. 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>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <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)

Mystery: Why is Andy not Knocked up?

This one's a keeper. It's hard to even know where to start, really. I think his point is "logic = agreeing with me, people doubt what I say, so doubt prevents logic". --Kels 14:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the last sentence probably sums up his thinking (remember, this is Andyworld we're talking about) - "It can result in a rejection of what is immediately known and observable in favour of an irrational position." In his case "what is immediately known" = everything the Bible, including Andy's, Ken's and PJR's wild distortions of the contents (but excluding the liberal bits) and "irrational position" = science, reality, sanity, etc., etc. I bet a mowse and pi's underwear collection that "You're an irrational doubter" becomes the new "You're clueless" before long. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I suspect today's sermon had something to do with doubt, so he's getting it down while the load is steaming idea is fresh. --Kels 14:47, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

This one's actually a relatively tame mystery/essay, come to think of it. Still crazy by normal standards (for the above reasons and more), but for Andy, it almost sounds sane. --Sid 14:59, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

"Given that God indisputably can and could do this, there is no logical basis for doubting that He did do it". OK, so concluding that something definitely happened follows logically from knowing that it could happen. How about this: given that Jesus indisputably could have had sex with Mary Magdalene, there is no logical basis for denying that He did do it with her. weaseLOId~ 15:59, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Andy truly seems to confuse common sense, intuition, etc. with logic, which combined with his tendence to value conclusions derived from pure "logic" over those derived from empyrical data (for example, while arguing specific cases of gun control) doesn't make it surprising we get the beacon of closed-mindedness we see daily. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 16:01, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

What you're describing is old-school rationalism, or the valuation of pure logic and internal philosophical consistency over empericism. Note that Schafly fails at both of those elements. I here it's still popular in mathematics, but gets little play elsewhere. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, more than popular it's the end-all be-all of mathematics (as far as I'm aware anyway). NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Because he's ugly. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Clearly Andy hasn't been reading Kierkegaard. If he had, he'd know that doubt is good for the soul. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:52, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

If that's true, shouldn't he be the happiest person alive right now? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

So when do you start shipping Kierkegaard brand condoms, pregnancy tests and epi-pens? --JeevesMkII 16:56, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Somehow I doubt that would really break into the market. RA: How so? Doubt and Schlafly are not two things I usually connect with each other. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you meant that Kiergaard said being ugly brought happiness. : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It helps you to avoid scaring people with your wild-eyed "clarity" of thought, too. --Robledo 17:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Since there is no doubt Andy could put gerbils into his anus to get his jollies there is absolutely no reason to doubt that he does. (I m going to get Andy associated with this practice if it's the last thing I do.) I like this logic. DickTurpis 17:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Cool, Andy heeds the words of Grima Wormtongue, and decides that maybe the reason people disagree with him is because they're evil. Can't make this stuff up, folks! --Kels 18:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

End of doubt about Bugler

I know for some strange reason there has been some doubt about whether Bugler is indeed a parodist. I know you are also all familiar with this link. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Bugler&diff=prev&oldid=513282. The ONLY time he has ever shortened a user's name to initials is Helpjazz - and he shortened his name to HJ (I'm not sure if US is the same, but it's school-boy Hand-job reference here). Chances of not being a parodist are surely low. 86.129.226.142 17:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I've never heard this abbreviation before, in any country.

Trust me on this: Bugler is genuine. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I cannot conceive that Bugler is the real deal. I can only imagine he's a parodist or sock of Andy. Nobody could be that dysfunctional. --JeevesMkII 17:22, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It's used all the time in England, and it's the only time he's ever shortened a name. There is no way he's genuine - no way. The rest of his edits say he's a parodist - this one confirms it to the 99.999%. 86.129.226.142 17:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I live in England, and I've never heard it used. I think this may be a local thing round your way, mate. --JeevesMkII 17:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Ditto (more-or-less) Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Another Brit not familiar with this abbreviation. (Although I've heard "BJ".)--Bob^{bing up} 17:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

<four edit conflicts, Goddammit!> I'm in England & never heard HJ as handjob. Often heard BJ to mean blowjob, but I believe that originated in USA, not UK. & No, it's not the only time Bugler has shortened names. Sorry to disappoint. (Welcome, BTW, 86.129.etc. Please pull up a goat & create a RW account). weaseLOId~ 17:30, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

(me too!) Also, do you spend a lot of time discussing hand jobs? And in what context? "I got a terrific hand job last night from a tranny I met in the park"? --JeevesMkII 17:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Bungler also uses the affectionate "Toffers" when trying to stifle Toffeeman. What park? ħuman 17:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Hand-job was always used as a sub for calling someone a wanker(BJ can't really be - and I wasn't trying to claim HJ as English in the way we invented the cat. I bow to the fact that Bugler has been using abbreviations before. I love you all lots though 86.129.226.142 17:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Fangs ^_^ We love you too. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:38, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

"Toffers" came after "HJ", so unless someone knows of another example, he very well might have been making fun of me. I've never heard of HJ used except when someone didn't want to say "hand job" (like in public). JazzMan 02:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Ouch. My sympathies, Jazzie. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Meh. JazzMan 02:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

The only problem being, the "insta-abbreviation" for HelpJazz is HJ. Hell, I'd call you JM on here if I was keyboard impaired. We try not to call ThunderKatz TK... get it? Sometimes, a cigar is just a quicker route to lung cancer... ħuman 02:15, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Chippeterson

His editing binge is his activity at cp:Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page on meth-fueled overdrive. He's up to about 110 "articles" created from the wanted list. I'd be embarrassed if I were he, some of those one sentence "definitions" aren't even sentences... Ah, here is the latest magic diff. ħuman 17:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I see. I thought maybe he was just trying to create as many new entries as possible for the hell of it. Or just opening the dictionary at random & going from there. Your explanation makes much more sense. weaseLOId~ 17:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Where did they even get this godawful list of wanted pages? Did someone randomly add sets of brackets around random words? I know CP isn't WP, and therefore has no "CP Is Not a Dictionary" policy, but really, does an encyclopedia need a pisspoor definition of "thing"? DickTurpis 17:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Where did they even get this godawful list of wanted pages? It's Croc's idea. He makes up the lists, to have 'fun'. Fretfulporpentine 18:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It's doubtful that Chippeterson & Bugler will be watching all their myriad new 'articles' too closely, so there's probably room for some good wandalism & parody to be added to them. weaseLOId~ 18:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You forget how much worse it could have been. If Ed wrote it, it would have been a one line quote about The Thing from the fantastic four. --JeevesMkII 18:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Originally, it was a good idea - use the broken news to generate a list of wanted articles (topics & words in the new items), because they would, I guess, be more "on mission" for CP than random redlinks. I don't know why DeanS snapped and added every noun and half the verbs on the main page, though. ħuman 18:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Chippeterson certainly has problems distinguishing adjectives (compliant, troubled) from verbs. My favourite is still unproven - "Unproven is to not learn or find out by experience". weaseLOId~ 18:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the way he doesn't even see in what context the links are used. His socio-political movement talks blithely about a political party in Moldova (incorrect capitalisation) yet in the original context it refers to what Barack Obama represents. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Good point! The Main Page hysteria about British authorities putting children into care mentions "gaoling the parents if they try to [[contact]] their offspring", but Chippeterson's "contact" stub is all about the limbs of celestial bodies during an eclipse. Nice work, Chippy. weaseLOId~ 07:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

{undent}Given that this little project keeps Croc busy (and gives him his jollies too by the way he keeps describing it as fun), wouldn't a more worthwhile project be allocating peons to the proper wanted items pages to complete those entries? Especially given that there's 478 entries there, which is surely better than throwing out random nouns, verbs and adjectives? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:58, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Account creation

Have they turned off account creation over there again? I wanted get on to explain to Andy that this nugget of wisdom is totally wrong. Its not that blind dont "believe" they can see again its that after being blind for so long the brain forgets how to navigate using sight hence, when vision comes back, you have to learn to see again. Fuck Andy, read some Oliver Sacks before making such ridiculous claims. Moron. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:05, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if it's Andy's intention or not, but his sad little essay labels all doubt as illogical and negative. Anyone have a Nigerian money email to send him? DickTurpis 18:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHA That would fucking hilarious! Hey Andy, "You may have already won!" Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:15, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Funniest part is, Andy's just the sort to fall for one of those. --Kels 18:25, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

And another thing

While I am here, this whole liberalism/socialism causes mental illness/bi-polar is so wrong. Almost most every nutball I have seen in streets is muttering and yelling about Jesus and the bible. Its not often you see some crazy wandering around yelling about Karl Marx. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

True. My own theory is that intelligent people who are open to a wide variety of thought and literature(or "liberal teachings" as Andy would term it) are more likely to recognise any problems in themselves, seek and help and thus more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness. People with mental health problems who have a more restrictive worldview are much less likely to recognise the nature of their problems but may use fervent religious or political activity as an outlet for their mania, OCD, personality disorders & whatever. weaseLOId~ 18:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Or they may even start their own online encyclopedia. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 19:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Off topic, but what the fuck

Anyone catch SNL last night? Not only was there a bit where Tina Fey did a really convincing Sarah Palin (people say they look alike, but Fey is about 500 times hotter) but there was a Quizbowl skit with homeschoolers vs. public schoolers. Of course, I thought of Andy the whole time (Q:"What two parts of an atom are found in the nucleus?" A:"Jesus and angels."). The Palin bit is on the NBC website, but not the homeschool skit, unfortunately. Anyway it was funny. Too bad Phelps is a poor actor. DickTurpis 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, while this was happening I was on the phone with a friend talking about how Fey was gonna get drafted back to SNL to play Palin. She did pretty well on some of the trademark gestures and speech patterns. And they unloaded on Palin quite nicely, too... "ask this lady about dinosaurs", indeed! ħuman 19:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Clinton - I believe the Bush doctrine is wrong. Palin - And I don't even know what that is. Tina Fey > Sarah Palin. Stile4aly 19:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

moar off-topic

I wanna just hear McCain say, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Kettle o' fish 20:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

New signature I see. Well, you can't fool us. Whatever handle you may use, you are still Fuzzy Kettleticket, aka NathanG, aka na-Thang (as I think I shall call you from now on). DickTurpis 20:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Turpis is correct - there is simply no escaping a nickname as great as Fuzzy Kettleticket. DogP 20:59, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

It's a random signature, like Jellyfish can haz. Kettle o' fish 23:25, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

No matter, no matter, na-Thang, but can I just say that is the most out-of-character edit summary I have yet seen? DickTurpis 23:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You can't fool us (again), we know what that φ means. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:49, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it means I have a big emotional attachment to... Kettle o' fish 07:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

New picture time

Time again for Conservative to add yet another picture to the frontpage. How long until he owns the how page and how will Croco and Joaquín Martínez react when they realize he wants all the spotlight? Also this newest one makes even less sense since all it does is point out that a bad idea (Lamarckism) used by stupid goverments (Stalin and Mao) makes bad things happen and then tries to blame evolution. --BoredCPer 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

He has basically stopped trying making any sense whatsoever and stopped caring what anyone else thinks. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 22:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Gawd, he's bonkers. At least we still argue amongst ourselves to no result, there, the handful who dare just do whatever they want. ħuman 23:07, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

He's not bonkers, he's just a total moron. Honestly, and without hyperbole, this guy is just a complete fucking idiot. DickTurpis 23:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. I think that the best term to describe him is "offensively stupid". --Horace 23:25, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Can you tell that I'm still a bit bitter about my favorite son candidate being passed over for the biggest idiot award? DickTurpis 23:43, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, he's always been a favourite idiot of mine too. I am actually quite enjoying seeing his push to take over the Main Page. I like to think that it will end in tears in one way or another. --Horace 23:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but as big of an idiot ken might be... grinning Ed is still the picture my dictionary has next to the word. Ken is a different kind of idiot. Stupid, but strangely effective is his special corner of the world. ħuman 00:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I think what Ken needs is some subtle encouragement. I eagerly await the day that 75% of mainpageleft is Kennyboy's scrapbook of idiocy. Any chance of his pathetic jokes from his userpage migrating to the mainpage? That would be classic. Certainly Andy doesn't have the balls to suggest it isn't the most prudent of moves. Only resident whipping-boy PJR is would be likely to raise the issue. I'd love to see what would unfold. DickTurpis 00:22, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

There is some considerable merit in your suggestion. I am concerned, however, as to whether Officer John Greene of the Montgomery Police Department Canine Section would be happy to have his image used on the Main Page of a crackpot blog. --Horace 02:07, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Ok, so the old new picture is gone and a new new picture is up. Apparently, Darwin still doesn't rank high enough to get his picture above Hitler's. Ugh. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:21, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I bet the one he took down will be back, if not I get the credit for it going down since we all know how much he reads us :) --BoredCPer 23:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservative is a complete and utter teacup. There is nothing more to say. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 23:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Template mainpageleft now = Kendoll's blog? WTF? ħuman 23:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy is going to let it continue because he agrees with it, the fact that it is against even the most basic of collaborative procedures to have one person continually promoting their pet article on the front page is irrelevant. If the topic is raised to Andy in his usual inability to stay on topic he will ignore the issue of Ken's article ownership and his front-page advertising and instead claim you are censoring the Truth^TM. The annoying bit is it will be someone who disagrees with Ken's evolution article that will first complain of his front-page abuse and Andy will fill justified in ignoring them. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 02:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy doesn't need to agree with something his minions do in order to ignore it, it simply needs not disagree with his own views and he won't care if it's plastered over the main page or if every other non-sysop (and then maybe that includes each sysop) show their concerns about it, in his mind that is much better than having to deal with his goons. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 03:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

What annoys me most about Ken is his flippin inability to use the minor edit button when making the gazillion edits required to fix his work, so we get a recent changes filled up with him "fixing" his drivel. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Ooh... update... do I have another fan? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 06:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

"Formerly there was just blank space and it has been that way for a long time." - Come again, Ken? That's my default browser window width on my default resolution (1280*1024), and I imagine it's not too different on other systems. I had to paste two screenshots together just to be able to get both sections into a single image (hence the two scroll bar thingies)! --Sid 06:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I saw this also on that idiot Ray Comfort's blog. Do these moronic creationists have a sewing circle or something where the swap the latest news in mangling and distorting the truth? Anyway, this one pissed me off enough to add an overlong footnote to the quote mining artice. --JeevesMkII 06:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

you know what's really sad about Conservative and his little picture "jokes." Aside from being so utteryly stupid and too long to be funny, he actually butchers some really funny jokes by proxy. The one with the dogs is actually from a very funny misdirect, but now everytime I see it I think of him and his stupid religious nonsense. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 13:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy broke his blog again

I'm sure it will be back soon, but still... maybe he killed it for good? (We can only hope) ħuman 23:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

He reinserted the hamster and all is well. Someone want to archive this pig of a file, or is it my turn? ħuman 00:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Pi guy. I 'ppreciate it. ħuman 01:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

France and Detritus...

(blah)

Seems like Assfly has deleted and re-created "France." And in possible related news, whoever has run "Detritus" up to the Top-5 on CP's most popular articles list is my new boyfriend. PFoster 00:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

So he broke the ASCHLAFLY IS A TOTAL FUCKTARD thing? We would have told them how when they were trying, if they'd only asked. Whitewash and memory hole!!! By the way, that link doesn't really show what you are trying to say, I think. ħuman 00:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

This does. ħuman 00:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I thought they'd disabled the Popularpages stats a while back. Looks like it's time to have fun with them. :) ...I also like #45 on the list, Fire drill.

Wait... that means that Andy reads TWIGO too - I can't remember much mention of it over there, unless the wires have been humming. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:30, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I assume CPAdmin1 tole Andy about it. Oh yeah, and "Detritus" is up to #4 now. --Marty 04:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh wow. I actually thought of something like that (the "is a total fucktard" thing) the other night. RationalWiki collective unconscious? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:49, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Even better, Andy seems to think that by removing 1 letter from the sequence nobody will be able to read the message. Has the Head Loon never heard of "pattern recognition"? The man really does give teh stoopid a whole new meaning. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:55, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

So the LHC just disintegrated 189K page views for France. :( Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:30, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

And how did the Theo Hobson stub crack the top 20? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I see that Astrolabe is fighting its way back up the list. Bravo! --Horace 07:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

The O'Hobson article is a nother one of Ken's pet articles. People think that page views for his articles have been bumped by parodists but I have evidence that he has been manipulating his own CP rankings. I see Aesthetics also had the phoenix treatment but that wasn't in the "hidden message" list, maybe it just got caught in the backwash as Andy killed Detritus. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:46, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Aesthetics challenge: Can you find the cleverly hidden picture of Pierre-Auguste Cot's The Storm? (Image:Cot 1880.jpg, 92x160 pixels.) --Marty 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I would be honored to be your boyfriend, PFoster. ; ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Dang. I was hoping to at least break "Detritus" into the top three. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

And down he goes

DinsdaleP goes down again.

If we do have an awards ceremony, I nominate DinsdaleP for "Most Impressive Block History". Bjones 11:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

While most of these were made in a by-gone era, AmesG still has the record @ 50. That (even today) a sock will be blocked as "AmesG" is testament to his lasting legacy and CP meme. CЯacke® 11:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

AmesG is the Lou Gherig/Cal Ripken of his kind, and I bow to his achievement - I think DinsdaleP has less than a quarter of Ames' blocks. --SpinyNorman 09:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

It says something (I'm not sure what) that they haven't just banned him for ever. They know he's going to come back and wave the truth at them and be rational, so they can ban him again. I think he does a sterling job of pointing out their wackiness (which they ignore anyway) without over-stepping the mark and allowing them to ban him permanently. In other words, he's doing a great job. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Well I felt sure that I'd be banned for this. But no, just a "warning". Perhaps Andy didn't understand it. Dinsdale is always rational and eloquent - perhaps they don't perma-ban him because they just do not understand what he's actually saying? --Toffeeman 11:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I especially liked your use of "Remember Caesar, thou art mortal". Keep up the good work. weaseLOId~ 11:55, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I'm reasonably confident that the teacher of the largest history class in the world won't get the reference. I'm strangely dissappointed to have missed a block: I even used "Godspeed"! Watch the block log though - others are pushing it (eg Argon). He keeps on going - just how much logic can Andy take?--Toffeeman 12:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

And Argon is down (for a month). weaseLOId~ 16:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

That was expected. It was also important to erase unpleasant information about the utility of reproducibility in the scientific method here, or requests to actually "show his work" here and here. All symptoms of NPD. Very difficult to treat.--Neon 20:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I have to admit that I'm surprised Dinsdale hasn't gotten the perma-ban yet either (not that it would actually be deserved). I think in the end it comes down to three things. The first two are simple - never actually being disrespectful, and adding neutral, constructive stuff as time allows. The third one I wonder about, but I think it's that having a non-conservative gadfly buzzing around the site allows the true believers to convince themselves that Conservapedia really is open-minded and embraces differing views in it's quest for the Truth...

...until the truth is inconvenient, and the gadfly gets swatted. --SpinyNorman 20:40, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... a new Conservapedia challenge presents the perfect target for sockpuppets to score suck-up points. You're welcome.--Neon 21:37, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:-) --SpinyNorman 22:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

They doesn't get it

Several peon editors are soon to feel the wrath of the minions' banhammers over this. They seem to want to talk about "what did PNAS say was 'wrong' with the letter". His Highness seemingly cannot get it through to these people that the fucking letter was RIGHT, GODDAMMIT and the only thing "I want to hear is how to defend the letter."
Argon tries his best to make this about Lenski's experiment and the response (da letter) but the page is supposed to be "how to attack PNAS' dismissal of our Totally Righteous Letter, that haz zero flaux.
Schlafly wants to be reassured...talking about the experiment and the letter TO PNAS only underscores that this talk page is a retreat. Calls to "rethink" or "re-evaluate" only serve to make The King of the Boneheads nervous, since doing either would be dangerously close to admitting that maybe the Letter wasn't the bestest it could have been (IOW a mistake was made) [God forbid!]. Hence revisions and blocks are the norm until peace ensues and the matter can be forgotten.
I can almost see the next Liberal NOUN article now, to draw off likely suspects. CЯacke® 12:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Reversing an Aschlafly deletion is no way to win a popularity contest. --Neon 12:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

My chips are on "Liberal Combativeness." "Liberal combativeness is the tendency of Liberals to attack good, virtuous Conservatives ideas..." Barikada 13:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm guessing a new entry for "substantive" is on the way, applying Andy's own special meaning. weaseLOId~ 13:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Is Andy likely to moan about PNAS and block people for a while and then just let this stuff go, or will he take it to some next level of madness (involve the FBI perhaps?)? I was wondering if he has a modus operandi for this sort of failed stunt.--seventhrib 03:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

"LIberal Combativeness", huh? I think that one will be a winner, because Andy can drop that in response to any rebuttal. --SpinyNorman 20:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I love the accusations of PNAS hiding behind anonymity. Well, you addressed the letter to PNAS, didn't you? Why is it surprising that the reply was from PNAS, not from an editor personally? Andy overestimates his own importance. To a real, respected scientific journal he is just another crank. Corry^{It's an illusion, Michael!} 22:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

CP's biggest idiot 2

This discussion has moved! Please go here for the article. The discussion is continuing on the talk page.

What happened to it? :-( weaseLOId~ 20:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

It Appears that now that Hitler is the first graphic on the Evolution page, the page has been permanently locked.

Not sure where to put this. Jimaginator 13:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It's been locked for nearly eighteen months. That's why only one guy ever edits it. weaseLOId~ 13:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

That's what... he said! ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ booming nitrogens adhere me...

Oh Golly. I had no idea. Well, I guess it makes sense, evolution is such an unimportant, non-controversial topic and only a few scientists have ever heard of it, that it would make sense that the one and only expert in the world on the subject would be the one to edit it. You wouldn't want someone to accidently inject varying opinions into such an esoteric subject. LOL when I saw the link to the editor list! Thanks for the heads up. Oh, the humanity! Jimaginator 13:39, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It has been brought up numerous times, but it's Conservative's little baby (and a rather ugly baby at that), so he won't volunarily let anyone else work on it. Andy is too afraid to step up to Conservative because it will mean that he made a mistake, and no other sysop can stand up to him because they don't have any way to stop Conservative from just locking it again. JazzMan 14:05, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

this has been said many times, but I think it's especially true now.... If Andy doesn't step up and take a real leadership role, his site is going to fall apart. As it stands right now, you have sysops wielding uncheck power over everyone else, and fighting with each other. The non admin users are about 95% parody/vandals, and the legit 5% are either leaving in droves or getting banned for years. This type of chaos usually caused a complete collapse in the old forum days. I don't think it'll mean that Conservapedia leaves the tubes forever, but it really going to be hurting here soon. Andy either needs to take the responsibility himself, or he should appoint somebody to oversee complaints. I would like to nominate myself. I wouldn't do any editing or bring any dirty liberal ideas onto your blog, Andy, I would just sit around like the arbitors(sp?) of old and settle disputes and dish out punishments. Hell, I'd even collaborate with you on your insane ramblings, no charge. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 14:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

See, you're talking about the man who can't even organise his own picked force of sysops such that he doesn't have to lock the damn wiki every time he goes to sleep just to keep order. The man couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Now, lots of people have zero management skills and there's nothing particularly wrong with that, but if that describes you then you really need to learn to delegate and fast. As far as I can tell, he isn't really interested in expanding his wiki beyond the stage where he can personally oversee every edit, block and rights decision. He doesn't trust anyone (in part of course thanks to many of us here, good job guys! :D) and he can't do it himself, he really ought to give it up and make himself a nice private wiki for the purposes of teaching his ridiculous "homeschooling" classes. At least then we couldn't take the piss out of how stupid his pupils are. Edited to add: On reflection, I guess at least 70% of his problem is his refusal to countenance concrete, objective rules and their enforcement. I guess he likes to be able to block for ideology and have some form of plausible deniability too much. You can't ask a committee to enforce the rules if you don't have any. --JeevesMkII 14:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

My 3 cents: The first time I was knocked off of CP, it was for asking "Isn't this supposed to be a wiki?". It is interesting to see how it is possible/not possible to get other people to work on the wiki, while controlling the content at the same time. I suspect that what pisses off the vandals at CP is not so much WHAT is said, but that it is claimed that a. It's a wiki and b. It's trustworthy and wonderful and all that. Like the Nazi sites, if Andy had created the website to be his personal vision, nobody would care. It's the claim of "Fair and Balanced" (sic) which riles up them godless liberals. Jimaginator 15:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You're 100% correct Jeeves. He doesn't want to lose one little bit of his control, which stops him from delegating the dispute resolution to others, and he doesn't ever want to admit that something he did was not perfect. He hand picked the sysops and, in his mind, strengthened their Conservativeness. As such, he refuses to tell any of them they're out of line. Even now that PJR is straying from the course and showing signs of being liberal, he doesn't wanna do much about it. I think that when you throw in the MexMax, Samwell, and a few others that I forget off the top of my head, he's really worried about losing his perfection. Notice he still hasn't publicly admitted to being duped and he doesn't privately wonder how they could fool him so easily. He just says "Liberal Deceit, that's what they do," and moves on. I know I've said it before, but I would be really scared if my view could be so easily adopted for the purpose of parody. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 15:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure, maybe if Bugler brown-noses just that teeny-weeny little bit more and offers to take the reins during the night, Andy can leave his computer and let CP be edited by, you know, "others" at the same time. Though of course the paranoid git will be watching this talk page constantly searching for any hint of who Bugler really is... Armondikov 15:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

"searching for any hint of who Bugler really is." Everyone knows he's really Ames Andy himself TK Susan Fox RobS.... PFoster 15:48, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Wrong on all counts! DogP 16:06, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Interesting factoid, only one new sysop has been created so far this year. That being Ken's lady love Freedom777, who of course has never edited since. Before that, the last sysop created was Fox, and we all know how that went. I guess Andy is having trouble finding people who both sound completely loopy, and aren't faking it to get promoted. Not that I suppose he needs any more henchmen if he can't bring himself to write some real rules and organise some real committees (when did we last last hear from the Conservapedia Panel Schaffie darling, hmmmm?). --JeevesMkII 16:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Re Schlafly's "real rules", I dunno if this escaped notice, but it must have busted a few irony meters. weaseLOId~ 16:21, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually Jeeves you're forgetting Learn together. 17:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(this got put in the wrong section) Bugler's an obvious parodist, but I don't think he's a sock of Andy. Bugler shows much more in depth knowledge of English politics and history. Remember, Schlafly just makes a gut level choice about something and hopes that if he repeats the claim enough, people will buy it. I don't see him doing the large amount of research needed to pull this off for so long. On another note, has anyone else noticed that Andy has become the Grandfather of CP. Everyone sees him, but when he starts ranting, they just smile and nod and pretend that nothing is wrong. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Chipperston again

If this guy is being hailed as CP's new meister-poster then gawd help them. Come back Ed "Two Meters" Poor, all is forgiven. Anybody care to guess what a "Novelist for fiction" is? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:41, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

There is so much wrong with the Wallace article, but my personal favourite thing about it is that Wallace wrote for "the Atlantic," complete with a link to the Atlantic...Ocean. PFoster 14:46, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Classic! And what a stunning, in-depth (excuse the pun) article Atlantic is too. Surely these can't be accidental? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:55, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

He's is either A, creating some excellent parody, knowing that they'll never clean that shit up or II, suffering horribly from the sweatshop conditions that force him to continue working for little or no pay. Either way, I award him a free penguin. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 15:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT) Ps, the A, II thing is intentional and a joke. Just in case Jinx _{hi Jinx!} needs some help to get it.

I don't think The Chipster is a parodist, but I do think he's being deceitful about his age--he claims to be 17, but has the writing skills of a 12-year-old.--WJThomas 16:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

"Amputation can also be used as punishment or acts of terrorism." It can? Thanks for the permission, Chip! I can't wait to amputate my kid's limbs when they've been naughty! --JeevesMkII 16:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, one of the Sid-effects (are you reading this, Sid?) is discomfort. Yes, having a limb amputated is uncomfortable. Kind of like wearing an itchy sweater (another punishment for terrorism). DickTurpis 17:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)If only those bleeding heart liberals hadn't robbed us of our sweatercamps. Damn them all to hell SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyone want to change all those "cut"s to "copy"s or do I have to? ħuman 00:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

*examines fingernails* Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Done... I can haz penguin now? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You can haz TWO penguins, plucked, stuffed and roasted!!! With gravy and mashed potatoes. Thank you. ħuman 05:33, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

A) If I screw something up, just drop me a note and demand that I fix it--Don't make poor PsyG do my scut work. B) Don't be so god-blessed anal--"cut" works just as well as "copy" in this instance.--WJThomas 23:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, it's ok, just think of it as "middle-aged man, goodish body, will do anything for penguin." --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Creationism in the UK news

Not something you'd hear much about here normally - very fringe. But that's three times in as many days that I've heard it on national broadcasters in as many days. And on flagship programmes too.

1. Caught some audience member on Radio 4's Any Questions talking about how absurd it was that evolution claims that both male and females need to create a whole new chromosome independently to create a new species (huh?).

2. Some Bishop lamenting Creationism's rising influence in the UK on Today this morning.

3. Rod Liddle being rude to a dear old creationist lady on Sky News this evening.

What's going on? Ajkgordon 18:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Ajk, check WIGO World. I added the story. The Royal Society wants creationism discussed so students can learn why it has no scientific merit. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:08, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Shit, yeah, that's four! Ajkgordon 18:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually #1 was probably about that. I only caught the tail end of it in the car. Ajkgordon 18:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

In related news, I posted something on the WIGO-world about the Anglican church saying it owed Chuck Darwin an apology. PFoster 18:06, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Of course, it's his bicentenary soon, isn't it. Still, what's with all the Creationism coverage here in the UK? Is it just the media picking up and running with a soon-to-discarded subject or is this some sort of concerted Creationist campaign? Ajkgordon 18:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

What's going on is that the creationists have taken over the debate - it's now OK to discuss it (who ever discussed it seriously until fairly recently?) so it's becoming OK to be pro, as pro apologists are on telly more. It's not good. 18:12, 15 September 2008 (EDT) Totnesmartin

I dunno Totnesmartin, they discussion from the Royal Society suggests they want it to discussed in order to debunk. I'll admit it is hard to stop the spread if no one is willing to discuss it/debate it. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Scary stuff. Although I don't normally pay attention to celebrities waxing lyrical about politics, check out the Matt Damon clip on YouTube (or wherever) talking about Palin. Sharp focus. Ajkgordon 18:18, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Make that 5, Ajkgordon. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 19:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I think the loons have been making a concerted effort to raise cretinism's profile in the UK (and elsewhere?), but I also suspect some ripple due to the Palin effect. ħuman 19:54, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Some of the comments at the end of the that article are so depressing. People, otherwise undoubtedly perfectly intelligent and reasonable, stating that they believe in Creationism simply because it's easier to do so. Critical thinking? Never heard of it. At least people like PJR make the effort even though many of us find the reasoning flawed. Ajkgordon 04:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Are you talking about the ones at the ones from Greg Haslam at the end of the article or some of the comments? I sent in a comment yesterday about Rev Greg Haslam closing the article but haven't got around to seeing what got sent in yet and if my (self decleared :P) pwnage of him was published. Armondikov 08:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

No, I didn't get published. Looks like "if evolution leads to futility then creationism leads to homophobia, slavery and abuse of women" wasn't a clear enough point... Armondikov 08:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Comments from readers. Such as:

• It was partly a serious study of evolution that led me to conclude that I'd rather be the product of a creationary God than an evolutionary accident, and so embrace Christianity. So he made a decision based on what he'd rather believe.
• I find creationism more plausible, easier to understand, and leaving oneself quite satisfied. Well, that's OK then.

Ajkgordon 10:18, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Yep, I've read those now. I'm hoping that there was a little selection bias on behalf of the BBC to make the comments board look a little less one sided. A few of them do break the irony meter, such as the one that says "evolution assumes God doesn't exists, assuming something is unscientific"... as opposed to creationism which assumes that God DOES exist and is the Christian God? Which is the bigger assumption? Armondikov 10:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually that's something I've been meaning to challenging PJR on, as it's one of his frequent claims - that believing in God and not believing in God are equivalent. But I can't think of a way of putting the question that would elicit a response other than "yes, they are". Ajkgordon 11:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Horace

Horace why are you trying to get Conservative to block you with posts like this? --BoredCPer 18:51, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I will tell you candidly. When I was blocked at CP I was a little miffed. I persisted in registering further Horace usernames until I got to Horace42. At that point I was unexpectedly allowed back in. This created a problem for me. I have never vandalised the site. I have always tried to make the site better. The problem is that I now find it difficult to improve the site while the site includes certain locked pages. Most of those pages are the creations of Ken Conservative (Evolution, Homosexuality etc.) but there are others (Abortion, Hollywood values etc.). Those locked pages are stupid and often also hurtful (in different ways - the Homosexuality page is hatemongering whereas the Evolution page just hurts my brain). It seems to me that any positive, sensible contribution that I make to other pages adds just a little bit of credibility to the stupid, hateful pages. And I do not want to add credibility those pages. So I have determined that I will seek to have the stupid pages unlocked or die trying. Does that make any sense whatsoever? --Horace 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It does really. Lets face it if yo sign up with no intention of just kissing sysop arse indefinitely you are banned, your behaviour only dictates the amount of time. You might as well go down fighting. Interesting contrast you and Ken both starting on the same day. He chose to kiss enough arse and be ideologically pure that he is immune to punishment any behaviour he demonstrates, you on the other hand challenge the ideology and are banned multiple times. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

A couple of weeks ago I added up all my user accounts and concluded that I constitute 0.73% of all blocked users on CP. --Horace 01:38, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I have often wondered how many users past and present we (RationalWikians) make up. I know despite what some people _{Hi Jinx} think we are not every vandal (don't Ebaumsworld occasionally have mass bombing days at CP or something of that nature?) also some people here are genuine contributors to CP and are only here because they rocked the boat too much, but I feel that at any given time we make up 20-40% of the active users. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Blatant and Childish

I know, I know but I just could not help myself. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 22:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually Ace I thought this one of yours was better. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 22:50, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, nice work. An army of thousands should descend on CP and remove all of Andy's comments as "unsubstantive". ħuman 22:56, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps. I just couldnt help either way. That clown-shoes Aschlafly was being such a fucking tit that it just seemed appropriate. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 22:56, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Vintage month

September 2008 is looking like a vintage month for CP-isms. Today has been just lovely, with lots to observe and enjoy. I'd give today an 8.0. DogP 22:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Two things

First, I see that Joaquin Martinez has known about the caps-lock key for quite some time now. (RobSmith knows about it too.)

Second, can anyone explain precisely why RSchlafly decided to rabbit punch Andy, here? If it were anyone else, I'd say it was a straight-up psrodt of Andy's "the triangle trade was a liberal myth" conspiracy theories... but Roger? Is there any actual conspiracy theory that says Marbury v. Madison was not about declaring laws unconstitutional? For example, if one is a true Christian American, would one believe that the Constitution (being God's word) must be inerrant, and thus the idea of an unconstitutional law strikes a blow at the very foundation of one's faith? --Marty 00:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Roger - despite his paranoia, historical revisionism and vaccine opposition - touches base with reality more frequently than Andy. I remember once commenting that his blog even from time to time makes a good point, usually when his pointing out logical fallacies (although it still has all the hallmarks of a poor blog, e.g; copying out an entire news article and then writing less than two lines about it). Chances are Roger is actually correct on this one (I don't know much about Supreme Court case history), but it is likely that he is carrying over an argument that he and Andy had somewhere else. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 00:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

In bed. ħuman 00:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Why doesnt the matriach tell them to play nice on Andy's little blog. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 01:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Isn't that how Roger got sysopship? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

The Conservapedia Mindset

Wow... just wow... I don't know if this is quite WIGO worthy, but I found this really funny. NateE Who is that by the way? cleans up the Colorado article by removing the 18, yes Eight-fucking-teen red links. Learntogether swoops in like the fucktard he is and adds them back in complete with a lecture about creating articles rather than just deleting.... What a fucking moron... is it too late to change my vote? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

On a minor note... It seems Learntogether is wiki-stalking our little friend Kettle? Human? Ames? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:37, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

If you leave the links in, then can't you use the most wanted page to figure out which new articles should get the highest priority? If you want to get mad, get mad at that "let's wikilink every word on the main page for no apparent reason and then create articles which are short, poorly written, and unlikely to be related to the original intention" nonsense. JazzMan 01:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

They are trying to be an "encyclopedia" - red links make sense in that context. We might hate them for our own silly RW reasons, but, come on, "NORAD"? Heck, I'd go write it right now if I had night editing rights :( ħuman 02:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, red links in that case seem justified, they're all linking to what (at first glance anyway) seem notable articles that deserve being linked from there and would in a worst-case scenario simply mean red-text for a few years. The fact that there are eighteen of them only means that the trusworthy encyclopedia is very incomplete but removing the red-links won't help fixing that. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 02:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

This is irrelevant, but they've got absolutely fuck-all on Al Franken. Apart from the fact that he keeps making jokes they don't understand, of course. It's a real vindication of his integrity - imagine what you could do with a similarly toned article on Bill O'Reilly.seventhrib 17:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Absolute Andy

Arbitrary enforcement of rules is at least as bad as not having rules at all... Some editors raise the question what makes a substantial comment (as some of their comments were removed as unsubstantial). The answer: It doesn't matter --LArron 02:47, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Like absolute zero, Absolute Andy is cold at heart. My, that was lame. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

He certainly has a warm damp spot for old Bugler. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 03:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

DeanS has been let loose on the main page

Looks like DeanS has had one of his binges on main page left right _doh again, posting a pile of meaningless news stories. I especially like the one that says "Bush 7, Terrorists 0" with a crappy link right after it. As he's not been bothered to format the link properly, it currently says "6" so another couple of links above it and the Terrorists will be beating Bush! Bondurant 03:19, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean, main page right, of course? I'd correct your text, but maybe you meant a joke I didn't get 'til tomorrow? ħuman 04:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice fix Dean glad to see you are reading again, anything else we can help you with? You do realise that you now have inconsistent formatting, right? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 04:38, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Human. So now the headline is even more meaningless. DeanS lost me at "Ann Coulter explains," as she's hardly worth serious consideration by the left or the right. Still, I'd like to hear her explain how she thinks women shouldn't be able to vote, but until that right is taken away, they should vote McCain/Palin. Bondurant 04:47, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

OK so Crock o'Shite fixes that one entry but leaves all the others with crap formatting. FFS, QC at CP is AWOL 24/7. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Goddamn Mormons

What the hell is wrong with them? I mean really? (posted on WIGO also). A judge strikes down anti-spam legislation so they can peddle crappy religious bullshit? What next, a law that says I can have a "No Junk Mail" sign on my letter box as it infringes peoples right to hawk god garbage in my letter box? Assholes. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 04:44, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Dean is a dumbass (I would contribute more but I am angry at the moment and I know he reads this so I am taking my angry mood out on him). This is typical of the Christian Right so long as the law doesn't effect them they couldn't careless who else rights are being infringed; but if something tangentially related to they are all up in arms about it. So now I have to put up with WatchTowers in my letterbox, fuckwits on my door step and more of their shit in my inbox. ~

When you called him a "fuckwit" I thought you were being more accurate... ħuman 04:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I am fucking livid, there are no words. Oh, expect livid of course. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 04:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah but I thought I shouldn't use fuckwit twice in one post. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 05:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

So now I am making a third post to say; DeanS you are a fuckwit. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 05:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Let me make this clear and simple.

DeanS is a fuckwit!

Is it clear now? ħuman 05:17, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Human you are missing something, yes DeanS is a fuckwit but he just posted it. The real fuckwits are all the other DeanS's out there rejoycing in this fucking awful piece of news. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 05:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hehe. I just checked some broken news links at CP, and were they all from the "American thinker" blog, or just most of them? I do love the news page project, which says what to look for and where to get it. I stand by the above "headline"... PS, sorry, I actually didn't understand what Ace said. Pleez to explane for stoopids? ħuman 05:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Ohhh kay, let me use small words. DeanS is fuckwit yes, but this bigger. All other people who think same are also fuckwit. Not just DeanS we complain about here. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 05:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but DeanS is almost the only fuckwit _{Hi Jinx} reading. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 07:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

DinsdaleP is back

Learn together has unblocked him. What is going on? Is this Learn together getting fed up with Andy’s hubris? If so why not tell him, why not post yourself? You don’t even have to actually post your own opinion. You could just revert some of the comments Andy deleted on the PNAS reply talk page. “Reposted comment, was substantive contribution to the discussion” should work as an edit summary. --Toffeeman 05:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hear hear! ħuman 05:40, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Never going to happen, alas. Apart from PJR (which does score him some points in my book) has any of the current sysop crowd ever stood up to, or contradicted Andy? (I'd love to see Karajerk snarling, "do it, or leave the project" at Andy )In fact, they basically seem to ignore him, leaving him babbling away in his corner while doing their own thing... oh... wait a minute...

Like I said elsewhere - not a senior sysop has gone near the PNAS page, as far as I can tell, leaving Andy to defend his turd together with a couple of parodists. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:44, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

In fairness to LearnTogether, I should explain the block/unblock because it had nothing to do with PNAS. He wasn't going to let me keep the Palin / Rape kit edit in her article under any circumstance, and the block was for my being insistent about it (which is why he also protected the Palin article). This edit war wasn't worth being blocked a week over, because there's something new I want to add to CP today that's time-sensitive. So I wrote him and promised to let the Palin/rape-kit issue go if he'd unblock me, and he did. I'm still pissed about the censorship, but he was at least reasonable enough to let me back in once I agreed to let it go. --SpinyNorman 10:14, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That is so CP - they'll scream censorship at the drop of a hat, but... ve haf veys to make sure you only write vat ve tell you to write. Grrrr. I'm not sure which annoys me more - the idiocy or the hypocrisy over there. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh believe me, I'm still pissed. Especially since Palin's spokesperson is not explicitly denying that she knew of and supported the policy. Instead, they're using weasel words to say that Palin “does not believe, nor has ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.” They use the words "should have to pay" because they ultimately want the rapist to pay, but that sidesteps the issue of who pays up front. When asked directly if Plain knew that victims paid up front, and when she knew, the response is "no comment". --SpinyNorman 10:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

My favorite part of that Palin debate was jpatt repeatedly comparing the rape kit issue to Obama's cocaine use, insisting that CP doesn't mention the latter, so it shouldn't mention Palin's controversy either. Completely ignoring the fact that Obama's drug use is mentioned in his article.

Oh, I might as well say it, since they don't listen anyway, jpatt is a parodist. DickTurpis 11:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and as for the "plausible deniability" that Palin had no idea what was going on, read this. --SpinyNorman 11:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Tech support is a religion! Photographic proof!

Now I know why our IT manager has a God-complex. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't post that kind of thing while I have a drink to my mouth, I nearly sprayed my keyboard with hot tea. Armondikov 09:18, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Wretched Woeful Waves of Wandalism

Sysops r slacking, this guy/gal ran amok. 'Tis Ebaum's crowd? Norseman^Wassail! 09:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I was in Gaia Towns with DanH! Kettle o' fish 09:44, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

These seem to be identical posts to another similarly named persons doing the same thing, who was here the other day. Probably someone with a lot of proxys to burn. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 09:47, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

DanH plays gamez with toons with big heads with lots of kawaii? :3 You forgot your face. Norseman^Wassail! 09:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, it got it's 6 minutes, which is good considering it was a total blanking of the Almighty's talk page. Armondikov 09:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Wasn't Liberalist the one who popped up, spouting about TOR and how they were going to torment CP, because their IP addresses can't be blocked? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:11, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I believe he appeared on the Newcomers Guide talk page, describing a way to register accounts so they don't appear in the user creation log, or at least not on recent changes. I wasn;t clear how it worked exactly, be he seems to have it down. DickTurpis 13:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

PNAS Hullabaloo

Every time I get bored at work I take a minute to read to the letter from the PNAS. And then I read the talk page. And then I read the letter again. And then I read the talk page. The whole thing is just....beautiful. The response from PNAS is basically: We have an obligation to our readers to only print letters that are interesting. Therefore, we can't print your letter since your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical analysis will be obvious to all of our readers. Andy's response? "You forgot to sign your name. KING ME, BITCHES!" And then there's the removing of questions he can't answer under the guise of "non-substantive". And then there's...well, there's just so much to love. Thank you, Andy. Bjones 09:55, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm a little saddened that PNAS won't print the letter just for the lulz, but I suppose they have standards to keep to :( 09:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)~ (totnesmartin at work.)

Just keep a copy of the letter and response saved for cirulation around the internet whenever it seems that CP is started to gain an ounce of credibility. Armondikov 10:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Getting to read another response from Lenski would have been great, but it is also immensely satisfying to watch the adults tell the man-child "No". Bjones 10:19, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Armondikov, you're assuming that CP will ever gain credibility. I think every lost ounce of merit was killed when Lewis Black did that piece on the Daily Show. That was the beginning of the long string on vandals (yours truly included) and the beginning of the downslide. To Bjones, what's even better than PNAS slapping his hand is his little temper tantrum after the fact. He really is a little kid. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 11:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, ANYTHING is possible... just highly, highly unlikely. I think the LHC is going to kill us before CP gains credibility but theres's no harm in being prepared. I would put CP gaining credibility just below zombie attacks but people still stock up on food and chainsaws just in case. :S Armondikov 14:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Einstein

Can someone explain to me (seriously, not flippantly in this case) what the point of discrediting Einstein is, in this context? It can't simply just be the desire to discredit a jew, nor "science" at large since to some extent they accept the theories. the real goal of small edits like this, is to belittle and dismiss the man's accomplishements as he, himself. And I don't think I can even begin to understand why. --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 11:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

My guess: It had to be some christian homeschooler and not some atheist scumbag. The truth shall set you free. 97.100.115.92 11:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Al invented relativity and moral relativism is bad. Ergo Einstein was the devil incarnate. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:43, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it's because fundamental Christianity requires that time is absolute (i.e. 6000 years since creation and all that), and relativity goes against that. Although they are happy to invoke relativity to explain the creationist's starlight paradox. And quite apart from anything else, Relativity, like evolution, is a theory that makes Earth and man's place in the universe just one of those things, and not the whole reason for creation. And he was an atheist. And the mathematics in Relativity require imaginary numbers. Maybe a whole bunch of other stuff too... Bondurant 11:55, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

It really is one of those things that utterly incenses me, this bugaboo they have up their ass about Relativity, not because it's - woo, evil! - science, but because they're SO STUPID they think it's connected to moral relativism, which they're very hot on. "Well, it certainly SOUNDS the same!". It's like confusing "lettuce spray" with "let us pray". DogP 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

@Bon - Of course Al is an atheist except when they can quote mine him in support of God - e.g. "God does not play dice with the universe". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

The irony about Einstein's "God does not play dice..." comment is its wrong! Einstein was voicing his dis-belief in quantum indeterminacy, which at the time was still up in the air. Of course, quantum indeterminacy turned out to be the case. So not only are the wingnuts quote mining Einstein, they're quote mining him on a subject he turned out to be wrong about. Bjones 12:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it's a little of everything. See Conservapedia:Einstein and Relativity, Censorship of. He was Jewish, liberal, pacifist, forriner, widely admired around the world, you can misconstrue "relativity" as "moral relativism", etc. etc. etc. That a non-Christian is so renowned and admired is just too much for the assfly. Gauss 13:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia basically likes to think it is bucking some liberal agenda. The view that all physicist believed in Newtonian physics only, Einstein came along with relativity, an experiment was done proving Einstein right and everyone then believed him is naive in the extreme. However Conservapedia quickly moved from "giving the bigger picture" to "trampling on the liberal myths" that they are now distorting events to the point where they are discrediting Einstein in a hope to get at the imaginary liberals behind the naive story. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 21:21, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Einstein was a socialist. That's probably why. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 06:10, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Imitators

Spell had a good idea - spose it was inevitable--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 11:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought Craig Charles used to say "Awoogar", not Kriss Akabusi... Anyways, haven't a clue what you mean. Bondurant 11:58, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Spell's contrib list, if you noted each first letter of the article he edited, spelled ASCHLAFLYISAFUCKTARD (or was it ANDY?). Anyway, Andy started deleting the articles to disrupt the artistry. Norseman^Wassail! 12:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, that Spell. Bondurant 12:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't want to out anybody, but it's just that others seem to be performing the same trick (with perhaps a touch less panache). --KrissAkabusiAwoogar 12:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

And it was actually John Fashanu who used to say "AWOOGAR!"--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Did anyone manage to get a screen cap of Spell's beautiful contributions before the fucktard censored it? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That is f**king awesome. Of course, how much time must you have on your hands to do that, but still wow. We should give Spell the "Subtle as a rubber brick in the face" award. Armondikov 14:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I bet this would've died down if Andy hadn't deleted one of the articles in order to disrupt the sentence. As they say, they (parodists in this case) are as powerful as you allow them to be. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 03:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Almighty makes stuff up

I know Andy making stuff up isn't anything WIGO worthy, but this really floored me. Experts are overwhelmingly in agreement that Jesus rose from the dead? Really? Anyone with even the teeny tiniest familiarity with the scholarly literature on the New Testament would know that was bullshit.

Lenski has no expertise in statistical analysis? Yeah, he's just been phoning that shit in for 20 years and nobody has caught on till now. Andy is such a tool. Bjones 17:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You miss the point. Devout Christian Biblical literalists overwhelmingly agree that Jesus rose from the dead. No one else really counts because they are prejudiced against the subject. DickTurpis 17:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, of course. Other groups have far too high an incidence of mental illness and breast cancer to be reliable. --Phentari 19:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I love how anybody who dares mention their credentials over there is immediately accused of "pushing fake credentials" or some such... unless it's Andy of course. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 00:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

When did Andy take these statistics courses? During his engineering degree. Back in the early 80's maybe late 70's, so 28-30 years have elapsed since he took them. There are about 4 things wrong here. 1) I don't know how much practice Andy has had in these intervening year but I doubt he has kept his skills up judging by previous comments, so he is relying on memory. 2) He did statistics as a engineer; I don't know what it was like at Princeton but at my uni we have a later year statistic course for engineers that I tutored once (their first encounter with statistics) which a one-off half semester course at a fairly basic level nothing as complicated as combining experiments just simple hypothesis testing assuming the CLT and linear regression (all the time I was asked "How is this going to help us become better engineers"), verses the life science students who do a whole semester course in first year (I assume they then use stats through there degree); plus Lenski did a PhD in experimental science further honing his skill. 3) Almost nobody did Bayesian statistics 20 year ago so Andy does not know what he is talking about. 4) The z-transform paper was published about 2 years ago so again Andy would not know its contents to know what he is talking about. Andy has no right to claim expertise in statistics over either Lenksi or the PNAS editor. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 00:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

If you're saying Andy is a pea-brained child with a god-complex, you're preaching to the choir. DickTurpis 00:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

You're obviously all liberal fools who don't realise that Andy is a statistical genius. Wasn't the "Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public" fact the result of his own statistical analysis? alt 05:05, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Greatest Story Ever Ironied

It occured to me that the funniest (and most ironic) thing about the PNAS is bullshit is that Andy is falling over himself insisting that unsubstansive posts are removed when basically the PNAS told him that his own letter was completely unsubstansive. Gives me a giggle. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 18:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh god that is so true!! :D 04:56, 17 September 2008 (EDT) Totnesmartin

Yeah man. I can see some wetbag editor sitting at PNAS looking through Andys letter before casting it aside and muttering "Pfffft, not substansive enough". Bahahahaha! Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 05:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

For me the most ironic comment is on Andy's talk page: "I never claimed to have removed all the non-substantive comments from Talk:PNAS Response to Letter, nor is that necessary in order to enforce the rule of that page and minimize frivolous or misleading remarks." That's right, he's only removing all the comments that make it clear he's an idiot. And how about Andy's recent comment on the PNAS talk page: "I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them" when he previously reverted a post by MikeR with the comment "Keep the comments on Talk:PNAS Response to Letter substantive, don't claim special expertise for yourself, and avoid personal attacks ... or it will unfortunately become necessary to block your account.--Aschlafly 09:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)". Hats off to DinsdaleP for helping Andy with the letter to the PNAS. ;^)--Neon 08:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Quick self-pimping

Just a quick note that I developed a Javascript to replace the "(x bytes)" in History pages with a diff size counter (the way it is on the Recent Changes). It can be used with Greasemonkey or as a User Script and works both on CP and RW (as well as WP, I guess).

Check it out here.

Bug reports and suggestions can be posted here, on that talk page or on my User Talk page. Do note that this is just a quick and dirty script. It's most likely not optimal, and there might be messed-up cases that break it. But it works for me (without breaking anything) and worked on all test cases I tossed at it, so it should be safe enough. Still, use at your own risk. ;) --Sid 21:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Your use of XPath both confuses and infuriates us! Have a cookie :D --JeevesMkII 07:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Yay, cookie! But is there something wrong with XPath or my use of it, or was that just some sort of "Ohh shiny" comment? I found it to be more elegant than simply grabbing all span elements and checking for the proper class (especially since I'm not aware of something like GetElementsByClass)... --Sid 15:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I see you

PJR only bans AlexM for a week? He's going soft. Wonder if he did that in spite of his... respectful peers, so the wandal can return. I dunno, I kept checking CP all day and haven't seen a recent change without a load of vandal infiltration. It's become a skate park for graffiti. Norseman^Wassail! 23:11, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

It wasn't really wandalism (why do we use a "w" here instead of a "v"). It was merely an insightful comment on the dishonest way that Andy has been deleting posts from the Talk:PNAS Response to Letter‎‎ page. I would say it was more art than vandalism. --Horace 00:21, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

We use wandalism, it is a short hand of wikivandalsim, a form of vandalism which comes at almost no cost to anyone as clicking revert removes it (the only loss is the amount of time this take and time=money); no data is lost or anything. This PNAS letter talkpage has descended into a farce. Andy has invented a new rule to ignore comments better than 90/10 where he had to wait for the person to say too much and then he could block and remove only their last comment. This new rule allows him to remove every comment he can't rebuttal simply with one of his stock responses and then 90/10 block them for trying to get their opinion heard. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 00:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What fun this is all proving to be. Ace McWicked^{This Talk Page is growing rapidly} 00:57, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

[1] wherein Andy simply threatens someone who disagrees with him for blocking due to 90/10. Thank the goat my irony meter has the latest upgrades, it only blew two fuses and Jinx _{hi Jinx!}. ħuman 02:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, my initial post on this section haz sekret _{can u findz it?}. Seems Kettle saw and slammed the door on dear AlexM anyway, but what I'm really seeing is LT is trying to mini-Ken McCain article and others; even sugar-coating horse shit when users are reporting Andy's censorship and abuse. A quick glance and he does very well at concealing with words, but in the end he's simply confessing that its all BS. Norseman^Wassail! 08:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, sekrits. Anyway, how come all the wandals misspell it "substansive"? ħuman 14:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What happened?

Am I going mad or was there the start of an interesting discussion on the CP Main Page talk about just how "Socialist" the UK is? Where did it go and why? I think we should be told. PS I'm waiting with interest to see just how CP handles the nationalisation of AIG! Has Bush turned into a commie? Mick McT 03:50, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Please ignore most of the above....I've found it and I am going mad. It's obviously too early in the morning to be doing this; my coffee hasn't kicked in and I haven't yet tortured my daily goat. Feel free to comment on Bush's lurch into communism though. Mick McT 04:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy's deletions

So cp:Hemorrhoids (10,655 views as of 16 Sep) got the phoenix treatment as well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"Hemorrhoids in the Bible"... one track mind or what... If Conservapedia can't inject dogma into something, it just can't be done. Armondikov 06:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

OK I'm Convinced

About Bugler. Something always made me think it was Poe and not parody. But thisis priceless. --Toffeeman 06:53, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Still don't know if it's parody or not, but that page is awesome! Can't wait til other people start adding to it as well.--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 06:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"Big Science Values". Priceless, as will be the related spin-off article listing examples of it. --SpinyNorman 07:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Brilliant piece of work - extra bonus for mentioning liberals, atheists and abortion (-2 for no gun control or classroom prayer), marks for batshit ideas and not a single citation in sight, extra bonus for 'big science values' and a home run for mentioning Brother Leader. A work of art... now let's see if Poe's Law kicks in. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I have said it before that I hate him, even if just a parodist. Still, I must aknowledge he is brilliant at times. He references RW, WIGO, WIGO Talk so often and cleverly, and his best are his real parodies: putting together the best of Aschlafly et al. in new, mocking articles. If he were less bullying and let other socks live more at CP, I'd like him. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree, I wouldn't piss on Bugler if he were on fire, but then again - he is an obnoxious bully - perfect creds to get ahead at CP. But it is annoying that he cuts down so many socks... it's the only thing that keeps me hovering between Poe and parodist. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Emperor has no what?? New Crusader's edit comments speak volumes. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

How has New Crusader not been banned yet?!?!? He's called out Buglar for being a parodist so many times. Someone send him a message and get him over here! Armondikov 09:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Done. (The message, not the ban). --Toffeeman 09:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I love how the (possibly) legitimate Fox was banned for writing all those "liberal" articles (which all had a basis in truth) and this obvious parodist has EDIT RIGHTS and nobody is stopping him from writing all this drivel. JazzMan 13:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, stopping Bungler would involve Andy admitting he made a mistake, and we know that's never going to happen. Personally I'm in favour of putting up with him and waiting until he goes Mexmax over there. He does seem to be getting more bold though. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)