Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive76

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 September 2008. 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>, <74>, <75>, <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>, (new)(back)

Historical Quote[edit]

Doesn't this quote off the front page "Look at nature, work independently, and solve your own problems." sort of fly in the face of fundie belief? --PsyGremlinWhut? 01:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not at all. "Look at nature (i.e. the Bible, the natural word of God), work independently (study your Bible in an independent manner) and solve your own problems (through the study of Bible and prayer)" Where's the issue with that? DickTurpis 01:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Fundamentalism grew out of the Protestant idea of personal interpretation of the Bible, so it's reasonable to see it there. Totnesmartin 05:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
(Look at nature)+(work independently)+(solve your own problems)=genius!--Antifly 13:08, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
It's probably their way of going, "Ha ha, poor people suck!" -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 06:51, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Lenski statistics[edit]

Andy keeps complaining about combining different samples: "The studies were not combined in a logical manner". I'm blocked, but has anyone asked over there if he's read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used (pdf here)? And if he has had read it, which bit exactly does he think is wrong? alt 06:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It probably was asked. It goes in the big pile of statistical questions Andy has ignored. It's pretty obvious that he just doesn't really understand the statistics involved; he was fed his "objections" by another CP user, he didn't think of them himself.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 06:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
It is blatantly obvious to everyone, including the sysops and other sympathetic editors. And they all read here, so it's not like they don't know about it. And not one of them has the balls to say anything. HELLO CHAPS! THE EMPEROR IS PARADING UP AND DOWN THE INTERNET WITH NO CLOTHES ON!!! 121.44.9.208 08:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly is a tit. Blount et al. did run the numbers with and without weighting for total number of Cit+ mutants recovered in each experiment. Maybe Schlafly is complaining about not applying weighting for the number of replicates run. But had Andy run the numbers and used weighting for the number of replicates, he would have found that p < 0.05, meaning that the results remain statistically significant. That is the worst case calculation and isn't necessarily the correct one because the first experiment involved multiple generations and more cells overall. The reference Blount et al. used for the calculation is MC Whitlock's paper (J. Evol. Biol. 18(2005) pp1368-1373). The weighted Z-method calculation is described on p1369 of that reference. Here's the formula: weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))

Expt# p-value z-score #Cit+ muts #replicates
1 0.0085 2.387 4 72
2 0.0007 3.195 5 340
3 0.0823 1.390 8 2800

Applying the formula described above..

Weighting Z transformed p
Equal 4.025 <0.001
By total Cit+ 3.576 <0.001
By total replicates 1.825 0.034

Someone please check my calculations (peer review!) -- I used the single-ended, z-score/p-value conversion applet found here to change p-values to z-scores (my stats books are at work). Otherwise, feel free to disseminate this data without attribution.--Neon 11:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

User:Neon, it should be clear to anyone who knows how to read that many lies can be told with "statistics", and that is is one of the favorite tactics of liberals, especially professors. The numbers clearly do not support Lenski's conclusions, and to say otherwise is to engage in deceit. Godspeed.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Do not read my blog 12:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. That must be why Andy is so proud of having taken 'advanced statistical courses' in school.--Neon 12:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I think you mean having 'excelled in advanced statistics courses' in school.--Antifly 13:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Course programs:
  • Basic statistical course: statistics theory, statistical methods
  • Advanced statistical course: how Liberals tell lies with "statistics" ( Editor at CPLiar at RP! 13:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT) )


Neon! That maths has been stolen by me. Thank you very, very, much.--Toffeeman 15:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't matter if you did, Andy doesn't understand stats anyway. --Kels 17:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Ooh, rearguarded! --Kels 17:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
And a nice little "go away" from Andy, late as normal --BoredCPer 17:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Rearguarded, and then non-sensical reply that I can't repsond to posted! Bastards. What a pathetic little shit Andy is that he has to move someone out of the way as just as soon as they utilise someone elses (Neon's) expertise to show that he is wrong!--Toffeeman 17:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

[unindent]Actually, it's Andy's unsupported assertion that the number of replicates are the 'proper' means of applying weights. In reality, that's incorrect. The p-values for each experiment were calculated using the Monte-Carlo resampling tests based on the number and distribution of of Cit+ mutants, not the number of replicates. Thus if one if going to weight results in a Z-transform, the number of Cit+ mutants collected per experiment is the better 'weight'. The results are indeed significant, no matter how one slices it.--Neon 20:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The reality of the situation is that we need not spend a lot time debating and proving Andy is wrong because, well, HE IS SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG! Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 20:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd really like to a slickly-formatted presentation of that crazy talk page's "evolution". Andy has deleted so much of it, so often... Perhaps a side-by-side, with all deleted stuff on the right, with difflinks, timing, edit comment by teh assfly, etc.? With what "survived" on the left? In essence, an easier way for someone to see Andy's arrogant stupidity without clicking through the diffs on their own? Ideas for presentation? Hmmm. How about making all deleted sections in white text (or black background)? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Human, do you mean like [I did] for the original Lenski letter? I was thinking about doing it for this as well but am far too busy at the moment. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 02:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Do you have a script to create this from the history - or was it made by hand? --LArron 10:37, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm afraid my script skills are not up to that, I did it by hand. I'm sure you could do it though. :) Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:44, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your vote of confidence - or your irony :-) I tried to stitch up something, but it's far from satisfactory, have a first look at my playground --LArron 12:20, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh no, not sarcasm. You did a great job with the user stats. I don't know how long you plan on sticking around but before you go I'd appreciate a copy of your script for that. I looked at your first attempt to grab the PNAS talk page. The colors are a bit intense but at least you've got the body of what was posted/deleted. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:22, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, I tried asking hima few questions, and was removed from the website. I am honestly stunned that this objection is even still on the site... Alexa

This whole thing has me so pissed off that I contacted two published authors - let's call them Iksnel and Lockwhit - to discuss the paper's statistics. Iksnel provided me with a program that can be used with Stats101 to obtain the p-values, and provided an excellent defense of the use of the number of Cit+ replicates as the weighting factor in the Z-transformation. Lockwhit then independently confirmed that the proper weighting factor is the number of Cit+ replicates - as opposed to what I proposed, which was that the Monte Carlo tests could be treated as a t-test with a degree of freedom of 2x(#of Cit+ replicates -1). The latter would weight the second and third replay experiments slightly more than just using the # of replicates (not that it would have mattered in this study). Now I find myself on the horns of a dilemma - Iksnel and Lockwhit were very kind to respond to my emails, and I don't want to repay that kindness by getting them harassed. What to do? --Martin Arrowsmith 15:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Send them links about CP and the Lenski affair, and ask permission to cite them in discussion, or ask if they might have interest in saying something on their own behalf. tmtoulouse 15:23, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

RJJensen[edit]

RJJensen - not to be confused with AKjeldsen - is becoming too good a contributor. In the very remote case of other as good contributors coming on board, Conservapedia could regain some credibility, and we don't want it, do we? So should we convince RJJensen to abandon the sinking ship? Other suggestions? Editor at CPLiar at RP! 06:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wasnt RJensen roughed up at citizendom and found his way to CP? Ace McWicked55.3 million page views!
Something along those lines - we received a request not to harass him a while back. I haven't checked his work (it falls out of my area of expertise) but he seems to be concentrating mostly on history - not sure with how much bias though. I'm sure Bugler will latch on to him soon enough. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Even if he is is the last man standing, still seriously trying to build an encyclopedia, it's just a matter of time before he steps on one of Andy's crazy-toes. Etc 10:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Like AKjeldsen and PalMD, this genuine expert will give up in disgust after arguing with a sysop who knows nothing of the subject but will block him anyway. He may then come here, he may not. I give it 'til Christmas. Totnesmartin 15:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Pretty much what I was going to say. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
It's already started. Though, calling Pinyin the communist version, and Bugler objecting, is almost interesting in and of itself. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 23:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Bugler removes a crazy baseless communist accusation, that was truly unexpected. Although I agree with RJJensen that Pinyin shouldn't be used for historical names. Etc 08:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, for second there I thought Bugler might be letting the mask slip. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 09:22, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Melisande[edit]

WIGOs like that make me wish I could vote more than once... Nice job, PJR! ħumanUser talk:Human 17:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I wish I could vote twice as well, though I wish even more I knew what the WIGO is talking about. Could someone give me a clue (in short, simple words - clearly I am not that bright).--DamoHi 18:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Open the two images, and read the first letter of each article that is edited, in a vertical row. Someone pulled a similar exploit a week or so ago. What PJR did is delete and recreate certain of the articles (or deleted the revision?), which makes those "contributions" go away. So he "edited" the "message" to have a new, pro-CP meaning. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, smart work PJR. You're involved with the wrong site though - your playful sense of humour would work much better over here. DogP 18:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Those exploits are like writing your name in the dust on the top of a cupboard. Only someone who knows it's there is going to have a look. So what tipped PJR off to this? Did someone fess up over here that I missed? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
P.S. Did any one see that item on the BBC site about testing near-death out-of-body experiences by putting pictures on high shelves in hospital operating theatres?
But Genghis, think of the time people do spend hunting for things that may or may not be there ("easter eggs" for example). Also, since it was done once, people know they "might" be there - and checking a user's contribution list is a common sysop defensive tactic on a wiki under siege, as CP is. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
They spend so much time on this BS, it's a miracle they have any time to write more articles on Liberals and Psoriasis, or how Atheism is ruining the cotton crop. --Gulik 23:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Nice work PJR. You really should stop hanging around with those bums over there.DamoHi 19:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Witty yes but he is still a deluded god botherer. Let us not forget he can still be a goon. Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 19:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ken (again)[edit]

I had always wondered how he was going to cope with his article of the year once we hit 01/01/2009. Now we know that he's just going to ignore it. What a self-important little prick he is. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll lay 20 that says nobody but Ken knew that was going up before he did it. --Kels 19:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Plus, the "A.D." goes before the year, not after. So there!--WJThomas 19:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
It really shows Andys level of oversight and control over his own blog. Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 20:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
That's one thing that stuff like this really highlights. The crazier sysops over there (Conservative, Koward, Croc o' Shite, JM, etc.) are a bunch of spoiled little divas who threaten to leave at the least sign that anyone might disagree with them and get away with it. It only takes a suggestion of a threat to have them on the fainting couch with an attack of the vapours, and Andy's stuck constantly catering to their wishes (or more usual, turning a blind eye to their abuses) lest he lose them. But which of them is actually likely to leave a forum that actually gives them that much voice? And how much is he likely to lose if they do go? Not much, I'll bet. --Kels 21:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
The man (if indeed Andy is a "man") is completely useless. Ace McWicked55.3 million page views! 21:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
The word you're searching for is "impotent". --Kels 21:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
No no, I think you mean "ignorant". "Stupid" would also work. DogP 21:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
He is unfortunately not impotent, given that he has tragically produced offspring. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:47, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
That was many years ago. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 04:47, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It's possible you were thinking of "craptacular". seventhrib 12:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Demarcation redux[edit]

Since the demarcation discussion seems to have been archived I will start a new section. There was a lot of feedback about how to handle the "Best of" demarcation point. I think we might be going about this completely the wrong way. Rather than pasting in entries on a page that based on an arbitrary cut off I think we should have a tool that displays WIGO entries based on what ever criteria a user wants. I have mocked up a prototype here. It displays all WIGO items sorted by vote totals, and gives the option of defining a "cutoff" value for total votes to display. I think something like this combined with "date" options and other sorting options could complete replace the current "best of" system. It would also be much more compatible with the other WIGOs, and better connect all the infrastructure together and offer a clearer consequence for voting up or down. tmtoulouse harass 19:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

"What", I frequently ask myself, "would we EVER do without you?" Awesome Trent, that seems like a really smart solution. Can the design be improved a little? It's a bit, er. boxy. DogP 21:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm totally non-technical, which probably puts me in with a lot of people likely to use the thing, and I can't figure out what's what at all. I just see a random bunch of boxes at the top that I don't know what they do, and a bunch of old WIGO entries with no sliders, vote bars, or anything at all, really. Maybe I'm not the target audience. --Kels 12:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Kels, this is not a voting thing. Its a prototype for deciding which WIGO entries make it into a BestOfCP based on user choice as recently there have been many more entries that beat the 10 threshold. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 12:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Very nice, but maybe worth having a more precise date on each item? Sometimes WIGO items are interrelated and it might be good to know what came in which order within each month. seventhrib 12:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree, but here is the problem. I didn't really think about trying something like this until like a week ago, and I didn't actually sit down to start working on it till yesterday. So I had to go back and add database fields that are needed to pull it off. One such field was "date" which I never bothered to keep track of. So everything before September 20th is divided up either as September 1st or August 1st depending on if it was August or September voting (that much information I could reconstruct). So at the moment date sorting would be pointless. In a month or so when there is actually data worth sorting by I will come back and implement it. tmtoulouse harass 13:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Rant from a jerk[edit]

I know this is just going to be another rant from an impotent jerk which will also be followed by this community replying with terms such as "What else is new?" etc etc. But I rant nonetheless. This piece of ground breaking journalism, posted on CP's main page, just goes to show the sheer hipocracy of the Christian Right. Call Obama a muslim, say he is not a real christian and accuse liberals of being godless BUT DONT YOU FUCKING DARE COMMENT ON PALIN YOU GODLESS SCUM!!! Fucking assholes. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 23:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll never understand why these twits like Palin so much. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I must feel good going in the election with someone who has seen Russia from her home state. She'll keep an eye on them. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 00:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It's very easy to see why they like her. She's Republican, and she's a candidate. That's pretty much it. If she wasn't either, they wouldn't give a rat's behind about her. But since she is, she must be praised as the Second Coming and then some. Seriously, remember Andy's original article CP had for Grampy McSame, before he got nominated? Not so nice to the old fellah. Contrast it to the current version, where he's practically on the waiting list to be Sainted. --Kels 00:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Also, "the base" (that's English for "al Queda", by the way) love her because she is "one of us" - Andy in lipstick. The Second Coming of, if not the jebus baby, at least Phyllis Schlafly, grand mere. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Reading Kels post made me think of this. What happened Andy? Did you suddenly realize how small and trivial your achievements are in comparison to Obama? Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 01:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I'm sorry. I saw "rant from a jerk" and came here expecting to find something by Jeeves. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was from some heavy metal cracker. Lighten up on the personal attacks? (or was that funny?) ħumanUser talk:Human 02:46, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Nay. If Jeeves can dish it out but can't take it, that's his problem. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
You aren't supporting your defamation with any difflinks. So until you do, decay off. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Look fellas, I started this fucking rant so both of ya can decay off. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 03:12, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
WIKIWAR!!!!!!!! It's on!!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I suggest to keep and showcase copies of CP's articles on McCain and Palin on Nov. 4th - and compare them to their future versions. I'm sure that as soon as they lose they'll be liberals in disguise who don't homeschool and don't teach abstinence and other Christian values. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 04:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I was going to post something about this earlier, but I had a sports bar calling out to me.... I did a quick search and found this site. Be sure to read the second the cartoon posted. Guess that takes care of the whole "he wouldn't dare mock Muslims" comment. I actually read Pat quite often, and he's not afraid to mock anybody that deserves mocking. He's kinda like the Daily Show in print form. SirChuckBCall the FBI 05:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
By the way, don't "non-u-all" think Andy likes her "a bit too much" cause she remindes him so much of dear ol' mom... well, cept for the moose killing. I mean a career woman who ignores her very young kids, saying "we should go back to traditional family values". gotta love that irony. "mom, you've come back for me. only really pretty!"--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life." 11:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

New Mainpage headline[edit]

Just seeing the most recent headline and I don't understand it. Who are the "honest democratic citizens" supposed to be, and what is supposed to happen when they "breakaway from the liberal party's influence." Are they saying that the Democratic party is forcing people to be racist, or that the "honest" members should admit their prejudices and become Republicans? And why waste the opportunity to bash Obama? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

They are saying that the non-racist "honest citizens" need to break away from the Democrats, since the party is liberal and liberalism causes racism.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, I just couldn't figure out which way they were trying to bash liberals. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Er, DeanS accidentally slipped into illiterate mode. Shit happens, eh? Oh, and gets posted to the main page. Smells bad anywhere it's dropped. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:33, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I suppose they see this as some sort of twisted confirmation of Bizarro World's "affirmative action president" trope. See, if Democrats are liberal, and liberalism = racism, affirmative action really is the only way Obama could become the nominee! It makes so much sense. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 02:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
My brain just set a world record for the pole vault trying to follow DeanS' "logic" ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It's really quite simple: liberals are evil and liberal and racist and liberal and socialist and liberal and liberal and liberal and don't forget liberal liberalliberalliberalliberalliberalliberal! (Wow, I literally just condensed everything Ann Coulter's ever written into one sentence.) How aren't you getting this? --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 04:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Dozens dead in an Islamabad bombing yesterday, including the Czech ambassador to Pakistan, in a huge international incident that might put the incredibly fragile situation in the area under even greater stress... and what are CP's major news headlines? A study about racism among Democrats, a report about secrecy at the U.N.'s food bank program, an opinion column about how WSJ should have identified an respected journalist who wrote an op-ed about gay-bashing as a "gay activist," and a story about Christian boycotts of two recent movies. How do they fucking sleep?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 05:52, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

They don't sleep very well, actually. Totnesmartin 06:36, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Sgt. Pepper took them by surprise, apparently. "You live with straights who tell you, you was king/Jump when your momma tell you anything..." I think I just found Andy's theme song. Sings: So Dr. Lenski took you by surprise/You better see right through that liberal's eyes... --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 06:57, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Two new "news" headlines, about a new movie and another opinion column. Still nothing about the multiple deaths or incredibly important political event in Islamabad. Good to know what the priorities are over there.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 10:56, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
If you can't spin it to show liberals in a bad light, it doesn't belong on the main page.
And while we're talking about things we didn't see on the main page: Did the entire collapse of the banking system ever make it to the front page? I haven't been around much these days, but I don't remember seeing anything whenever I did check... --Sid 11:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, there has been a huge series of financial stories, with the imminent collapse of some banking giants, the biggest one-day drop in the DOW since 2001, and sudden recovery on promise of a government bailout. But they vaguely reference the entire mess by linking to an op-ed about how it's Democrats' fault.
Still nothing on the Islamabad incident, incidentally.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy sleeping in?[edit]

Still locked. Obviously Andy's at the church shindig kettle was setting up yesterday (ooh, can't wait for this week's "essay"!) and doesn't trust the others to defend his blog from the rampaging hordes while he's not around. Too bad Ken has edit rights tho, means the rampaging hordes are running the asylum. I wonder how Reasonable Phil feels about having Hitler's fizzog splashed on the front page? Makes it look more like Metapedia than Conservapedia. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

The church thing happened on Saturday. A laser performance was part of the show. Yea, we're a church trying to rock out and be "normal". I went to Andy's church on Sunday because my church didn't have a service--Andy was missing though and people at the church thought I was Andrew "Jr". I look like him, except I'm about 8 inches shorter. Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Ye gads! That must be the single most horrific case of mistaken identity I can think of. It also means that either Andy doesn't go to church that often, or you're his spitting image... which means little Phy... no, I can't continue that train of thought... --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
READ THIS and you might understand. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
If, by Reasonable Phil, you mean Philip J Raymond, he already defended at length the use of Hitler's picture - see the top two sections of main page talk. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 10:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd forgotten that conversation. Either that or I hadn't read all of it. PJR standing there and flat-out saying that Hitler was using evolution Exactly As Directed and reading straight out of OotS, what a knob. --Kels 10:51, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Must've missed that bit. Why is it everytime I try an see PJR as the one semi-decent person over there he shoots himself so spectacularly in the foot. How long I wonder before they use a pic of Josef Mengele in one of their attacks on medicine and vaccines? --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:22, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Sure, give them ideas. --Kels 11:29, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I just now realized that both PJR and Bugler waited more than half a week (until yesterday morning) before slipping in their replies to the "Back on track" section. Sneaky, especially since PJR has been active every single day during that time of silence. And I lost a lot of faith in Philip when I saw him defending Ken's idiotic main page stunt. --Sid 11:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Me too. He's so bloody reasonable other times, then he just tunnel visions when it comes to the evolution "debate". I suspect that, had he not been brought up in (I'd be surprised if he weren't) that particularly poisonous form of fundamentalist Christianity, he would be right here with us mocking Dear Leader and his goon squad. It's almost tragic when he goes to the level of Kenservative, 'cause you know a guy like PJR would otherwise find him vulgar. If circumstances were different, I imagine he'd be this fellow. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 12:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems PJR has been looking at WIGO:CP & adjusted the "outing" entry accordingly. Hello, Philip, if you're reading this. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 10:57, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually that was already WIGOed. I didn't notice that. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 10:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I wrote the seaside version over the redirect he left behind. I think it is so good it should be featured on the main page, it is concise, family-friendly and has no liberal bias. A perfect CP article! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Back from church[edit]

So we now have Andy's NEXT BIG IDEA a "Proposed Homeschool Constitution" and the first line sounds like it was written by Ken:

Here is a proposed Homeschool Constitution to be circulated to homeschool groups around the country to join a union of homeschool groups, which can then assist each other in enriching and expanding the experience of homeschooling

Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 12:55, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Full of the same old drivel though. Couple of points come to mind:
AI 1: So even if you aren't Xian, we're going to rub Xianity in your face.
AI 4: sexist too - boys will play football, girls will bake cookies
AII 2: no maths, no accounting? no geography? Just what exactly are these kids being educated to become?

Update does Andy read TWIGO?--PsyGremlinWhut? 13:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I loved that "to form a union of homeschool" bit. Shame someone fixed it. DogP 13:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Article I Section One: ...a voluntary Christian prayer ...
Article I Section Three: God-honoring behavior shall be required at all activities.
Which means anyone who doesn't volunteer to comply with section one will be out on their arses.
If only parody could be so easy ... I'm off... Auld Nick 14:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
So it's true- the term Judeo/Christian does not apply to liberals. CorryThose are balls. 14:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Free Trade Depends on Morality[edit]

[1] is also a new Andy joynt. Can we figure out what the sermon was on based on these two droppings he has left behind? PS, he now prefers British spelling! ħumanUser talk:Human 17:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

This one doesn't look sermon-inspired. Most likely Andy bought some cheap shoddy product from Walmart, & when it broke he saw "made in China" written on it, & Andy let out the rage & disappointment the only way he knows how. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 07:40, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Andres Schlafly is so full of shit he should be used to fertilize crops. I especially loved the little gem about how non Christian nations produce dangerous products because they don't have good Jesus morals... yeah, cause nobody in America ever produced an unsafe product.... My god, did the man ditch history classes covering abotu 1895 - 1980. Hey Andy, the reason American products are safe is because those GODDAMN LIBERALS PUSHED THROUGH REGULATION... YOU ARE A FUCKTARD. SirChuckBCall the FBI 17:57, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
He really is a fuckknuckle isnt he. Someone should inform him that America does a lot of busniess/trade with NZ and, guess what, our country is run by an agnostic liberal that didnt go to Iraq nor has allowed American Vessels in our port. Hope dont mind missing out on that famous NZ Lamb Andy because it has been tainted by liberal values. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 18:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It's beyond stupid. Andy, the whole idea of free trade is that it's free trade: it's unregulated & so the opportunities for competition & exploitation are there, & it's survival of the fittest (ooh, Darwinism!). Andy's idea that free trade should be tempered - not by legal & financial regulations - but by Christian morality & a sense of fair play is at least two or three hundred years out of date. Also his criticism of the Chinese (not the Chinese government or Chinese industry but "the Chinese"), for not having Judeo-Christian morals, stinks of racism. What's the plan, Andy? Should the good old US of A just cease all international trade links with non-"Judeo-Christian" nations? Wouldn't that be dandy. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 07:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Jessica Alba is totally hot....[edit]

...and Conservapedia has the proof. How exactly does this fit into the mission of building a conservative, family-friendly, Christian encyclopedia? PFoster 10:36, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I dunno, but I'm going to be spending a lot of time at Joaquin's Latino page :) Along with Smeg Ed no doubt. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
This could explain why Ed's been away. His keyboard has gotten too sticky. DickTurpis 12:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Sir, I demand my mind back, unsullied by that horrible, horrible image. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 15:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I like the example picture they have at cp:Latino, it seems the average Mexican is very very angry. - Icewedge (*bleet*) 13:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
So just because she has a Mexican-American dad, that makes her Latino (shouldn't that be Latina?) Isn't she really Danish on her mother's side? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Please don't call Bohdan! Editor at CPLiar at RP! 14:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
So that would make her a... "Latidana"? Perhaps "Lada" for short? (Uh-oh). --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm surprised that my quick schlafly-skim of the article didn't turn up the term Latina, too. Oh, and from JM's fractured spanglish caption: "Jessica Alba born in Pomona, California to Danish and French Canadian descent mother and Mexican American descent father.". All it needs is a link to have DWG cred. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
What is this "DWG" cred you speak of? Is it like normal credit? Can I buy a house with it? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:07, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

WIGO voting[edit]

Should WIGO voting be closed when an item is archived or allowed to stay open for the indefinite future. tmtoulouse harass 13:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

One month from the item's inclusion. That way anybody can delist things knowing that we haz a standard. You could even throw it in as a comment somewheres. CЯacke® 13:08, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd say close it; the items normally stay on the page for a while before being archived and by the time they are, they're probably old enough that one or two more votes won't really matter. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:13, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
One month of voting sounds good... and that ought to automaticifiable now that you're adding the post date to the database, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:58, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Heh[edit]

Obviously, BertSchlossberg knows the score. --Kels 14:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Ring, Ring[edit]

The red telephone rings again. After reading this it still makes me wonder who Jinx thought conservative was sending these messages to before he found "where we hang out". Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 18:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Man, Ken lives in his own little world of lies, doesn't he? Let's see, his "amicable discussion and cooperation" so far includes a group of editors fatalistically admitting that no amount of input from them will change a thing, Andy's impotent silence which highlights his ineffectiveness as a leader, and at least one block for simply telling the truth. Good job, Ken! You've tried to mark your territory, but ended up just looking incontinent instead! --Kels 18:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
All these alpha-male jokes has only stroked his already over inflated ego. Aren't we suppose to be ignoring these they only get him excited? As excited as he get when one of his blog pieces appear on the first page of a Google search in some language he doesn't understand (that includes English). No one at Conservapedia has small dick issues like Conservative. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 18:28, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I dont see any reason to ignore him. If he wants to sit in front of PC and stroke his horn everytime we mention him then stroke away good sir. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 18:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Hell, I'm happy to encourage him. The more he tries to "improve" CP, the less credibility it has. No need to go over there and vandalize when Ken can do it for us. --Kels 18:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
(2ec)I haven't seen anything that would indicate compensation issues yet... But I certainly notice some power and control issues... Tell me Ken, do you feel you have reasonable control over your life? Is these some figure that holds the keys? Mother/Girlfriend/Wife? Ok, scratch Girlfriend or Wife. EDIT: I agree completely. His Hitler picture on the front page has done more damage to CP than all the vandalsim and parody of the past six months combined. Parody can always be written off, it's a decent sized site and they only have so many people that can fix it. Hell, Wikipedia has parody issues, but the front page is locked down to all but the most senior officials. On top of that, Andy has to see it, he comments on the front page all the time. SirChuckBCall the FBI


I wish he would do one of his "jokes" for red-telephone pages. All he has to do is find some random copyrighted picture upload it with "fair-use" (do any at CP know what that means?) and put some unwitty caption under it. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 18:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
What do you mean no compensation. He rule his pages and then post on the news section (which is suppose to be about actual news) when he find his article on a web search. All this compensation for the fact he is an intellectual midget who would lose an actual debate if he can't lock the other person out. How many times has he been schooled and then invoked Danth's Law crowing about how he won? \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 18:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh no, I simply meant no compensation about the size of his penis. Specifically referring to this comment: "No one at Conservapedia has small dick issues like Conservative." Trust me, he has all kinds of intellectual compensation issues, just no penile issues. SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Maybe this is a cultural difference. He has small dick issues in the same way someone buys a Lancer and puts big rims and body kits on it trying to make it look like a sports car. He is trying to prove he is something he is not. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 19:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Ha! Conservative: I want a random dot here, no I don't I want it a line higher scratch that; now I'll fix up glaring mistake. All that over one period. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 18:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Preserved for posterity. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Just looked at the stupid thing again, and it struck me just how bad the writing is. Seriously, it's about the most stilted, awkward, clumsily formal stuff I've ever read, and I've read stuff like this! --Kels 19:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Some people just can't get enough Hitler pictures. CorryThose are balls. 21:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Ring, ring, ring[edit]

look, he's at it again. Quite a pathetic person is old Ken. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 21:59, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Ace ignore the sad pathetic creature, it only wants attention. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 22:07, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I am going to make a Ken template -  K e n  D o l l . Thoughts anyone? \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 22:09, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I object to the lack of the word "doll" in it. I shall repair hence to repair and improve it! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:12, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
More with the fucking magic dots! S - (what's two dots? A?) - E.... is he now using morose code to send special messages to someone? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
You are right 3.14, he should just be ignored but its fascinating behaviour. Its so odd and meaningless yet seems to be of the upmost importance to Kenny-babe. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 22:21, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I love how he thinks a private, unverifiable discussion between only the sysops somehow counts as Conservapedians discussing his latest random crap. There is no transparency or inclusion of the other Conservapedian who are not sysops, nice way to run a collaborative project based around a meritocracy. Also are they agreeing with him or just not objecting to his face? As I was saying before Ace his article and little mined quotes are an extension of his (rather small) manhood. He should talk to who ever is signing as Freud at the moment. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 22:24, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I suspect that whatever hideous mate he has in his life (be it boyfriend/girlfriend/mother) has got his balls in mason jar on the bedside table and this is the only way Ken gets his rocks off. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 22:28, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I hope when you say mother you mean more like Seymour Skinner rather than Oedipus Rex otherwise he is going to need more help than Radioactive afikomen can give him. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 22:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, he is well beyond help. I think he should just be put down at local vet. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 22:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll just come out and say it. I think Ken is outright lying. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. His trick, or at least it's a trick, is to try to cleverly dance around any definite statements one way or another, like with his identity, and he believes that means nobody actually knows the truth. What he doesn't get is it's flamingly obvious what the truth is, who he is, and all the rest. He's really bad at the subtlety he pretends to. So as with the pics at the bottom, as with the "Article of the Year" (soon to be Article of the Decade), as with utterly ignoring the so-called CP Panel on the evolution article, as with all of it, he just sprung this on everyone on his own whim. Five words: Ken is full of shit. --Kels 23:01, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


I'm taking the phone of the hook in a minute[edit]

 K e n  D o l l  you really are stupid aren't you (see here)? I described your work as random not because it was randomly generated, if it was randomly generated it would read like Finnegan's Wake, but as you clearly lack Joyce's wit and grasp of the English language this could not be further from the truth. It is random because you have stuck pictures on the main page which have nothing to do with the project at large only your small slice, so it is somewhat lacking in context. Second of all what is with the picture captions. Do you understand the purpose of a picture caption? It is suppose to give a picture some context. If you have a picture of Hitler it should say his name, when and where the picture was taken and some copyright (you know what that it is even if you ignore it, right?) information, it should not include "jokes" (you also seem to have as much grasp of parody as you do international law) or a little diatribe. A picture can illustrate a diatribe, with an appropriate caption, but should not form part of it. Your failure to grasp even the most basic levels of article construction is why CP is a joke because you dominate its flagship articles. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 23:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Q: Why can't a liberal be more like a conservative?
A: Insurance doesn't cover lobotomies.
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal. --Kels 23:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Now he's going on about his "factual" articles causing liberals to "yelp" all over the internet. Ken, since you obviously read this, care to point to an example of any one of your unreadable puerile ramblings creating any response other than mockery? DickTurpis 23:31, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
(EC) Yes  K e n  D o l l  I mean the Homosexuality, Atheism and Theory of Evolution you keep locked and try to get people to link too. Show me one page outside of RationalWiki that care about your articles. Seriously no one gives a shit about your incoherent dribble, and quotes. You do understand that does not make an article don't you? It should not be a series of quotes. Seriously open up Britannica and find an article that looks like that. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 23:32, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Hey Ken, since you're now speaking to us... What the fuck is this:
Well given the factual nature of these "flagship articles" it is not suprising that these "flagship articles" have caused a lot liberal cats to yelp on the internet. As you are well aware, it is often the cats hit by shoes that yelp the loudest.
Allow me to do you a quick favor and copy edit that for you. It should read: Well, given the factual nature of these "flagship articles," it is not suprising that they have caused a lot of liberal cats to yelp on the internet (That last phrase is completely unfixable. Just take it out and shoot it). As you are well aware, it is often the cats hit by the shoes that yelps the loudest. Ok now onto the important stuff. That is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. For starters, it repeats the same noun twice. We have these things called pronouns, watch some schoolhouse rock. (The short you're looking for is Rufus Xavier Sasperella) Also, What the hell kind of phrase is "it is often the cats hit by shoes that yelp the loudest" Of course the cat that actually gets hit by shoe will yelp the loudest, THEY GOT HIT BY A FUCKING SHOE. A more appropriate phrase would be something along the lines of "the loudest protest comes from the man injured the worst." Just a little free advice from the gentleman at a liberal website. SirChuckBCall the FBI 23:41, 21 September 2008 (EDT) By the way bitch, we have women here too, would it be that hard to say gentlepeople? you prick

Ken, be a man and debate one of us over one of your stupid pet articles. Your understanding of science has been shown time after time to be limited. You understanding of religion is mediocre at best. For being so gay, I am amaze at your self hate, such a masochist. Godspeed Ken, Godspeed.--TimS 23:45, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't really mind the Hitler pictures on the main page and evolution article. Don't get me wrong- I don't like Hitler at all, but every Hitler picture on a webpage makes it look 50% crazier unless it's historian discussing Hitler, and even then... well, you get the drift. Go ahead, Conservapedia. Put fucking Hitler on every article you have. Let everybody know what's REALLY on your mind. CorryThose are balls. 00:06, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Excellent point. Moar Hitler please!! Etc 07:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Phone connection has been lost[edit]

The message has been deleted. Did anybody get a copy of the updated version? (cat getting hit by a shoe etc.) weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 07:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Genghis did. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 07:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
As did I. SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:22, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I rather liked that. It's like he's been frozen since the era when big band ruled the earth. Hey out there all you liberal cats in gay bowel syndrome land. Prepare to have atheism ended on the internet! --JeevesMkII 07:41, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the Big Red Telephone? It looks like some sort of in-joke. Insert Name Here 09:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Ken "Conservative" DeMeyer, AKA Kendoll, AKA Kenservative likes to send messages to the "gentlemen at another website" by which he means us though presumably not the ladies or hermaphrodites who hang out here. We refer these messages as the "red telephone" in reference to the direct hotline between the respective heads of state of the USSR and the USA during the cold war, presumably for purposes of phoning up and asking if those were really nukes or if the last radar operator had merely sneezed on the scanner screen again. --JeevesMkII 09:07, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Ken used to post here, under the nom de crétin "Newton", but he got tired of being repeatedly curbstomped in arguments and retreated to CP, where he can relax in the safety of his own delusions without us horrible evil unbelievers pointing out how WRONG he is about everything. --Gulik 00:25, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Probably not wigo worthy[edit]

But I like Andy's response when somebody brings up the fact that the CP main page punctuation and capitalization is all over the chart. CorryThose are balls. 21:37, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I actually considered Wigoing that myself before I came to the same conclusion (about not being worth it) It's great because Andy loves diversity, except for when it come to people. He just refuses to real in his batshit insane cronies. SirChuckBCall the FBI 21:40, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, and she jumped on my mention that AAR is still in business. Guess they just don't mind, um, lying. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

'Moslems'[edit]

Is this obstinately backwards (and phonetically incorrect) spelling something CP has always enforced as part of its language pogrom, or is it new? I've never noticed it before except in the last few days.WilhelmJunker 22:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

This is a reasonably old spelling. It was moved away from sometime in the 80's because it was very similar to an Arabic word for demon or something similar. They probably like it because it is marginally offensive. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 22:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Are they seriously saying "moslem?" CP tests my disbelief more than any sci-fi or Stephen King novel ever has. CorryThose are balls. 00:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It's a bit archaic, but other than that I wasn't aware of any issues with that spelling. I really don't think it's terribly significant. I think I recall Roger or someone using "Mohammadan", which is more out there. DickTurpis 00:22, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It is a little old. Strange though I have for some reason only ever seen Conservatives use it. I always thought of it as part of their natural resistance to change word usage due to "political correctness" (what ever that is). \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 00:32, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
My numerically-monickered friend is 100% correct - see the current pissing match between Buggler and what's-his-name on Pinyin v. Wade-Giles. There's a strong sense among some conservatives that language needs to remain stable--because changes in language open the doors to changes in power structures, something they most definitely don't want. PFoster 00:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
(ec) To us, and most normal people, Political Correctness is nothing more than altering your speech and behavior to avoid pointless offense. To Conservatives, however, Political Correctness is that nasty Liberal idea that prevents them from saying things like nigger, fag, wetback and any other racial, ethnic, and gender based slur you can think of. SirChuckBCall the FBI 00:40, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Be that as it may, I'm not convinced this is a matter of political correctness, or politics at all, any more than the change from "Czar" to "Tsar" is. And I, for one, still prefer "Czar". It may just be about being old fashioned. By no means the worst flaw of anyone at CP. DickTurpis 00:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Sir Chuck - I beg to differ. What you call "political correctness" involved way more than just avoiding pointless offense. The attention paid to language starting with the French deconstructionists and leading to the PC debates in the 1990s was about interrogating--and bringing down--the ways in which language is tied to power. it's not just that people like Jinx can't say "nigger" or "kike" in polite company anymore (thank Christ...): It's that language creates categories and subjectivities. Interrogating the ways it does that it the first step toward breaking out of those categories--or using them in new ways to generate resistance. PFoster 00:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Hey, jackass, if you can show where I ever used those racist terms, I'll pay you $500, tell Andy to fuck off and get banned from Conservapedia. If you can't, I don't expect you to promise to do anything because we both know you wouldn't do it anyway. 67.135.49.198 15:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
  • crickets chirp* Yeah, that's what I thought. Exit question: how many of your losers fired up Google in a frenzy in order to search for "jinxmchue" and "jinx mchue" along with those terms after I posted that? My guess: quite a few, and I'm sure you opened every one of those websites that came up, too, only to be disappointed to find nothing. 67.135.49.198 23:33, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Hey jackass yourself. I know you're not very bright, so I'll explain this using small words. Re-read what I wrote. I said that one of the effects of the so-called "politically correct" movement is that racists cannot-as in are not able to-use words like that and sign their name to them. Thus I would be surprised, nay shocked, to find you having done so. So fuck off, okay? PFoster 23:39, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
What, they found nothing? No porn either? Poor them! You were luckier. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 03:08, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
I didn't Google you. But that's largely because I don't read anything you say. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:59, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
(EC replying to Dick) It is not really a flaw just an observation that conservatives are resistant to changes in language (see cp:Liberal redefinition for Andy's rant on this). Probably part of being conservative I guess. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 00:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
(To SirChuck) My point with "political correctness" (what ever that is) is more to do with the fact that it is bandied around so much that most people using it don't understand the meaning of it an hence causing the expression to lose the meaning it had. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 00:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

On a side note, shouldn't an encyclopaedia particularly care of spelling and grammar? The WIGOed replies from Andy to Hsmum make me feel bad for homeschoolers (and yes, I see that it has been WIGO Talked too). Editor at CPLiar at RP! 03:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Now this is how you write parody[edit]

Make it completely indistinguishable from something that the fearless leader would write. I was positive it was an Andy creation until I looked at the history. I tried this approach with a few article matrix additions, but only one escaped deletion. This could well earn DRamon blocking rights. DickTurpis 00:57, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought much the same at first glance. I see HelpJazz has raised an eyebrow, but I wonder if he would have had it been one of Brother Leader's entries? I've got another Z$1 that says it makes makes it onto the Conservapedia terms list. --PsyGremlinWhut? 01:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Dont forget conservapedias insights page and a link to Liberals. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 03:04, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Bugler won't allow a fellow parodist. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 03:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I think he most certainly will, as long as that other parodist gets the Andy stamp of approval. Once Andy pats DRamon on the head, Bugler will be right behind to shake his hand --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 06:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Site Stats[edit]

Have you heard about the number of people that have read Ken's atheism article? It is nearly atomic sized compared to the number of people that visit Wikipedia every second.

On of my favourite things to do is regularly update Conservapedia's Site Statistics so  K e n  D o l l  doesn't come round crying that they are out of date like he did during the Lenski affair. I tend to like 3 month averages as they tell a more complete picture (I remember he was only interested in the day before as CP was up to nearly the 15,000th most popular website at the time), what I have found interesting lately is difference in the top website versus the lower ones.

Website Rank Traffic Pageviews
Wikipedia 8 8.5571% 4.7487
Conservapedia 50,865 0.00218% 3.78
Difference 50,857 3,913.07% 125.6%

Now compare use to Conservapedia

Website Rank Traffic Pageviews
Conservapedia 50,865 0.00218% 3.78
RationalWiki 140,128 0.00072% 3.9
Difference 89,263 3.03% 96.9%

So whilst the difference in rank between us and CP is greater than CP and WP, the number of actual visitors is not as great. They maybe getting three times the number of visitors we do, we would not even get 1% the press coverage they have had. Factor in that Andy is promoting CP as the conservative alternative to Wikipedia he is only getting 0.0255% of the traffic they get, so unless only one 40th of one percent of the world is conservative he is a real fringe element in the conservative movement and not the big players Ken and him pretend they are. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 04:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I would debate RW getting even 1% of the press coverage; one line in the wikipedia article on Conservapedia next to the countless blog-spots it gets is pretty damn lame (although as WP has a massive number of users and visitors it could just about make up for it, I certainly joined after reading through the WP article)! Of course, how many CP "visiotrs" are there for the amusement compared to (non-wandal) contributions and how many RW visitors actually contribute rather than just lurk? I'd bet there'd be a big difference there. Now, consider that RW is only marketed (if that's even the right term) to the "rational" community, people with an interest in Conservapedia and/or the other aims of the site such as pseudoscience and crank ideas, then it's probably doing quite well indeed compared to Schlafly's blog. Armondikov 16:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
OH come on. Most of CP's traffic is me, I think. DogP
There are many metrics for "success" as far as a site goes. Total incoming traffic is only one, and not that great a one either. It is popular because it is not really a subjective metric, it is raw data (now there are some subjective elements to it such as what is a "vist", are 1000 5 second visits better than 10 4 hour long visits?). Another quantitative metric that could be used is site activity. MediaWiki provides a good measure of that through edit count. There was a time when CP had 10 times are rate of edits. Last I checked we are now about equal, often times exceeding them. You could look at "user retention" or "number of active users" as well. I think we are about equal for number of active users, and have a higher user retention rate. The gist of it is that I am perfectly "happy" with where RW is at, and I think we are experiencing a more natural growth curve that allows us to assimilate better than what CP experienced with the sudden jump of interest. tmtoulouse 18:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
This is not really a comment on the traffic to this site but more a reaction to Ken's carry on about his little pet articles. What interested me the most was how relatively close we are to CP despite the the large gap in rank. I can see no reason that if we can start attracting non-Conservapedia related traffic we could not surpass them. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 18:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Milky, milky[edit]

News: Chinese babies drink formula milk, unlike Sarah's baby. Wonder who pushes powdered crap through the third world? Couldn't be Gerber & Nestlé, could it. - How profit motivated. SusanG  ContribsTalk 05:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

What brought this up? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
The addition of melamine to baby's milk in China. Unfortunately Suzy's snarkpoint is probably a bit wide of the mark. While Nestlé's marketing of baby milk formula to third world countries has long been a hobby-horse of the British left, it is likely that they have nothing to with the scandal in China. And of course Gerber is now owned by Nestlé so they could always blame it on the evil liberal Swiss. I never forgave them for taking over Rowntrees. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 06:25, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
My ex started a boycott campaign against Nestlé many years ago, for what they did in Africa (don't ask me what). Then she found Nestlé Cheerios in the supermarket and ended the boycott, as Cheerios tasted too good to be boycotted. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 06:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Never claimed that it was Gerber Nestlé involved, but they've been great proponents of powdered milk for the PROFIT - a good Right Wing motive which CP should be applauding. SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
What they did in Africa was promote their baby milk powder (formula) to moms who didn't have the money to buy enough of it, the clean water to mix with it, or the fuel to sterilize the bottles. Part of the scheme actually involved dressing their employees as nurses, who would then advise the moms on formula feeding. Result = dead babies. [1] The World Health Organization developed a code of marketing for artificial baby milk (formula), but even now many companies don't abide by it, though the situation is much better. [2]--Too tired to log in 09:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh - and artificial baby milk (formula) is only fourth best when it comes to feeding babies - first is the mother's milk, at the breast; second is the mother's milk, fed from a cup, dropper, or bottle; third is donor milk (usually from a milk bank in the first world); fourth is artificial baby milk.--Too tired to log in 09:07, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
The Hong Kong administration has already accused Nestle (or a division) of selling melamine-tainted milk. They deny it but that doesn't put Nestle's involvement in this scandal outside the bounds of likeliness. Ajkgordon 06:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well obviously "breast is best" and it is free (after ensuring the mother herself has enough to eat), but there is a misapprehension in many poor countries that somehow a western product is superior. So marketing infant milk formula as better deprives the baby of nourishment and important antibodies as well as using up valuable financial resources that are often at a premium. I remember working in Colombia many years ago and asking for some pineapple for breakfast, it was served out of a can when the bloody things were actually growing alongside the road not far away. Travelling through Africa it seems that most of the large advertising hoardings are for cigarettes, beer, baby milk, washing powder and cosmetics. If I seemed to be excusing Nestlé above it was only because I assumed that the Chinese had their own brand manufacturers. What's striking about the whole situation with people boycotting all milk products is that historically the Chinese have not been great milk drinkers because of lactose intolerance (chicken-egg situation?). Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 10:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Wasn't there some scandal in the 70s with Coca Cola along similar lines? Somewhere in Africa with a largely illiterate population. Big ad hoardings went up with big pictures of smiling happy healthy children drinking Coke. Parents spent all their meagre wealth on feeding their kids this stuff to the exclusion of real food, kids got ill. Ajkgordon 12:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Glass houses, folks--same thing has gone on in the good ol' USofA. Breastfeeding fell out of favor because the hip, upscale thing to do was mix up a batch of formula (only the lower classes breastfed). And we feed our kids and ourselves all manner of crap because of zippy teevee commercials and colorful boxes (sez he, as he sucks down a glass of diluted high-fructose corn syrup, aka "The Real Thing").--WJThomas 12:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Absolutely, but the full benefits of breast milk were not really appreciated till recently. While it was recognized that dirty water and non-sterilized glassware was causing problems in Africa it was assumed that the sterilization techniques of the west negated any problems. And it was true, babies don't die here from using formula, they do pretty good. But there are real significant benefits the breast milk and it should always be advocated as a primary means of sustenance. Still in the western world formula can work fine. And the "breast milk only" crowd has gotten out of hand. One of my cousins for example had an impossible time breastfeeding, there was various physiological and psychological issues that were creating massive stress for her and the baby for very little milk in the end. She was working with a home care nurse that would stop by every few days, from one of the ultra-hardcore breast milk groups, who would tell her she would kill her baby and destroy his future if she switched to formula. That is just as crazy. It is the typical "take a little science" and turn it into a health cult. tmtoulouse 12:46, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

PJR's evolution comment[edit]

As the original WIGO poster said, PJR's usual veneer of reason has taken not just a back seat on this one, it's been left on the driveway with no clothes nor the keys to get back into the house.

It's an incredibly stupid piece of pseudo reasoning. The first blindingly obvious mistake he makes is implying that evolution has some sort of conscious purpose - that evolution "needs" and "is supposed" to do this, that and the other. He might be confusing the non-randomness of evolution with purpose - although he really should know better if his claimed three decades of study haven't been entirely futile.

And then he makes the laughable mistake, common to anti-"evolutionists", of equating bad implications of evolution with its veracity, i.e. "evolution means that Hitler could justify the holocaust therefore evolution cannot be true".

And finally the sheer stupidity of the "evolution says that humans are superior to bacteria therefore humans should destroy bacteria" line. I mean, WTF? Evolution says nothing of the sort. It doesn't even imply that. And even if it did, so what? WHY DOES THAT MAKE IT UNTRUE? Arguing like he does from a moral outrage perspective is just silly.

Come on PJR, you're obviously intelligent man. While I don't agree with you on YECreationism, you can do so much better than this. Ajkgordon 06:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

PJR is wrong but you are wrong too. We bacteria are superior to humans, therefore we should destroy you inferior humans. And we'll do it, bwahahah! Bacterium 06:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Trouble with most religious people: they can't bring themselves to believe that life is an "accident" and have to see purpose in everything. SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
He's obviously never read our little explanation of why this is utter shite. Zmidponk 09:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Um, is that true, Susan? I mean, OK on the first, kinda. But most religious scientists operate within the working assumption that they can't pull God out of a hat to explain something. They don't see purpose as an explanation although they often see purpose in the glory of Creation. Ajkgordon 10:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Don't get me going, Ajk. I think that generally it is true, How often do we hear of "God's Purpose" in man? SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:25, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
OK, I would accept that many religious people make that type of "purpose" connection. But, TBH, I hear people talking about destiny more often than divine purpose these days.
But religious people whose job is to reason, e.g. scientists, do not (if they're any good) see purpose in everything, at least not in their working environment. Personally, when I see otherwise educated and even eminent scientists falling for the intelligent design thing, I'm rather surprised at their lack of imagination. Which, of course, is what it's all about. Could Monsignor Lemaître have contributed so much to the Big Bang if he lacked imagination? Ajkgordon 11:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Typical backwards reasoning. "If X is true, then Y would be true, but Y is EVIL, so X MUST be WRONG." (Argument from Adverse Consequences?) The global warming denialists' version replaces "evil" with "inconvenient". --Gulik 10:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I don't think he does argue that. I think he uses it to smear evolution rather than showing that evolution can't be true because of it. I imagine his argument would go something like: "Evolution is untrue because a) these creation scientists say it's untrue because of evidence i, ii & iii and b) it conflicts with the Bible which I hold to be inerrant also backed up by these creation scientists. Belief in the false theory of evolution can lead bad men to use it to justify genocide and therefore the theory of evolution has a lot to answer for." Which, if you don't believe evolution, is a valid point to make.
Trouble is, his statements in the linked edit don't say that. He merely discredits evolution with its association with Hitler. Ajkgordon 11:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Just wanted to interject that common descent implies that all life forms alive at any given moment are exactly as evolved as each other. Unless one quibbles and claims "generations" as the metric, in which case the slower-reproducing species are vastly less evolved than the rapidly-reproducing ones... ħumanUser talk:Human 15:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I agree with it being a smear more than anything. It's kind of like politics (which it is now that they've got their grubby mits on it). If you can't beat it, smear it. Then the people who listen to them or read conservapedia for anything apart from for amusment will be much less likely to accept evolution because they just don't trust scientists. It's horrible, yes, but unfortunately a tactic that works for them. And naturally, anytime we ridicule creationism it's the same process (only slightly better backed up IMHO). Armondikov 16:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Bungler's new articles[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that Bungler's stepped up his new article production rate since the possibility of a new sysop on Conswervapaedia day was mooted? SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

More strength to him I say. a) It keeps him in Croc's happy books, b) it stops him bullying other parodists and c) maybe he'll get it and we can have another Mexmax. (although I'd also like to see him chase RJJensen away - nothing against RJ, but CP doesn't need sensible contributors). It could also lead to an interesting battle with Chippers to see who can create the largest amount of crap articles - I get the feeling Chip doesn't like competition (especially when it comes to sucking up to Croc) so the crappiness & C&P levels could soar before long. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:16, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
He's certainly thorough:
"An instructor is a teacher."
That must have taxed the old brain cells. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I wouldn't exactly call RJJenson sensible. I mean, comparatively, yes, far and away. But he can get bizarro with the best of them when it comes to any mention of "communism" (and its evil transliterations).--Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 08:53, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
And there was me thinking he'd brown-nosed his way into the Inner-Circle already. Armondikov 16:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Is Ed Poor MIA?[edit]

Haven't seen anything from him since the beginning of September. --SpinyNorman 09:40, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

He's gone, but the fear still lingers: no one touches the articles about maths... --LArron 09:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Even CP members are allowed holidays. I'd give it another week or so before sending out the tracker dogs. Silver Sloth 09:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
School's started, hasn't it? Maybe he's busy being a highly qualified and successful maths teacher. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 09:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm looking forward for SilvioB's return from his one month block. He seemed to admire Ed's maths articles. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 09:57, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Ding! Dong! The witch is dead! He did keep mentioning teaching, so horrible thought as it may be, that could be keeping him busy. Either that or Jebus Rev Moon sent him on a mission... holy handkerchiefs could be involved. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
More like holy hand grenades... --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 11:22, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well if Ed is really doing teaching as a day job then he will have had to put a lot of effort into developing his coursework, always a major job for a first time teacher. I guess he could have used CP's maths articles - which is why he was so interested in them - but they are so crap that he has had to start from scratch. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 10:04, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I have always been a vocal CP-only supporter for RW. For me CP is our most important and entertaining mission by far. But if it were true that Ed simply switched his efforts to another place in internet, I wish we start monitoring and "helping" him there too. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 10:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm sure he'll be back any second now, and as much an idiotic asshole as ever. In fact, he'll probably have some catching up to do in the shithead department, and he'll be worse than ever. DickTurpis 10:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Nothing on WP to since end August. I was hoping to see something there, meaning he might have packed in CP. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
He's been pretty inactive on WP for a long time. Mostly he seems to make minor additions to things dealing with Rev Moon. Probably stuff about how delicious his spunk is. DickTurpis 11:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Since I've got nothing better today to do than a little Internet stalking, and since all my old girlfriends have Google protection orders against me, a search for "Ed Poor" in the last week brings up a cryptic result about Green Arrow and venereal disease (link is busted, I'm afraid, as is the cache). Pushing the search out to a month, there's this, but I can't tell if it's "our" Eddie.--WJThomas 13:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it does look like Ed (similar build, glasses). However, the caption about desiring a "green commute" must be tongue in cheek if it is applied to our Ed. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:25, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It would really surprise me if that is him, but apparemtly he lives in New York, so I guess maybe. Perhaps somebody should ask him? . . . Anyhoo, a Google image search brought up the Ed Poor Barnstar from Wikipedia. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 16:04, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly's reverts[edit]

Did this deserve to be reverted? A "pissed" (not really) Editor at CPLiar at RP! 09:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

And a banhammer to boot (odd coming from Andy, usually he's much less severe with ideological blocks than Karjou, Ed, Jinx hi Jinx!, Bugler, et al). We actually had an assertion that Andy could probably fully support, but with one major flaw: "There are many places on internet which put forward our conservative ideas better than us." Someone somewhere does something better than Andy does? Impossible! Deceitful troll vandal, begone! DickTurpis 10:11, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
This was deleted too before the banhammer. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 10:12, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, that "better places" comment was a lightning rod, and the reversion no surprise. Andy's long since given up any pretense of CP being purely a conservative encyclopedia project, and treats it like a personal blog that happens to allow encyclopedia postings if they're conservative enough. What pisses me off about Andy's reverts is that unlike even the more obnoxious sysops, he doesn't bother to explain or justify them with a comment - the reversion is his only statement. --SpinyNorman 10:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Andy doesn't "comment" because he doesn't understand "undo" vs. "rollback". I tried to explain it to him when he "complained" that there was no place for a comment when undoing "vandalism". He sometimes does leave comments, though (deleted unsubstantive talk page pollution ranting") ħumanUser talk:Human 16:10, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

BillM's successor BillO was blocked as a sock of AceMcWicked. I can guarantee that not only Ace has nothing to do with BillO, but they have never used the same IP address. Editor at CPSig(h)! 10:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Gotta say, I loved the "we've seen nit-picky complaints before" line, as if it's really quite hard to be bothered to write a quality headline, a grammatically correct sentence, etc. Clearly, for Andy, grammar and readability are irrelevant if he can't be bothered. -Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life." 11:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Happens all the time. My sock Grumbledook was blocked as a "Sock of banned users" and a couple of similar names that weren't me. People like Karajou don't have the mental capacity to process the idea that people with similar names aren't necessarily the same person, nor apparently do they watch blackadder. Still, despite the number of times I've pissed on Andy's bonfire I still have Taciturn. Also, I own a goodly number of IP addresses. --JeevesMkII 12:43, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I was blocked as a sock of Ames yesterday, although I think that is a default excuse to block someone who has not actually done anything wrong. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 19:23, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Account creation at CP[edit]

I recently attempted to create an account (same name) at CP for the purpose of legitimately editing and improving the site. However, I could not create an account at all; the link just wasn't there. What do you all know about CP's account creation policies? Is account creation there just disabled right now? My IP was not blocked; are some "semi-blocked" against creating new accounts? Thanks in advance. RobertA 11:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

They (presumably Andy) sometimes disable it when they get too swamped by random vandals, it also is disabled when the nighttime lock thing is on. Just as you described, the account creation link disappears with almost no way for newcomers to realize what's going on. NightFlarei haz a talk page. 11:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I may be partially responsible for that. Don't worry, it will be restored in some time. Editor at CPSig(h)! 12:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Welcome to the world of Conservative paranoia. Armondikov 14:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
And now it is open again. Go and multiply! Editor at CPSig(h)! 16:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Closed again. -Barikada

New atheism 'picture'[edit]

Not content with putting Hitler at the top of the evolution article & bottom of the main page, Mr Conservative has found a new & even more ridiculous 'image' to go at the top of the atheism article. It's dumb enough to have been written by Ken himself (although of course it isn't). weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh the irony. That ends off with the cynical "makes perfect sense", yet they're quite happy to believe some supernatural crap about this omnipotent being creating everything, making life out of dust, taking a rib, etc, etc... that's perfectly believable. The mind boggles. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:15, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
& Don't forget the double use of the word "magically". I think somebody is confused: atheists don't actually believe in things happening magically or miraculously, that's theists. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
You are familiar with this image, aren't you? Makes me wonder if Ken's stolen bit of someone else's attempt at humour is a response to that. --Kels 12:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
That doesn't link to anything. (Or doesn't work for me anyway). weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:33, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Links just fine for me. Try here. --Kels 12:40, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I like the changeup. I think either choice undermines their message. Hitler just makes them look aburdist and uninformative. This attempts to add some lightheartedness to the article. In both cases, it reduces the credibility of their 'article.' - Lardashe
Ok, that picture was good. But I often wonder how the world would be if people like Ken, Andy et al had been brought up in a differnet society. Picture if you will, some kind of bizarro world where my comic book nerds at? where Atheism was the accepted practice with thousands of years of acceptance and someone started diverging from the majority and professed a beleif in Jesus. I can only assume that Andy and his cronies would be just as fanatical and pretentious in their defense of atheism... compelte with quote mined blurbs from the religious and haughty pictures and quotes that serve, to them, as the ultimate in argument through humor. I would also like to point out that, while they find their little Atheism picture hilarious, they don't seem to take much to the IPU or FSM. SirChuckBCall the FBI 12:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
In the Mirror Universe, they'd all have goatees and be scientists and educators. Real ones, I mean. --Kels 13:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
So basically Andy would be Noam Chomsky with a goatee. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 14:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Does that mean this is the good universe and we're the evil ones? In which case, why don't I have an evil Spock goatee? --JeevesMkII 14:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
No, no. We've somehow got stuck with the evil (or at least incompetent) versions of Ken, Andy and so forth. So for instance, the proper Ken would be a famed essayist and researcher (with a goatee, natch) and Andy would be a successful lawyer representing the ACLU or some equivalent (with, natch, a goatee). Note that goatee includes much goat, so is therefore a mark of greatness. --Kels 14:25, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It has to be stolen from a Kent Hovind property, right? I mean, no one else would make some ridiculous "nothing from nothing" assertion and them move on immediately to dinosaurs like The Great Lord Nothing created dinosaurs in his own image by fiat. I swear being able to take Kent Hovind seriously is the litmus test of stupidity. Also, has anyone else noticed Ken keeps a handy cheat sheet (including the wonderful advice to tag your illegally stolen pictures "fair use") around for the difficult task of grabbing a picture from the web and uploading it. If he ever had to crop or resize a picture he might need to take a course at his local community college. --JeevesMkII 13:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, now that he removed all dignity from the evolution article, you knew it was coming. Armondikov 14:53, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
When did it ever have "dignity"? Difflink, pleez? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:15, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, and re: the cheat sheet, Kendoll, darling, you spelled "browse" incorrectly. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, the picture of Darwin was quite dignified. And I'm sure it had some factual content before the total lockdown. And the atheism article had some quotes which I assume were genuine or something. So, well, it did have some dignity. I never specified that it could be measured without invoking logarithmic scales. Armondikov 16:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyway, I do have a goatee, and I've always been convinced that I'm the evil version of myself. Etc 17:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Better to be the goater than the goatee. --Kels 19:06, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Karajou and "Hacking"[edit]

Not WIGO-worthy but it brought a smile: apparently Karajou can't tell the difference between true hacking and wandalism on an open wiki, and anyone who claims they are not comparable had better been told that personally by the FBI. --SpinyNorman 13:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Further on in the same thread, I think we now have have fairly solid proof, if there was any doubt before, that DRamon is in fact a parodist (or should that be deceitful trespasser?) weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 14:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't think there was any doubt. Also, I just couldn't help myself. I wonder how long it will last? (EDIT: The answer is 16 minutes.) Bjones 14:57, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Bugler's mask slips again. For somebody who joined 29 April 2008, he seems know exactly what to do when the FBI is mentioned. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
OOPS! Auld Nick 11:09, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
& DRamon does too. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 21:12, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
And he reads WIGO Talk. Sure, many CP sysops read us, but... Editor at CPSig(h)! 16:15, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It makes me wonder if it's possible to detect which IP addresses the sysops use and whenever they try to access this site or WIGO-CP redirect them to an extra special welcome page... Armondikov 16:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I think we'd either need a lot of free time to try and find it, or a mole with checkuser abilities willing to check the sysops for us so we could cross reference the two (although I may be completely wrong on this) I think they should do thay anyway.... The bastards read us, but never give us the credit. SirChuckBCall the FBI 16:54, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Yeah... just so happens that we show something stupid and five minutes later it's magically reverted (it's a thankless service we provide, shame they don't always use it, like when they decide to take down Darwin from the evolution article and replace it with Hitler.). There isn't an "Are you a Conservapedia sysop? If YES, please click here fore further infomation." link is there? Armondikov 17:06, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

On most wikis it is possible to verify their IP addresses if they log in. However, checkuser has been diabled by Trent so that's a non-starter. However, he does have the ability to scrutinise the server logs but as these are otherwise anonymous requests (there's no way to link them to a name) we can't say who is viewing us. Of course it would be possible to find their IP address if they edited anonymously but as CP requires a login we don't know what their IP address is. The only ones we really know are Jinxy and TK (who he?). Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Anyway, we are not out to out (pun intended) Bugler. One day he'll come out and confess. And surely he won't be one of my suspects. Editor at CPSig(h)! 17:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Good point, we could accidentally "out" someone. I still think Bugler is a consortium though. There's no other way. ArmondikoVpostate 19:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
As I recall, wasn't there talk on Conservapedia of creating a feature which lists what IPs are logged on at any one time? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:30, 23 September 2008 (EDT)


Wandalism[edit]

After reading the discussion on Conservapedia about vandalim, I was wondering if vandalising a wiki is a crime at all. It clearly says that after meeting the requirements to edit, e,g; signing in, not having a blocked ISP address, that anyone can edit any page that is accessible at their level. As a vandal you are just adding and removing text on the screen like any other contributor. The only difference is yours is not helpful/useful. I can't see how a crime has occurred as such. Any opinions from the legally knowledgeable? \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 00:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

How, possibly, could sitting in your house and typing, become a crime? We're not talking hacking (trying to bypass security, etc.), but literally clicking on links and filling in blanks, then clicking on a button that says "edit". And typing what you believe to be the truth... the honest, genuine, trusworthy truth. And nothing but it, your honor. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
That really is what I am driving at. A vandal (unless they are using a proxy to circumnavigate a IP address block) is not doing anything another editor isn't doing, it is just in a less helpful way. As has been pointed out you can revert their comments, the same way as if you were reverting someone who was insisting that intelligent design arguments should be in the article on evolution at Wikipedia. No actual crime is taking place. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 01:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Two kind of vandals mostly: those who add factual (= too "Liberal") information, and those that add the same tripe as "letigimate" users. If vandals have to be prosecuted, all the rest should have too, starting from Conservative and Andy.
There's no way it can be illegal. You can violate their terms of serivce and get banned or blocked, but it's not illegal. It would set a very unhealthy precendent if he did try to sue individuals for wandalism because it would make Wikipedia, which is by far the largest user of the software a legal minefield and probably kill it. If it was illegal, it would be a crime to make any edit that another user disagreed with. Basically, it would be too difficult to distingush what would constitute a vandalistic (is that even a word?) edit. ArmondikoVpostate 13:39, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
And of course remember that there is absolutely not a single login creation hurdle to be overcome. If they had email authentication, a captcha, invitation only, 24 hour delay before editing could commence or one of many other options open to them, they would have infinitely less wandalizm. And, of course, infinitely less traffic. Most insurance doesn't pay out against burglaries if you leave your front door wide open, and it's pretty hard to make a defense in court. Of course it's not illegal - they're inviting' people to edit, for Christ's sake! DogP 12:10, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Karajou and Military Ranks[edit]

Seems that Karajou has been out for a while. The man behind Palin is a Lieutenant Colonel not a Colonel, there is a huge difference between the two in the Army. Anyone who has been in the military can spot rank from yards away, besides from a distance the eagle (insignia of a Colonel) looks like a black hash not a blob (like the LTC insignia).--TimS 16:33, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't be surprised if Karajou was never even in the armed services. I suspect he may be a poser. DickTurpis 16:41, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, the "right" has a history (urban legend or truth) of not being ones to put themselves in harm's way and actually BE in teh military. But k's comment is flatly wrong. the *second* state troops are federalized, they cease to be "state guard" or "state reserves". NO GOVERNOR anywhere, even one who can "see russia" is briefed on anything regarding national security, nor are they allowed anything that even hints at "top secret" which troop movements, troop deployment, etc., would do. Why anyone would assume that a picture with two people talking, and some papers in front of then "proves" that one of the two is being briefed, is ridiculous. For all we know, he's pointing out the best restaurant in teh Green Zone. But, more than likely, he is a public press agent for the military who's job is to share what the military does at a level appropriate for non cleared politicians, reporters, etc.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life." 16:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, Kowardjerk was hardly in the front line during the Gulf War, he was ensconced in an armoured battleship well offshore. Admittedly some naval personnel were casualties but the land forces were the ones who took the brunt of it. Also being in the navy doesn't automatically give him an in-depth knowledge of the Army and Marines. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, given what a fantastic asshole he is, plus his terrible communication skills ("Oh, by the way, you're blocked and can never come here again"), and he probably never made it past E5. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Another epiphany about Karajou[edit]

20 years of service (as Karajou claims to have done) is a suspiciously round number. I say that because, while in the olden days a servicemember was allowed to hover at the same rank for decades, contemporary U.S. military policy requires a servicemember to advance in rank after a certain period of time. But advancement is not automatic—you still have to meet their standards. If you don't make the cut, you get discharged. I would bet all the cash in my wallet that Karajou couldn't make the cut and was discharged. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:46, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, I beg to differ with your military knowledge, with my barely military knowledge. 1. 20 years is the least suspicious time to serve, other than 4 or so years. (see below) 2. I don't think the US Army/Navy kicks you out for staying a swabbie/grunt. Every organization needs a "base" (al queda, in Arabic). Anyway, the deal is that 20 years gets you a full pension - immediately. It's the career deal. Over 20 unless you've got stars is silly, and anything between 4-6 and 20 is suspect of being booted, but 20 means you signed up, did your time, and now live on Uncle Sam's dime. (Most commercial airplane pilots do that in the AF, then go private while enjoying their pension...). Just MHO. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
*shrugs* I learned about it from my dad. I just (so I thought) put two and two together. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
"MHO"? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
The US Military does have a High Year of Tenure policy which sets a maximum limit on the amount of time a soldier/sailor can stay in without getting promoted. For the Navy, if you haven't been promoted above E-6 (Petty Officer First Class) after 20 years, you're out. I think it was previously established that Karajou probably never made it over E-6, so he most likely couldn't have stayed past 20 years if he wanted to. --Brian 01:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
That is precisely what I was trying to say in the first place. Thank you Brian, for doing all of the heavy lifting for me  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:20, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
And at twenty years, they get their pension immediately. It ain't exactly "getting kicked out" so much as keeping the grunt/swabbie blood under 40 y.o. - it's a pretty good deal compared to any other manual labor career. MHO = my humble opinion. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:38, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Not-so-humble when it's from you, Human.  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

A New Boogeyman[edit]

As Human (I think) stated above, those certainly were not my socks that Karajowls blocked, unless I somehow mamaged it in my slumber. Perhaps, as its been awhile since Ames popped up he needs a new boogyman? Well, thats fine with me Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 17:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Keep it up Ace, maybe you'll be promoted SirChuckBCall the FBI 17:41, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
On a side note, are they slipping over there or something? There are three very obvious parodists working very much in the limelight over there at the moment and they're just letting them destroy the blog. And no, I am not counting the obvious parodist that is known for his skill in playing a brass instrument similar to the trumpet, often used by the military for sounding orders. SirChuckBCall the FBI 17:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh I have spotted one easily, and I suspect I know who it is. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 17:49, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent)Sometimes my socks are blocked for being a sock of someone I've never heard of. All I can figure is they did a checkuser and I happened to be using to the same proxy somebody was using when they got banned previously. Or maybe Karajou is just an idiot. Or both. On further reflection, probably both. Bjones 17:58, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Ace. I really don't know why Karajou used your name. Other times I have been blocked by Bohdan as Ames, but that was just Bohdan's sense of humor (?). I was using a continental European IP address (read KJ's block summaries to know the country too). And no, that address is not used by proxies. Editor at CPSig(h)! 18:03, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
All my accounts have used New Zealand IP's so fuck knows. Meh, I like that Karajou is accusing me though, gives me warm fuzzies to think I got under his skin. Ace McWickedSubstansive comments only 18:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Speaking of IPs, I'm now on my mother's PC for a week, I doubt it'll matter if her IP gets blocked :D. /\rmondiko\/Now With An Actual Signature 18:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It matters... to you. Have fun for a week, but not so much that they block you at the start of the week! Editor at CPSig(h)! 18:31, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Karajou has blocked errrr "me" again. Well done Karajou, wasn't even at my computer that time. Ace McWickedcast ye the first stone 23:33, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It was BillR. "You" will get blocked a few times more until BillZ, as every Bill is clearly you in Karajou's mind. Editor at CPSig(h)! 02:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

BrianCo[edit]

He is quite sensible, isn't he? Still I find the example in his Denigration article odd. Sure there are more relevant cases of denigration? Editor at CPSig(h)! 19:04, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, dear. The temptation is overwhelming... --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:07, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, you're right. I came up with one. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:16, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Uh oh, does this mean the end of the Danish Literary Club? Editor at CPSig(h)! 19:20, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I doubt it. There's still Human and Henry left. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 19:21, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I added a link to Denmark at Latino over the weekend... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
It's probably a blatant attempt at appealing to Andy's biases. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought "denigration" was the name for the process undergone by Michael Jackson between 1982 and 2005... --Marty 01:59, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Has any mentioned to the fine editors at CP ...[edit]

... the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries complex story? I wonder these would be considered "true conservatives" in Andy's view? Sterilesnore! 19:35, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

The whole children in basement video makes me thing they share a kindred spirit. tmtoulouse 19:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
(shudders...) Sterilesnore! 19:39, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh fuck me, that's what he sounds like. Even more creepy. ArmondikoVpostate 19:49, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I dunno, it actually adds a lot to the experience to hear him going "Godspeed!" in his Mr. Bean voice. XD --Kels 20:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
I never saw that video before. Wow. Comparing Wikipedia to a lynch mob? And of course he brought up gay people. Why does it always come back to gay people? If it weren't for gay people or Hitler (and I'm not making a comparison here) these guys would have nothing to talk about. CorryThose are balls. 08:31, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
He does sound a bit like a cult leader at the end. "We have our own ways to communicate knowledge". Also, what's up with the background music? It sounds like an old western score or something. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I picked up on the "We have our own ways to communicate knowledge" bit too. Very, very creepy. Though I have to say I feel sorry for the kids there, are they seriously going to learn from what CP says only or will they move over to Wikipedia when they realise the average CP article has 6 words in it (and that's only because atheism and homosexuality rival Lord of the Rings for length.ArmondikoVpostate 13:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Is there any way we can bust these children out of that cellar before it's too late? Etc 17:07, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Very clever[edit]

Look, its a play on words!. Ace McWickedcast ye the first stone 22:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't surprise me, HenryS seems to see Ames everywhere. \approx\pi Toxic mowse.gifMowse 23:45, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
Karajou is seening me everywhere now. HenryS must of had a shit during the Olympic gAMES! Ace McWickedcast ye the first stone 23:52, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
And Bohdan, it's not me this time. Editor at CPSig(h)! 02:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Page links[edit]

Why is this ugly little box harassing me? JazzMan 00:53, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr Jazzperson, until you learn to spell correctly, I shall treat your noxious comment with derision. SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
What is it doing that you don't like? Besides tracking your every move on the wiki, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
It's not "ugly", Jazzymin, it's just, er, spartan. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:00, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
(two edit conflicts and a site failure) Mostly that it follows me. Everywhere I go, IT'S THERE. JazzMan 01:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT) On the bright side, I just got a good Police song stuck in my head
Yes, it's there. And very innocuously in the corner, too. I actually wish it was more visible. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm pro choice on the issue. JazzMan 01:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
How, eh, progressive of you. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
It needs to be 40-odd pixels higher, it's permanently blocking some logo in the MW default footer.... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I think it ought to be hovering at mid-level, rather than languishing in obscurity in the very bottom corner of the page. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
It also needs to be about 700 pixels narrower. The invisible bits of the box cover over links and things, including the google ads at the bottom which I think is against their terms of service. Also, there definitely needs to be a way to set a cookie to turn it off, dammit. --JeevesMkII 03:55, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Here, I wrote some javascript to magic away the pesky floating box:

function awayPeskyFloatingBox() {
	var divs = document.getElementsByTagName("div");
	for (var i = 0; i < divs.length; ++i) {
		if (hasClass(divs[i], "plainlinks")) {
			divs[i].style.display = "none";
		}
	}
}

addOnloadHook(awayPeskyFloatingBox);

Paste it in to your monobook.js and never again be troubled by irritating boxes. Disclaimer: I in no way guarantee that somewhere there might not be other divs that share the "plainlinks" class that you might care about, but will be magicked away by this script. --JeevesMkII 04:18, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I've removed the pesky thing as it was causing so much hardship and furore. SusanG  ContribsTalk 06:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
How about trying to place it right below the "donate" text on the left? That's about the middle of the screen I hope for most, so it won't ever be "over" anything else. Susan, can you paste a version on my talk page so we can muck about with it there? ħumanUser talk:Human 14:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Poe, inmates, and irrational exuberance[edit]

Re SirChuckB's comment that the obvious parodists have been busy and Andy/Ken/Karajou/Croco/HelpJazz "'re just letting them destroy the blog"... Remember, Poe's Law works both ways. As long as Ames's socks continue to post things that are basically indistinguishable from Andy's and Ken's own rantings, the non-parodists at CP really have no incentive to block them. This is how it's supposed to work. Deep cover socks do not break cover (and neither do honest-to-God crazies, which is why it's impossible to distinguish them).

So, let's not get all jubilant about how the asylum is no longer being run entirely by the inmates. The inmates are still there; and they're being supplemented (not supplanted!) by a pack of insane doctors. The asylum is still entirely free of sane doctors. (To finish off the Smullyan analogy, I'll add that there might be as many as two sane patients: Kettle and PJR.)

As long as Andy-esque essays are being churned out at a reasonable pace, do you really think Andy cares who writes them? Even my "Neo-Cains" stub is still there, despite being moved to Essay space after both HelpJazz and PJR noticed it. I'm not saying it's not mildly amusing that the socks sometimes do a better job of nuttery than the actual nutters... but let's not pretend that the nutters feel the same way about it. I'm sure they enjoy watching socks churn out right-wing propaganda. Less work for them. --Marty 02:34, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

We've already established that PJR (Mr. "Hitler is perfect for evolution") is sociable, but not sane. Although he's not as insane as some of them, and looks good by comparison. --Kels 06:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
He still comes up with incredibly stupid stuff. "Prohibition worked", "alcohol-related crime down" and not a mention of Al Capone et al. --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:36, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Marty is right. Andy doesn't seem to mind having anti-liberal articles written by parodists, & leaving sarcastic additions to his Rules of Chivalry and Concepts to Teach Teenagers in place. Quite possibly he doesn't understand the subtleties or sarcasm, or just doesn't care as long as they fit in with the rest of the CP dogma. The real work of destroying CP from the inside is being done by stalwarts like Bugler (parodist or not) and Ed Poor. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 08:23, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Heh. Reading through some of the silly additions to Concepts to teach teenagers, #20 "Never take the last piece of cake on the plate..." rather tickled me. Definitely advice from the '80s because in 1992 the problem of envy free cake division was solved once and for all. It's amazing how many game theory lectures involve learning how to cut cake. --JeevesMkII 08:48, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Fixed it for you, Weaseloid: "The real work of destroying CP from the inside is being done by stalwarts like Bugler (parodist or not) and Ed Poor (prize idiot)." Bondurant 09:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I think most envy-free cake-cutting algorithms still require a "moving knife" solution, which is far less elegant than the two- and three-player solutions. This may also explain why Conservapedians have trouble with it; not only are the proofs involved non-elementary, but Conservapedians do not use knives — they use (largely defensive) weapons of gun.
Seriously, though, I still maintain that "The real work of destroying CP from the inside" is not being done; or at least it's not being done by deep-cover socks. Conservapedia will never move so far to the right that it tips over. --Marty 13:23, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I resent the accusation! There's just not a whole lot I can do against parodists, especially since they seem to move up the ranks faster than I can. JazzMan 17:15, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
In all honesty I think that is one of the saddest posts that I've seen all week.  Lily Ta, wack! 18:00, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

My favorite thread is still going strong[edit]

Andy's latest response on the PNAS thread is here. One of Andy's favorite tactics seems to be to repeat his conclusion over and over again when asked for an argument. In the academic circles I traveled in, you were taught that the argument was everything. The argument for your conclusion was what you, well, argued about. In Andy's mind I think the argument is just along for the ride. He is so enamored by the truth of his conclusion, he can't understand why liberals keep asking him for reasons. Hence, when pressed for an argument he just throws out whatever comes to mind. When that gets completely pwned, he just repeats the conclusion again. And the circle continues....Bjones 09:07, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

When the Bible, with all its internal self-contradictions, it's metaphor and allegory, it's poetry and speculation, its revisions and edits is taken "literally" people must necessarily be able to read that 2+2=6 and find a way to see that as Truth. it makes you an art is learning to simply repeat your "findings" without evidence or logic. You cannot use logic or evidence on teh Bible, so if you are stating it is Literal... you are far smarter a man than I. You will never see andy back down, you will never see him say he was wrong, you will never see him fall for teh "you need evidence and argument" line, cause if he breaks it here - then it necessarily fails him on teh single most important book in the Universe (which was rewritten by liberals on the prostitute story, don't you know).--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life."11:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Heh. Anyone want to start a movement to get Andy federal funding? It wouldn't take much to convince him that Important Groundbreaking Discoveries (tm) like his should be funded by the God-fearing American public... --Phentari 19:00, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Narr! Just get him declared a National Monument. So thet people could come and stare at him and marvel at the stony resolve and iconclastic (?) idealism. SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:18, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

The new "FBI"?[edit]

LearnTogether's pretty pissed off at DinsdaleP for not getting the point of the block he received over the Palin rape-test issue. It's got to be annoying when you're trying to censor someone indirectly on the "we don't censor" wiki, and the dope just isn't taking the hint. This was WIGO'd already, but the amusing part is that LT's latest scrubbing also took out the comments from others saying "hey, why'd you erase the answer you asked for?". Apparently, thou shalt not connect "Palin" and "Rape test" in the same sentence, but thou shalt not ask about others doing it either.

btw, bonus lulz for LearnTogether's comments during that last latest scrub, because he doesn't like his "non-story" being a top-ranked article on the CNN website. Reminds me of Homer Simpson saying "Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything." --SpinyNorman 10:12, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Fox News' Homeschooling Story[edit]

CP has a main page news story about rising rates of homeschooling, but it doesn't seem like exactly what they would like it to be. It emphasizes that the sorts who would support Assfly's "Constitution" are not the norm. One person quoted in the article says "I don't think anything beats one-on-one tutoring, and I am allowed to talk and teach each of my children individually based on their strengths and weaknesses and learning styles...They're not held back by students in a classroom." Sort of contradicts Assfly's "bigger classes are always better" idea he suddenly came up with when he realized he had a large class. I also find it interesting that some are fighting for tax credits, since they aren't using the schools they pay for. Since when does that happen? Isn't that why some things are covered by taxes rather than charging for use? I don't use 90% of the streets I pay for, can I have a tax rebate? I also have no kids, so I'm not using the schools either. DickTurpis 10:31, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, the whole "tax-credits" issue is a non-starter, but that doesn't keep them from trying. --SpinyNorman 10:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Do these morons not realise that while they don't have kids in school right this second, they're still getting fringe benefits from schools such as the guy who takes your order at starbucks being at least vaguely literate, or the GDP of your country not going through the floor? --JeevesMkII 10:56, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
You are obviously opposed to school prayer. Bjones 11:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
"JeevesMkII", if that is even your real name, those morons can't make the connection you list. They are prevented from doing so by an impenetrable wall of ideology and hate. Hate here is directed against any person who does not worship their god or who does not have the resources to be home schooled or to home school. Ideology here is just icing on the hate. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 11:11, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict)An educated populace is critical to a technological society. If I am a business owner, I need and expect a pool of labor that can do the job I design for them to do. Usually including being able to read and write the English language with some measure of competency. But, from a humanist standpoint, education is the single way you bring true equality to "the masses". People should have a right to better themselves, and offer more to their kids than they had. that is one of hte cores of the "American dream". Taxes are not for YOUR kids, or I (sans kids) would never pay any. Taxes are for society to be better, move forward, and be humanistic and egalitarian. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"Such is life." 11:14, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Amen to that (or its corresponding PC term). Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 11:21, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
The levels of liberal deceit here is astounding! Open your mind and you'll soon learn that the only way to get a decent education is through homeschooling. No one argues against the fact the prayer is essential to learning and growth and yet it is censored in all public schools. All children learn there is how to wear "goth" clothing and do drugs. Those who argue otherwise are clueless. DickTurpis 11:26, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I tend to express much the same thought more succinctly as "Libertarianism is the ground state of political thought from which we must constantly expend mental energy to extricate ourselves." One day, I'm hoping this might become an eponymous law :D --JeevesMkII 11:27, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Libertarians understand human nature but they don't do anything about it. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 11:38, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
If they only understood human nature! Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 11:40, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
The liberal censorship types here also neglect to mention that thanks to the atheistic public school system, largely defensive weapons of gun instantly become largely offensive when a public school student touches them. Yet another reason to homeschool. Or should it be "weapon of guns"...?--Bayes 13:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Silly billy. It's good training. We all know that when there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth and more people are going to hell than ever. Tick, tock gentlemen. --JeevesMkII 13:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
FWIW, many (most?) homeschoolers do not want tax credits (I don't know who is behind the idea - HSLDA?), and it would be a nightmare to implement, as mentioned on CP.[2]
I agree on the tax credits - silly idea. One, with money comes rules, and two, it would remove non-parents from the taxpaying pool. Granted, I could use that five-odd grand a year for other things, but as WFG pointed out, it goes to make the whole society I live in better in many ways. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:32, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I recall people in the UK (CND members?) being jailed for refusing to pay taxes because they would go towards armaments, and later, people paying less than all of the rates (or Council Tax) for being put towards things they disagreed with. Load of crap apart from drawing attention to the expenditure. SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:21, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

"Libertarianism is the ground state of political thought from which we must constantly expend mental energy to extricate ourselves."[edit]

BRILLIANT!!11!ONEHUNDREDANDELEVEN!!! Jeeves, that is my new e-mail signature. I love it. And you, a little bit.PFoster 14:43, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Shhhhhhh! User:Rembrandt.ryan will hear you! --JeevesMkII 14:59, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh noes! ħumanUser talk:Human 15:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I have my patented Libertarepellant (TM), no worries. Just ask them a specific question, and sneak out while they give their speech about the free market.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:09, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Your patents mean nothing to a Libertarian. It would require a government to enforce it, which is A Bad Thing, obviously. Bondurant 08:29, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Doesn't the libertarian version of intellectual property protection involve a squad of heavies, baseball bats and an electric drill? --JeevesMkII 08:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
That would be anarchocapitalists. JazzMan 12:36, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyone?[edit]

Anyone feel like socking up and putting this story into the news suggestions? I just wanna watch Andy spin like a top. SirChuckBCall the FBI 16:58, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I just saw that and went to mention it here - this is the first time my irony meter broke from thinking about a news story and Conservapedia at the same time. Gun rights meets disaffected homeschooler - classic. All we need is a pregnant girlfriend to hit a trifecta. --SpinyNorman 17:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
  1. [3]
  2. [4]