Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive8

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <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>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Dawkins - Butchered beyond repair?

I'm kinda interested from a purely technical point of view: Do you think that the Dawkins article on CP can still be repaired and turned into something that can actually be called encyclopedic?

Technical criticism I spotted without even reading too deeply into it:

• Why is the "Royal Society" section a mere afterthought at the end of the article? His membership there is arguably more important than his position as professor, but the article doesn't even mention the Royal Society until then. This is stuff that should at least be noted in the intro.
• Speaking of which: Argh, the intro section is WAY too long. Andy is apparently dying to sling as much mud as possible before we even get to the ToC. At this point, it doesn't even matter if any of his drivel is actually true - it's way too long for an intro and tries to make the point from as many angles as possible.
• "Darwin's Rottweiler" - I can't even see the point of this. It first goes on to say how Dawkins should be called that way, then disputes it, then goes on about how Dawkins doesn't debate with creationists (Gosh, I wonder why...), then there's the usual "Creationists are the Master Race winners in debates" advertisement.
• Brights Movement - again, I'm not sure what the point is because it's just a bunch of quotes and events mashed together. But at least it's short.
• References - for the love of God, somebody format them at least! And what is "Id" doing there? Did I write the help file for nothing?

My honest suggestion: Burn the thing to the ground and let people rewrite it whose aim is to write an encyclopedia, not a hate site. Delete and recreate from scratch. Let this be CP's dirty little secret. That dark chapter in history people would like to forget. It just... never happened. Glitch in the Matrix. These are not the droids you're looking for. --Sid 17:36, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

If you look at my newest entry, it's basically become Conservative's playground now, just like ToE. Andy can't even admit he's wrong in simply calling him a "professor", so while users combat him on such a retarded denial, sysops will just play with it until it becomes so heavily edited that they'll keep it locked. My thoughts, anyway. Norseman 17:50, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I tried to format the references. My edits were reverted. What... purpose did that serve again? Feebas factor 17:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Maybe they stuck out? Like the only good thing in a sea of shit makes the rest look even shittier, and we can't have that? Okay, seriously, that pretty weird... --Sid 18:08, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Maybe you shouldn't have used arcane words like curriculum etc. Isn't resumé the american version? Susan^{talk to me} 18:34, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but resumé has an accent, making it unAmerican. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:37, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

They might have thought that, through my edits, I was engaging in some sort of liberal deceit. On the other hand, I never unreverted my edits, and actually suggested that in future they remove unwanted changes by looking through the history... In any case, even objectively trying to sort out the current mess will probably get me branded and bannded. *sigh* Feebas factor 22:22, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I haven't been watching the article itself as close as some of you. Is this a case of Ken removing the original article (save for Andy's insanity) so that only his material will remain? --Kels 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

The irony is that until a month ago this was one of CP's better articles.[1] Barnaby 23:56, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

My god, you're right!--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 00:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Mmm, short but reasonably accurate. Susan^{talk to me} 00:35, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

The current version surely has the handwriting of Conservative all over it. He digs up many quotes by rather irrelevant people, proving some point that might or might not be related, and fails probably on purpose to discuss the subject of the article. He did it too the atheism article too. Conservatives involvement is the death kiss for this article. Could it be possible that Andy called him for help. Tohuvavohu 03:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he maybe called him for help. Sort of like airplanes use chaff or flares to distract incoming missiles, Andy might've tried to throw Conservative into the line of fire. The only problem is that it didn't work - Conservative's contribs are drivel, but at least they're somewhat anchored in some approximation of reality. Andy's stuff is just libel. --Sid 08:06, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm done with reporting on the Dawkins article, could write a whole book on it. However, I was wrong on one point: TK unprotected the article (DanH as well, but to revert Conservative's work only to put it back). Jenkins seems to understand that since most edits are from sysops, they won't allow probably any change to occur.

Andy just called himself an atheist and liberal. Lulz. Norseman^Wassail! 12:42, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Portrait of Andy as a Young Child

Seems obvious to me that TK's talking about Andy, since he's the one being told "20 times" that he's full of shit in that very same discussion. Kenservative, while the same applies to him, hasn't even joined the discussion on the talk page, but just jumped right in on the article. --Kels 08:08, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Has TK come over to the dark side:[2] - just check who posted it. Susan^{talk to me} 09:19, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

True, I guess, if you consider the discussion. I saw the 20 times as a reference to Conservative preaching the same shit in every article, and multiple times in all articles... then again, CP sysops confuse me in general (and I have less trouble believing that TK verbally slapped Conservative than Andy). --Sid 09:41, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I do not think TK is ConWebWatch's Terry Krepel. I could be wrong of course, and bow to the superior intellect and intuitive powers of SusanG, however! As to the slaps, I think it was a slap at both. Again, bowing to Sid's superior experience. --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 18:10, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

There's no way the ConWebWatch article is by our beloved TK - it's clear, concise, reasonably rational, and virtually devoid of histrionics, poor grammar and spelling mistakes that have come to typify just about all CP'ers prose.PFoster 18:58, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Deceit

Not sure if you saw the latest edit by Skip Johnson, but I wonder how long it will take the word "liberal" and "deceit" will follow. He added it at 12:58. I guess before 14:00. And I guess that might be Ed who drops the liberal deceit bomb. Tohuvavohu 13:24, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Worst War Ever

There has been a bit of toing and froing over whether this is a legitimate inclusion in the WIGO page. As I put it in originally I will state my rationale. Here is the entire text of the CP "Article of the Month" Pane on their mainpage:

The American Civil War took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. It was worst war ever fought, with casualties of nearly a million soldiers and civilians, 3% of the country's then total population of 28 million people; with the exception of World War II, the Civil War claimed more deaths than all other American wars combined!

It seems to me to be a perfect example of the problems with CP, hyperbole, poor writing, pro-USAian to the point of fanaticism, and just plain wrong, so I included it in the WIGO list--it is after all going on on CP.

The comment has been made that the CP article is ambiguous, or that it means that it was the worst war up until that time, or some other softer meaning. It has also been said that the WWII reference somehow mitigagtes the "worst ever" portion of the article.

I do not see that any of these points are valid. The "worst ever" comment stands alone and has no modifying or limiting words tacked on to explain or clarify the meaning. In their absence, the meaning must be taken as written. The reference to WWII is not a limiting factor either, but is merely there as an exclusion on the number of casualties in comparison to other wars. Note that they are not saying that WWII was a worse war, just that its casualty numbers were high enough to not include with the other wars fought by the U.S. and still have the Civil War have higher casualty numbers. And why did they do this, presumably to emphasise the already made point that the Civil War was the worst war ever.

If the item gets taken out again, then so be it, but so far, ISTM, the reasons for doing so have been far from sound, and if it is removed fro the reasons so far given then so should any number of items on the list that also suffer the same supposed limitations. My 2c :--Remarcsd 19:00, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree with its inclusion, if only because it is still very badly written. All they'd have to do is change it to "a terrible war" or tragic war... it also jumps from "casualties" to "dead" without flowing clearly. They aren't the same. And this is on the main page. human 19:10, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I mean seriously. How does the American civil war compare to world war one, where over half a million soldiers were lost in one battle, and which introduced chemical weapons to battle or to the "total war" of world war two, and the first two nuclear weapons used in anger? I can only assume in the Coservapedia lexicon "people" is a set that contains only Americans. Jeeves 19:50, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, seriously, you are right, Jeeves. Since the article is dealing with the American Civil War, how dare they ignore all other wars and countries! :P --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 19:54, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Neither Jeeves nor I suggested CP ignored those other wars, I mean how could we? the CP article implicitly introduces them as being not as bad as the one they are talking about. Their article would be improved by ignoring the other wars and removing the reference that makes an untrue and odious comparison.:--Remarcsd 20:12, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

This is about their lame main page blurb, not their civil war article. human 23:18, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

That is what I am referring to. The Mainpage article introduces, by implication, all those other wars by making the comparison. If their mainpage article didn't have that comparison it would be business as usual for CP. Adding the comparison elevates the thing to the kookosphere.--Remarcsd 23:44, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

"Leading anti-homosexual agenda website"?

Does anyone know which site Red-State-Ken is referring to here? Anyone else have a sinking feeling that it'll turn out to be god hates fags. or something like that? Jeeves 20:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

See [3] and here [4] and their sleazy website [5] here. It's a dressed up version of godhatesfags.com, is all. --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Can't imagine there are sites dedicated to such bigotry.-αmεσ (spy) 00:03, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Ha! You are a member of two of them! ROFL! --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 02:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative reminds me of Steve "I! LOVE! THIS! COMPANY!" Ballmer - only less funny. And it makes me wonder if that "reporter" only turns out to be some online website columnist. If not, it should be hilarious to see the CP dudes trying to whitewash their Wikipedia article by holding up some potential praise by some ultra-rightwing site / "news organization". --Sid 05:27, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Ken is plenty funny. He's just not ha-ha funny. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 07:35, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Hell, why not get Rob to make a post on Little Green F*cktards and get it over with? --Kels 07:38, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

It's funny, I can get on their site, the filter at work categorizes it as a porno site.Czolgolz 11:58, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

That site is so twisted, but those naked pics wanted me to see more. Hawt. :X Norseman^Wassail! 16:33, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

So Conservative is full of shit? "Two leading organizations" went down to "one is truly interested" [emphasis mine].-Shangrala 21:11, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Pwned, perhaps? Norseman^Wassail! 20:13, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Scabies

So, lemme get this straight. Asshat, who teaches kids for a living and boasts about how his home-schoolers all get into the colleges of their choice (including pre-med programmes), admits he'd never even heard of a common skin infection until yesterday, but insists that some liberal agenda and political correctness is hiding the truth about how said skin infection ended up in the hallowed halls of Harvard. Is thinking this this because the word "scabies" is kind of icky looking? Or is it just that once again, he's a massive tool? PFoster 20:27, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

It may be more enlightening if you put his words through the Radical Right to Human translator. He can't express what he really means because of years of being told that bodily functions of all kinds are dirty and not to be discussed. What he really means to say is: "Hehehe, Beavis.... those there liberal University students have an infestation that is spread mainly through... snigger... *shagging*. Hehehe... this confirms everything my momma said about liberals holding rampant sex orgies." --Jeeves 20:57, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

There's stubs and then there's STUBS

Now that's what I call a stub! Susan^{talk to me} 21:27, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Ha! Great minds ... Susan^{talk to me} 21:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT) eh? shangrala.

Better can be done. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

It's shorter, true, but it's not an obvious statement. (On a related note, I think that the cp definition of linear algebra is actually wrong. See Mathworld.) -Masterbratac 22:39, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Did you have to send me to mathworld? I think I prefer CP's version, at least it don't burn out my brain. Susan^{talk to me} 22:47, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Their definition of linear algebra is SO wrong. I hope kids aren't seriously using this to learn.-Shangrala 23:11, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Dude I'm taking Linear Algebra right now and their article was less than useful. Thanks a lot, Conservapedia. (P.S. Linear Algebra is actually the division of algebra dealing with matrices.) Slink 05:30, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

And, on top of everything else, when you click on the hyperlink "division" in "Linear algebra is the division of algebra dealing with lines", you get "division" in the sense of dividing 8 by 2 to get 4. These people don't even stop to think about whether they are getting the sense of "division" right. Of course the real problem is that the sentence was probably cribbed by someone whose knowledge of English was simply not up to the level of whatever he was cribbing from. And who would that person have been? Oh, my goodness! It wasn't ASchlafly. It's some newbie who thinks there another article creation contest. Check this out. Gauss 18:15, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Love that, even the link goes to a stub. Susan^{talk to me} 18:28, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I been blocked!

Inadvertently clicked edit & guess what:

User is blocked Your user name or IP address has been blocked. The block was made by TK. The reason given is Sock. Bye. You can contact TK or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 193.113.235.169, and the block ID is #16795. Please include either or both of these in any queries.

I've never edited on CP Susan^{talk to me} 21:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Funny, Conservative is usually the one who blocks before the user edits, citing "likely vandal". Please don't tell me you were TKisCute or something. Norseman^Wassail! 21:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I got the same thing. TK basically went and blocked every IP he saw on here, including people who not only have never edited CP, but have publicly stated they never had any interest in editing CP. --Kels 21:51, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone is reading this closely....

19:42, 16 October 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked 193.113.235.169 (contribs) (Almost the same IP...almost.)

Welcome mat is out for Susan, it seems. :p --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 22:47, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, isn't that nice, paranoia rules - they are watching. Susan^{talk to me} 22:59, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK!

Hi TK! try:193.113.235.167 or 193.113.235.168 - all mine Susan^{talk to me} 23:21, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

You have GOT to be shitting me

That's "great historian" Rob Smith's idea of a historical source? A freaking Chick Tract!? It beggars the imagination, seriously. --Kels 21:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Have to thank Osteothis for the edit summary, or I would've missed it. Norseman^Wassail! 21:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

A Chick tract as credible source . . . were it any site but CP, I would be surprised. Has anyone else read this? -Masterbratac 21:57, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I see the poor fellow got banned for his trouble. I wonder if Rob felt cheated at not being able to pull the trigger himself? --Kels 22:02, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

It's not even a good tract. Pretty boring if you ask me. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:05, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

It got re-added because of liberalness, then removed, then re-added because removing it was vandalism. Jesus these people are idiots.-Shangrala 22:25, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

WTF?

I just got this off their main page: "The European Union's top court has ruled that member countries can force workers to retire at the age of 65. A good reason why a North American Union is a bad idea!" So what they're saying is that "world government organizations" are a bad idea because they allow individual counrties to have their own labor laws? Isn't that supposed to be what they support? Would they be happier if the EU started telling countries what sort of laws they could have? Fucking hypocrites. DickTurpis 00:42, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

"What I say means exactly what I say it means. Nothing less and nothing more!" Said the Red Queen Assfly. - --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 02:04, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Does anyone actually think the North American Union thing is anything short of far-right paranoia, flag-waving, and xenophobia all rolled into one made-up quasi-crisis? Jesus Christ. And to top it off, Andy's moron-icity.-αmεσ (spy) 02:13, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Considering that Canada had mandatory retirement at 65 right up until last year (Ontario did away with it, and some other provinces, it's expected to be Canada-wide soon), I don't see what the big deal is. --Kels 06:35, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I got mailed a copy of "New America" magazine.... pretty much a not only anti-NAFTA but anti-pulling down the borders weird mag. I finally found the "editorship" crap. Gee, published by the John Birch Society. I love having high friends in low places! human 06:51, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Shipwreck

Is anyone else amused that the Masterpiece of the week is "The Shipwreck"? VirileSterile^yawn! 17:21, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Turner was "home skooled" you know.....:D -- --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 19:11, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

It's nice to be appreciated

And there I was, thinking they loved us. See ken's still fixated on web hits - haven't they clued up to the fact that people visit both sites to laugh at one? Susan^{talk to me} 22:49, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

They wouldn't know a sense of humor if one the size of Texas fell out of the sky and started raping them. I don't think they can even comprehend laughter. I Eat Glue 23:03, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Unless it's directed at liberals. Masterbratac 23:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I dunno--RobSmith & Conservative's ritual denunciation of RW was pure comedy gold. I wonder if they'll try imprecatory prayer next? --Gulik 02:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Of course, instead of admitting to being wrong, they blame the goats. Was Stones even a wandal? They're just throwing the blame at RW to mask their own stupidity of falling for that retarded snipet without checking. Shot mead out my nose over their quick-to-point reasoning. Norseman^Wassail! 23:43, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's edit summary there is cool. Shows that the Bible (or at least movies based on it) is good for something, even if it's just to provide cool phrases for epic statements :P --Sid 04:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Love this edit: "RW is the home hideout for the putrid, stinking, miserable, vile, poorly educated, wife beating, psychopathic trolls who plague us. Yah, go ahead and post this diff, scumbags.User:RobSmith"--Bob^{bing for apples} 14:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

"stinking"?CЯacke® 23:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

"wife beating"?' That dude's crazier than a football bat. --SockOfGulik 16:34, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I think this incident should be sent to "best of" It's too classic to simply let it die in the night. SirChuckB 16:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Seconded. How does that usually work? Is there a vote or a particular person that does upkeep there? -Smyth 16:49, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Gets my goat vote too - but I'm not sure what the "best of" process is either.--Bob^{bing for apples} 16:50, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to write twice, but each time I read that I burst out laughing.--Bob^{bing for apples} 16:52, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe the correct process is to go ahead and add the material, and if the rest of us don't like it, we'll burn you as a witch. I'm not sure if that process has been properly accredited and documented, though. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:01, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

My BoC's have always been those things that rise above to day-to-day insanity a take a look at the deep seated, radical bedrock of unreality that underpins the whole of the blog project; (that's basic or fundamental radical not the political kind, in case RobS[mith] is watching).

If it's funny (or disturbing) today either one is fine, if it has the potential to still have that same pizazz a month from now, then I BoC it. CЯacke® 17:14, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

It can't be linked or anything though, since TK deleted and restored the talk page. Would just a statement suffice? I kick myself for not taking screenshots. Norseman^Wassail! 17:18, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

An Observation

Is it just me, or does it seem that sometime this or last month, Cp stopped trying to grow or be credible, completely. There was something of a vague struggle before, but now, it's just Asclhlfly, Ed, Tk, Rob, and the rest of the gang all going batshit insane. --Offeep 00:08, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

At a glance, the entries for this current month is almost as long as the September archive, yet it's just over halfway into the month yet. Norseman^Wassail! 00:19, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

'Going'? I'd say Teh Crazy is just becoming unusually obvious now that they've blocked all dissenters. (RobSmith & Conservative's ritual denunciation of Rationalwiki was Best-of material.) Before, the Outsiders provided a nice layer of token sanity, but with so many of them gone, there's not enough to stop the true nature of CP from exposing itself. --Gulik 02:45, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

"The inmates have taken over the asylum." Oh ... no ... "The inmates built the asylum!" I've just re-read all of Dawkins talk - it gets better with every reading. Susan^{talk to me} 04:38, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I did too, and it sure does! As far as CP growing or whatever, I've recently noticed that user LukeCorlando, who seems to have about a 4th grade grasp of English and of what it means to be informative, is really on a tear with new, vacuous, articles. See nutrient, femininity, fear, and water vapor, for example. Along with ... Oh, God—just go look. Note that he is also really sucking up to the sysops by snitching simultaneously to a bunch of them about a wandal he found. So one question comes to mind: Is the "article creation drive" or "contest" still running? I thought it had ended. And, have they lowered their standards even further? So I don't think they have stopped trying to grow, but of course they long ago stopped trying to be credible. Gauss 21:10, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Brownback has stopped running

Thought I would mention this since it was on CNN this morning. I wonder how the blogs4brownback are taking it?-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 10:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

What? How can that be? He's the only true conservative running. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:07, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The perfect strategy...

...that will never happen is for liberals in the United States to start registering as Republicans. I've considered doing it myself. I figure that these new Republicans could primary vote for the looniest Republican for each particular office. As for President, if enough liberals did this, it could lead to someone without any chance of winning a general election becoming the nominee. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 09:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Uncle Ed's bigotry and backpedalling

Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than Ed Poor's "lock up the gays" beliefs (and his lame, half-hearted attempt to take it back) is the idea of him actually running for the Senate. I'm assuming that that statement was just some whimsy of his, but, Christ, what if it isn't? Anyone know what state he lives in (other than self-delusion and denial)? DickTurpis 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Where's the Diff of him running for Senator? Man, I'd loooooooooooooooooooooooooove him to run for the Senate. I'd quit practice to join his opponent's campaign team.-αmεσ (spy) 17:11, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Here, although it doesn't look like he meant it seriously. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:15, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I hope he does just so I can throw that quote in his face. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 17:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

It would be funny, though still disturbing, to see him run for office. Though I'd really love to see RobS do something like that. The debates would be classic, as he answers every single question with an utterly irrelevant response, somehow working communism in each time. DickTurpis 18:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd vote for him! ollïegrïnd 09:43, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, answering all questions with irrelevancies, but working 9/11 in to each response was a proven vote-getter for Bush in 2004. :( --SockOfGulik 15:05, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

And Guiliani is trying to do it for 2008... right? human 03:19, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

If you're going to hit the roof every time I abuse a metaphor, I suggest you bite your tongue. It's a real slap in the face every time you rake me over the coals for stepping out of line, so don't get your panties in a knot. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 23:17, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Tell you what, Ed - you don't ban users every time they "step out of line" on Conservapedia - stop that overreacting - and we'll stop overreacting to your little missteps. Oh, by the way, I don't consider racism/god-awful bigotry to be little missteps. But seriously, someone from Conservapedia talking to us about overreacting?-αmεσ (spy) 23:44, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

And, wet trout?-αmεσ (spy) 23:52, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Guilt by Association

This explains a lot about Andy's insane ravings. It's not so much that being associated with JBS that's embarrassing to various conservatives, but JBS is tarnished by being associated with them. Not that it's any less insane, mind you... --Kels 20:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Take it from Andy: sometimes being the truth makes a claim even more wrong. 207.162.58.3 10:14, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

TK's whitewashed the Trotsky acknowledgement

Hoping God pokes a hole through your bible and uses it as his personal gloryhole, TK?

Oh, and he put back the comic strip again. Dumbass! :D

I've also slashed the keeper Best Of entry, unsure someone knows what to do with it. Norseman^Wassail! 11:03, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

It's also very interesting to see that he's back to using the old "page was empty" excuse in his deletions..... Of course, that makes the timeline the page was empty, so he deleted it, just to recreate another empty page.... Ah, the mind of a six year old SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 12:18, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's a "deep burn". TK does that from time to time. I've got copies of some of his antics. We need a "cp:burning the evidence" page—there's easily enough material by now. Gauss 15:04, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

A well written article? Nope... another cut and paste

And cp:cod looked at first to be something that was well written and informative. Maybe a bit too well written... a look at the reference link and yes, it is a cut and paste from http://www.ucd.ie/codtrace/codbio.htm (other than the interesting facts). One would hope that some CP editor would come through and see this and delete this before it becomes something embarrassing after Andy defends copying from iceland (this is covered under international copyright treaties and is not fair use). And what's with the metric units in the article too - those are un-American? Oh wait, thats right copied from Europe that doesn't use imperial units. --Shagie 14:28, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Magic

Sorry, Jayjay4ever, but on Planet Fundamentalist, you're objectively wrong. The Bible says magic, demons, and witchcraft are real, therefore they are real. Disagree with this, and you're at best hopelessly deluded, but much more likely in league with Satan. Fnord. --SockOfGulik 16:27, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

And just because I feel like bashing on the CP crowd a bit further, I'll point out that inability to tell fantasy from reality seems to be a common problem among the non-Reality-Based Community these days. Look at the lunatics pointing to 24 as "Proof" that torture is an effective and moral information gathering tool, or the gullible saps who saw Colin Powell's UN presentation of drawings of Hussein's RVs of Doom and thought they were evidence we had to attack Iraq. --SockOfGulik 16:29, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Woah

This seems to be the most edited page on rationalwiki. Elassint 23:12, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, it's pretty much the centerpiece here.--Offeep 23:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't know about "centerpiece", but its nature causes it to be constantly updated. Very few "normal" articles would ever "need" to be 3-4-5-6 times a day indefinitely. As long as CP stays hilarious and any RWers are watching, this article will keep getting edited. human 03:06, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Where else would we get our lulz? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 03:09, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

SNL and CP

So I happened upon this, and it reminded me of discourse between the few sane minds and the sysops over at CP. Anyone else agree, or do I need to get some sleep? (Oh, sorry about the brief ad at the beginning.) DickTurpis 02:22, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Running out of ideas?

Are you guys running out of ideas, or what? This edit, this edit, this edit and this edit are all by the same editor -- an editor who is obviously new and has been told at least once to stop these sorts of pages. (You have posted even more examples, but I'm too lazy to get all the diffs). Is it "rational" to extrapolate the edits of a new user to include all of the other editors? Let's look at some more slow-news-day items: this was created by a RW editor, so it hardly counts as what is going on at CP; this edit war was caused by an obvious sock (who was blocked, by the way).

This one is also clear, when you look at who was actually involved, that there is no story. Someone added the ref a while ago, and nobody noticed. Rob didn't look at the cite when he added it back in, because it said something about how Marxists were evil, then it was called liberal by someone who is very probably a parodist. Then a vandal with a suspicious name oddly removes it. Greg, chasing the vandal, reverts without looking. This is at most a comedy of errors, but you guys are making it out to be some huge exposé or something.

And this is all only going back 3 days. Sheesh! Lurker 02:25, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

"At most a comedy of errors". Looks like Conservapedia has a new slogan! Also, why are you here complaining that the guy is totally new and has been told to stop it instead of fixing the articles? The hilarity isn't that someone created a stupid article, the hilarity as that the article is still like that. 64.81.121.252 02:52, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Above dude is totally me. Slink 02:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

I fixed your article btw :) As you well know night editing turns off at an idiotic time and very, very few editors have the privilege to edit past Andy's bed time. I have been correcting the guy's crap but it's a large undertaking and it's very taxing on my mind and I have other things I need to do as well. Lurker 10:47, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is the only place where four sentences constitutes an article. I know your mind is really taxed by by all this, but (if you are TK as I suspect you are- I apologize if I'm jumping to conclusions) you have only fixed two of his articles since posting your complaints here. Which means you have spent more energy complaining here about how unfair the WiGO criticism is than fixing articles that prompted criticism. You also seem to have spent a ton more energy working over Andy's talk page, but that is neither here nor there. The reality is that policies at conservapedia are such that collaboration is actively discouraged, and the result has become that errors persist for a very long period of time because there is a greater incentive to just work on articles that interest you and ignore all other contributions. Remember that guy who decided to volunteer his time cleaning up some broke-ass articles and got yelled at for the quality of the articles? Maybe you should work on that. 64.81.121.252 15:29, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

GODDAMMIT! Is there a way to ban my IP but still allow me to log in? That'll learn me.Slink 15:32, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Nope, not TK. It's nice (and rational) of you to insult my intelligence (because you guys never point out when other people make ad hominem arguments), but what I actually meant was that it taxes my mind because it's so grinding to read that third grade language. The guy went on his own little article creation drive and he created a lot of articles which need a lot of work. Lurker 02:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I assumed you were TK. I am not sorry that I rephrased your own statement in a humorous way. The joke wasn't that you're dumb, the joke was that you're easily exhausted, because nothing had actually been done to the articles the dude had created. Not to mention the fact that the only reason why the dude's articles are lower quality than the mass of dead-end crap on Conservapedia is that the dude refused to copy/paste his work. 1/6th of Conservapedia's articles are orphaned at the moment, with hundreds of other stubbish articles. I'm gonna go out on a limb that that adds up to thousands of 3-sentence articles that have been CnP'd from another source. What weirds me out is that you're getting mad at this dude not because of the poor quality but because the poor quality isn't IGNORABLE. The real question is why you don't feel that EVERY article should be edited after its initial creation?

Still can't do things right the first time. >:| Also: looks like the Greek/Roman thing has finally been corrected. Slink 13:54, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Again, the exhausting part wasn't the work, but actually just reading them. It's grinding on the mind. And yes, I'm sure there are tons of copy/pasted things; as I said before I have no problem with pointing out articles like cp:Cod or cp:category:ships, because these are created by the "good" editors. My problem all along was that you are unfairly padding your log.

As for stubs, they've never really bothered me. I have a low attention span and do not know about any subject well enough to write a wikipedia style article. So you are right, what bothers me is not that his articles are short ("poor quality" in your eyes), but that they are bad ("not ignorable"). Lurker 01:05, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Rationalization rules, I would blame cognitive dissonance, but to each their own, those who try and take CP seriously are doomed because of its inherent idiocy, hypocrisy and endemic denialism. tmtoulouse ^persecute 02:37, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

As the guy who made many of the additions that Lurker is kvetching about, here's my 2 cent's worth. As long as CP keeps putting up complete cut and paste jobs like the Cod article, or stupidities like the Olympics being "Roman," or country music being "slower than most genres," while claiming to be "trustworthy," I'll keep posting about the fundamental stupidity of the CP project and most of the CP sysop and editor community - as will, I imagine, most of the regulars around here. If an established RW'er like Human or tmtoulouse tells me that "too much is too much," and asks me to lay off, I will. Until then, keep showing us how dumb you are CP - we'll keep letting everyone else know. PFoster 10:03, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

That's just it, it's not CP, it's one editor. Have you seen how many new articles the guy is making? He's making junk faster than we can keep up! The Cod thing is fine; it's absolutely a cut-and-dry case of cut-and-paste work. Stick to that! The Roman/Greek thing is created by the same guy as all the rest -- he's been told to stop, and almost every one of his articles have been corrected in some form or another; obviously you are a half step faster than CP. Does that make you feel good? You guys assume that all the sysops and editors do is sit around fact checking every single article all day long, so when there's a false statement obviously it's all CP's fault. This is just dumb. All I'm saying is if you guys can't fill in the log with entries from sysops or established editors, maybe CP isn't as dumb as you want it to be, right? Lurker 10:47, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

"..if you guys can't fill in the log with entries from sysops or established editors, maybe CP isn't as dumb as you want it to be, right?" I think your beloved leader should have the last word on that PFoster 10:54, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Touchè, though you make the false assumption that editing at CP says anything at all about me besides the fact that I like to edit. Andy's a very sheltered boy who spent waaay too much time listening to his mother and her friends and for some reason never quite went through that rebellious stage. Nobody's arguing (at least I'm not arguing) anything to the contrary, nor could I with any credibility. Lurker 02:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

It's not the BoC (Best of Conservapedia), so don't worry about it. I didn't find that comic strip entry to be that relevant, but it turned out into something awesome in the long run. If it's not funny, don't worry about it. Besides, why are you complaining? You have three edits total. I put quite a few entries in there myself and some are crap I admit. One of the overseers or someone with a knack of picking out the fuddy duddies can easily go through and pick out irrelevant entries before archiving. Norseman^Wassail! 12:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

The thing is, Lurker, those edits haven't been corrected. As of now, the Oympic games are still Roman, magic is still presented as real, and cod is still plagarized (though admittedly cut and paste articles at CP are too common to really be noteworthy anymore). The one that was "corrected" was the Country music article (arguably the least problematical of the lot). The chick tract was worth mentioning because, for an "encyclopedia" that prides itself on its diligence regarding finding and reverting trolls and vandals, that was not only kept for quite some time, but was added back by a few sysops (and an RW sock) one as recent as yesterday. I admit the RW entry was tooting our own horn a bit; although I am surprised it lasted for more than 5 seconds. But in a way you are right, most posts on WiGO should relate to sysops and established users, or edits that have at least tacitly met with their approval. DickTurpis 12:19, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Lurker Dude, you are so in violation of 90/10..... If this were CP, you'd have been hammered already SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:26, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Dick: as I said, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the CP C&P scheme. It's boring (IMHO), but it serves its purpose without relying on any gimmicks. I think we both agree that WiGO is best served honest, not spiteful. (Yeah, mixed metaphores galore; whatever!) As for Luke's entries, I said before that he has created a *ton* of them and many of them get cleaned up every day. Since last night, the Olypmic example was corrected, and almost every one of Luke's entries have had at least 1 serious editor go over them with some sort of correction.

Chuck: Heh, that's why I'm glad this ain't CP :) Wait, actually I'm not in violation, I've had 2 (now 3) talk edits out 3 (now 4) total edits. That's nowhere near 90% talk... not that that's ever actually stopped them ;-) Lurker 02:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

DickTurpis, what am I missing? I went back several months in Olympics and it always has said Greek origin. Help me out here! ----Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 03:46, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, you're looking at Olympics. You need to look at the hitsory for Olympic Games (which is now a redirect (finally)). DickTurpis 09:32, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Its the hypocrisy

Let us use an analogy, there has been a lot of "outing" of public figures as being gay recently. When this happens it is prudent to look at what person said about homosexuality and advocated and worked for. If the person never said anything bad, lobbied for equal rights under the law and for such things as gay major then it is no ones business about their personal sex life. On the other hand if the person uses their public lectern to claim that all gays are evil and going to hell and need to be rounded up into re-education camps then the person deserves all the public ridicule and shame that can be pointed at them. Not because they are gay but because of their abject hypocrisy.

That is why these entries are so notable for CP. If CP didn't claim to be different than any other wiki and immune to such things because of their God inspired wiki "commandments" it wouldn't be notable. If that was all we had even then it would be questionable..but CP takes it ones step further. They devote a huge chunk of their time pointing fingers at WP and mocking and denigrating WP because of such issues. This combination of utter hubris and hypocrisy makes all of these cases worth noting.

The fact that their motto was misspelled on their logo for so long is amusing...but the fact that the motto was "the trustworthy encyclopedia" made it that much better. tmtoulouse ^persecute 12:53, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Tmtoulouse here with one exception. I do see items by lone editors rushed into WIGO within minutes, and that, IMO, is not fair game as it applies to a dumb edit by one editor, not CP as a whole, and often is done by socks of people here. For the sake of accuracy that distinction should be made, and it is not always done. If, as Tmtoulouse gave the example of, it is allowed to stay, or has been edited by others, especially sysops, without being fixed, they deserve what they get. Personally, I think more responsibility should be taken by editors here not to expose readily apparent parody or insertion of items that tend to make CP even more a misinformation site than it already is. But that's just me. -- --ИighŤ¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 16:24, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Dumbledore

So, now we know why Dumbledore couldn't survive the curse placed on him by the Ring Horcrux - it was Gay Bowel Syndrome. Stile4aly 19:51, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh for fuck's sake! I've seen better parody than this! Oh no! Books are not only teaching the children satanic rituals, but now they're making them gay as well! It must be the liberals' fault! Proving once again that conservatives have no imagination and therefore hate books. Uchiha 23:47, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Best of

I realize there's no formal system for this, but I think that the entire article on faith deerves to be in best of. Especially the line "Faith is emphasized in Christianity and is unknown or unrecognized by other religions or belief systems." Where the fuck does Assfly get this bullshit? It pains me that people this stupid not only exist, but suck the right dicks to manage to get advanced degrees. I especially like the part where he cites Genesis as an example of faith, then states that the concept is foreign to Jews. DickTurpis 20:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Scratch the surface of these false right-wingers, and racism and anti-semitism is always there. And if called on it, like Uncle Ed, they hide behing their "tolerant" Faith. Another user at CP recently linked me to some post of Uncle Ed, that said he was a Moonie. Anyone else know of that? -- --Иight¤Ṭraiṇ ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 20:13, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

That's exactly it..... Intolerent people rush to religion because it gives them exactly what they want/need. A justified platform to judge and hate others and if their racist views are pointed out, they can say "I just hold traditional values, and all liberals do is claim racism." Even though questioning any move Isreal makes will get you labeled anti-semetic.... Weird (ps, I do not mean that all religious people are bigoted... just a large group) SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:26, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't think of the YEC/NutJob crowd as Christians. Or "Conservatives" either, for that matter. That would be like lumping Billy Graham in with the really nutter evangelists. Difference is night and day. Conservatives, are more in sync with Liberterians and even traditional liberals on most matters, and that is way different than what the NeoCons & Christian Right think. ----Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 23:10, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Wow, thank you NightTrain. The problem with the fringe people is that they take up way more of their fair share of the public eye. I have met hundreds of "normal" Christians who believe that Genesis was allegorical, Christ taught love, and that God is the only judge of character, and I've maybe seen or met at most 3 or 4 of the crazies. And this is in a red state! This is really a case of a very small minority with a very loud voice making a bad name for the rest of us. The exact same argument goes for conservatism (though it's probably fair to say there is a higher ratio of crazy within conservatives than there is in Christians). Andy just so happens to be both kinds of crazy, wrapped together with some sort of "I'm always right and you're always wrong liberal" complex. Lurker 03:04, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have a lot more sympathy for the Token Sane People in the Jesus-Political Complex (aka the Conservative Christian movement) if they hadn't let the lunatics take over the asylum. --Gulik 12:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

That's a theme that I've seen a lot of bloggers on the left (Driftglass is one of the more obvious ones) work on. The basic idea is that the Right, and more appropriately the current leadership of the Republican Party, is in power largely because the moderates let them take charge, and even applauded them because they were winning elections, and gaining power for the party. But when the time came for them to stand up and say that the party was moving too far right, very few, if any, stood up and said no. So you can't really point at the crazies and say "I'm not like them", when you aided and abetted them getting in power in the first place. --Kels 12:57, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Bloggers of the left (and of the right, for that matter) say a lot of things, but what are the political scientists saying? I'll give you a hint: they aren't saying that there's some conspiracy, and they certainly aren't saying that the fringe groups (that is, the people who by definition only appeal to a small percentage of voters) are the ones bringing in all the votes. Lurker 01:13, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Wait, what? You're telling me that political scientists have been saying that the neocon faction of the right hasn't been bringing in votes by allying with megachurches, fostering the creation of a "noise machine" and generally using bad faith and dirty tricks? Wow, no wonder Karl Rove resigned, all his tactics were for naught. I wonder about the credibility of those political scientists, then. --Kels 06:44, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Assfly...kook, prodst, or?

Wow...i mean, wow. Catching up on my cp reading after a long time. I have to admit, because I want to brag, that I seeded the RD forum with the cp RD article to sort of get the ball rolling. <pats self on back>

I think the discussion over there is one of the best discussions I have seen from a severely mentally ill person. Because, either Assfly has a severe mental illness which includes paranoia and delusions of grandeur and infallibility, or he a a master prodst, or he is just a masturbator. I am thinking of putting together some sort of paper with one of my psych colleagues using just the RD and ben franklin discussions. --PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 01:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

How could you boil it down to a single paper? More like a dictionary. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:36, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I just finished reading it over, and I'm at a lost for words... Every new reply Ashlafly manages to top himself in terms of sheer audacity and ignorance. Does he even know what he's arguing anymore?? Dawkins is not a professor... is not a real professor... might not be a real professor... endowed professorships don't count, though... he's just bad ok??!!

I wonder if he consciously changes subject even more erratically when he knows he's losing, or if it's just a subconscious reaction to pressure by now. Uchiha 01:47, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

What I find amazing is the continual pattern of his belief in a binary morality. There's no equivocation. In his mind, everything is assigned to the "Good" category, consisting of Christianity, conservatism, intellectualism, truth, purity, morality, homeschooling etc. or the "Bad" category, consisting of atheism, stupidity, hatred, deceit, death, public school, vaccines, etc. RD is an atheist? Well, that means he's in the "Bad" category, so he must not really be the holder of a highly regarded academic position. Oppose in school prayer? Then you have no credibility in debate, and absolutely nothing you say can be correct. Are you liberal? Then you can't be an intellectual and you're automatically deceitful. The theory of relativity sounds kind of like moral relativism, so it's "Bad" and therefore not correct.

I remember not long ago one of the young C-pedians, possibly a (former?) homeskollar who had "Good" status, posted on Andy's talk page that he was reconsidering what he thought about evolution and got a frosty response from Andy. Apparently the poor student had instantly been converted to "Bad" status. That kind of attitude can be incredibly frustrating to reason with, but from a human behavior standpoint it's also incredibly fascinating.--Bayes^update 02:15, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Those seeking to "help" CP become an even greater font of misinformation than it already is, need to re-read what Bayes said above. Avoid, at all costs, direct confrontation. Pretend greater ass kissing than you ever imagined doing anywhere, and you will be "trusted" beyond your wildest dreams. Ask confrontational questions only if you want to burn a sock creating a diversion for other helpful work. Find crap on the Net, from only spurious right-wing sites like NewsMax. FoxNews, to them, is middle of the road, and often suspect. Present such items on Andy's talk page or the Main Page talk. Or to one of the sysops allowed to edit the Main Page: Croctite, Rob or TK. Bring it like a faithful dog laying a bone at their feet. They will always thank you and trust you even more, and slap it up for all the Internet to marvel at! It is (CP) the living embodiment of a childrens book. Alice in Wonderland. What's up is down, down is up. -- --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 03:34, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

More like a textbook. --Gulik 14:35, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Schlafly logic

Reading some of the things that vomit forth from ASchlafly's keyboard, I'm starting to detect a subtle undertone of illogic that's camouflaged by the sacrificial outer layer of laughability.

Take the Richard Dawkins discussion for example. Schlafly constantly trots out "No leading university would allow the purchasing of a professorship for someone." I can't really make head nor tail of what he's trying to say with this statement. If we take this as a fact, then what conclusions could we possibly draw?

• Schlafly thinks Oxford is not a leading university. That's pretty hard to argue defensibly, considering most people would rank it in the top ten of the world's academic institutions, or...
• Schlafly thinks Oxford didn't allow anyone to buy a professorship for Dawkins. This rather defeats his point.

Either way, his argument sounds pretty insane.

Then take his recent denouncement of the Nobel prize committee as "Liberals." I can't imagine he's thinking about other groups that he previously denounced. If, as Schlafly asserts, that academia is basically shot through with a bunch of lefty liberals then how can you possibly tell from their actions that the Nobel prize committee are liberal too? Surely, sheer statistics dictates that liberals are almost always selected for Nobel prizes because they comprise the majority of the candidates (at least if we start from the Schlafly axioms, anyway)? I suppose the alternative is that he believes that being a conservative makes you somehow far better at your job and more worthy of recognition?

Is Schlafly really as insane as he sounds, or is he just plain stupid and not thinking carefully about what he says?

I re-read Dawkins_talk from time to time because I slowly lose my belief in Andy's total whackyness - swiftly reaffirmed on one pass. The trouble is he's painted himself into a corner and, being infallible, he can't admit that he might have been wrong in the first place. All he has to do is admit that RD is a genuine professor and within days the iisue would be over and on its way to being forgotten. His colours are now so firmly nailed to the mast that any backdown would be seen, by him, as total surrender on all his beliefs. Susan^{talk to me} 02:51, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

In regard to the "leading university" issue, there could conceivably be a third option: Schlafly thinks that leading institutions do allow the "buying" of "non-professorial" positions, which might be what he's arguing occurred with Dawkins. Though admittedly, his idea of what Dawkins' position at Oxford actually entails is not clear (much like the rest of his argument). Susan is right about him backing down, but since he considers himself "Good" by my above terminology, he can't be wrong, can he?

The Nobel Prize issue is even more interesting, since he's made clear that, for liberals, not winning one is evidence that you are not an intellectual, but if you do win one it's only because it's a "liberal award" given by a liberally biased committee and therefore meaningless. So, if you're scoring at home, winning a Nobel Prize is meaningless, but not winning one means you're an idiot. But then, if you're liberal you're "Bad", so that's naturally the case.--Bayes^update 03:00, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Doing some catching up myself (comedy central is running infomercials, gotta got o CP for lulz...), that Dawkins talk page has seriously run off the rails... on a crazy train. All of a sudden ashfly is literally foaming at the mouth about school prayer? And "allowing a teacher to lead a prayer at the start of class" (ok, not a direct quote, but the gist) is the litmus test for even being able to discuss Dawkins' professorship... whoa. My head is spinning faster than Linda Blair's. human 06:30, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

That's one of the comments that, even among the rest of the insanity, made me go WTF? Andy's not satisfied with someone accepting prayer in school, from someone who sent their kids to a Catholic school. No, he insists that every individual class start with a teacher-led prayer. That's just insane, can you imagine how much class time would be wasted doing that, and how much the kids would learn to hate doing it as a result? We have an entire system of Catholic schools here, and as far as I know none of them do that.

As to the not backing down thing, Bush himself is a clear avatar of that, isn't he? Him, and those he's surrounded by, are totally loathe to admit any mistake. For all the crap the Ruling Party has done, how many instances can you think of in the past seven years where one of them has said something along the lines of "I was wrong". It's a pretty rare event, and Andy is cut from the same "never back down" cloth. --Kels 10:04, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Too bad I've given up making sockpuppets. I want to insist that I _am_ in favor of school prayer, since it's vital to the future of humanity that the young people be taught to revere our savior L. Ron Hubbard at as early an age as possible. :) --Gulik 12:44, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Please

Just dividing this plea from useful section above.

Please, please, please , anyone not convinced that A Schlafly Esq. is a total nutjob, read the whole of cp:Talk:Richard_Dawkins it will blow your mind if you haven't already read it. Susan^{talk to me} 06:33, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if you have read it - read it again please. Susan^{talk to me} 13:00, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Of course, calling everyone against you an atheist and liberal, trolling by distraction (CP's own definition) from the actual discussion at hand, and refusal to give any evidence to support his claims of gossip is NOTHING compared to Oppen1 "insulting" him by calling him delusional. Norseman^Wassail! 13:32, 21 October 2007 (EDT)