Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive82

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 April 2012. 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>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <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)


Little Willy has got himself in a double redirect dead-end. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 12:28, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

...and scrolling down, I see the Finland "essay" is still there. Yes, lil' Willy - that (banned) proxy loves you right back! --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Lost keys[edit]

Looks like someone forgot to unlock the door this morning. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 12:41, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

DeanS unlocks the site, and minutes later the vandals arrive in droves. Perhaps Andy is fed up with the effort required to pretend that CP is a wiki. It would save them alot of time to simply lock the site and only give trusworthy editors access. Operation: Perpetual night? (finally a cool-sounding operation...)-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 14:38, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
They might as well keep it locked up. Some of the plebeians (HSmom, LiamG, etc.) are actually trying to improve the site, but they're almost entirely ignored by the higher ups. With it locked, at least they have an excuse. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:44, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Has he given night edit rights to his students yet? I don't think anyone other than Beth can do homework at night. --Shagie 18:44, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
They can do it offline, they can email it to him (on his special email addy that he reads)... heck, I bet some of the missing magic 57 even hand it in in person on sheepskin scrolls! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:24, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Locking it down at any time just prevents this so they're just going to die a slow painful death and we can finally remove the "encyclopedia" bit from the WP article on it and officially replace it with "blog". It's a shame because I do respect the people there who are keeping it serious and trying to improve the site; i.e., by adding non-politicized, factual content. So many of the articles are shitty stubs that make RW's shitty stubs look positively awesome (although they're still better than Wiki4CAM) At its heart, CP does have good intentions and there are certainly many (erm, some) editors who want it to work like a real encyclopedia. That said, if it worked like that Rational Wiki wouldn't exist and the Blogosphere wouldn't errupt every time Andy or Ken blows their load. ArmondikoVpathetic 07:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

general confusion[edit]

how are you supposed to comment or complain about a block, if you have to be able to post, to write email?? (on CP) What logic is this? --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 18:58, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

You don't have to be able to edit to send emails, unless they checked "email disabled", which is supposed to only be used for people for whom it would be useless to email anyway (like the Raptor Jesus guy). JazzMan 19:08, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Critical Thinking in Math[edit]

"Is this ever going to happen? It's now been over a year since it was scheduled to start . . . -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)" SusanG  ContribsTalk

Woo hoo! There's still hope!-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 22:20, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
I am glad that it is the people with mathematics skills not wanting it to be critically analysed that is the problem and not the fact Andy knows nothing about mathematics and made up that curriculum on the fly without giving it any thought or research. The universe is right once again. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 23:16, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

"claiming expertise while using a silly name"[edit]

This made me laugh: Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (blocked User:LongStop with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled): claiming expertise while using a silly name; failed to heed warning not to do that) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Actually, that sounds like a perfect description of what Andy does. Godspeed 21:34, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, the "Otherwise, your edits will be reverted. That should be obvious." bit was kind of odd. It makes one wonder what it's like for Andy's friends to try to get along with him, if he's always claiming "well, it was obvious to me!". --Toiretni 21:40, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

You're assuming Andy has friends. Given that most of his time is spent playing with his blog wiki, chasing 14-year-old girls, and some...activities...involving hamsters, it's by no means certain. --Kels 22:51, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
please. It's gerbils, not hamsters, if the rumors are to be believed. And there is no reason to think they shouldn't be. DickTurpis 23:03, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Just as long as he leaves Long-eared jerboas out of it, it's all good with the LORD. --JeevesMkII 23:10, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Come on. These accusations of paedophilia are too much, in jest or otherwise. It's not big and it's not clever. Grow up, FFS. Ajkgordon 03:55, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
It's not big and clever, but when has funny been about big and clever (paedophilia as manifested as an abusive act, for the record, is "not funny")? Though I think there's the main point that they haven't actively denied such activities, with children and or gerbils. It follows the same kind of logic they use to smear Obama as a Muslim, as with the Abdul Shaqueef gag; they had it coming! (cue the Cell Block Tango music) ArmondikoVpathetic 07:06, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, yes, I understand the "point". But paedophilia is such an emotive thing that it does RW no favours whatsoever, however valid the point is. "Look, these tossers are claiming that AS and EP are child molesters. C***s." Ajkgordon 07:24, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Technically speaking, we're suggesting Andy is a phebophile, not a paedophile.--WJThomas 08:34, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
You mean clinically speaking. Paedophilia has varying definitions particularly among different countries' law enforcement agencies.
But whichever, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't. Ajkgordon 08:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, you're right. The gerbil thing is funnier, anyway.--WJThomas 08:55, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Armageddon! Ajkgordon 09:07, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
CP = ...     Captain Picard? (no, 4chan /b/tards never aim for being big or clever) --Toiretni 11:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Krugman wins Nobel--mild (comparatively) response from CP[edit]

Joaquin Martinez puts a straightforward announcementabout Paul Krugman winning the Nobel, but of course writes an article trashing him. I'm surprised Andy's not all over this one. Liberals winning awards is one of the things that sends him into one of his "liberal bias" temper tantrums. Godspeed 21:44, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

In an economics related post, PJR manages to stand the world on its head: Up is down, black is white, and no matter what happens we are still right.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement!
Wow, that Krugman smear is a mess. JM's the champeen when it comes to crappy formatting. --Kels 22:46, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Huhwhut?!?!? Real conservatives support government regulation of the market. Where has he been the last eight years? Godspeed 22:57, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
No, no. You fail to understand. Real Conservatives regulate themselves because they all believe in the Bible. Or something. See his earlier pronouncements on the matter. Incidentally PJR, since I know you read this, for the love of Jebus use sources other than creation on the web. Nobody is going to take you seriously on any matter if your opinion is derived from those of that steaming cesspit. --JeevesMkII 23:03, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
See Aschlafly's "Free Trade Depends on Morality" essay for the same idea. It's not clear how they expect huge corporations to act with morality like an individual would. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 06:43, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
It must have something to do with The Invisible Hand of Non-Gay Marriage. Etc 07:01, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, PJR's position on the financial crisis pretty much sums up general conservative opinion outside the US - certainly non-US Anglo-Saxon opinion. (But without the swipe at "Darwinism".)
What I was after, though, was a Conservapedia critique of the crisis through its selection of news stories as is usual on the main page.
But CP's comment on this is notable only through its deafening silence. Ajkgordon 07:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
It just boils down to spinning stories. If they can't make it pro-conservative or con-liberal, they won't even give credence that such-and-such even happened. If nobody over there mentioned the Troopergate investigation and sowed the seeds of discussion, you can be guaranteed it would have been completely disregarded by the admins. They mostly ignored the whole Wall Street thing until now. They have bigger problems to smear lie defecate about, anyway. NorsemanWassail! 08:28, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Likewise, the presidential polls won't be news unless Grampy and Vampy get back on top. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:26, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
How can Andy deny evolution when he demonstrates such consistent poo-flinging behaviour? --Kels 21:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Operation Flying Fortresses EXPOSED[edit]

Andy removed the "rant," but it's apparently a reciprocal linking deal (SHOCKER!) with a guy who has a few blogspot blogs (Mariano Grinbank). Wooo. Thanks to the brave sock that "died" to publicize it :).-caius (mission accomplished!) 22:39, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Didn't Andy get after Ken about a year or so ago about something similar, saying it wasn't appropriate? Apparently with the deterioration of his mental abilities, the memory's gone too. --Kels 22:44, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
I think so, with the, uh, Peter LaBarberadouwoozle thing?-caius (mission accomplished!) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, don't encourage him. If you carry on like this, we'll get yet another gentlemen telling us how we need to think more expansively about operation this, that and the other. Ken is a dickhead bent on ruining Conservapedia's already slim chance at credibility, and apparently Andy doesn't give a monkeys that Ken is using his site to advertise spam blogs. Nuff said really. --JeevesMkII 22:48, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
It's sort of an "equal and opposite reaction" situation over there. As much as Hsmom, RJJensen and the like try to turn the place into an actual encyclopedia, crazies like JM and Ken, to say nothing of Andy himself, try all the harder to drag it down into the cesspit. Eventually, of course, they'll realize what's going on and give it up as a bad job, if they've got any sense. --Kels 22:55, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Hey, I appreciate Hsmom's contributions. CP could use more articles like Double Crested Cormorant. (Off-topic: I also love The Rooster*. That's a Joaquin original.) But RJJensen is kind of annoying, in that he removes way more lulz than he creates. It was kind of cute to start with, when he was still putting "1841" in place of "1941" and the like, but lately as far as I can tell he's just been putting in stuff that would be better suited to Wikipedia or another "real" encyclopedia — very few (obvious (to me)) lulz. I prefer the "efforts" of Hsmom, BrianCo, Chippeterson, and the various musical tootlers to those of RJJensen. --Marty 01:19, 14 October 2008 (EDT)*if you know what I mean

Feeling insecure, Ken?
I don't get RJJensen, he has to be genuine no one would put in that kind of time for a sock and especially not put in the quality he does. I think I a have learnt things from his edits. He left Citizendium, the encyclopaedia for disgruntled people who left Wikipedia because they wanted it to have a higher standard, to join Conservapedia, the encyclopaedia for disgruntled people who left Wikipedia because they would not let them lower the standards. Why would he put himself through that crap again, in particular for such a low grade encyclopaedia where his royal highness will revert your edits because, truthful may they be, they don't conform to his ideology? - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 01:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually it looks like Operation Flying Fortresses is to shoot down any article which has more pageviews than one of Little Willy's. Andy's sexist exam paper had at least 440,217 views before it was deleted and resurrected. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 02:32, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Ha. More people would rather laugh at Andy's exam than laugh at Conservative's articles. That must have been a kick in the pants for him. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 03:05, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

TO: Gentleman at the other Webshite[edit]

Ken: just have a read of Hitler and evolution. It should be right up your street - full of lovely quotes, In fact it's all quoted from elsewhere but none the worse for that. Kiss, kiss SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:56, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Computer Analysis of Obama's "Dreams"[edit]

I would like to point out that the two pages cited on CP claiming that computer analysis shows that Ayers wrote parts of Obama's "Dreams" do not appear to contain the word "computer." Jimaginator 08:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Say it ain't so, Joe! Do you mean to tell me that CP completely misrepresented a source in their news headlines? DickTurpis 08:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm so surprised. If Andy made a mistake ... I just don't know who to trus anymore. Etc 09:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Not surprised. But it does point out something that is true across the internet. Who really goes and reads the citations, even on WP? I do sometimes, but often I just trust that what I am reading is true, and if the mindless flock at CP is anything like they appear, I bet almost NO citations are being read. Jimaginator 09:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
On CP, the quote-mining makes the citations irrelevant anyway. I remember when someone pointed out a study in a well-respected medical journal, which disproved the abortion-breast cancer link — and Andy used it as a citation to prove that liberals deny the abortion-breast cancer link ... and that's about when I completely stopped arguing with that guy and just stood by and watched the fireworks. Etc 10:05, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I personally love how the "Book" section of the Barack Obama page has been changed to add Bill Ayers as the author. WTF? I could have sworn I saw a Commandment about citing sources or getting proof or something like that.
It's WIGOed. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 10:39, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

How can the hypocrisy (ya know, "practice what you preach") be exposed to CP? Jimaginator 11:30, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Suggesting that there's hypocrisy is Liberal Deceit and gets the suggester banned. Silver Sloth 11:59, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeh, I know, but a fella could hope...Jimaginator 13:27, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
OMG LOLZ HAHAHAHSAHA!!!!!!!1 — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Best ever borken nudes wikilink[edit]

cp:New ħumanUser talk:Human 17:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

! (no possible comment) SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Special... I much prefer wp:new, it acutally makes sense to have it. ArmondikoVpathetic 19:14, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
The wiki-linking on the front page is often hilariously irrelevant. I recall some "news" last Christmas about the WP:Three Wise Men, where the words were linked separately. Etc 01:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Shout out to HelpJazz and PJR[edit]

For article renaming, you might want to go through [2] as a list of articles that where moved to the wrong form. That would get many of them. The other thing to do would be to clean up links to the wrong form and delete the redirect pages too. That way it would be easier to browse through the all pages special page and quickly identify things that do need to be moved (for example [3] shows "Array Operating Voltage" which already has a redirect). Another good list is the contest entries[4] has quite a few. Ever notice how its taking longer to clean up from the contests than it took to produce those junk stubs? --Shagie 20:51, 14 October 2008 (EDT) aka mtur of [5] ... ps, ever going to finish fixing those ship names?[6]

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out when CP is back up. As to the ships, I'll let Philip decide; none of those articles have links so the work is aaaaaaaaall his. I can only really do the ARP in fits and spurts, because it gets so darn boring. JazzMan 23:35, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
As for the redirects, wouldn't it be better to keep the redirects in? That way someone doesn't come in and create Array Operating Voltage, thus forcing us to have to go through the merge process (and don't even get me started on merging; the merge candidates category is just a huge mess.) JazzMan 23:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Is there anything over there that isn't a huge mess? Etc 01:16, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
The chemistry stuff is only a small mess ;-) JazzMan 01:20, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
If you clean up the existing links to the articles stubs it is very unlikely that someone will go back through and create the title cap version again. Additionally, it means you can go through "all pages" page by page and look for things in title caps and say "that is something that is a proper name or needs to be fixed." I did poke my nose at wikipedia to see what they have (if some other wiki type with more familiarity with best practices wishes to chime in, please do) and saw that they do have some all caps redirect page. For Phased Array, there are where two pages that link to them (the one at the Royal Air Force I'm not touching because it appears to be part of a proper noun). Thus, the best practice I believe would be "until the article is part of link that is a proper noun, there should be no title caps redirect." --Shagie 14:26, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Blowed Up[edit]

CP seems to be all fubar right now. Worse than normal. CorryMom signed me up for the army, just because the fat man dared her to. 23:15, 14 October 2008 (EDT)


We are working on some maintenance now. Conservapedia will be back up shortly.

Thank you for your patience, Conservapedia Staff

I love the use of "Conservapedia Staff" to try to make it sound as if their are actual people involved other than Andy and maybe who ever the hell CPWebmaster is, I still think he is Andy's alter ego. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 23:28, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
I wonder if that's related to the triple and quintuple posts I've had revently, and the "this page can not be found" after every submit (even though it does actually submit). JazzMan 23:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
And what exactly does the "working" and "maintenance" involve, hmmm? Kalliumtalk 23:44, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Adjusting the flux capacitor. PFoster 23:46, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Patting the hamster and oiling the wheel. Etc 01:17, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
It's a good thing we started taking snapshots of the idiocy. I would wager that a sparkling clean wiki will emerge...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 23:54, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
Also, the Conservative Party came close to a majority this evening. Expect Andy to be gushing all over the mainpage tomorrow. "Conservatism in the country of Canada is making big gains in the country of Canada. I predict that conservatism will be on the rise in the future in the country of Canada, much to the distaste of Canadian libruls who dislike conservatism in the country of Canada. :)"
Wait, that's Ken-speak, not Andyism! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:14, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Probably forgot to hit the release valve after the irony meters red-lined, releasing an explosion of gaseous lulz. Poisonous only to those who cause lulz pressure to accumulate in the first place, being victims of their own irony. NorsemanWassail! 00:03, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Flux-capacitors? Irony meters? This is Conservapedia. Either the Regan Hamster's cage need cleaning (or Andy is out of Gerbils) or a valve needs replacing and Andy has had to whip-out the old glass blowing kit. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 00:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Is it possible it's a DoS attack, or would that just result in more generic error messages? JazzMan 00:41, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
I think DoS would have the same resultant error as the one we had earlier today. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 00:53, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
It looks like someone has been playing around with the site software/formatting rather than any DOS. For example cp:Special:SpecialPages is now two columns and RC now has the option to restrict Namespace. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 04:10, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
That would be the wiki software being upgraded to 1.13. RW must not fall behind! :) Kirkburn 13:49, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Abraham's Dream[edit]

For anyone following the Merkin History series, here is a normal-sized TIFF version of the Currier & Ives cartoon "Abraham's Dream", courtesy of the Liberary of Congress. (Andy's version.) I will be watching curiously to see what Andy's students make of the Rorschach CP version. (Why is Mary Todd Lincoln waving a dirty rug at Abe? Why is Abe carrying a tube of toothpaste along with his valise? What is the doctor doing there on the right? Partial spoilers.) --Marty 02:28, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

ZOMG WTF THIS IS SOOOOOO CRAZY HAHAHAHAHAHahahaHAHAHAHAH!!!!!8 — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


I'm afraid the telephone is broken. 'Nuff said? Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 03:54, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Noooooooooooooo.... (runs to check collection of red telephonesreally, all in working order!). Where's the beef? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
I just meant that we are not receiving any incoming calls. ;) Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 04:13, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Most consecutive edits by a single editor[edit]

The last 16 edits are all Joaquin Martinez. What's the record for this? Has anyone ever managed to get all 50?--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 07:30, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, both at CP & here on RW (see last night's edits), most often when doing the same thing repeatedly, e.g. reverting a load of vandalism, blocking a load of socks or putting templates or categories on a load of pages. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 07:43, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Most consecutive edits by a single editor on the same article is a more intricate subject ... but I think we have a clear winner. Etc 08:52, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Not even close (last 49 edits by Conservative). I think it might be cp:Homosexuality (last 83 edits by Conservative), but I think it's more likely to be one of Ken's pet articles of the form "Homosex and insert disease here", because those are extremely unlikely to attract other sysop editors. I'm not gonna check all of them, though. --Marty 13:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes I am. Most of the early "Homosex and ..." articles are unprotected wandal magnets, which makes it tough to get a good run going. But Kendoll made the first 120 edits to cp:Homosexuality Statistics and the first 128 edits to cp:Ex-homosexuals. (His longest run on cp:Atheism was only 102.) ...But wait! Ken has a run of 131 consecutive edits to cp:Theory of evolution in July/August 2007, and 162 in June/July! I think you're right after all; TOE appears to be the winner. (Hear that, Ken? Theory of Evolution wins!) --Marty 21:58, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

See it while it's hot (Ken parody)[edit]

Dear gentlemen at another website, I feel pretty!-caius (mission accomplished!) 16:29, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman Ames: While you may laugh at the twitters of anticipation I feel, I can only feel sorry as you will never know the delights of being a newlywed. With the recent developments in Connecticut it is clear that the atheist liberals are close to destroying the sanctity of marriage, which will soon go from being the unity of two souls in Christ to an institution for spreading Gay Bowel Syndrome. I suggest you read Conservapedia's Homosexuality and Marriage article for further details. Did you know that article is steadily climbing search engine rankings? Why do you suppose that is? Kendoll 16:44, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Wow. Now that's quality parody :)-caius (mission accomplished!) 17:01, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Did anyone take a screenshot? weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 20:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Here you go. DickTurpis 20:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Cheers. I've added it to the parody links on the Red Telephone article. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 21:08, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

My eyes are playing tricks on me?[edit]

Or is the text over there annoyingly bigger? or is that just me...? NorsemanWassail! 21:22, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

IT IS JUST YOU! --JeevesMkII 21:49, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Please don't yell. Kalliumtalk 00:18, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Ahhh! My pupils! NorsemanWassail! 01:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)


This may be Old News, but it's new to me. I noticed in Recent Changes (at CP) that Jpatt had added ISBNs to the (anti-Obama) books listed in the Obama article. I noticed further that said ISBNs provide a link to this page, with the appropriate ISBN filled into the little box. Also on this page are links to bookselling sites. One can then click on one of said sites, and be taken to a page from which one could buy that book. Now, I know that websites can sign up with commercial sites so that if someone buys an item via a link on the website, the website gets a kickback. Is that what's going on here? In other words, is CP (theoretically) making a little cash via their ISBN links? --WJThomas 22:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know a about kickbacks, but it is a wikimedia feature (that is borken on our site, pretty much). An ISBN creates an auto-link, much as an http:myjunksite.poop does. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
It's likely not a kickback. For one thing, I think Andy actually refused donations once (or I might be making that up) as well as advertising, so I doubt he would be trying to make money that way. Also, most of the time kickback sites send a string in the web address so that the host site knows who to pay kickback to. (Mouseover any of the ads on this site, for instance, and you will notice that they are all convoluted web addresses.) All of those links at CP seem like your standard non-kickback type. JazzMan 01:03, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it Sunday?[edit]

Andy produces a new masterpiece for us to learn from. Not that there is anything particularly funny about it (yet), mostly regular Andy-style rantings. It's been quite a slow week in my opinion. Etc 08:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Who knew you could go to hell for irritating God? Is selling double glazing a hellable offence? If so, I think I might convert. Also, if the hallmark of a civilised society is harsh punishments for offences, are we therefore less civilised than those in the 18th century where hanging was the order of the day for more or less everything? --JeevesMkII 08:42, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
He was probably distracted by having to finish his AmHist6 lecture, otherwise it would have been done earlier. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 08:58, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
By extension I guess Saudi Arabia, Iran and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan are model civilised societies. "A just society is simply impossible without harsh punishment for wrongdoing" - WTF! the more just or fair a society is then the less the incidence of crime. I'm not sure why it is "logically absurd to deny the very real existence of Hell" [citation needed], I guess that's only in AndyLand which is a sort of hell-on-earth anyway, those demon sysops smiting liberal atheists with eternal blocks - D'Andy's Inferno! Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 09:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think "The Logic of Hell" holds up against "The Problem of Hell" --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:20, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Amazing that "The Problem of Hell" has been allowed to stay there for so long. Anyway, "The Logic of Hell" is still mostly just preachy and not that illogical (except perhaps the civilization=punishment part).
I'm not satisfied until he mentions Darwin, liberals or at least atheism in the essay. He's apparently still working on it so I guess it's only a matter of time.
Also, has Andy never heard of Dante before? I thought he was, kind of, educated. Etc 10:02, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Trust Bugler to act as Andy's moist toilet wipe. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 10:18, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
This is the funniest part of the essay. Andy is so delusional that he believes as soon as something is posted on CP society begins organising itself around it...
Side note. Andy says that crime is on the rise because no one is talking about hell. I won't comment on the spuriousness of this claim, but it has always seemed to me that if you truly believe that people who murder, steal, cheat, curse, eat meat during Lent etc will burn for all eternity in the most foul place imaginable, why does it matter whether society punishes them?-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:28, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I can't believe my essay is still even up there. Andy did his usual drive-by commentary, and I would have thought someone would have deleted it by now in an effort to purge the infidel.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:35, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
It seems telling that even Bugler didn't feel the need to crazy the essay up some more - he must have read it and said 'nope, can't make that any more absurd' before giving the Boss a nice "that'll do, pig".--Martin Arrowsmith 10:40, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I have often tried to copy Bugler's style (praising Andy for whatever he does), but he's just too fast and imaginative, I can't keep up. Bugler is the best parodist ever. At least, I hope he is. Etc 10:57, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I had a little success at Bugling for a while. I was eventually banned as a parodist (by CPAdmin1, one of the few reasonable ones), but I suspect it was more for using a proxy than for my actual edits. I'd do it again, but the proxies always give me away. DickTurpis 11:20, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I particularly like the bit about the more advance the civilization, the harsher the punishment. Andy must be a big fan of Sharia law, then. --Kels 16:16, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Talking about the 'logic of Hell', something I've never quite understood about Hell - if you go to Hell for doing someting God doesn't like, basically, and Hell is run by the enemy of God, Satan, why, exactly do you then get punished by your soul being subjected to torments for the rest of eternity? Surely it would be more likely that Satan would be clapping you on the back, saying, "well done", and offering you rewards for pissing off God? Zmidponk 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

There used to be a BBC Radio 4 comedy programme called WP:Old Harry's Game where hell was a bit like that. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 16:50, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
You think they're enemies? Satan is just the Bad Cop to Jesus' Good cop in God's little act to scare mortals into submission. --Gulik 18:44, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think that's the case. Going by the Old Testament, God Himself is the 'bad cop', considering how much time He spends basically saying, 'worship Me or suffer in torment for eternity', and/or, 'Kill anyone who doesn't worship me.' Unless, of course, it's actually, 'good cop, bad cop, worse cop'. Zmidponk 15:30, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

If that passes as an essay, then my thesis needs only to be a page long, including reference (singular). That should save a few months of writing. And regarding that discussion will "inevitably increase from its level of zero right now"- it's written by one person and has at the moment 123 page views- that's a 12,200% increase already! Watch out! Kalliumtalk 19:15, 16 October 2008 (EDT)


I there no limit to how low Andy will go to smear Obama? Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 11:14, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Crazy. The citation has nothing to do with Obama. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 11:18, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Andy might as well go full-bore and change it to, "...Obama...could use the Koran to be sworn into office, scream 'Allahu Akbar', and then machine-gun the assembled dignitaries with an MP5 hidden under his suit-jacket."--WJThomas 11:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
You mean hidden under Michelle's burqa. DickTurpis 12:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Don't be silly--Michelle's burqa would conceal the plastic explosives.--WJThomas 12:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Even if you accept Andy's premise (that Obama presents himself as a Christian, but is secretly a Muslim), does this make any sense from Andy's perspective? If Obama was being so careful so as to avoid letting out any evidence that he's secretly a Muslim, why would he suddenly come out of the closet on inauguration day? Or does Andy somehow believe that the tiny bits of "evidence" are really credible? If so, how does he reconcile the fact that they're credible to Andy, but not credible to mainstream Republican institutions (including McCain himself)? --Toiretni 12:09, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Well grumpa is a RINO and is only being supported by Andy as a stalking horse to get Palin into the White House. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 12:14, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
If you wan to believe something strongly enough, you can convince yourself it's true, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, and that seems to be what Andy's done with Obama. It's also what that "Ayer's wrote Dreams of my Father" guy did. Look for something hard enough and you'll find it, whether it's there or not. DickTurpis 12:16, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

And in another WTF moment, Andy uses this as a source for that statement. DickTurpis 12:28, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually Mrs. Doubtfire inserted that ref, and I guess Andy didn't check it out. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 12:32, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
And now he's almost claiming that Keith Ellison established the precedent of using the Koran (their spelling) so it wouldn't be an issue when Obaama "does it", and "there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President". It's like he's just throwing whatever cowpat that comes to hand. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 12:30, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I like the way that - after Hsmom added a load of refs trashing his theory - Andy "revised footnote to reflect reality"(?!!) - I.E. Obama used a Bible for show when he was sworn into Senate but might use a Koran (-gasp!-) when he's sworn in as President. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 13:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, when Obama takes his oath on a Bible, it'll be gratifying to hear Andy's heartfelt apology for his unwarranted smear (and we know how Andy is a big man who always admits when he's wrong). Czolgolz 13:11, 16 October 2008 (EDT) Obama victory party at my place, November, 2012!
I for one think an article from December 2006 about a practicing Muslim is a perfect example of why Obama is a secret Muslim and will undue months of careful planning when sworn in, because everybody knows that once a president is in power, nothing can remove him from it oh no I've gone cross eyed. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 13:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think Obama is a secret muslim, but I hope that he takes the oath on the koran... just for the lulz.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 13:33, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

And now Andy is an Islamic scholar. Never mind that "taqiyya" and "takeyya" are different phonetic spellings of the same word...--WJThomas 14:20, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

The best part of being a conspiracy theorist is you never have to be wrong. Evidence contrary to your theories is just part of the larger, malignant scheme: the more wrong you are, the more right you actually become. CorryMom signed me up for the army, just because the fat man dared her to. 15:53, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
WJ - I love how quickly he jumped in with the "second" tennant. I mean, anyone who's ever read anything anywhere would likely say "any chance those are just two spellings of the same thing". I rolled at his "new tennants" that gave "more" evidence to what Obama might do. Oh, and just *love* how he's never bothered to look at what it says. "you can DENY your muslim heratige *if and only if* you are in threat to your life." that somehow becomes "ok if you are advancing the cause". grrr.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 18:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Andy is, as with all things, an idiot, and completely misunderstands and/or misrepresents the concept of Taqiyya. For those who don't know what it actually means, I've put together an article which is highly informative, and up to RW's usual high standards. Stile4aly 12:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe that no one thinks the whole "might swear on the Koran" thing isn't WIGO-worthy. The sheer stupidity there, IMO, warrants inclusion. You know, it would make my year if Obama won, just to see what Andy would do (for that, people, will be the ultimate WIGO). MIP has actually signed in - 00:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Would be funny to see a WIGO entry that just says "Obama's article" and watch the votes climb, but the problem with it all is that the article keeps changing. More ludicrous and nutjob rumors keep being put in that even the homeless guy with no pants who takes dumps on church rooftops (real story!) would be froward. A summarized or pithy WIGO entry would be cool, but where would it end? WHERE? NorsemanWassail! 00:30, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Side note[edit]

Well the present (sitting) President took the oath of office on a Bible to "preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic..." but went on to gut the same to do as he wished; if the oath doesn't mean anything then who cares what book, (if any), the oath is affirmed by? CЯacke® 12:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

andy is stpuid — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Haha, looking at the faith entry, it makes me laugh how it's bolded every single time it appears in the article. --Kels 16:58, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

His "type"[edit]

Bugler's been a little over the top lately, but I don't quite get this block. It's almost certain it was a vandal or parodist, as there are very few editors over there that aren't, but I'm obviously missing something here. Since he had no contribs, what about his name implies a "type"? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:56, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

It's Bugler the Parodist coming through, creating disruption without completely unmasking himself. Obviously he can't do a Samwell or a MexMax and block everyone or that's the end for him, and a not too spectacular one either. He's invested way too much to go out like that. But his block of Frey is quite telling. Likely Frey is not a parodist, but he's also not a made man either, so Bugler can call him a parodist and block him with impunity. He couldn't do that to anyone with powers, but there are quite few legitimate editors over there who can't block and unblock. Watch Bugler go for them. Frey won't be th last. DickTurpis 18:03, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
He even burned Acwellman for "liberal vandalism" for 3 months... when he didn't even vandalize? Great job Bugler, you're pushing even honest and longtime editors away from CP.. the plan is working quite nicely! NorsemanWassail! 18:35, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
What are the odds that any good faith editors are joining CP anymore? Notwithstanding Jensen and HSMom, who's a shit-disturber in her own special way, everyone who joins these days is one of block 'em all. PFoster 20:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Uh, lessee...Andy, Bugler, Karajou, DeanS, Ken, etc...I don't think "good faith" is something that was in much supply in the first place. --Kels 20:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
If Bugler's a parodist, then his long term goal isn't to climb the ranks and go out in a 5 minute blaze of glory like some others have done. I think his goal is to do what he's doing, arse kiss Andy until he has enough "respect" to do what he likes then go about quietly making as many genuine editors as disgruntled as possible. It's essentially speeding up the process that Andy and co's paranoia was going to do anyway. ArmondikoVpathetic 12:16, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Returning to the block in question, do we know for a fact that that editor did nothing? Isn't it more likely that he or she created a parody entry which was subsequently deleted & hence doesn't show on contributions? weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 12:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
As I recall, there wasn't anything in the deletion log that would have been it. --Kels 12:44, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Essay x 2[edit]

Andy's is on form today. Not one but two essays! And a new mystery! Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 20:22, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Characteristics of Homskollarz[edit]

I especially like "object of scorn by those trained in formal school, but no reciprocal animosity", given the source. Andy doesn't have an ounce of scorn for the publicly schooled, he gets his scorn by the 50-gallon drum. --Kels 20:54, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of homskollarz - Andy finally gave a perfect grade to one of his students, who earned this grade by claiming that Civil War was avoidable only if slave owners were saved. That's the highlight, but I recommend checking out the rest of the answers. --CWaddell 21:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, he gave a perfect score once already, in the last assignment. But the civil war stuff is brain-meltingly bizarre. Andy seems to be trying to absolve the South of any wrongdoing WRT slavery, and somehow blame it all on Rhode Island for some reason. Maybe someone from Portland ran over his dog or something. --Kels 21:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
So was this any of us? Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 21:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't know if it was on of us, but Andy certainly shows the gap in physical and metal age with the "....not!" bit. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 22:22, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Heh. Yes, it was. I'm honestly surprised Andy saw through it; perhaps I should have picked a less liberal-sounding username. At the same time, it's not like some of the jokes weren't fairly obvious — David Bowie at the Alamo, and all that. My putting the Treaty of Guadalupe "Hildago" in 1847 was an actual error, not a joke; I just didn't bother to look it up. The "Ben Franklin" silliness was a NathanaelH parody; I think it would have worked fine if Andy hadn't already been suspicious. --Marty 22:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
That's interesting. Until now I thought that "Student One", "Student Two" etc were assigned, consistent numbers, not the order the students happened to complete that assignment. If I realized this before I might have done an assignment or two in order to see how Andy would grade them, but I never did because I didn't want to impersonate a specific student, which would seem wrong. But if I knew I could make up a name and answer using a random number without stepping on the toes of a specific kid, it could have changed things. A bit late now, it seems. But really, Andy should keep better track of his students than this. And he really shouldn't have them doing their assignments on a fucking wiki. All these kids are actually in his actual class, right? Why doesn't he give them assignments in person? DickTurpis 22:31, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
There are 56 students in the World Largest History ClassTM (why there is so few space on the wiki is a question in itself), but I think either the class is so large he doesn't actually know all his students, hence why it was a stupid boast in the first place, or he has students doing it online in which case his class could be full of parodist, especially now his mid-term exam is so popular. 22:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't see how he can have 56 students when he has less than half that many homeworks handed in every week. I think that 56 number was based on early projections which turned out to be false. He may or may not have some online-only students; that much is unclear. I didn't see a big signup roster on CP like I did with Critical Thinking on Math or his other earlier course (both mostly enrolled by parodists). DickTurpis 23:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

There were lots of perfect scores on HW 3. (None on HW 1 or HW 2, though.) --Marty 22:03, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Yah, I was wrong about the whole perfect score thing, my bad. I'm new around here, try to avoid incorrect statements from here on out. Checking out the citation for the Rhode Island thing (the one off the liberal denials essay, not Rhode Island) is a pretty enjoyable read, by Sons of Confederate Veterans. I'm curious about how he sees his most recent perfect score (student 6 - "The North was naive about what was going on in the South) jiving. --CWaddell 22:17, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

On Andy's political donations he's described as a self-employed attorney. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 01:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

That essay should be moved to CP:Homeschooler Style in mainspace (I'm comparing it to CP:Liberal Style of course). Etc 04:08, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, this just in: Aschlafly takes advice, apologies and promises to better himself for Hsmom! Who's who's bitch now!!! Etc 04:13, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Critical thinking in rounding[edit]

1 out of 37 is 2.7027%, which can be rounded to 3%. JazzMan 23:33, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

It was actually 3 students out of 37 (8%), not 3%. --Too tired to log in 23:54, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
You should probably be a little more transparent in your WIGO's then... JazzMan 00:03, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
  • No question of self employment being because they were unemployable? --Cayce Pollard 23:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
(Your new editor delay filter is annoying!) --Cayce Pollard 23:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Quite right, Cayce Pollard. Isn't "self-employed" sometimes a euphemism for "un-employed"? In the PA Homeschoolers study, of the three self-employed homeschool graduates, "One is in partnership with his father in a family construction business, one is in a worship band, and the other started her own house-cleaning business." Still, 8% (the PA Homeschoolers study) is dramatically different than two-thirds (the other study). The PA Homeschoolers program is pretty rigorous - they have to read 25 books a year, for example. Interesting. Study population matters.--Too tired to log in 23:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
There sure are a lot of online references to that Knowles study, all of which seem to be copy/pasted from one another, none of which provide any information about methodology or demographics or anything else that might be helpful to know. It would be a bit less impressive to learn, for example, that all 53 homeschoolers in that study were 80 year olds from Saskatchewan who completed their 8th grade equivalent education at home in 1926 before working on the farm for the rest of their lives. If only someone could track down the actual study....<strokes chin thoughtfully between thumb and fingers>--Martin Arrowsmith 01:06, 17 October 2008 (EDT)


Is the Obama/Odinga pic photoshopped? Any expert on this subject? 23:56, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Tell you what, bunchanumbers: Google ("barack obama" + "raila odinga") and look to see if AP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, Agence France-Presse, CBC, all Africa News, The East Africa Standard or the Kenya Times comes up in the first few pages with a story saying that Obama campaigned for Odinga. The only legit news stories I found relating the two were about Odinga claiming he and Obama were cousins... Then decide how straight up CP is being...PFoster 00:08, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
The picture may be real, after all, Obama was in Kenya giving his passport a workout. However, I suspect the words at WND are probably photoshopped. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I think it may be a fake--the only sites where it shows up on an image search are anti-Obama blogs, not even any Kenyan news stories from the time...PFoster 00:15, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
The photo looks fake to me only because how unnatural the way they are positioned with respect one another. Remember this is CP who had a picture on the "Burmese monk riots" on the front page for a week, that for some reason nearly everyone was white (except for a black news photographer in the picture) and had signs that said WTO on them. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 00:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
After reviewing the photo a little closer, I have come to the professional opinion that the picture is most likely photoshopped. I would say I'm about 85% sure of it Looking around, there's another version with about 25% more space on the right hand side and that has some type of ribbon (it almost looks like the Breast Cancer ribbon). If it isn't photoshopped, it's certainly a case of selective cropping. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 02:23, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
EDIT: AH HA! I stand corrected as to my first statement. The picture does appear to be is a picture from the same rally, note that they are both wearing the same clothes, but in different poses here is the Conservapedia picture for evidence. Now the important part, and it appears I was correct with my second guess. this is the full version. The banner behind them reads Liverpool VCT, Care & Treatment or LVCT. The group, in their own words: (LVCT) is a Kenyan non-governmental (NGO)and non profit organization-- established in 2001. LVCT provides technical assistance to the Government of Kenya (GoK) and partners in strengthening responses to HIV prevention, care and treatment for HIV infected persons. Have a free link to their websiteWarning, Music Not exactly a political rally is it? Score one for Chuck, I'll take a free Penguin out of petty cash if their are no objections. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 02:35, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I dunno about spare penguins (we only have a few), but surely you deserve to chew on some delightful goat pilaf. Well done. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:46, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Did Raila Odinga really introduce Sharia law in Kenya? I have tried to find details on this but can't turn anything up. I don't know the politics of Kenya so well so I'm not saying it isn't true. It's just a bit - erm - suprising. StarFish 03:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Some African political science for you all. Kenya is made up of many ethnic groups the largest being the Kikuyu. The Kikuyu have been in power since Jomo Kenyatta founded the country back in 1963. Mwai Kibaki, also a Kikuyu, is the current president. During the elections in question Kibaki had taken control of Kenya by dissolving the cabinet and placing his own choice people. Odinga ran against him in the elections and ended up contesting the results of the election when Odinga did not win. Odinga claimed fraud from Kibaki which caused the riots. Odinga is an Anglican, which calls into question CP's claim of the sharia law, here is an article about the pact. Odinga ran because the people wanted a non Kikuyu in the role of president for once, not because he was going to put sharia law in place.--TimS 07:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedism strikes again, sadly. Thanks for the response, everyone. 13:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Since apparently RationalWiki is akin to Wikipedia's ref desk when it comes to Conservapedia, I might as well ask one more question: the first picture on Obama's article, where he is apparently being inanely unpatriotic, what's the deal with this? I'm sure this has been asked before, so if you wanna spare yourself the explanation I'd be perfectly happy with a diff, or a specially MIP-customised response. Any way works. MIP has actually signed in - 00:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Go to the Sliming Obama page and scroll down to Pledge of Allegiance?. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 06:34, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks again, have a goat on the house (that is, if we have an abundant supply). MIP has actually signed in - 12:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen, a game[edit]

Have you ever wondered what it's like to be Ken Conservative, sitting there all day and planning special "operations" to defend Conservapedia against logic and promote creationism? Well, wonder no more, because modern technology now lets you experience the life of Conservative! Enjoy "Operation Flying Grassroots Fortress" - the Flash game. How many page hits will you be able to get for Conservapedia?

  • You play as Conservative, and must maintain your Ego meter high, while keeping your IQ low.
  • Use the left and right arrow keys to move, and space to shoot out a "quote"
  • Don't touch fossils, brains, mutated e-coli or your arch-nemesis Darwin
  • Don't let those evil things get all the way down to Conservapedia either (shoot them down!)
  • Grab (or allow to go through) the good stuff - bibles, crosses, Hitler, and the Dear Leader himself
  • Watch out - if you shoot ASchlafly, he will temporarily "block" you and you won't be able to shoot briefly
  • Touch Ed Poor to increase your math skills and temporarily shoot much faster
  • Play the parody bugle to cut down your IQ (but watch out - it also lowers your ego)
  • Watch out for the dreaded rainbow flag - it will slow down your movement considerably (shoot it down, if you can!)

--Composure1 00:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Way too fun for 1 Am :).- 01:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
cool, but how come I score about the same without reading how to play and after reading how? Oh, nevermind, it's the Kendoll game!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
That's wonderful!! One thing though ... does it make sense that Hitler is welcome but Darwin is our arch-enemy? I thought they were, like, Super Best Friends or something. No, wait, it's Conservative Logic. Nevermind. Etc 04:03, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Hey no fair - I had things to do this morning! Unlike ħuman, I got a *much * better score once I read the rules (and thus figured out which keys to use - duh!). --Too tired to log in 08:20, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Man, that game's impossible. You have to shoot Darwin about a thousand times before he dies, so he ends up getting through most of the time. Unless I have the Poor math skillz I can hardly ever get enough shots off. DickTurpis 10:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

If you were more open-minded and refused to believe his evolutionary tripe, you could easily take down Darwin. --Composure1 11:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Also, I noticed an error. It seems it is Hitler, not Andy, who blocks you. DickTurpis 11:01, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
You're right - that screwed up after some last minute changes I had made. I'll fix it when I get back from work today. --Composure1 11:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Also, no matter how much good stuff I let through, my ego never seems to rise much, while every time Darwin and his ilk get though my IQ rises enormously. Is it possible to win this game? DickTurpis 11:06, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Nope, you can't actually win, only lose (hey - just like with the real Conservative's "operations"!). Anyway, yeah, I acknowledge the game is rather unbalanced, but I wasn't really planning on spending more than a few hours on making something that's mostly meant as a joke :). So basically I worked on it yesterday until it was bedtime, at which time I deemed the game "good enough." --Composure1 11:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I see. However, by Conservative "losing" each time, he gets a larger IQ. This in reality never happens. DickTurpis 11:13, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, clearly the game must end by a loss of ego. If you fail to get enough SEO link swaps, you lose. Or, once in a while a message pops up "you've been caught contradicting yourself again!", which requires you to catch either a "commit one logical fallacy for free" block, or a Andy rearguard block, within a few seconds or otherwise your ego gets dinged. --Toiretni 13:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

The game is too random in that the bonus blocks can be completely extinct while the rainbow blocks are too hard to shoot down, but can come in droves. Also, Andy doesn't give a shit what Conservative does, so shooting him or shitting on the main page shouldn't warrant some kind of consequence. It is a funny game to play though. :P NorsemanWassail! 13:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

With a bit more refinement that would be well worth it :) I can see your point about not investing too much time because it's a joke though. ArmondikoVpathetic 14:28, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Very amusing, I got 4066 once after getting 2 Buglers and an Ed Poor consecutively. I also got 4 consecutive buglers once but lost due to lack of ego stroking.
Fucking Darwins... NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 15:48, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Ha! 5946, beat THAT. NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 15:58, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Okay: 75001. (omg, librul deceit) --Toiretni 18:28, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Ha! 6432 without liberal deceit, would've been better but I caught Gay Bowel Syndrome at about 3000 points in. NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 20:34, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Critical Thinking in Math: 3% of 37[edit]

Well, I wouldn't mind being the 1 person who is self-employed, but being the 0.11 person would kinda suck, unless it means I am only self-employed 11% of the time. My brain hurts! (L)Andru! (L)Andru! Guide Me!!!! Jimaginator 12:45, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it's just one person who's kinda overweight. Comic Book Guy is worth at least 1.3 homskullerz. --Kels 15:35, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
This was discussed above. Apparently the problem with the 3% number is that the article Hsmom references actually says 3 people. Coincidentally, 1/37 is 2.7%, which if rounded to the nearest whole number is 3%. JazzMan 17:02, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Evolution lies[edit]

Can someone help me to disambid parodist from true conservapedians ?

Because, when I read creation was 23 October 4004 BC... Did God gave Adam a watch ? Barraki 13:03, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

In general new users who overly support CP and its ideas are parodists. Although not always. Orris 13:09, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

The 4004BC date comes from a Bishop that calculated this by going backwards thru the early prophets in the Bible. Even assuming that every prophet had age of death listed in the Bible, and they had who begatted them (which they don't), this would be a daunting task just to get the date within a decade, add the 23 October, and somehow it loses a little credibility. Guide Me (L)Andru! How is this possible? Jimaginator 13:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Time of year is a different issue than "which year" - I think the oct 23 thing is based on some solar event or some such that was easy to fudge together. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, PJR's definitely in with the parodists, telling us there's "nothing illogical" about taking the word of a 17th century Archbishop working backwards from a dodgy set of inconsistent geneologies over a group of respected scientists working from a large body of evidence. --Kels 13:24, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
This may be useful.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 14:10, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Yep, that pretty much sums up A Good Ol' Poe-ing. ArmondikoVpathetic 14:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Straight off the top of my head, wasn't the time of creation also caclulated as 4:30 pm (Time zone uncertain). Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 14:46, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
So, what, is PJR asserting that the Archbishop was there? 15:07, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
He's basically asserting the fact that when you're a true believer, there's really nothing wrong with taking that kind of thing as an unchallengable fact. The "arch" part is a stardard argument from authority, the rest is, well... it's just what happens when people do actually truely believe it. There's no better explanation :S. ArmondikoVpathetic 15:18, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
What Phillip does not realise (and some here may not know) is the fossil they are talking about, Tikkalik (sp), was found not by random chance. The people that discovered it went specifically to the location and dug a specific depth to find it. In line with where it should be found in geological time scale. Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 23:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that was almost like... a tested prediction! In paleontology? But, that's not true! That's.... impossible! (Search your feelings, you know it be true...)
I saw a presentation by one of the Tiktallik folks back in February. The details of the fossil are quite interesting. But what really confuses me is how PJR and others accuse the NYT of sensationalizing a bit (MSM getting scientific details wrong? Actually yes, on a daily basis.) because now it isn't considered a direct ancestor of land vertebrates- thus PJR's assessment of "That's what passes for an evolutionary "intermediate fossil" these days—creatures that were not actually intermediate!". Well Philip, who do you think better represents the scientific establishment- the current journals or the New York Times? And (while still missing its actual significance) who do you think determined that it isn't really a direct intermediate? The very scientists you accuse of doing just the opposite! Kalliumtalk 14:09, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay, this is just pretty funny[edit]

But is it serious? [7] DickTurpis 14:48, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I call it Bugler's coming out party. ArmondikoVpathetic 15:16, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, shove "ghoul moses" into google... it's the beginning of the end for Bugler, he's definitely coming out of the Poe closet. Someone better shove him back in before all of his marvellous work is undone. ArmondikoVpathetic 15:20, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
He also made an edit here, saying the claim that Obama's grandparents planted the announcement of citizenship is credible, while the quoted text right above says anyone going down that path should wear a tinfoil hat. I shot milk through my nose! Also, Koward should realize McCain doesn't even have a birth certificate to show... so... someone should point that out. NorsemanWassail! 15:49, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't really find anything when I Yahoo ghoul moses. What am I looking for? JazzMan 17:04, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
"ghoul moses" note the quotes. 2 results. --Cayce Pollard 17:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
It's a bit of a stretch... "ghoul" is the end of one sentence and "Moses" is the beginning of another. There's no actual talk, anywhere on the internet, about ghoulinated ancient holy figure. JazzMan 17:34, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
There's always this. Maybe Buggerer plays WoW. --Kels 17:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
I was thinking about going as Kim Jong Il for Halloween, but this seems like a more promising idea... CorryMom signed me up for the army, just because the fat man dared her to. 17:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, oh. Make a ghost of Kim Il Sung and mount it on your right shoulder. It'd be awesome. --JeevesMkII 17:54, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Mr Bugler. "Ghoulmoses, you say?"

<unindent>Bugler, if you're out there, I have to ask: when's this gonna end? Are you just gonna see how far you can push it, or is there a plan here? Some grand reveal? (Sometimes, I picture Bugler as the Joker à la Heath Ledger: "It's not about money, it's about sending a message...")--Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 19:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Was that the Joker or Dr. Horrible? --Kels 19:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Definitely Joker. I've seen Dark Knight twice, and am being Joker for Hallowe'en :)--Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 04:28, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I prefer to think of Bugler like this. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 20:00, 17 October 2008 (EDT) -------------------->

I prefer not to think of Bungler, but what'cha gonna do? --Kels 20:14, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

PJR just responded to the thread with a scornful swipe at Bugler. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 19:44, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know whether to commend Phil for catching him on that, or praise Bugler for not getting called out for being the obvious parodist that he is. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 04:33, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Science vs....well, not-Science[edit]

I hadn't really noticed this gem until PJR made a minor edit, but the last sentence there makes me scratch my head. Doesn't that mean that while they don't believe evolution is science (which of course is patent nonsense), ID or Creationism or whatever-the-hell can never, ever be a science? --Kels 20:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Unless the six-day creation can be "experimentally tested". It's nonsense of course. Creation science can never be considered objective (although it obviously has an objective). Its starting point is an assumption that every word of the Bible is true and it then picks pieces of evidence which seem to support that. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 20:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
From my (completely subjective and personally biased) experience, creationists' approach to science comes primarily in two mutually exclusive flavors (not that it'll stop them from using both); a) Insist on a very broad definition of science and complain that evolutionists aren't being honest in their rebutals because the mainstream concept of science, they accept, is inherently incompatible with creationism, e.g. many of those anti-methodological materialism rants that point out it excludes a priori the possibility of a creator. b) Insist on a very specific definition of science that excludes evolution (and probably many other things) in order to make it seem like creationism and evolution are in the same boat and thus deserve the same acceptance, e.g. what seems to be happening here except the fact that creationism is not scientific is left unmentioned.
They can also, of course, just bash science in general but you only see that one on particularly nutjobby circles and, of course, Karajou. That's my rant for today. NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 20:57, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
The whole article smells like postmodern drivel to me, not to mention their "proof": science is this, philosophy is this, science is done by people, therefore (with a few other leaps of logic sprinkled in) science is not scientific and entirely philosophical. I guess spending years designing and carrying out tedious, carefully-controlled experiments just to make a tiny claim about what appears to be happening with, say, some protein is just subjective and doesn't accomplish anything. I seriously wonder how these people managed to end up with such a fundamentally wrong understanding of how science really works. (And that's my "unsubstantive" rant for today.)Kalliumtalk 21:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
You've hit the nail on the head. The formal term is epistemological nihilism and it's the last refuge of the damned. Essentially, they're saying "We can't ever really know anything anyway, so my view of reality is equally valid to yours." Stile4aly 02:59, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks- that's a much cooler-sounding phrase than the one I used. Kalliumtalk 14:12, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

"Another person wades into the statistics debate..."[edit]

That is a clumsy wigo - the earlier links include the later links' edits, so there is no "bang" at the end. Can it be simplified or improved? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:29, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

And now it's redundant, too. The "latest" says the same thing that I posted as "update" just before it. Kalliumtalk 18:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I Missed the Magic Moment[edit]

For the last month, I took a closer look at CP, mainly, to come up with pictures like this. When I looked at the data, I found this:

DateBlockedNot BlockedSum
Sep 18th 11476 11643 23119
Sep 25th 11613 11693 23306
Sep 30th 11681 11729 23410
Oct 11th 12017 11882 23899
Oct 16th 12327 11935 24262

So, sometimes between Sep 30th and Oct 11th, the inevitable happened: Since then, there are more editors blocked at CP than not blocked. --LArron 04:52, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

It's part of their crusade to keep Conservapedia white, er, pure. Where did you find the statistics? Czolgolz 09:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I looked up the users at and compared them with the entries of --LArron 10:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I'd be willing to wager that 90% (not an Andy number; I'm actually guessing it's around 90%) of those users were blocked for outright vandalism, or for being a sock. From what I've seen, only around 10% of users have a legitimate case for being unblocked. (Legitimate using RW's definition; I think fewer would actually ever contribute anything positive to the encyclopedia). JazzMan 11:35, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Jazz, I hate to agree with you. But you're right. I think the question that this raises is: "What's so wrong with Andy Schlafly's project and the people associated with it (people like Ed Poor, Karajou and especially Ken de Meyer) that they are getting this kind of reaction?"--WE certainly aren't having to block thousands of vandals, and neither is, for example, Liberalpedia, Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica...PFoster 12:07, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Don't worry, you can agree with me; I'm a pretty cool guy :) In my opinion, in answer to your question, I think that, even if CP were run "properly" (by outside standards), they would still get a lot of vandals simply for holding the views that they hold, and with the seriousness with which they hold them. Liberalpedia (correct me if I'm wrong) and Rationalwiki really aren't on vandal's radars (no offence) so if they say "abortion should always be legal", the conservatives who would vandalize don't know about it. (Also, there are also probably fewer conservatives who would vandalize such a statement, since vandals tend to be younger and staunch conservatives tend to be older.) Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are humor sites; they offend everyone and noone. Those sites would only get vandalized if someone doesn't understand what they are about (which would be short lived) or if they think it's funny (also probably shortlived). JazzMan 12:24, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
It comes back to what you mean by "anything positive", Jazz. Adding actual facts, such as scientific evidence for evolution or the age of the earth, dealing with Andy's actual argument against Lenski, adding actual quotes by Atheists to the "Atheist Quotes" page, math in the math articles, and so forth, is considered "liberal vandalism" over there, and against their clear mission of disseminating misinformation. --Kels 12:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
....or pointing out that Barack Obama is not a Muslim...or that William Ayers did not write Obama's book...or that Europeans traded manufactured goods with Africans for slaves...or that there is no such a thing as "Gay Bowel Disease"...or that having separate testing standards for boys and girls doesn't prepare them for college...or that charging parents for a college-prep history course and then asking questions like "what do you like best about Columbus" is a sham...or pointing out that Richard Dawkins was in fact, a professor...PFoster 12:18, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
(EC) By "anything positive" I was referring to the people who go over there with the intention of fighting, and no intention of doing anything else. It's one thing if you want to improve the accuracy of certain touchy subjects in order to improve the quality of the encyclopedia (I do my best, for example), but some people only want to inject their non-conservative world view into a conservative encyclopedia. And I'm not talking about anyone in particular here, before you get all antsy ;-) JazzMan 12:24, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
No ants here, given that I've never had an account at CP and never will. But I've watched the place long enough to know that trying to insert facts into articles over there is virtually impossible without getting into fights. Either you run into people like Andy and Lyin' Ed, with their seriously impaired sense of reality, or Bugler types who'll revert and ban just to stir up the shit. To say nothing of the fact that improving the place as an encyclopedia gets no thanks from the higher-ups, but instead just gives legitimacy to the "flagship" material, such as the lies about Obama, or the endless stream of "liberal evil" articles that they promote vigorously over real encyclopedic content. And hell, even ordinary wikignomes over there find themselves wandering through a mine field, where the most innocuous edits can get you banned for life if you come up against a sysop's pet article and don't show your throat when they threaten you. Not a hell of a lot of incentive to do much positive, really. Not disagreeing that their stance makes them unpopular, but when the core of their stance is "Lyin' for Jesus", it's hard to see how it wouldn't. --Kels 12:58, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, I was there - before I got an account here at RW, trying to improve articles on math. Nothing controversial there, one should think (though the fights in sum math departments can be bitter). I was banned infinitely as a being disruptive. Sigh...
The problem is: Do you want to improve a project locally which is lost in general? My dilemma: I detest the slanders which you have to read on virtually any page of CP (the article on Obama is so outlandish that PJR just chose to ignore it). But when I read that imaginary numbers are less real than real numbers - or that the every Cauchy sequence has a limit - I have to intervene. Silly me.
So yes, I was willing to improve the project... --LArron 12:41, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
It really does boil down to what you mean by improve, and I also take issue with HelpJazz about non-conservative world view. What gets me is CP adopts a particular world-view which is ultra-conservative and espouses a religious view about the inerrancy of the Bible and a YEC viewpoint which precludes established science. Facts which do not agree with Andy's worldview are outrightly rejected while opinion, innuendo, libel, misprepresentation and plagiarism are embraced to support his hobby-horses. I don't many of RW's founders went there to sabotage or de-rail CP but just to provide a bit of balance and correct factual errors. In fact many conservative values like fair play, respect for one's opponent, tolerance, telling the truth and just plain honesty seem remarkably absent. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 13:43, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I'd have to ask... no matter how much you ignore it, the elephant in the room isn't getting any smaller. I mean, you can contribute your (J)azz off (har har!), but it's meaningless. You can get banned at any moment for any reason, you can get bullied, threatened, harassed, and that one idiot who keeps inserting absolute bullshit ideology into articles is dragging the site down. The hole is dug too deep; the only way out is to keep digging! Why even bother contributing at this point? As Ron White says, you can't fix stupid. NorsemanWassail! 15:05, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I guess that question was posed to me? For starters, even though I "can" get banned, it's not likely that I will. Even if Andy blocked me, I would have to have done something really terrible (and I'm not even sure I know what that is) in order for none of the other sysops to plead for my unblocking. The only person who bullies, threatens or harrasses me is not someone I worry about. Nobody uses their power to bully me, and that's the real issue. As for your question "Why even bother contributing?" you are making two assumptions (1) that I disagree with everything said on CP and (2) that I care that there is wrong information on CP and have a compulsion to fix it. I actually do agree with CP on many issues, though they tend to be more rhetorical and more callous than I would be. When I don't agree, I largely don't care. I know where the line is between what I can change and what I can't, and I stick to the right side of it. Now to your last point first: editing almost any wiki is essentially meaningless. With the exeption of Wikipedia (and I don't have the knowledge, talent or patience to do anything influential over there), every other wiki on the internet only effects a small number of people, and probably few, if any, change minds. I edit at CP because I enjoy it. I can't tell you why I enjoy editing, only that I enjoy editing. JazzMan 00:49, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Another "Essay"[edit]

Andy has written yet another essay. Aside from the normal assertions without evidence there are a couple of interesting points in this one. First, he seems torn between wanting his students to compete (larger class = more competition) and not wanting them to compete (girls should under no circumstances do better than boys). Second, the implication of this essay is that since he runs the largestTM American history class in the the universe (Jesus runs a larger one in heaven) his class is the best in the country. Be on the lookout for "Essay: Why church basements make the best environment for holding classes."-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, that goes a long way to explaining why this student got a 98% instead of perfect, given that Andy seemed to love all her answers and didn't deduct anything. I assumed it was because she was a girl, nice to see my suspicions confirmed. --Kels 10:24, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, he deducted points for #2 and #6. DickTurpis 10:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Oops! That was the wrong link. I meant to post this one, although I note that somehow she lost 2 points for an answer that's no worse than the typical sort he gives full marks for. Also, how many 2-point deductions have we seen? I can't recall very many. --Kels 10:48, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I started a counter-essay here, feel free to add to it. I'm thinking I should specifically counter some of Assfly's assertions as well as providing the advantages of small sizes. DickTurpis 10:42, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

This has creepy implications. Not only does Andy know what you are thinking (well 98% sure), and know what your values are, he also knows how large your high school classes were. It wasn't that long ago, so I think I would remember a Ned Flanders impersonator watching us from accross the football fields...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 13:58, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

That's not new though. I can't find the link anymore, but he once claimed to know more about my own school than I did. He even claimed to know more about my own education than I did. JazzMan 14:17, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, I really want him to cite this:"Most of mankind's greatest works, writings, insights, discoveries, proofs, etc., were by teenagers.". Not only is that complete crap, but also what he's saying is that it's more important for you to have a naturally exceptional student in your class than it is to educate students so they become exceptional, and you're there to learn from other high school students more than you are from the teacher. Which, in Andy's case, would probably be benficial, if his students were such underachievers. DickTurpis 14:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

There it is: (scroll down a tad; more fun found on the talk page. I almost quit because of this.) here's where he says I don't know that I was an 8th semesester student. JazzMan 14:26, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm looking at this "greatest work is by teenagers" bullshit, trying to see what I can come up with. Great achievements:

  • Isaac Newton (one of Assfly's favorites): was in his 30's when he came up with gravity, didn't publish on calculus until he was about 50.
  • Shakespeare: in his 20's when his very earliest plays were being performed, his greatest work came later.
  • Jesus: Didn't do much of note until after his teenage years.
  • Edison: was 30 when he made his first big invention, the phonograph. Other stuff followed.
  • Da Vinci: did some stuff in his teenage years, but all his great achievments came later.
  • Einstein: greatest achievements came well after his teenage years (not that Andy would consider his great, which is why I'm not bothering to include Darwin)
  • Reagan (what the hell): Was in his late 60s when he reached his peak.
  • Columbus: in his 40s when he sailed this way

So far I've got nothing. DickTurpis 14:46, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

The only example of anyone ever doing anything of significance as a teenager is Pascal, and even then it was nothing for which we remember him today. Also, perhaps Kevin Mitnick, but doubtless assfly would view that as liberal deceit. --JeevesMkII 14:56, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
It's Andy, his definition of "teenager" is probably as inclusive and dynamic as the other crap he's spout (spouted?).
Also, Carl Friedrich Gauss. NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 14:59, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
W.A.Mozart? CayceRecognition 15:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
And let us not forget Dakota Fanning. But seriously, there are certainly examples of people doing exceptional things as teenagers. Mozart is one, but his greatest works came later. His 40th and 41st symphonies (his lat two) are generally regarded as two of his best, his Requiem was the lat thing he ever did. His major operas all came after his teenage years. Really, I think Andy has absolutely nothing to stand on here. DickTurpis 15:02, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Double checking on Mozart, his 4 most highly regarded operas were 4 of his final 5. His teenage work seems mostly to be truly exceptional for a teenager. If he died at 20 he would be remembered as a prodigy who died before reaching his full potential, but not one of the greatest composers of all time, it seems to me. In my opinion the greatest thing he did as a youngster was memorizing and transcribing Allegri's Miserere after a single listen, if the stories are true. It would likely have been lost otherwise. DickTurpis 15:09, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I think we are falling into the Andy-trap here. See this list of child prodigies. The further back in history you go, the easier it is for a child prodigy to make significant contributions to a field. Whereas today's child prodigy (see Terry Tao for instance) is no longer a teenager by the time they are breaking new ground. This is merely a function of the amount of knowledge we have accrued.
Of course that list just proves him wrong. It's full of stuff like "admitted to Oxford at age 11," and whatnot, though is very short on great accomplishments benefiting civilization, unless you count Titius-Bode law as one of mankind's highest achievements. DickTurpis 15:18, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia doesn't even seem to have a list of teenage achievers. The child prodigies list (linked above) has a few teens, but very few that most people would have heard of. Even within popular music, surely one of the most youth-orientated fields, there are relatively few artists who created their best work during their teenage years. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I know that the list is short on great achievements, but there are a few there. Your statement about the Titius-Bode law strikes me as anachronism. Pythagoras' Theorem seems trivial and natural to us, but it didn't to early civilizations.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 15:28, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Admittedly I'm taking a bit of an Andyesque position here: if I ain't heard of it, it can't be that great. I'm saying this because I'm pretty sure when Andy made that comment he was not thinking about Titius-Bode law. I'm sure if you were to ask him mankind's greatest achievements, we could probably name most of his replies ourselves. We've been reading his tripe long enough. That's why I mentioned Newton, Columbus, and Jesus (and Reagan). The Bible was not written by teenagers by anyone's account, as far as I know. I'm not sure what he considers the best works of literature or music, but you can bet Menudo and Eragon are not among them. DickTurpis 15:33, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Agreed. I was merely trying to point out that one brazen claim does not deserve another, and that "mankind's greatest achievements" are potentially tricky to pin down... Water under the bridge at any rate. I did particularly enjoy your inclusion of the teenage achievements of Jesus in the list.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 15:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
There is no doubt that there have been and will continue to be people with extraordinary natural intelligence. It is ridiculous to deny this. The point is that Andy is claiming that all breakthroughs have been made by teenagers which is even more ridiculous...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 15:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah yes, like cp:Young_mass_murderers, where the definition of young means anyone under 40, and the definition of mass murderer can include killing only yourself (is every suicide therefore mass murder?) As long as everyone in the list is an atheist and social darwinist, its all good. --JeevesMkII 15:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
But even Andy must realize that "teenager", unlike "youngster" has a specific definition. And several pretty smart fellahs here are wracking our brains trying to think of a single one of the world's greatest accomplishments being made by a teenager, yet we got bupkis. I'd really liek him to name one. Just one. DickTurpis 15:13, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree with you that Andy is an idiot, and that earth-shattering discoveries by teenagers are few and far between. But to say they amount to bupkis is simply false. Start with these.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 15:20, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I never said he nor anyone else didn't do some very impressive and important things as teenagers, but is there anything there that would qualify as mankind's greatest works, writings, insights, discoveries, proofs, etc.? I take "greatest" to be the cream of the crop, not say, the 1000 best things ever done. And if it does qualify, that is one example out of hundreds of counter examples by older people. DickTurpis 15:26, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Is it really true that Gauss invented modulo arithmetic? That seems a bit dodgy to me, since I know Chinese Remainder Theorem (That fing wot lets us do RSA fast) was discovered in like the 11th century or something. Maybe its more that Gauss reintroduced the concept to western mathematics. --JeevesMkII 15:30, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
It depends what you mean by that. The history of mathematics is somewhat strange in that propositions are discovered, re-discovered and re-fomulated sometimes several times. For instance see the Pythagorean Theorem. It is true that some version of the CRT was discovered by the Chinese, was discovered by the Indians and was at least written about by Fibonacci. However, Gauss is credited with presenting modular arithmetic as we know it and use it today. Gauss presented his fomulation of modular arithmetic and proved several basic propositions in his disquisitiones. It is hard to say which ideas were entirely original and which were influenced by previous work, however if formulation and notation are all Gauss can be credited with, it would be enough. For instance compare the work of Newton with the work of Leibniz.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 16:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I think I know how this works. When pressed on this, Andy (assuming he responds, which he probably won't) will say that while the greatest achievements may not have actually been reached by people while they were in their teenage years, what they did as teenagers shaped their minds and values and led them to do great things thereafter. Which, of course, is saying that the greatest accomplishments of mankind have been performed by people who were at one point teenagers. That's everyone. You know, I honestly believe that Andy is losing his mind. DickTurpis 16:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I just wanted to add Joan of Arc. Also, when David slew teh Goliathan, he was but a tinny-ager, wasn't he? Also, just to put in my .02, Andy is totally batshit insane, as usual. His agenda is to cut the amount of tax money schools get and anything he can come up with to that end "must" be a good argument, since it is for a righteous cause. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Most excellent "reference"! (OK, it's really a footnote, but still) "Public school teachers, many of whom homeschool because they really know what public schools are like, are so indoctrinated about the push for smaller class size that will insist on it for homeschooling classes." ORLY??? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:49, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia insight number 147, your own opinion is the best reference. Try it in academic publications. --JeevesMkII 18:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

For your perusal:This points out that Philo T. Farnsworth was but 14 when he worked out the principles involved for teh 'lectronic television. SO we now know who to blame for ALL insidious political ads...too bad he be ded. CЯacke® 19:50, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

So far the only person we've counted that doesn't also count as a counterexample for doing something after his her teenage years was... a woman... who died early... because the church guys killed her. I wonder how Andy would take this. NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 20:07, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Psh. Andy loves Professor Farnsworth, because he's always spreading the GOOD NEWS. --JeevesMkII 20:16, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Immortal FBI...[edit]

LOL'd at the "liberal garbard" entry... pity we'll never know what actually came of the (in)famous investigation... seems like the "FBI" is going to haunt Andy to his grave.... --Just passing by 12:44, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Bugler vs PJR[edit]

Bugler is not a parodist, he's a really naughty boy gentleman. Well, that's settled then. Silver Sloth 13:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Everyone knows that calling someone a maggot is actually a compliment. Only liberals feign offense in order to censor the conservative ideals. NorsemanWassail! 14:45, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
That discussion is priceless. I thought it would end with pistols at dawn... "Unhand me, varlet, and spake to me of these vile accusations you fail to discredit!" ħumanUser talk:Human 18:27, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Cripes, Bungler! Can you dial back the parody just a bit? --Kels 17:07, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Would we still care...?[edit]

Not so much WIGO related but CP related enough that I think this question belongs here, it kind of occured to me. Forgive me if it's been brought up before elsewhere :S.

Basically, if Andrew Schlafly didn't have children being taught by Conservapedia, would we still care as much? At the top level it's still some middle aged neo-cons on some massive rant against the universe, but below that Andy is still homeskollin' children and censoring any alternative from them. If it didn't have this aspect, it would just be some harmless jerkoffs blowing their collective load on the internet and otherwise be mostly harmless. ArmondikoVpathetic 13:52, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Sort of, though still trying to pass his echo chamber off as a trustworthy encyclopedia to anyone is beyond the pale. If it was just a blog (well, it is a blog, but if he admitted it was just a blog) and not allegedly an encyclopedia, we wouldn't give it any more mind than we would any of our entries in WIGO:Clogosphere. Actually, if that were the case, this site wouldn't exist. But, yes, the fact he's trying to teach children his drival makes it that much worse. DickTurpis 14:16, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
he's also his mommy's son - we probably ought to look at Eagle Forum as well - so has some notability without his blog. If he weren't: a) homeschooling & b) pretending it's an encyclopedia; then it probably would not be worth more than an entry or two on WIGOclogosphere per week & RW would not exist. CayceRecognition 14:36, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I suppose the "encyclopedia" bit could be enough, but it really is a blog masquerading and I don't think anyone is taken in by it. But still, they're just people who are "wrong on the internet". ArmondikoVpathetic 17:35, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I basically agree with Armand's Hammer here. Our primary disgust is with his cramming his garbardage into relatively innocent teenagers' brains. Secondarily, passing off the junk that is the primary thrust of CP as an "encyclopedia" is intellectually offensive. Take those two factors away and it would just be a wacky blog-type site with a handful of jerkwad main editors, and barely worth passing notice. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:31, 18 October 2008 (EDT)


Returnz! This dude is my hero (no pun intended). NorsemanWassail! 15:49, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Conspiracy theory?[edit]

It seems that at least Conservapedia's smarter editors are now on to Bugler as a no good, filthy liberal parodist. Do you reckon there's any merit to the theory that the only reason he isn't blocked yet is because Andy likes to have him around to block all the other vandals, parodists and askers of inconvenient questions while keeping his own hands clean? --JeevesMkII 16:01, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy is notorious for sticking his fingers in his ears and humming to himself whenever conflicts arise between editors. It's safe to assume he will make no appearence and either Bugler will outlast the criticism, or leave in protest. It may skew the odds a little though...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 16:03, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I think you answered your own questions when you specified "smarter editors." If the smarter editors at CP were ever given any regard, we would be looking at a very different site. DickTurpis 16:04, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Andy has several times praised and agreed with Bugler. If he now accepted that he was a parodist, it would mean admitting that the great Schlafly was capable of bad judgement and also that his blog was a load of Poe bait. CayceRecognition 16:08, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I thinkBugler knows the system by now. Nobody can turn against him without turning against Andy, and Andy can't do anything because it proves he was being fooled all along. Like a game of chess. Wow, almost all his talk page edits are screaming of parody today, he's got bawls. BAWLS! NorsemanWassail! 17:14, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Stop claiming to be Bugler, we all know it's me Human. As for Andy having to admit fallibilty over Bugler's coming out; remember how he spun the tree octopus article as "intentional"? ArmondikoVpathetic 17:40, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not Bugler. Really. How would I have time, with all the energy I waste on here? It's probably Cracker, he (if he really is a male) is a genius at creating characters that survive in various guises on CP. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:35, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
C'mon everybody knows Bugler is Auld Nick up to his old tricks. 18:10, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Ohhhhhhh dear. PJR just dropped the T-bomb! --Kels 18:53, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I never said I was Bugler, damned if I don't open a thesaurus every time I read a post of his. Now Bugler is threatening to leave CP. NorsemanWassail! 19:56, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

He's good that Bugler. He never once lets on he knows who TK is. If he is who he says he is, the TK reference ought to be a mystery to him. A more skilled parodist might ask who the hell TK is. --JeevesMkII 19:59, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
This made me laugh. Yeah, jpatt, you know him well enough to vouch for his motives. --Kels 20:01, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler bugles his bugle in the hopes that re-inforcements will arrive. This is starting to become interesting...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 20:05, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Since when is Bungler a "productive editor"? Foxtrot's blowing smoke there. --Kels 20:29, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Just sock up and give Buggerer some support will you. He's doing far too much damage to CP where he is to quit! ArmondikoVpathetic 11:57, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

This Hitler is growing rapidly![edit]

Anyone notice that Ken's Hitler box on the main page is growing by the day? It is actually longer than most of the articles on Andy's "concise" encyclopaedia now, with the latest addition where he quote mines Richard Dawkins asking a rhetorical question to suggest he's actually a Nazi. The utter stupidity of Kenservative knows no bounds. --JeevesMkII 17:21, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

More main page sillies: "Did the wife of unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers kill a cop?" - Um, Ayers unrepentant??? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:37, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Um, killing cops is bad? Whoops. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 12:28, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Doctor Bugler[edit]

HAh! Hee! Ho! -CayceRecognition 18:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if he can name which schools he's been to and currently studies at? --Kels 18:35, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm sure Andy can...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 18:36, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I've got it! Bugler is really a Ph.D. student in psychology and is using Conservapedia as a study for his thesis. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 05:05, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Frightening thought[edit]

Could Bugler be TK? He's just played the "maybe I should quit" card, which is undoubtedly designed to get Andy to say to him "No, no, please stay" which he'll then use as a mandate to act like a bigger asshole. Thoughts? Stile4aly 20:30, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

If Bugler and TK are the same person, "TK" was as much a roleplaying persona as Bugler would be. The two are so far off in their use of the language, there's no way that Terry, if he wasn't working at being Terry the whole time, could pull off Bugler the same way.
Doesn't rule out your theory, but we'd all owe TK retroactive props for the amazing subterfuge of the "TK" persona. Aziraphale 20:37, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I doubt it's TK himself, although he's clearly studied the guy's methods. He's also been watching as a parade of drama queens got sympathy and support from Andy when they were clearly in the wrong simply for threatening to leave. Meanwhile, Foxtrot is doing his best to help Bungler even as the evidence of bullying is laid out before him, and Andy's happily ignoring the whole mess. Great leader you got there, folks! --Kels 20:46, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Bugler is Auld Nick. C'mom Wake up! ( .. dificulty reading the disfigured words in the anti-spam thingmie so cut and paste. 20:53, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I fixed the url for you. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Judging by the times at which he edits, Bugler is a problem. If he's in Europe (including Britain), he must be an insomniac. If he's in America, he knows more than the average American about Britain. I don't even think a Canadian would be able to carry off his act. There's always the possibility that he's in Australasia, I suppose, but then he must be rising early from his bed. I think on the whole that he is a Brit with insomnia, that's probably what makes him so irritable. --CayceRecognition 22:43, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Really? I just checked over his contribs for the last week or so and he pretty consistently edits from 6-8 AM to about 4-5 PM (EST, probably) - which is about noon to 10 PM en Angleterre, right? If the server time is CST, he's running one hour later than that. Seems about right. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:52, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
It seems he sometimes runs up to almost 20:00, which is a bit late in Britain, but hell, most of us edit at weird hours. Anyway, those times are also perfectly in line with editing in, say, EST (east coast USA), and having to leave for work at the local 7-11 around 5 or 6 most evenings. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:54, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
yes. you're right if it's only a 5 hour difference, I was working on 7, sorry. --CayceRecognition 23:09, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm convinced. This little drama queen stunt is completely within the boundaries of TK's behavior. Either he's TK, or CP just attracts this manner of douchebags. Neither option is very palatable.-caius (mission accomplished!) 01:12, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Just for your information :-)
--LArron 05:59, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I don't think so. Unless TK is a world-class actor and an incredible strategist (and British), it can't be TK. He could have studied TK's methods, I guess. JazzMan 01:17, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, we can clearly see the time zones there... These people only seem to get 4 hours sleep between editing Conservapedia. ArmondikoVpathetic 11:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Bugler drops a hint about his true Identity then shortly after this appears here. 12:27, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Re Bugler's "Should I quit?"[edit]

So far, of sysops, only Joaquin & deanS have come out in full support. Each has done the same trick if I'm not mistaken. --CaycePattern 17:11, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Old rant[edit]

Did anyone notice this nice little rant by "Templarart" on the Atheism talk page earlier today? Conservative's just deleted it, so bringing it to notice. --CayceRecognition 21:53, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

(The video is here. It's PZ Myers refuting point by point the article.) (I see Kels has put it on WIGOCP) CayceRecognition 22:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Anyone want to guess who flagged it as inappropriate?  K e n  D o l l  maybe? This happened to a Chaser video on the hillsong church called hill$ong. There was no course language or other adult references yet someone flagged it because they didn't like the joke at hillsong's expense. - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 22:36, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
seems perfectly reasonable to me: there's a picture of a girl in a BIKINI, who knows what it might do to sensitive young minds! CayceRecognition 22:45, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
Sign in required for that video, I hope the wigo mentions that... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
That video was made by yours truly, Shane Killian. PZ Myers had nothing to do with it; I just gave him a nod ad the front of the video because it was his blog that alerted me to the page. Shanek 10:31, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Ahh, I thought that it wasn't PZ. Good work, Shane! --Kels 10:36, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Next DinsdaleP block in 3, 2, 1...[edit]

The second paragraph wasn't a shot at Jpatt, but reminding folks where a large number of CP's pageviews come from is not going to end well, I think. --SpinyNorman 23:03, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, Dinsdale more or less summed it up as best he could in the most indemnifying way, plus what can Jpatt say... that all those viewers are people who actually agree with their tripe? :P NorsemanWassail! 00:57, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
He can go cite liberal style. I go look up which ones, but lazy. Whichever one that one about claiming knowledge you can't have or something. That would be in character at cp. I know there is one. --CWaddell 01:08, 19 October 2008 (EDT)


This exchange borders on the non-sequiteur. Andy asks a question, gets an answer, then suddenly decides to blame everything on the unions instead, apparently ignoring the answer he was given. At which point RJJ obediently jumps tracks with him. This strike anyone else as weird? --Kels 23:27, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

No, not as a regular peruser of Andrew Schlafly's hallucinations. Seems par for the course. Reason large classes are better? Teachers' unions are bad, bad liberal things. large classes = less teachers, so unions get less money and fewer people to indoctrinate with their evil politics. One does wonder, in the end, what period in time, and where, Andy considered "ideal"... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
It's funny you would make that mistake; the link cited is actually another talk page in which Andy blames something ont the unions. JazzMan 01:23, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
No mistake, Jazzercizer (if I can call you that). I was merely comparing Andy's track-skipping there to another issue he is drooling about today. It's Andy, not me, who is on a topic binge today. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
PS, I'm glad Bugger can't call me Hummer. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:27, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I figured you made the same mistake I made minutes earlier :) JazzMan 01:28, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
PS, heh heh heh. JazzMan 01:28, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Hehe, I can see how easy it would be to make...
PPSPSPSPS One of these days I'm gonna burn myself over there... two things on the list: 1. Calling Andy an idiot, and 2. Calling our chum-chum-churee "Bugger". ħumanUser talk:Human 01:37, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
It seems strange RJJ would show such obedience. I checked out RJJ's user page and then looked elsewhere for confirmation and he's actually a historian,and noa in way andy's a "lawyer" or "teacher." You'd think he'd simply say "no, you're stupid and ill-informed" but maybe he's smart enough to not poke the bear to much too soon? --CWaddell 01:32, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Eh, I think RJJ just answered the "new" question, really. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Perhpas, but appropriate historian' answer would be "the fuck are you talking about andy?" --CWaddell 01:45, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
That was poorly worded I guess. I will attempt to be less crude. Were I RJJ, I would not have the tact to avoid pointing out that the question has little to do with anything mentioned up to the point. But then again, if I were a professional historian with decades of experience, I would spend my time openly questioning the information and methodology of Andy's historical inquiries and how he "teaches" American history. Just disappointing I suppose. --CWaddell 01:50, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
If you were a credentialed academic historian... why would you waste eight seconds after reading the Obama article? Obviously, RJJ is just another Bugger-esque troll, yanking Andy's chain. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I would have thought any historian worth their weight would be able to equate the demise of the British Empire with the debts they built up during the two world wars. Whilst WW1 was largely financed through inflationary policies, WW2 left Britain basically bankrupt and they had no choice but to farm off the Empire. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:31, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I agree, these are valid points i atgee with, but richard jensen is a real person, his user profile is 100% accurate, and he is a very conservative historian. perhaps he is some teroll just coopting jensen's bio. oddly enoughk hes edited obama article. it's really really strange. i went to an extremely conservative college (i am member of us member, free high five to person who guesses which collge it was), yet any of my history profs would have been embarassed to axsodciate with CP obama article. fucking strange, that's all. --CWaddell 04:39, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Looking some more, I think RRJensen is posting to conservapedia just to advertise citizendium. Every new article includes a talk page that comments that user can find article also at citizendium. Apparently he came to the conclusion CP was god way to do that? --CWaddell 04:54, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Ahh, this explains a lot! Andy's just started reading about Unions (probably for the first time), so he's bringing it up in random situations. Andy's the living personification of "when all you have is a hammer", whatever he's read or been told most recently becomes his all-purpose bludgeon, until mommy or his preacher or someone gives him a new one. --Kels 10:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

What an appalling mess full of the prejudices and blinkered thinking we've come to expect. I was particularly unimpressed by the 'Yankee Ingenuity' section. Without for one moment detracting from the many inventions that have come from a large, prosperous and well populated country there were one or two inventions elsewhere in the world. Various forms of transport come to mind and, as Tom Lehrer said, the US space race was founded on the know-how of good old Americans like Dr Verner Von Braun. Silver Sloth 10:35, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
"Many of the 20% of economic questions on the SAT II will come from 1877-1896 because nothing else was happening then.", LOL. --Kels 10:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
One of these days I want to go point for point through one of his lectures and demonstrate his utter lack of knowledge of both the material and the methodology. Ranges from lazy but harmless minor factual errors to insultingly gross simplifications or mischaracterizations (lecture six explains secession in one paragraph!) --CWaddell 11:41, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Bullshit, Andy. I maintain the telephone was a Canadian development, and I resist any attempt to take that away from Bell, who was also behind development of the hydrofoil and airplane landing gear for ice. The first wireless trans-Atlantic communication was ours, too, and so were acrylics, basketball, the pacemaker, Standard Time, Superman, and a bunch of others. --Kels 10:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

And Edison's most famous invention wasn't his: "Sir Joseph Wilson Swan (31 October 1828 – 27 May 1914) was an English physicist and chemist, most famous for the invention of the incandescent light bulb." Wikipedia --CayceRecognition 12:15, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
As I recall, Edison is quite well known for taking credit for his staff's work. --Kels 12:45, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
It was his partner; the company was "Edison-Swan". And while I think about it: "Bessemer Process 1870s: new process made steel easy to produce -Schlafly - 'Yankee ingenuity'" "The Bessemer process was the first inexpensive industrial process for the mass-production of steel from molten pig iron. The process is named after its inventor, Henry Bessemer, who took out a patent on the process in 1855." Wikipedia; and: "Sir Henry Bessemer (19 January 1813–15 March 1898), English engineer and inventor." Wikipedia. --CaycePattern 15:51, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
more: The Brooklyn Bridge was designed by a German (Johann August Röbling - John A. Roebling) who migrated to the US at the age of 25. He was entirely public school educated. CaycePattern 16:07, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Another CP insight[edit]

Tools of censorship. "Point 1 - misusing copyright law to silence the other side and deprive the public of another point of view." Oh yes Andy, a conservative would never do that, would they? (Feel free to WIGO) Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 09:43, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

This strikes me as beyond stupid for a lawyer, especially a conservative lawyer. Surely if your actions are within the bounds of the law, then there is nothing to complain about. If you think that someone is doing something that is legal, but wrong, then you should be trying to change the law. If you think that someone is using the law to gain unfair advantage, then you should be trying to use the same laws against them. What's with all the "conservative moaning?"-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:00, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
The irony, of course, is that except for the church and state one, all his examples are in ample supply at CP. But that's par for the course with America's Worst Lawyer. --Kels 10:13, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes, abusing copyright law to censor. VenomFangX tried that on Thunderf00t recently (DMCA complaint or something) and nearly got kicked off PooTube for it because it was illegal. So of course, nice good Christian Conservative Creationists don't do that sort of thing. ArmondikoVpathetic 11:49, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
There's a great summation of that whole situation (along with video of its resolution) here at SkepChick. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:54, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Zomg, total winnage. +1 for you Arcan, this will occupy my day quite nicely! NorsemanWassail! 12:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I've come across both these characters before and it's great to see the punk being humiliated. Full marks to Thunderfoot for maintaining a level head which reflects well on the rational atheist and badly on the YEC! Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 13:28, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy should know about frivolous takedown requests.-caius (mission accomplished!) 13:17, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Groan... I resisted mightily the urge to add three words to the talk page: "Joseph McCarthy, blacklisting". I should probably create a few more new articles to stay on the safe side of getting 90/10ed. Although, Assfly doesn't seem to mind as long as I only make one comment per issue and then let him shoot himself in his Parthian foot. And correct his typos once in a while ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 17:52, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Super Sunday[edit]

After last Sunday's disapointment Andy may be trying to make up lost ground. Here is an ill-advised pre-sermon essay. Warning: do not view this essay with your irony meter switched on, or even in the room. From the spurious introductory sentence (Really? Society thrives on quantifying physical attributes?), to the bullet points listing Andy's blatant failings (logic, accepting mistakes, etc), and the consequences of being a fundamentalist nutball (speaking in front of large hostile audiences, being mocked), this essay does not fail to amuse.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:36, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh look. It's a Conservapedia term. Funnily enough, it appears directly below another brillant Andy essay from last year, Quantifying openmindedness. -- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 10:38, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I would imagine it's very tempting to add the words "eternal damnation" to point 10. Just sayin'. --Kels 11:24, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
If all Andy's essays were collected together and the rest (Conservative's opusses (Opi?) etc.) added as appendices, he could publish the result as "The Little Red Book" or "The thoughts of Chairman Andy". He's so amusing! --CayceRecognition 11:55, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Opera. HTH Pseudomonas 14:26, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Quick analysis of Andy on this questionaire here. DickTurpis 12:02, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy just updated his newest display of genius to include the inevitable public school attacks and religious justifications. Would one of you a bit funnier than I attempt to address this? [8]---CWaddell 19:46, 19 October 2008 (EDT)



This gem appeared transiently. I like the big bold letters. Kalliumtalk 11:58, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

We need a new word so that we don't overuse "irony", perhaps "coppery" or "aluminiumy" :P ArmondikoVpathetic 12:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Ferrous Kalliumtalk 12:05, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for fixing the image. Kalliumtalk 12:12, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I see the image now! Yes, I've seen that, it gets seen every now and then but it is an absolute gem of irony!! ArmondikoVpathetic 12:17, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Image:Cpproblem.png has been adorning conservapedia since roughly 11/07. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:26, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Redphone, again[edit]

Phone's ringing again: cp:User:Conservative/Gentlemen-Have-you-noticed-the-search-engine-rankings-for-the-evolution-article-lately?. Honestly, Ken, can you not find somewhat shorter titles? I only mention this because I like to encourage the little moron to make an ass of himself and conservapedia simultaneously. Yes, Ken, I see that if I google "evolution" Conservapedia comes up in the top 20 links (perhaps biased for me because I look at your stupid site so much). I also notice that if I google "evolution" and "conservapedia" together, the results I get (discounting CP itself, of course) all mock your site and call it a joke. The only one that doesn't? The evil, liberal Wikipedia. Would you do me a favor and find me one site that gives a favorable review of your piece of shit article? And I don't mean a random blog that merely links to it as part of a link swapping deal, or a sentence or two buried within some large website. I want to see someone write something of substance saying what a great article it is. Then I'd like to see the Alexa ad google rankings of that site. Can you do that for me please? DickTurpis 12:24, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

You'll get old and gray waiting for a response from Ken. Meanwhile here's a little something from Jeeves and I on Ken's Evolution and Atheism "articles" and the web. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:06, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

For Baal's sake, Ken![edit]

STFU with your red telephone shit, you're cluttering up recent changes and making it harder to find the stuff that's actually worth reading. Besides, I just typed "evolution" into Google, and it came up at the bottom of the second page, which is lower than it was a few months ago. So I repeat, STFU. --Kels 12:25, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

You'd better do it, Ken, these magical ropes and chains can only hold Kels back for so long!
Alexa agrees with most of us: we don't care, Kenneth. NorsemanWassail! 12:47, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Grrr...I'll be free yet! And I notice he's deleted the trash, obviously he's scared of me! --Kels 12:51, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Come on, people. Please see above. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 12:52, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
YOU'RE NOT MY REAL MOM! --Kels 13:13, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
It appears, Oh Mighty Mistress of BAAL, that Mr. Demyer is a true believer. --CayceRecognition 12:54, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Speaking of annoying, repetitious, loonies, where's Jinx hi Jinx!? MIA for 10 days now) --CaycePattern 15:09, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Off crying after we blocked his IP for pi seconds? ArmondikoVpathetic 15:36, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Nope, as if by magic, Jinx has returned to work on his Fireproof entry. Ace McWickedThe Liquid Room 15:42, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Aaaagh! He is Satan incarnate. one mention of HIS name and he appears! Tremble before his might, unbelievers! CaycePattern 15:56, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

More reasons not to argue with Ken: He clearly does not understand the meaning of the word "popular." (look at the date stamp)-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 18:02, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

But then, knowing we'd add it to the WIGO, he predicted we would make it popular? No, what am I thinking, that requires intelligence... NorsemanWassail! 18:16, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
I regret I don't have the skilz to launch a click-attack, but if I could, I would do it to the Flying Fortress page. The good old homosexuality click-attack (if it really was a click-attack) was fun, but it's old now. Time to put the spotlight on other wonderful articles! Etc 08:54, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

More redirect fun[edit]

Because Fox-with-the-trots doesn't do crafts. --Kels 16:32, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

It's like the dictionary episode of Blackadder. "C - Big blue wobbly thing" --JeevesMkII 18:09, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia: It's Like Baldric Made a Wiki. --Kels 18:36, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Place your bets[edit]

On whether this quote by Colin Powell makes it onto CP: "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the {Republican} Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America." Pseudomonas 18:41, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

At first, I thought "no," but then I realized this can be skewed in the Schlafly's favor. Time will tell, but I hope not. MIP has actually signed in - 18:45, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
The real question is if the fact that Powell endorsed Obama will make it into CP (it is in the news suggestions but I doubt it will go farther)--BoredCPer 18:54, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
It made it onto the Colin Powell but not the Obama article, at least so far. I'd try to put it on there, but you know, can't edit it. ----CWaddell 19:30, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Sure: "Renegade general thrown out of Bush's administration comes out in favor of Obama, and electing Muslim Presidents." Regards, "that was easy", ħumanUser talk:Human 19:53, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
Not a hard leap. "Colin Powell today endorsed Muslim Democrat Barack Obama for President, saying that it did not matter to him that Obama was a member of Islam."--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 20:11, 19 October 2008 (EDT)
"...the {Republican} Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr Obama is a Muslim'. Well the correct answer is... "What if he is?..." NightFlare National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring liberal Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.[1] 20:22, 19 October 2008 (EDT)