Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive84

This is an archive page, last updated 17 February 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Anne Rice

Just a small excerpt from CP's "Anne Rice" entry ('nowikied' for sanity):

"

The comment and the replies to it were later pulled from the site, to the surprise of both the fans and Rice herself.<ref>[http://www.annerice.com/msg092604a.htm Post on AnneRice.com]</ref> However, copies of the review have spread across the Internet.<ref>[http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/515245.html?nc=911 Fandom Wank community entry] on LiveJournal</ref>

Author Neil Gaiman commented on the issue on his blog:

{{cquote|I think that unless a reviewer gets their facts completely wrong, the author should shut up (and even then, the author should probably let it go -- although I'm a big fan of a letter that James Branch Cabell wrote to the New York Times pointing out that their review of FIGURES OF EARTH was bollocks*). As Kingsley Amis said, a bad review may spoil your breakfast, but you shouldn't let it spoil your lunch.<br>[...]<br>I think Anne Rice going on Amazon and lambasting her critics was undoubtedly a very brave and satisfying thing for her to do, was every bit as sensible as kicking a tar baby, and, if ever I do something like that, please shoot me.}} "

Note the "wank" in the first para and the "bollocks" in the second. If I'm "outing a sock, I apologise. but as far as I've seen he (AlanS) isn't. He had earlier specifically removed reference to her SM porn with the comment:"(Unless you want to point out that she also wrote sado-masochistic porn novels, don't include these books in the list, please.)".

What price conservative values? Cayce_Pattern 09:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Price: One soul. No refunds. --Kels 11:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Good thing the CP news stories are carefully screened

I wish DinsdaleP wasn't in the woodshed, because I'd love to be able to point out that John McCain is in favor of continuing the current Bush policy of retaining the embargo against Cuba that the story featured in the news is in favor of dropping. The policy suggestions in the article (opening up trade, etc.) are supported by Obama, though. --SpinyNorman 10:50, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

"Trainspotters"

Andy's just ramping up the crazy these days, isn't he? Last night, he was so ignorant about the movie that he couldn't even get the name right (despite it being written on the same page many times), now he's de-improving the mainspace article about it. Don't watch a movie, write about one! --Kels 11:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I still can't get my head round the fact that Andy thinks he can use "Hollywood" to refer to any filmakers in any country. The idea that they could be affected by "Hollywood values" makes sense (in a conservaidiot sorta way) but the idea of Trainspotting being made by Hollywood is just stoopid. What a fool. weaseLOId~ 11:56, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Then he starts mentioning on Main:Talk that the entry he just made supports his notion. He sources and cites his own crap as if it's fact, thinking he can get away with it! Norseman^Wassail! 13:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I want someone to go ask him if Spartacus is a Conservative movie, because it goes on and on about how awesome Christianity is, or if it is afflicted with Hollywood values because it is totally gay. --JeevesMkII 21:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Hsmom has the last word (possibly) on Trainspotting: Al Gore also said it glamourised heroin (but also admitted he hadn't watched it). weaseLOId~ 20:02, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I note that he hasn't bothered to check why the film was called 'Trainspotting' in the first place. In the book / play, the ending has nothing to with a big drug deal and instead ends with Begbie and Renton meeting a tramp (who turns out to be Begbie's father) on a train platform at night who asks them if they're trainspotting. Crundy 07:53, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

See the talk page: it's gone in to in some depth (well for CP anyhow) Toast 08:01, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Caution: Parodist At Work

Wow, Bungler's really going to town on JudgeKing. Not only did he block the guy for making good points, he's reverting everything in sight. Too bad, the kid sounded pretty on the ball. But at least it fits with their mission to stomp on intelligence wherever it is found. --Kels 13:57, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I think we should have a special page for the outing of the obvious parodists. Not the subtle ones, but those who are so deep that they won't be punished for it (I can think of about five off the top of my head). Just a place where we can list their profiles and display some of their better work. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 14:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

It's already there. See Conservapedia:Parodist#Suspected parodists. Only a few listed so far, & I think in each case people at CP have accused them being a parodist & it's just been ignored. Don't add anybody you think would be banned for it. But we need to add Jpatt, in light of comments further up this page, & BHarlan. weaseLOId~ 14:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Mmm, I dunno. Bungler's okay to "out" because Andy's made sure that he's untouchable. So long as he keeps stroking Andy's...uh...let's say "ego"..., nobody can do anything about him, and even Andy can't without admitting he was WRONG about something. Other parodists, I'd like to leave in their cover, especially if Andy hasn't even noticed yet. --Kels 14:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Most of them have probably put a lot of work into their personas and are doing good (and entertaining) work - if if I do hate Bugger's guts. It wouldn't be fair to out them here. Just because that crowd over there are blinded by ideology doesn't mean we should do their proof-reading and their vetting for them. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:52, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

It's the only way they'll learn. --Kels 15:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, while we're on the topic... Sometimes I just don't know what to say. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 16:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes Andy still manages to out-parody the parodists. This is a goody - dead leaves look pretty, ergo God must have made them, because they look pretty, ergo "open your mind, blah, blah, blah". Do all fundies have a manual (besides the Book) where they can quote this drivel from? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:50, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I was boggling at that earlier. It's nice of him to give us such convenient examples of his scientific illiteracy. The whole "all it takes is one example to disprove evolution" bit is classic. --Kels 16:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, especially given his past arguments that one (or a dozen, or a hundred) counter-example proves nothing.--WJThomas 19:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I find it a bit annoying that Thinker is just handing him the point, when it's not true in the first place. All that does is allow Andy to say "Aha! Then since my example about dead leaves is right by definition (since I made it up), then all of evolution falls!" Thinker's got some goods, but he leaves loads of openings for the Creationists to misrepresent. And as nice a guy as PJR appears on occasion, he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity. Andy's more obvious, since he's always an ass, and will just make shit up and call it Truth. --Kels 19:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I gotta say, his public persona might be an asshole, but he can still make us laugh now and again. --Kels 17:01, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure with his famous nose for parodists he will soon find the others :)--BoredCPer 17:11, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

His work on Pearl Jam was brilliant. Ban editors and mark for deletion, then when queried, says "ah, it's dirty word we can't have on a FF site. Go on little homeschoolers, go to Google and look it up..." Brilliant. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 23:41, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

RED TELEPHONE TO KEN!!!!!!!!!!!!111111one

Did you see the good news, Ken? A judge dismissed Philip Berg's lawsuit against Obama, the one that claimed he wasn't a citizen? Do you think you should update your main page with the news? Or will you - like Andy - continue lying to homeschoolers?

Dear Gentleman at a Crappier Website,

Did you see that a judge dismissed Philip Berg's lawsuit against Obama, the one that claimed he wasn't a citizen? Do you think you should update your main page with the news? Or will you - like Andy - continue lying to homeschoolers?-caius (decider) 16:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Ames, stop teasing Ken by actually knowing and researching things, also the caption on your picture is not nearly long enough. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:52, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

That's better. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:21, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to make a lot of meaningless edits now to make sure that this page remains on top of the recent changes list. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 00:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Dear-Gentleman-at-the-rather-poor-site

Now you have fixed the main page up could you fix the following logical fallacies in Atheism, Homosexuality and Evolution;

1. Argument from authority
2. Argument from ignorance
3. Quote mining
4. Negative proof
5. Anecdotal evidence
6. Argument from adverse consequences
7. Argumentum ad populum

Shit in one hand, wish in the other... Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 00:57, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

That is a very dull letter Ken

. Are you writing a complaint letter or something? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 02:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Ugh. I know it's just poking him with a stick, but Ken

really gets up my nose sometimes.  Check out this tripe.  Ken, I can honestly say you're a lying piece of shit, your article is poorly written and consistently lies, uses deception and in many cases elements you already knew weren't true, and the only reason it's got as high a Google ranking as it does is by your dishonest spamming.  You hide behind the student panel decision, while at the same time doing your best to crap all over it, which says a lot about your character.  I'm betting that after this, you'll continue to say there's "no substantial objection" to your giant wiki-style blog post, even while there's significant substantial objection laid out right at your feet.  You're a worthless, worthless man, Ken, and you've made sure that thousands of people are fully aware of that fact. --Kels 10:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Cripes, PJR's no better. He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him, and just waves off actual evidence when it's put under his nose. At least he doesn't buy the "one counterexample sinks the theory" hogwash. --Kels 11:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Imagine if Andy was actually a teacher

Setting the bar kinda low for the boys there, aren't you, Andy? --Kels 20:09, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

"That he was open to ideas such as growing a beard." sweet fuckin' holy Jesus Christ. What the fuck is that? 67/70. It's official. ANDY is the parodist. Or if I'm wrong, can someone sock up and ask him to justify this--on a college-prep test, no less...PFoster 20:20, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Grab a screen dump and and history of the file. Make sure it gets incorporated into the no jokes version so that people can see the quality of the teaching services he is providing. --Shagie 20:24, 25 October 2008 (EDT) Andy was kind enough to have it be one edit for grading rather than Kenesque style editing. [2] Crops from that could be quite useful. --Shagie 20:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I lol'd. I think we just found a new addition for the mustache article. --JeevesMkII 20:25, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

An addition for qualifying openmindedness... do you have a beard? --Shagie 20:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Edit Conflict) A point: Andy,presumably, knows these students personally. It is possible that this student is (how shall we put it) less than gifted [ESN] and that the mere ability to string three words together in a meaningful way is worth 67/70. He might be right, in a way. (or I suppose the child might be 6 years old) Cayce_Pattern 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

What I mean is: If this student turns out to have, say, Down's syndrome. Who then looks like the idiots? I'm afraid it's us. Cayce_Pattern 20:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) you're giving Andy WAY too educator credit here. There is no way he would cabable of handling a special needs student. Last year I had to give some of the life skills kids (Severe mental handicaps) the Colorado English Language Assessment test and it was the most exhausting experience of my life. I literally had to take a break and sit down after. Anyone who would turn control and responsibility of a severe special needs to Andrew Schlafly should be prosecuted for child abuse. Besides, having down syndrome shows that the child was exposed to incredible liberal teachings while in gestation and he would never teach a liberal like that. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:48, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Hasn't he said somewhere, that kids with special needs are prime candidates for homeschooling? Don't get me wrong, I'm not pleading for Andy, but this kid seems to be either young or of sub average intellect & I feel we are taking advantage of someone who cannot respond. Just take care , is all! Cayce_Pattern 20:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd enlarge your statement, Sir Chuck, to "Anyone who would turn control and responsibility of a child to Andrew Schlafly ..." Cayce_Pattern 21:00, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

CAyce, given our recent history, I hate to agree with you, but you're right...if this kid is, what did you call it--ESN?--we look like a-holes. My bet is the "kid" in question is one of us trying to bait Andy, but still--it's gotten pretty easy for us to assume the worst and forget about the real people that could be out there at the ends of these things. Peace. PFoster 21:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

's OK PF. (ESN: "Educationally Sub Normal" - I remember the term from the eighties somewhere.) Cayce_Recognition 21:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

(I don't think there's any socks in there - I bet all these kids are physically vetted by him or personally recommended.) Cayce_Pattern 21:14, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Cayce--i was assuming that there were online-only students taking the test. Although that would be the ultimate RW deep-cover sockery coup. I gotta dye the grey out of my hair, shave off my free-thinkin' beard and sign up for Andy's class next semester.PFoster 21:17, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We of cause have assumed Andy actual reads these things. If the Lenski affair has taught us anything it is that Andy skim reads looking only for what he expects to see. The beard comment could have been Andy only got have way down the sentence to "[t]hat he was open to ideas..." and stopped satisfied that he got the answer he wanted. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Aside from any other considerations, why do you think Andy would even consider teaching a special needs student when he's too damn lazy to really teach in the first place? That would be like work, and Andy's not into working. --Kels 21:40, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Err: $250? (and he could possibly ask for more for a Special Needs "student". Cayce_Pattern 21:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Btw, do we know if he gives marks based on the individual student's abilities, or "normal" abilities? If the latter, I'm not seeing why students with lesser intellect should get their marks bumped up. It would go against Andy's version of the US anyway, where everything is based on individual merit. Kirkburn 21:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't attempt to get inside the mind of ASchlafly: that way madness lies! Cayce_Pattern 21:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

This individual is certainly not a sock, unless he knew about it much before any of us. If Ben is a sock he has been in Deep Cover for nearly two years.[3] Likewise, if you look at some of those edits, it doesn't show him as a special needs individual. A teenager slacker maybe who realizes that if Andy doesn't give him a good grade his parents won't re-enroll him in Andy's "class" next year and thus no incentive at all to do anything more than half assed articles.[4][5][6] I really doubt this individual is special needs. --Shagie 22:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Concur. This individual does not look like a special needs student, they look like somebody that's used to getting by with writing poorly. Low standards equals low performance. When you tell students up front that complete sentences aren't necessary you will end up getting crap. This is a pet peeve of mine. If this person worked for me, I would fire them, or at least belittle them terribly. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 00:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Re: A group of Muslims. OMFG. I believe the appropriate expression is "xD"? Check out the rest, too. This kid writes better parody than I do, and he doesn't get blocked. 10/10 Insightful. Brillant! WTF? --Marty 02:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT) omgwtf? --Marty 02:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

A lot of Andy's World History class was the construction of Conservapedia, as they were graded not by assignments but articles edited and created. He probably was top of the class because he created a pile of one line stubs before anyone else got the chance and raked up huge points. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 02:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

And here's me thinking that the collective noun for muslims in the Conservadictionary was a murder of moslems. I stand corrected! --JeevesMkII 08:21, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

JessieH is riding for a fall with her views on the efficacy of homeschooling. Fretfulporpentine 08:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

What about JessS with this?

“”I really don’t think that being homeschooled made any difference back then. Schools back then are not even comparable to schools now. And so I really don’t think that we can judge his character by whether or not he went to public school. I think that he would have turned out the same way if he had gone to public school.

Any bets on the score that gets? --Shagie 14:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Equipe Schlafly-tinted specs and imagine a subtext that says that homeschools are superior and it's 10 out of 10. Either way, keep an eye on it, the (no jokes) article could do with updating as soon as he awards something less than 90%. ArmondikoV^theist 15:10, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Image Bot?

On a totally mundane topic: what's happened to the ^IMG tag? Cayce_Pattern 21:18, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if capturebot runs all that often as when it is going it slows the database down with all its uploads. I would be nice if we could call capture bot with a command like __CAPTUREBOT___ which it removes when it is finished. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The problem with capture bot is that it has to use IE...gag I know terrible...which means I have to run it on my desktop booted into Windows XP. So it gets run kinda...randomly...of course if anyone has perl compiled on their window box and wants to volunteer to be in charge of it and run it more regularly, I wouldn't complain. tmtoulouse 22:02, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll talk to you when I get my new computer running. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Could you dump the source of what you're doing somewhere so I can have a look at it? Maybe I can hack something up that uses the gecko engine so you could run it as a cron job. --JeevesMkII 22:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

It is built around this perl mod, which is built around several other dependencies, specifically image magick and win32 screencapture. So it is firmly entrenched in the win32 architecture. tmtoulouse 22:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh well, it'll give me something to do. I just discovered my stupid laptop's graphics card isn't butch enough to drive fallout 3. This makes me sad. Damn non-turn based RPGs. At least if I keep myself busy I won't execute my idiotic plan to bung dell 400 odd quid for a desktop machine dedicated to playing silly games. --JeevesMkII 00:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Greatest Schlafly Statistic of all time

Words can not describe its innanity. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I WIGO'ed it. Andy, you're doing it wrong! Its means that each one has only a 5% chance of being correct. What a dumb shitAce McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 22:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

This new learning amazes me. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 22:56, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

1-(.95)^14 = 0.512325021! Cayce_Pattern 22:58, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Examples why Andy is wrong:

• Andy is really misinformed.
• Andy is really really misinformed.
• Andy is mind-bogglingly misinformed.
• Andy is really really really misinformed.
• (repeat, 95 times)

See? I proved (to within 7E-131, which is obviously equal to 100% sure) that Andy is wrong. --Toiretni 22:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

(1-.95)^14 ≈ 0

.95^14 = 0.487674979

So whatever he's trying to say, there's something wrong. Cayce_Pattern 23:02, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

His big problem is the assumption of independence of the events. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 23:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

His big problem is the fact that he's wrong! Cayce_Pattern 23:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I will tell you what I dont get (slightly off topic) is this from the same entry - "beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation ". OK right, Andy thinks autumn foliage is pretty but its not the way it is for the purpose of being pretty. What the fuck is it supposed to mean? Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 23:10, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The truth is a statistical function... how very... Conservapedia. What a bunch of morons. --JeevesMkII 23:12, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Argh! My eyes! I see the article also walks into the classic mistake of quoting both the eye and the flagellum motor as examples. Another fail. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 23:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Of the 14 given examples, only a few ave anything to do with refuting evolution (the whale, etc.) What the hell does fall foliage and the like have anything to do with evolution? He's confusing me more and more all the time. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 23:42, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

To him, it has everything to do with refuting all aspects of evolution simply because it exists. As for beauty, he simply ignores the mundane many for the (arbitrarily) special few. But that's a selection bias, and understanding that would be getting dangerously close to realizing how natural selection works. But his real slip is in ignoring that the fall colors are due to intermediates in a decay process- the leaves are literally dying. Despite ardently fighting that 1) Liberals teach that death can be good and 2) this is wrong and causes mental illness, he is now asserting that in this example he sees not just good, but actual beauty, in death. Kallium^talk 01:41, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Woah, I looked at the article history. I didn't realise it was a work of the Assfly alone. I felt sure that kind of stupid comes only from the pen of Kenny boy himself. I should have realised it from the lack of quotes, though. --JeevesMkII 23:46, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

And that it's not 436 pages long. (Sidenote, ad at the bottom of the page is currently: "Why Is It Some Christian Businesses Profit And Some Don't? Click Here To Learn How To Run A Christ-Centered Business AND Achieve Big Profits!" Why indeed. Links to http://www.profitgodsway.com/ so you don't have to click-thru) Kirkburn 23:50, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Nope. Just another case of Andy's bad math. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 23:53, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a funny article, but Conservapedia is down, once again.Czolgolz 00:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Let's see, there are over 14 religions other than Christianity. If there is a 5% chance of one of them being correct, then it is almost 100% certain that Christianity is a false religion. I guess Andy just proved he's worshipping a false God. DickTurpis 00:44, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

You're clueless. Start accepting conservative values and you'll enjoy mental health. Godspeed. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 00:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

(ed conflict) Very nice. You know, what really bugs me about the whole thing is this: if you're going to argue against something, you should know what you are arguing against. His symbiosis examples, and the bat thing, show that he clearly doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of evolution (okay, we all knew that)- but will he ever learn that understanding and agreeing are two different things? Not to mention his whole "logic" behind one counterexample collapsing the theory of evolution (well, their use of "theory")- it's easy give situations where Newton's formulas give definitely wrong answers, but that nonetheless doesn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics wholesale. Andy, please learn what evolutionary biology actually is. Gah! Kallium^talk 01:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Jesus, this leapfrogs past "funny" right straight into "terribly sad." The poor kids.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 01:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

At least he made a correction ... oh, wait. Nevermind. Etc 08:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Is there a copy of that list and a side-by-side take down on RW yet? I mean, it'd be fairly easy to do but uesful for the sake of completeness. ArmondikoV^theist 09:20, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't even know how you could do that. How does one refute "beautiful autumn foliage?" It's like they're saying "counter-examples to evolution: Quack! Quack quack! Quack! Take THAT you atheists!"--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 11:57, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Bats are off the list now, bringing the list down to 13. Same dumb math applies. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 10:56, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's cute how PJR admits that autumn foliage is a lousy example, since it has nothing to do with evolution, and then suggests the peacock's tail, which is much easier to explain via evolution. I keep wanting to say "stop hitting yourself!" --Kels 12:21, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

So much wrong on so many topics on so little time... NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 13:46, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

"No, PatWills, autumn foliage is beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too." - Is it just Post-Absence Perceived Stupidity Amplification, or did Andy really become more idiotic during the last four weeks or so? --Sid 15:41, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I've pretty much accepted that Andy gets dumber with every passing second, but I still can't grasp how he cannot realize that he's looking like a bonehead who's not doing those who share his ideology any favours. NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 16:20, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's the Bugler effect. Surrounding himself with toadies who just mirror his crazy opinions buffers Andy from reality, driving him to new heights of stupidity. weaseLOId~ 16:26, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

He still fails to recognize the difference between fact and opinion (I still remember that being a big theme in my 5th grade curriculum in *gasp* public school). It is telling that CP has an entry defining 'fact' (which contained a bad example, no surprise) but not a corresponding one for 'opinion' other than in the legal sense. Kallium^talk 16:49, 26 October 2008(EDT)

This is the kind of edit I love. Taking one of Aschlafly's pet topics and putting it straight into an otherwise factual article.--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 11:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, thst is fantastic. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 11:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Just another shitty attempt to SEO the article I assume. I also want to log in and replace that entire phrase with the actual reason that leaves change colour. Unfortunately, their catchpa system is impossible to read and half the names I'm coming up with are in use and banned already. ArmondikoV^theist 12:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Fascism, Communism, and now, Liberalism

If an essay hasn't been written about this already, notice how they put fascism, communism, Nazism, and being liberal in the same boat. Tell me, Andy, how many people has conservatism killed? MIP has actually signed in - 13:46, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

That's ignorant. Try asking "how many people have neoconservative Republicans killed". JazzMan 17:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Or we could have linked to colonialism and slavery...both embraced by the conservatives of their time, both deadly.PFoster 17:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

That's a much better analogy. JazzMan 18:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Goddammit, Helpjazz--I was fishing for an argument, and you have to go and agree with me and spoil my fun. If you're so reasonable, how did you end up on CP--with powers, no less? PFoster 18:20, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:) JazzMan 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT) PS: I've been petitioning for edit powers for months now; the administration has stopped even feigning an indication to give them to me

But thou canst block, and unblock, no? PFoster 22:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I can block, but look at the list of users who can edit and you will see what they really think of me JazzMan 22:14, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Of course it's ignorant. I never meant to be literal, only to prove that lumping together Bill Clinton and Mussolini is silly. MIP has actually signed in - 18:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of the tools of killing (which we weren't, exactly), it's interesting how the Koward's link about a bunch of Young War Fans Conservatives getting investigated over a flyer suggesting people aim guns at hippies doesn't show any hits on Google except a shitload of Conservative blogs. It's even more interesting how it's now become a reflex whenever anything shows up on the main page to go to Google to find out what actually happened. --Kels 14:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Killing hippies and stupid children? Never give your gun to a "monkey" (wink, wink)? HA!! Damn fine humor, that...Who sez conservatives don't have a sense of humor? My sides are achin'! Woo!!--WJThomas 15:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

If there's any CP editors reading this - try having a friend's brains splatter on your shoulder after a bullet goes through his head, then see what you think about finding those comments funny. Zmidponk 17:41, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy rarely hesitates to ghoulishly capitalize on school shootings, so it's not much of a stretch that the Koward might get a bit of a chuckle out of them too. Conservapedia values at work. --Kels 17:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Cookies and privacy

Someone needs to beat the people in that conversation about the head with RFC2109 §8.3.[7] Quite simply said, any well behaved browser that does not have a massive security hole will not send cookies for sites other than the one you are at. This is easily tested by going to http://www.keller.com/perlweb/chap3/envdump.cgi and looking at the cookie parameter (I don't have any cookies for there, so its not sent). Nor can javascript read the cookies for other sites. It pains me to see such technical "we should try that" when it is obvious it won't work. Maybe QWest is a parodist himself trying to get Andy to go back on his own principles. --Shagie 14:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

EC The way in which American conservatism REALLY values individual rights and privacy really come to light in Andy's talk page discussion re: automatically vetting an editor's browsing history before letting him/her edit the wiki. "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear." Classic. One question--can they actually do this? (not legally, since they wouldn't care, but technically...)PFoster 14:56, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Note, too, Andy's repetition of his notion that parodists and vandals are "criminals", engaging in "unlawful behavior".--WJThomas 15:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I only actively started looking at CP today again (and by the way Andy and Bugler are dry-humping each other all over the place, I'll likely stay clear of it again for a while), but whoa, what a way to start the day!

As Shagie noted, the "Is it possible?" question can basically be answered with "No, unless you exploit some potential browser vulnerability or simply install spyware/trojans or something." Needless to say that both lanes are pretty much things that pretty much nobody would want to be caught doing.

And even if it was possible, it would completely violate the users' privacy and really makes you think of Big Brother. Andy or any other sysop sure as Hell wouldn't give out his cookies, either. And for good reason.

Which is why IanG's block is so senseless (as WIGO'd): Andy is openly considering to hack other people just to make sure they are not liberal, and somebody tells him that as soon as Andy does so, he will be sued. Response? Banhammer. Of course, Andy doesn't know that (since he basically doesn't know anything), which really sums up the inherent sadness of that site: Instead of "I don't understand you, could you please elaborate?", CP acts by "I don't understand you, so I ban you. How dare you expect me to actually think these things through?" --Sid 15:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

You could, I suppose, do it with a signed applet but of course no one associated with conservapedia has shown any technical aptitude even to the simple degree of creating templates to organise the wiki itself. It would be scary to imagine what it would be like if they did attract some techies. "Please wait while we scan your computer for signs of liberalness... America's most conservative scientists are at this moment working to perfect brain scans for liberality, and even tests for genetic predisposition to liberality in vivo." --JeevesMkII 19:03, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The funny thing is, the vast majority of the sysops at CP would probably be blocked by such a system for their constant use of RW. And don't worry about them actually setting up a system like that; Schlafly can't even set up keyboard shortcuts. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:01, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, this is technically possible. It is also possible to block if you use Firefox. Coarb 12:10, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, even Google analytics will tell you the referring site - it might be a little difficult to do with wiki software though. Toast 12:32, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Counter-Examples to Evolution

Our favourite idiot is at it again. This exchange is staggeringly ridiculous. We are sure that Andy isn't a parodist, right?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 15:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

If it weren't for the signature after Andy's lines, I HONESTLY could not tell the difference between his claims and the Schlafly generator. Could someone add "fall foliage" to the list of things he likes? Maybe he actually uses the Schlafly generator...-caius (decider) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Hehe...it makes me feel better that I wasn't the only one who had to step away from the computer when Andy "refuted" my arguments. This was my first time on CP, and I may not have chosen topics wisely:D--Thinker 17:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay, now this is just shameless. --Kels 17:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Today's sermon failed to inspire a new mystery, but Andy doesn't disappoint. This section is the gift that keeps on giving...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 19:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Bungler suddenly blocking Az in the middle of a pretty respectful conversation with Andy is pretty hilarious, all the same. --Kels 20:03, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

How do we think the trees feel about autumn foliage? They'll be naked for a few months. And how in the hell does the beauty of autumn foliage have anything to do with disproving evolution? He's gone bonkers, I tell you. Bonkers! Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Why does God hate Australia? He has deprived us of the beauty of Autumn foliage, just because there is sufficient light for photosynthesis to continue. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:08, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

This reminds me... don't we have an article refuting this? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I wish I would have found that earlier...still, it was fun to come up with some explanations on my own, even if they weren't as high-quality:)--Thinker 22:01, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy once again displays his masterful debating skills. Statements that appear to be plausible should be rejected immediately if they have ever been uttered by an atheist. Andy even gives us a helpful reference, that he has failed to read. Hint: try the first sentence.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 23:23, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It doesn't matter, it seems the Arsenal midfield ace has been blocked for a month. Good. That should see him spending less time on tha intarnets and instead limbering up for what will hopefully be a riotous goalfest as Spuds visit next week. DogP 23:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Dear (L)Andru and Bugler Spy-- I can believe in evolution, AND find more beauty in autumn leaves than you can possibly imagine. I see the artistry of the colors-without there being an artist, I hear the music in the rustling leaves- without there being a musician, I see the complexity in the science- without there being a master scientist. I could, in fact, spend my entire life painting the leaves, recording the sounds, exploring the molecules, and never plum the depths of a single trees beauty, much less a forest. Our ability to appreciate beauty comes, in fact, from evolution itself. Nothing in the autumn leaves tells us that God exists or evolution is false. Enjoy the beauty, show your kids, breath the breath of life. Break free from your bonds that hold you to your myths. See the reds, yellows, golds, greens, oranges, and the million colors in between. Enjoy. Relax. Jimaginator 13:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Gov't Plagiarism

IANAL, so I don't know the intricacies of copyright law, but does it really work in the case of government websites the way Andy thinks it does? It seems fishy that you should be able to copy whole pages without crossing some sort of line. Obviously it kills any shred of academic responsibility CP might have, but at this point it's a mercy killing. The poor thing's suffered enough. --Kels 19:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a matter of standards. Look at this monstrosity. Copied straight from a govt webpage, errors and all, and the ref even links to the wrong page. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 19:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

{ec} See Andy's reply on the issue. "We, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it. No attribution is required for that." Mmm, not sure on that one. "If we hired and paid someone to write something for us, we would not have to attribute the work to him." Sounds a lot more dubious. Technically true maybe, but missing Hsmom's point that using someone else's work or research without attribution is unethical even if legal. weaseLOId~ 19:57, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Holy shit, is Andy really supposed to be a lawyer? Dies he really say that if I pay someone to do something, I can then say that I did it myself without there ever being any legal ramifications for that? I'm sure my architect would have no problem if I passed of the drawings I hired him to do as my own. I believe Andy is correct that works published by the federal government are public domain, but I still believe you must attribute it. Even if I'm mistaken on that, there's a huge difference between that scenario and saying "I paid for it, therefore, I did it myself. Michaelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel's ceiling, Pope Julius II did. DickTurpis 20:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's also been mentioned numerous times that even if we have permission to use gov't stuff, it's still plagiarism if you use direct quotes without proper indication that you didn't write them yourself. JazzMan 21:44, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, Andy just made my thesis soooooo much easier, since almost all the relevant papers are NIH-funded. As an American taxpayer, then, they're mine anyway, so I needn't worry about a bibliography and citing every statement! Whew! Of course, I'm funded by NIH and NSF, so if Andy's worried about quality he can request all my data. Kallium^talk 22:37, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Further note: Who wants to bet that Andy's "example" of this will be "when Barack Obama paid Bill Ayers to write his memoirs, he didn't have to give him any attribution!" DickTurpis 20:53, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's interesting that the same post is one of the rare occasions where he refers to actually doing something as a lawyer. He doesn't talk about it much, probably since he hasn't done anything much as a lawyer that wasn't embarrassing. --Kels 21:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I can haz link to witness Andy doing lawyerly things for myself? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's the one Weasel gave above. Can't really remember the last time he referred to anything he's actually done, outside of ruining the education of a few dozen kids and starting the World's Worst Wiki. --Kels 23:04, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

It's plagiarism (which is a client-side crime, to steal some computer lingo), since it's not attributed. But it's not copyright violation (which is server-side) because government-produced works are in the public domain and not subject to copyright.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

The red it burns....right?

Need the assistance of someone with time and resolve on this, the img=on tag is used by capture bot to "skip" entries that have all ready been analyzed so when updates are added post-bot new images are not uploaded and we get the red tags. Could someone go through and remove the img=on parameter for entries that have updates/red links? Next run capture bot will then fix the wholes. Also if someone or two want to keep an eye out on this regularly it would help. tmtoulouse

Wanna try to rephrase that so I can understand what you are saying? I see the red "img" tags, where do they come from? Oh, I think I see - it's the updated entries... ħuman 23:13, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Mebbe you need to make the bot even smarter, so each link gets tagged instead of the wigo itself? ħuman 23:15, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

BrianCo, too?

BrianCo seems to be getting cockier: "There are several splendid editors here who can spot a parodist a mile off." I didn't think (s)he was a parodist, but I might have to re-evaluate. --Marty 23:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

(Seeing as how Brian is a male's name, I think we can be pretty certain he's a he). I seriously doubt Brian is a parodist. He's just a reasonable guy who doesn't make waves. JazzMan 23:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I suppose you also think User:Annie, User:Hsmom, and User:Womenforpalin are female? :) --Marty 23:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, come on. there must be *some* women over there.--En attendant Godot_{"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.»} 13:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy's English

It's been WIGO'd, but wtf does is this sentence supposed to mean "The quote of Mrs. Edison's teacher should be to "addled", and the explanation should be afterward about what that term means."

He's saying the quote should be cut off at the word "addled" and the explanation afterward should be about what the word "addled" means. Simple. And I didn't even need to stick my hand in the cesspit to find the answer... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 01:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It's not exactly well written though, is it. Great thing about wikis - you can reread what you wrote, and change it. Kirkburn 01:39, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, that makes sense. Serves me right for reading WIGO before breakfast. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Confession time

This morning, when I woke, I was looking for ANYTHING to do that was not studying for my political science paper. Hence, I signed up at CP as PatWills and deliberatly provoked Aschlalfy into making a fool of himself over the whole "Foliage is pretty" bullshit. I did this for my (our) enjoyment and it was funny as fuck and kept me entertained. I tell ya though, it is soooo easy to get Andy to make a fool of himself. I plan to admit to him I did so also. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 01:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Assuming you don't get noticed admitting it here and banned before you can say anything. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:34, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Who cares though, I just wanted andy to dance to my tune and entertain me. Which he did, because he is a fucking idiot. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 01:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Which brings the phrase "sock puppetry" to a whole new level, of course. ħuman 02:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Ace, thank you. When I woke up this morning I wanted to do anything other than read Fed Courts. Watching that gave me a good show :)-caius (decider) 01:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Having a quite Labour Day are we Ace? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 01:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Quite the Labour Day yes, all those commies didnt die vain. But fuck man, didnt Aschlafly show his stripes today. My work here is done. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 01:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Ace you are a fine troll. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 02:08, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

No no Pi, it was not trolling. I made a fair point and let Aschlafly do the rest. He trolled himself. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 02:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

If your intent was to goad Andy into making a fool of himself, then you were trolling. It doesn't matter if you were making fair points or not. JazzMan 10:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

If your intent was to goad Andy into making a fool of himself, then you were trolling. Jesus, Jazz, you say that like it's a bad thing. Face it, the only way to get Andy to debate his ridiculous assertions and corrupt worldview is to go trolling. Like the guy who suggested CP scan our cookies--obviously a "troll," but a valuable one--in that he let us see what Andy really thinks about authority and privacy.PFoster 10:32, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Labour Day? Do we need to add that to template:holydaze? Is it a commie thing? ħuman 02:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Labour day in NZ is because some british lefty decided he only wanted to work 8 hours a day. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 02:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Sounds commie-ish to me... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:25, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh but it is, little english lefty couldnt handle a 14 hours work day. Fucking baby. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 02:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yup, commie-ism fer shure. British pretty much = commie, so does the silly idea of the "eight hour work day". ħuman 02:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yah. Real capitalist men know you have to spend 14 hours a day at work, but spend at least 6 of them pretending to work. Just ask the Japanese. --JeevesMkII 06:03, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Hmm...trolling on CP consists of posting reasonable discussion items. There may be some sort of corollary to Poe's Law here.--Bayes 11:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Labour Day's bull. It's basically a reaction to May Day, which was suppressed fairly violently. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 13:01, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

He was scottish, and having our labour day now makes more sense than late autumn... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 02:41, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Help me, help me!

I've been hypnotized! PFoster 09:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Makes sense, possibly. But it's more commonly called "oration", or "raport". Obama is a fairly skilled speaker in many respects, doesn't make him a hypnotist. There's no magic or special skill like that's implying. Derran Brown would have much to say on the subject. ArmondikoV^theist 09:27, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

That's actually the most interesting anti-Obama smear I've seen yet, but still a little silly. I was reminded of Derren Brown as well. weaseLOId~ 09:30, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me or does this seem too ridiculous even for AAPS? Don't they at least pretend to be a medical organization? DickTurpis 09:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Another DB rememberer (before you guys posted). In his book Trick of the Mind Derren Brown actually says he doesn't believe in hypnotic trances and is sceptical of a lot of NLP's claims. He prefers to call it heightened state of suggestibility. I presume that the anonymous author is Andy, as for the most part he gets put down by the medics who have commented. Any good orator knows that there are tricks to delivering a message that will be remembered. Of course, religious services never use suggestion, repetitive phrasing or movements to inculcate belief or trance-like states amongst the attendees do they? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:08, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe these posts happened later in the day, but there's a lot more people posting now who agree with the author than who disagree. It's sad that after eight years of GW Bush mangling the English language, when somebody eloquent speaks a few (probably very few) think it's some kind of snake-oil hypnotism. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 11:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a pretty goofy article, but did Obama actually say, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.'"? *Does some research* It appears yes, yes he did. That's not creepy at all. JazzMan 10:39, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(rolls eyes..) Please...It's painfully obvious that Obama isn't serious in that clip. He's clearly making fun. Andy and CP have warped your sense of irony--WJThomas 11:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Clearly. Or maybe the hypnotism has warped your views of Obama. JazzMan 11:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Hmm...That would explain why I start flapping my wings and squawking like a chicken every time I hear the word "hope". On the plus side, I haven't had to buy eggs in months...--WJThomas 12:39, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I never said Barack Obama wasn't a self-aggrandizing douchebag, did I? PFoster 10:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Couldn't have said it better myself, actuallyl. And I wasn't being facetious when I asked the question. I honestly didn't know he said that, and then Yahood it to find my answer. And then I shuddered a little bit and whined to myself that why can't Bob Barr not be such a loser so I can vote for him in good conscience. JazzMan 10:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

How long til it appears on CP? Over/Under of 12 hours seem reasonable?Damo^Hi 10:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It's already there--benefits of homeschooling article. One of the benefits is that it builds strong minds which protect you from that sort of thing...PFoster 10:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It's on the Main Page now. Kallium^talk 10:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Funny how he ignores massive published medical evidence about abortion and breast cancer, immunizations, etc., but an anonymous general article on the website of a quack organization that he's affiliated with- yeah, that's credible. Kallium^talk 10:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

"self-aggrandizing douchebag"... yeah, he can be sometimes you have to admit :S. But in the world of tweedle-dumb/tweedle-dee poltics sometimes you just need to go for the opposite of the one who you don't want to get in. 144.32.180.130 11:01, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

If that's the way you approach politics, don't come complaining when, four years from now, you still don't have comprehensive universal healthcare, are still bogged down in Afghanistan, haven't signed Kyoto, and still practise torture, extraordinary rendition and capital punishment.PFoster 11:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

The point is when you have two parties which are essentially asshole vs asshole 90% of the time, you can't approach it in any other way! ArmondikoV^theist 11:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Hear hear (sp?) PFoster!! Though those aren't the issues I might choose.

Armodikov -- third party much? JazzMan 11:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Armodikov: If Americans thought that way in 1776, you'd all be speaking English now!! Wait, what?-- My point is that there are ALWAYS other options--from third parties to grass roots political organisations (it's not written in the Constitution that there can only be two parties, right?) to outright revolution. America is--or was-- a revolutionary concept. It doesn't HAVE to be this way. PFoster 11:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

One of my liberal atheist commie hollywood value-loving teachers back in middle school, between puffs of his cigarette, told us that voting is always choosing between the lesser of two evils. It isn't a matter of who you want in office, but rather who you want to stay out. :P Norseman^Wassail! 14:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

So which of the candidates are likely to deliver universal healthcare? Oh right, none of them. Carry on. --Kels 11:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Green Party. Ralph Nader. And don't say "they won't win." They only won't win because people won't vote for them because they think they won't win. PFoster 12:01, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

That makes lots of sense...oh wait, no it doesn't. You guys don't have a parliamentary system so it won't make a damn bit of difference. Way to go. --Kels 12:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

What "you guys?" I have a parliamentary system where I come from. And yes it does make sense--if enough people actually decided to not bitch about the status quo and vote for what they believed in (both at the Executive and Legislative levels), the status quo would change...problem is, the half of America's registered voters who bother to even go out and vote don't do that--they vote for what's familiar, not what's right...PFoster 12:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

And that's a massive part of the problem. Most people will vote McCain or Obama because they're republican or democrat, not because they want one or the other. With the third parties in the US, you don't get that so much, which is a good thing but also the reason why they never have a seat at the presidential debates. ArmondikoV^theist 13:05, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I've actually had this discussion several times. The issue here is not that we vote by party lines (I don't deny that some do, but the number is less that most people think) but in actuallity, I don't vote for third party candidates because they're untrustworthy. The green party is insane, absolutely insane. They remind me of Canada's Rhino party (a joke party that once promised to bulldoze part of the Rocky Mountains so western Canada would get a hours extra sunlight per day). Basic human nature leads people to form groups on similar values. It's also nature for one party to continue to grow and grow based on similar enough feelings. For example, the Republican party, for the most part, is built by Neocons, Social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. The issues that they care about are completely seperate, and for the part they're indifferent to the other's strong points. as such, they came together to form a cohesive unit. Splitting the vote for a third party simply pulls votes away from the person who shares your views and hands them to the person who is completely against your views. America has had multiple powerful parties in the past, but they all assimilated into the major ones... Or they collapsed. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 14:01, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I have to ask: why does it seem that the majority of you categorically say that neither candidate will be able to enact health care reform? A popular Democratic-party president with a spermajority Democratic-party Congress seems quite likely to enact reform. If it fails to pass it will be because the USA is flat broke - but it would be flat broke if Nader or anybody were elected. 74.7.166.234 14:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

The fractures in the Republican party are showing. You have a part of the evangelical group signing on with environment and liberal social polices (welfare, health care, etc...). There is a huge rift growing between the conservative evangelicals and the fiscal conservatives (who are indifferent to the social message and tend to back more moderate types). And there is the rift between the military types with runaway spending and the fiscal conservatives who want to reign it in. 2010 senate and congress should be interesting as would 2012 with the republican primaries. Prediction - 2012 will see a different Dem VP. Obama will have the experience he needs and Biden will be getting old (in 2016 he will be 81 - 9 years older than McCain is now). The dems will be picking a successor to Obama. 2012 will also have Palin in the republican primaries - the question is how much will the republican party have fractured and how much support from the other parts of the party will she be able to pick up?

The thing to see here is that in the US, the coalitions have been set in stone over time for whatever reasons (any historians want to take a crack at that?). Its a question of which coalition you want to vote for.

An aside - a card game to get is Koalition. It is about trying to form parliamentary governments. One of the fun rules pertains to the green party:

As you may have already noticed, there are two cards of each value in the Green Party. These occasionally cause problems when determining the chairperson because two cards of the same value tie for the chair. Should this happen, the two players have 30 seconds to choose which of them will be chair. If they don't come to a decision, the party binding of the Greens has come undone. Every player who played one or two Green Party cards can decide which coalition they will join. That is, each Green Party member may join a different coalition.

There is a restriction on who can join what coalition. For example the acrons (forgot which party they represent) can only form a coalition with the cross and top hats. Meanwhile the cross party can join a coalition with the lemon, rose, top hat, green, or acorn party. The fists (socalists?) can only join with the greens or rose. Its a neat political game. There is a copy available as I type this in Canada for sale in the BGG marketplace.

Another aside - if you like political board games from europe (germany in paticular), Die Macher is considered to be superb. Some lists of political games [8] [9] [10]. Yes, there is some overlap in those games. --Shagie 14:39, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Phil's Creed

Read what he wrote more carefully. He doesn't say there are lies in the Bible nor does he say that the metaphores, figures of speech (which probably weren't in the original manuscripts, since figures of speech are rather language-dependent) or parables are untrue, but that the Bible is not all literal. JazzMan 10:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

but he cherry-picks what's literal and what's not based on what fits his own worldview. Creation in 6 days 6000 years ago-literal. Other stuff-metaphor. No rhyme, reason or consistency. PFoster 10:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree (and have argued that with him before) but the WIGO makes it look like he is admitting falsehood in the Bible, which he doesn't. JazzMan 10:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Agree with Jazz on this. A better wording would be, "All of the Bible is literally true, except for all the parts that aren't, and I get to decide which is which." Also, I find it amusing he refers to "evidence such as that in Creation Week", when that page doesn't contain a damn bit of evidence. --Kels 11:47, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

EC) Sorry Jazz but he says: "truthfully recording the lies of people," he never says "and saying/admitting they're lies or anything like that. Isn't a lie inserted into anything and promulgated as truth still a lie. I think that he is at least saying "there are lies in the Bible". What he goes on to say is that it's people who put them there not God. (And he can tell which are God's words and which are man's.) The man is a charlatan. Terra 11:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, Philip is SO out there to trick us. "truthfully recording the lies of the people" doesn't mean "presenting the lies as fact", because if it did, he wouldn't have used the word "truthfully", would he? A more reasonable interpretation of the statement is that it describes people who are lying, like the story of Peter denying that he knew Jesus. The event was a fact (Peter denied he knew Jesus) but the event described is a lie (Peter actually did know Jesus). JazzMan 11:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Now that never occured to me. I assumed that he was referring to some of the OT crap, which I admit I know next to nothing about, which is patently loopy, and stating that it was those lying people who had put it there. That's how it reads to me. Terra 12:05, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

One thing about what he said there - 'I am totally convinced that the creation account does not fall into any of those categories, but is literal history.' Which account? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? The two contradict each other on several points. Zmidponk 15:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

So he answered that, I see, by saying that he sees no conflict between the two. So, I guess the pre-creation Earth was simultaneously a barren desert and a landless, vast sea, man was created both before everything else and after everything else, and, indeed, if you are reading the Bible as a 'narrative', it is also the case that God found a way to create man and woman together, as described in Genesis 1, but also create man first, create everything else, then create woman out of that man's rib, as described in Genesis 2. Interesting how many loops the creationist mind can jump through just in order to avoid thinking logically, if doing so questions their faith. Zmidponk 15:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

High Museum of Art in Atlanta

Please, please, somebody find something "shameful", "sinful", "naked", "liberal" and the like in the permanent collection of this museum and tell CP about it (I would, but my banning is measured in "earthlives". They have a picture of this on their main page. Who knows what decadent art this musuem might contain? Hitler had the right idea, no decadent art, ever! If I see a nipple or a penis, my head might explode. Thanks in advance. Jimaginator 11:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

On the level of "sinful," the High is pretty tame. It has some more bizarre modern art, but not anything really racy. Sorry to disappoint :( -caius (decider) 14:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Although for the'96 Olympics they had the most amazing exhibition I've ever seen. It was like every participating country sent their most awesome art or something. 67.171.7.59 15:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Zeusdammit. I was hoping that it housed something like L'Origine du monde. Thanks for respondingJimaginator 15:39, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Main Page Lulz

Should we just accept that anyone who creates a new account to discuss main page issues is automatically a parodist? I mean, honestly. No sane person could ever defend the bullshit they put on their "news feed." I wonder if someone should sock up and tell them about Colorado yesterday. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 14:22, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It's even funnier when Andy endorses them, even when they're making a big show of it. --Kels 14:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh of course. That's the best part, when Andy can't see through an obvious parodist simply because they start stroking his ego.... But it's really sad. How many parodists are just driving CP straight into the ground and why Andy is giving them more gas? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 14:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy gives me lots of gas.-caius (decider) 14:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

"What you have told us is rubbish. Conservapedia is just one parodist riffing off of another." Ahh, said the scientist, "who inspired the first parodist?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's parodists all the way down." --Toiretni 16:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I like the fact that the "See Also" section includes Yertle the Turtle. --Kels 16:34, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

LOL!! Funniest post of the week! Andy loves him sum parodists. --Kels 17:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I want to say it, but I don't want to out anyone. He should also be blocking someone for 90/10... guess who?! :D Norseman^Wassail! 17:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Normally I wouldn't out these guys, but they're so screamingly obvious to everyone but Andy, and now he's just declared them untouchable, so there's not really much risk. And like Bungler, he can't do anything about them himself, or he'd be exposed as being wrong! --Kels 17:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Parodists are so close to Andy's inane ramblings that he clearly cannot identify them. That's why is he's suspicious and wants to act he bans for 90/10 or something. It's sort of funny. DickTurpis 17:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

BHarlan's bit of reverse-psychology double-speak just above Kels's linky is classic. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I've WIGOed it anyway. What's the risk? If Andy's reaction to people at CP saying that Saxplayer is a parodist is just to block them rather than look into it, then we can say the same here & no harm will come of it. As long as SP keeps trotting out those conservative soundbites, Andy won't have a problem with him. The 90/10 rule only goes for people he doesn't like. weaseLOId~ 17:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Rhodes

Looking at the hatchet job on cp:Rhodes Scholar and giving Andy's history of spewing vitriol at (real and imagined) sleights against him, I wonder if young Andy was overlooked for one, once upon a time? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It would be tempting to think it's because he never earned any distinction, and is jealous of anyone who did (such as Obama), but I seem to remember someone defending some liberal or other that Andy wanted to insult by mentioning they were a Rhodes Scholar. Which, of course, set Andy off to prove that Rhodes Scholars were all liberals and didn't deserve the awards and the awards are meaningless anyway and he didn't want one in the first place, so there. --Kels 15:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Sadly, that does seem the most likely explanation - Andy trashing something to promote his world view. *sigh*. Any socks up for linking liberals to things like Order of the Garter and Bath. Maybe we can have Andy paint Black Rod as a filthy commie. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Kels is exactly right. When Andy starts trashing something, it generally falls into three category. It's usually 1, someone that has propelled past Andy and causes extreme resentment (Obama, Clinton) 2, something that goes against his religion [Lenski, Dawkins (who also falls in to the first category)] or 3, something that can be used as proof that liberals are not the embodiment(sp?) of all evil. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Dude, Black Rod is my dream job. Don't malign him. DickTurpis 16:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I have no idea what you're actually talking about, but I won't pass up the joke. I'm African American, I have a Black Rod and it's very Liberal. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

A rod? I would have thought a staff at least, if the myths are to be believed :) Seriously tho, Black Rod is the chap whose job it is to bang on the doors of parliament and announce that the Queen is coming in. Or something. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Talent

It's a skill you ignorant homskollar. You learn it. You'd know that if you had a real teacher. --Kels 16:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

How will CP react?

Stevens guilty. I guess this should boost Begich's chances from around 55% up to 80 or more. I wonder if Stevens will go the route of another Alaska politician and make a statement about how glad he is to be acquitted of any wrongdoing. DickTurpis 16:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Suddenly I feel very ignorant. Who is Stevens and what has he done? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:10, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Stevens is a US Senator from Alaska. He was just found guilty of not disclosing several thousand dollars worth of home improvments he received from a contracting complany bidding for contracts. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Probably very deceitfully... Sterile^snore! 17:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

He's that old fart who shouted "NO!" to something in the Senate, and was stirring some shit about some bridge to no where in Alaska. He also said that the internet was a series of tubes (lol). If not for the Daily Show, wouldn't have known. Norseman^Wassail! 17:16, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, there it is: highly politicized trial meant to derail his re-election chances. Sterile wins the prediction contest! Norseman^Wassail! 17:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) CP will deal with it OK. They already have him branded a liberal (he's pro-choice, so must be), so his deceit will be no big deal. Someone will suggest it as a news story, & Andy will retort that it's just a liberal distortion to discredit Republicans & anyway he's a filthy liberal anyway. That's how I think it will go down. weaseLOId~ 17:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Re the above: DRamon is an obvious parodist, just pointing the way for the whitewash to come. weaseLOId~ 17:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

A Prediction

Given Andy's response to this post, Saxplayer will soon join Buggerer as a parodist with admin-lite rights. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:45, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Been discussing that a couple of sections up, actually. But yeah, Andy's declared him untouchable, probably because nobody else agrees with him but parodists. Hell, at this point I'm sure Andy would beg TK to come back, so long as he pretended to stroke Andy's ego. --Kels 17:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I would also like to add that this little gem from BHarlanParodist! is possibly the best line ever..... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

This makes the discussion about how to screen out parodists by scanning cookies a bit funnier. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 18:03, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

{EC} I doubt Andy will give powers to Saxplayer in a hurry unless he actually starts contributing to articles, but he'll quite happily allow him to carry on defending the Main Page & ignore all indications that he is a parodist. weaseLOId~ 18:05, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy is actually trying to play it smart. He uses/abuses the 90/10 rule on both users so if he's admitting to being wrong, he still can play the 90/10 excuse to keep both parties blocked. We see through it of course, but he's trying to be sly. Norseman^Wassail! 18:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Mmmm not really. He blocked the two guys who were calling SP a parodist (& were agreeing with each other on this), while ignoring the fact that SP himself is way over the 90/10 quota. Not very sly at all; rather a little deluded in fact. weaseLOId~ 18:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy and Ken

are actually quite similar in their strange delusions.  Ken thinks that any page views are an indicator of quality, while Andy accepts all compliments, even those that come from incredibly obvious parodists.  The funny thing about is, as NateE, I was doing some pretty good work on the site.  I was cleaning up vandalism when I saw it and worked on a few articles.  I remembered exactly how hard it is to edit even simple stuff (like Soccer) without pissing off an SSyop.  However, he's perfectly willing to accept Saxplayer, a parodist who gives himself away by his very name, because he thinks the more people visably agreeing with him on the front page the stronger his arguments are. What a sad sad man, and for the record, I'm quite happy in life :) SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 18:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

OH SHIT SON Parodist on Parodist. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:30, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(ec) Hot parodist on parodist action. My question is this: do these socks both have the same puppeteer? Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 18:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Saxpower is now making up for lost time with quality entries like this and this. weaseLOId~ 18:36, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Loose lips sink socks. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:39, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

He was suspected earlier. I have no idea how he lasted so long. He was as subtle as a jackhammer. Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 18:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflicts)Yeah, my guess is he was trying to see how long he could keep going pulling the same stunt. But anyway, Saxplayer, if you are reading this, I apologise that I may have played a small part in your downfall. I still think you could have held out longer if you'd ignored DRamon's comment & carried on as you were rather than crazy-rampaging. weaseLOId~ 18:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I'm sure an unblocking and ASchlafly apology is forthcoming. I'll just wait by my computer and sip my Cocoa until it comes in. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:44, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Seriously people, this is why no parodist has made sysop (MexMax, Samwell, Bugler and JJacobs only earnt block rights) as we keep outing them. You know they all read us. They don't have to find sock, they don't have to ind parody, they don't even have to look for vandalism we keep showing where it is complete with the diff links. We should ask Andy if we can all be sysops as we are doing all the work for them. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Saxplayer had been outed by a parodist long before we even mentioned him. I think Andy knows exactly who is and who is not a parodist, and that's why he won't promote them. For the most part, our "outing" does nothing. I'm sorry, but it would take a blithering idiot to see Jesusphobia and Churchphobia and not call parody. Conservapedians may be a little stupid, but they're not that stupid. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

<Edit Conflict> I disagree [with Pi] (agree with Chuck). Loads of people at CP as well as here identified Saxplayer as a parodist, & rather than actually looking through his contributions to check it, Andy ignored it, because he's never had a problem with the guy. Saxplayer's downfall was thinking he was going to get blocked (when he probably wasn't) & responding with a series of silly stubs which drew attention to himself. Either he was trying to get blocked or he thought it was coming anyway, when he probably could have survived a good while longer if he hadn't done that. weaseLOId~ 18:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yup. Andy was nibbling at the hook despite the warnings. When that happens, you don't reel in the line quickly, for fear that's all you're going to get. You let things sit still, and wait for the fish to decide if it's comfortable with nibbling some more or not. --Toiretni 19:01, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

But wait- all's well that ends well! Corry^{I think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil.} 19:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

BLIMEY! I thought long-term parodists, once caught, were out of the game. weaseLOId~ 19:38, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Added it to the WIGO. weaseLOId~ 19:44, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) Ok, this has to be a milestone for CP. This is the first time that any incredibly obvious, all but admitted parodist has been blocked and then unblocked because of a completely secret email.... This page turning occassion should be marked with cake. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 02:51, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Indeed. Goat cake or saxophone cake? weaseLOId~ 09:11, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Eh, I got a crazy idea. If Andy read us, should we accuse his real followers to be parodist tu create conflicts ? It would be so funny, making Andy believe Ken's a parodist! Barraki 16:36, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Finland

Someone from Ken's favorite parodists, the Finland duck-smuggling team, must have earned mega-points after TacNab pointed out a duck sighting which Aschlafly eventually reverted (and fixed a nasty Commonwealth spelling of kilometre at the same time). Note that the entry has been there since August 7 and survived several reversions in the interim.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:45, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Holy shit. At 3,000 point per ten minutes that guy is the undisputed Conservatroll of the Universe. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:50, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Andrew the Educator

Excuse me, I'm just been throwing up violently... would someone care to add this beauty to the Schlafly No jokes page.... I would never be able to do it Rationally. It would quickly devolve into a AntiAndy Rant. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:47, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Er.. I don't quite see what you are talking about. It looks like a normal enough exchange to me.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 18:59, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

The method of citation is extremely important. Have a look at the way Wikipedia cites websites and compare it to the mess on CP. As a teacher Andy should be imparting this on his students. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 19:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah I see what you mean now. Good point.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 19:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I reckon Andy knows well enough that if people want real facts or proper conventions like citation methods, they'll have to go to Wikipedia sooner or later, so he can't be bothered finding things out for them. At this point he's barely interested in hosting a real encyclopedia, as opposed to a group blog / think tank. weaseLOId~ 19:25, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Weaseloid, if that is your real name, citations are only useful if you want to repeat back the results of politically correct experiments. At Conservapedia we are interested in going beyond the scope of what Liberal funding agencies are willing to spend taxpayers money on and make real insights. Godspeed - Assfly 19:30, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Well that's me told. (hangs head in shame) weaseLOId~ 19:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Cripes, and Andy pretends to be a lawyer to boot! The man is a stain on the reputation of Harvard that he was allowed to graduate at all, let alone with honours. I wonder how much Mama Schlafly had to donate for that to happen? --Kels 19:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

There are numerous theories on this. DickTurpis 19:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) sorry for the delay, I was at rehearsal All Denver friends come see Anything Goes at Northglenn High School I was specifically referring to the facts that a "teacher" is telling someone that citing their GODDAMNED SOURCE isn't important.... On top of that, his referencing method is a joke... I used to teach middle school.. If a student handed in something that said "::See Conservapedia, "Professor values," <website link to entry>" I wouldn't even accept it. I would make them redo their references with correct form. As one of those crazy liberals, I'm not prone to saying I hate someone... but I hate him for the damage he does not only to educators who work hard to get their certs and keep them recent, but to the hundreds of people who legitimately try to educate their children at home. He is an infected boil on the taint of homeschooling. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 02:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Results of an experiment

As I recently noted on the Conservapedia main talkpage, I experimented late last year with adding a mixture of ridiculous and false information and true but obscure information to their site. None of this has been reverted, and none of the mass of sockpuppets I used were blocked. Andrew Schlafly reverted my notification of the results of this experiment and described the post as "liberal vandalism". As an example of what I'm talking about take a close look at the contributions of this user (one of my less prolific socks). I can't say I'm all that surprised that these people know nothing about science, but I was surprised by how much it is possible to get away with. They will either have to roll all their biology, chemistry and physics articles back to their state in the middle of last year, or get down to some serious fact-checking. CraigBell 19:16, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't worry Ed Poor will fix it all. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 19:25, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

If & when he ever returns. weaseLOId~ 19:31, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Um, if the this is indicitive of the kind of thing your other socks did, no wonder the junk is still there. Being an expert in molecular biology wouldn't be enough -- you'd have to be an expert in molecular biology history to know that that was made up. Even then, you'd probably have to be interested enough to look it up. So don't be so full of yourself there. JazzMan 20:08, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Now now Jazz, play nice. And to a comment you made above somewhere, yes technically I did troll however Aschlafly The Super Genius gave us the laughs all on his own. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

C'mon, Jazz. You've got Roger "Einstein who?" Schlafly on staff! I'm sure he knows everything about everything, so it'd be childs play for him to fix it. Besides, it's all window dressing to Andy anyhow. --Kels 20:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Quick drive-by comment: That's the problem with CP - they claim not to drive away experts, but any expert who dares to correct sysops like Ed or Roger on anything will end up banhammered. And even most of the ones who try to stay away from trouble will ultimately be selected for Random Enforcement: "Tell me what you are doing. I don't understand it, so stop. Dumb it down for me. No, further. I think you're wrong, and AiG/WND/some blogger I misinterpreted thinks so, too. I'll delete your work now because it was too technical. You don't support Creationism/ID, so you're wrong and in denial. Here's a Writing Assignment. Banhammer."

And yet, CP welcomes science articles (and pretty much anything else, including American Idols and blogs). It just ties in with what we and other suggested again and again: Andy should stop advertising CP as an all-purpose encyclopedia and instead just narrow the focus down on political articles and "Creation Science". They just don't have the manpower to fact-check the other articles - and most people who might be qualified for it simply don't want to be the sole janitors for low-profile articles. There is no fame in improving the CP article on cp:Preposition (dug out via Random Article), so why bother? It's much nicer to rant about atheists and other liberals! --Sid 20:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I completely agree that there are many subjects that aren't covered by experts, however, the types of edits that Craig inserted really are the type that you have to be very familiar with the subject to notice, and he's using them to claim that Conservapedia doesn't know anything about science. I personally went through most (if not all at the time) of the chemistry articles and removed lots of obvious falshoods. But if I missed something obvious, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not good at chemistry. And similarly, if I miss something that is very specialized, again it doesn't mean that I have a faulty understanding of chemistry. JazzMan 23:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT) Craig: None of your socks put stuff into the chemistry articles did they? :-p

Only a handful, I worked on chemistry about mid-way through, but it's not really my subject so it was harder to make the facts sound good. CraigBell 13:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I gotta admit, I agree with HelpJazz on this particular sock's contributions (unless the good ones have all been oversighted already). If you're going to insert fake names and dates, you have to make them funny and/or obviously fake. Just sayin'. Although simply inserting the same name over and over is also acceptable. --Marty 21:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT) tries to reveal only previously outed wandals; sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. I acknowledge the difficulty of bragging when anything mentioned here will get reverted by HelpJazz, so it's clearly not in anyone's best interest to point out the really good stuff in this forum.

I actually reverted a bunch of those myself a couple weeks ago. JazzMan 23:15, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

If you add obvious vandalism it will last a few days. However, if you add a mix of invented but possibly-plausible facts and real facts, it will be there for ever and your socks will never get blocked. That tells you that the people watching the articles just do not understand the subjects. CraigBell 23:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

If you assume that everyone who is an expert on a subject has every article in their subject on their watchlist, reads every edit, and fact checks any reasonable-sounding edit that they don't 100% know for themselves, then sure good job. You might be right that nobody on Conservapedia knows anything about anything, but you certainly haven't proved it, and the method you are using won't prove it. JazzMan 23:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll agree that claiming Conservapedia has no experts is a very bold statement (though I don't think anybody tried to suggest that), however, it really doesn't seem to have enough workforce with knowledge to sustain an encyclopedia with basic scientific concepts that are worth searching for, as the errors inserted (and I don't mean just parodists, I also mean regular editors who make these errors by virtue of being human) simply stay there unchecked until months have passed, Sid elaborated on why that happens.

Just now I went to check one of the things you would think to search on an encyclopedia and there it was, not-too-subtle vandalism inserted various months ago. If there are more examples like this (Ed's mathematical articles come to mind) then yes, CP is incapable of meeting a standard that isn't even close to what it pretends to have. NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 00:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

It's an easy response from CP - don't care or don't believe it. There! Minimal effort, job well done. lol -_- Norseman^Wassail! 08:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

And so it begins

Now, there's a healthy "discussion" regarding the matter. Norseman^Wassail! 10:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Looking back through my records I see one sock was caught adding false information, Deiter. That was one of the accounts I used for medicine articles. He was caught out by User:Taj, who did seem to know what he was talking about and actually checked facts. I wouldn't say therefore that all the editors are idiots, but their batting average is pretty poor. CraigBell 12:33, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

--- Thanx for compliment :) Sorry, late in responding, and now back to the archives for this one... Taj 00:43, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The accounts Exophile, JohnDavis, SimonT, and LoxP were also blocked, but it is instructive that this happened since I began to get careless and used the same IP, not due to their edits. Indeed, all their edits are still there four months later, despite the admins on Conservapedia knowing they came from blocked users. CraigBell 12:47, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

You know, back when I used to listen to the Jim Rome show everyday, I remember that Romie had a number of hard-and-fast rules for the Clones, and one of them was "no-self glossing." Let your work stand on its own--don't be drawing attention to yourself. PFoster 12:47, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't mind losing a few accounts, just to let other people know how poor those people's scientific knowledge actually is and how little fact-checking is done on edits. This was a test, they failed. CraigBell 12:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

to let other people know how poor those people's scientific knowledge actually is and how little fact-checking is done on edits Yup, that's big news. They failed your test--congrats, nice bit of vandalism. My point is, just let it happen--there's lots of us who watch CP and I reckon not a single edit goes unexamined by someone here--no need to point out your own work. PFoster 13:01, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Examining their response is part of the experiment, but I won't say too much about that. CraigBell 13:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Many editors here have been blocked for trying to insert the fully referenced facts so we like to let the false information stand and only point it our when it is reverted. Pointing it out here only does their job for them. Some lackey will make the changes and get kudos for it. Let them work for it. Most of the sysops don't actually work on making proper quality articles they just hang around kicking at passing strays and sucking the life out of helpful peons. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:13, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Alright, as someone who expends a great deal of time and energy towards improving secondary science education, in fact paying the bills with it, I feel the need to make a statement here. If some find this offensive then so be it. As you all know, any wiki-based page from Wikipedia to Conservapedia is based on trust and vulnerable to vandalism. You could insert the same type of misinformation on Wikipedia, and yes, it will probably get caught and corrected more quickly, but only because there are a greater number of specialized users editing those pages. However, for as long as that misinformation persists, readers may learn incorrectly from it, and unlearning facts can be considerably more difficult than retaining them in the first place. The problem is exacerbated when the subject matter is relevant to society at large. Now, while Conservapedia does contain a great deal of incorrect information, science pages included, and regardless of one's opinions of the site as a whole, the fact is that some people do use Conservapedia as an educational resource. However small that population, deliberately inserting misinformation can have the same negative effects on those individuals, most of whom are young students, as doing so on Wikipedia may do to their readership. Especially in light of how much factually incorrect material they are already being exposed to, confusing them further through what some regard as whimsical entertainment not only corroborates some of Conservapedia's attitudes towards so-called "Liberals" and this site in particular, but borders on the unethical. Stooping to their level for no more than transient amusement is not something to be proud of. Kallium^talk 00:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

On the whole, I agree K. (exceptions for some of auld nick's & trashbat's stuff from wayback. Terra 00:59, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

"the fact is that some people do use Conservapedia as an educational resource" - Do people seriously use Conservapedia as an educational resource? I cannot believe that applies to anyone outside of Andy's homescholars. For a start there just isn't enough information or explanation to provide any depth or structure for proper learning. The site has very little on it to appeal to an educator. The longer articles are either US gov copy/paste jobs or someone's pet obsession; Ken's homosexuality, atheism and theory of evolution, Rob Smith's spying and communism, TerryH's astronomy, Bert Schlossberg's Korean Airlines 007, Karajou's ships and battles or biblical related articles. There is almost nothing of substance with regards to science and with Andy's YEC anti-evolution standpoint the resident editors contribute more damage to learning than any parady or misinformation. Geology is a joke, if you can't even have an article on the Ordivician period or fossils (both deleted by Ken) because they conflict with Biblical literalism then what hope is there for more in depth stuff. There is little basic biology, physics, chemistry or maths that could actually be of use. What there is comprises two or three lines that are generally covered in greater depth by a reference dictionary or a children's encyclopedia. Most of the parody or misinformation lies in the more abstruse articles which are unlikely ever to be accessed by home-scholars because they aren't part of a cohesive project. Andy obviously has poor reading skills as he can't comprehend anything of any length. He always skims stuff and cannot be bothered to read long posts. That's why he welcomes short articles which result in CP being so threadbare. If young students need information then they can go to Wikipedia and use that as a launch pad to investigate a subject in greater depth. No student should rely on one wiki source for their information, least of all Conservapedia. Surely one of the greatest lessons that can be learnt is not to accept things at face value and ask questions. Many editors here actually tried to improve Conservapedia but were kicked out for posting "liberal" facts. Conservapedia claims to be "The trustworth encyclopedia" but peddles it's own false infomration. The more that can be done to discredit it then the less likely it is to be viewed as an educational resource rather than one man's religio-political blog. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:42, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Their responses to Craig's experiment on the talk page clearly shows they don't care about CP being an educational resource to the point of dismissing it all as lies. As if it weren't obvious enough, they have to explicitly state it. Though PJR tries to rationalize his conclusion that the experiment is a lie, I doubt anyone took any effort in investigating before replying. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I did consider going back and removing all the misinformation I added (I kept a list of the socks), but I don't think I will, since they do not seem to care themselves about the accuracy of these articles. For example, despite the account Exophile being blocked and identified as a sock of a user adding misinformation, nobody has bothered to revert these edits diff. This omission was even pointed out to them by another editor diff. This astounding level of apathy must mean that they do not actually care whether or not conservapedia is accurate, as long as the "information" in the articles fits their worldview. That's what I meant when I said above that examining their response was part of the experiment. Not only did they fail the first test, but they have now failed the second. CraigBell 12:31, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

This is an archive page, last updated 17 February 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Parole Board

Your parole, or the theory of evolution... reality... You decide.

Hmmmm I never noticed this before. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:45, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Is the page actually used, or is it vestigal, like Andy's brain? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It was used (and specifically made) for TK when he came back earlier this year. NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 20:55, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I assume it's fallen out of use since then? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(two conflicts) IIRC, that page and concept had been created wayyyyyyyyyy back (history says March '07). I think they dig it out every now and then for shits and giggles (TK had been the most recent case, but definitely not the first - edit: unless you weren't talking about TK's Last Stand?), but it's just another farce. Croco and the others banhammer people without reason or trial anyway, so having a "parole page" is redundant: Every non-sysop is on parole 24/7, and the entire process grinds down to "I like you -> You live" and "I don't like you -> Bye!", anyway. --Sid 20:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

That reminds me. Don't we have one—also rarely used? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:02, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

No clue... oh, but for shits and giggles, check out who once was "paroled" ;) --Sid 21:05, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, that's a real gem. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:08, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh, right, I was thinking about probation (which was also known as parole). NightFlare If just one [counter-example] is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is greater than 1-(.95)^14</ref>[1] 21:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

CP Errors?

Anyone else getting them?-caius (decider) 21:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yah, me too. I wonder—are my nefarious schemes overwhelming CP's server? Or is it some other problem? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)