Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive85

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <84>, <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)

Nudity on Conservapedia!!!!1!11one

Why hasn't anyone protested this image for featuring a completely visible human penis? I would love to see Aschlafly defend nudity on his site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Here's more skin!!!. PFoster 21:44, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

No penis in that one—just breasts. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:47, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Eek!!! Kill the gay porn!!! Haha seriously how long before one of them notices it and the screams to think of the children and censor it begin? --BoredCPer 21:48, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Naked, winged baby stabbing a woman in the tits with a toy arrow? That's not art, that's the daily mail's letters page. --JeevesMkII 21:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

"Dear Penthouse: You'll never believe what happened to me in the park today...."  I noticed the Adolphe-William Buggerer images when JM first uploaded them. I personally think it'd be great if CP became Joaquín's personal clearinghouse for classical pron. (I vaguely remember someone at some point writing paraphrase that the Munch Museum thieves took "The Scream" because the 1893 masterpiece featuring a ghostly, agonized figure set against the background of a red sunset is one of the most well-known images in the world of art, and they also took "Madonna" because, well.) --Marty 22:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Outstanding rack on that Madonna. Excellent work. it's been years and years--does Penthouse still run those letters? A classic part of every boy's coming-of-age in the 1970s and 80s. PFoster 22:20, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Eheh, wrong Madonna. Perhaps you were thinking of the 1870s and 80s? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

No, the Madonna linked to has an excellent rack. Timeless. Nothing to do with the singer. The "Dear Penthouse" letters were germane to teenaged boys' understanding of sex in the 1970s and 1980s. Clear? PFoster 22:32, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

And even better hair. Awesome hair. ħuman 01:17, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

They have sex up in Canada? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:40, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Not that I'm aware of. Do they? DickTurpis 22:45, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It's dark and cold six months out of the year. and Hockey Night in Canada is only on one night a week. what do you think? PFoster 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh hell yes. Even the guys are attractive. :3 Norseman^Wassail! 22:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I can't remember the topic but I recall Ed Poor appealing for a G-rated version of the sculpture at one time. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:47, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

What is a "G-rated version" supposed to look like? Did he mean a picture of it with the crotch fuzzed out? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:49, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Marble figleaf. And is it just me, or is the girl in the Bouguereau smiling just a little? I'm not entirely sure she's that keen on defending herself (I feel a Fine Arts thesis coming on, and I don't even study FA!) Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Question- Is a link to a picture of a statue of a perhaps mythical person obscene? I feel dirty looking at the link. Jimaginator 12:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Lest we forget. --Kels 22:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh my God... that is priceless. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:37, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

With that expression on his face, it looks like he's thinking "What in Zeus' name just happened to my crotch?!" --Gulik 05:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it's the very rare multi-tip penis. Jimaginator 13:04, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

The Wraethuthu are infiltrating!!!!! --Gulik 15:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Not WIGO-worthy, but...

Geo plrd. uses foreign spelling for "Conservaepedia". I'm just surprised that he "slipped" while editing CP and used the non-American spelling. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:56, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Given that the "a" before the "p" is also missing, I think he just swapped the two letters by accident. --Marty 22:21, 27 October 2008 (EDT) Coensaervaepediea... Wasn't she Boadicea's big sister?

I don't recall a Boadicea ever on CP... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It'd be: Conservapaedia anyhow. Toast 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(Boadicea was blocked for infinite by BenjaminS after claiming that the KKK was "Extreme right wing" in April 2007) Toast 23:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh. I see. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Counterexamples

The Great and Powerful Andy has spoken declaring PJR wrong --BoredCPer 22:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh, I love how he accuses Phillip of repeating what the source he [Andy] provided earlier. Now that I read the whole thing it seems to make more sense. NightFlare The odds against a [particular] Muslim converting to Christianity are less than 100 to 1, as far fewer less than 1% of the over 1 billion Muslims convert to Christianity each year.[1] 23:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

My response would be: "Beauty is based on opinion, opinion is not fact, and therefore fails to prove the notion as a viable counterexample to evolution."

Is it that simple to dismiss his argument? Something doesn't seem right. Is he really that retarded? Nobody can or should argue from such a weak position. Norseman^Wassail! 23:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Standards of beauty change with time. In the 16th century, no-one thought it worth while to paint a Scottish Glen with a Stag in it (landseer Stag at Bay). Reubens' women would, by and large, fail beauty by modern standards, as modern beauties would by the standards of Reubens' day . Before the modern (20th century) age, were the forests of Vermont seen as beautiful in Fall? If God is such a beautician, hadn't we better ditch all those landscape gardners - they're obviously gilding the lily. Toast 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Well, he's entirely wrong about beauty being something objective but at the same time his argument doesn't have to depend on that as he can simply say autumn folliage and such could be something humans (or whatever) tend to find appealing and then say that this disproves evolution. In other words, whether beauty is something objective or subjective he's still wrong about evolution/randomness being incapable of producing it even if just by sheer coincidence. NightFlare The odds against a [particular] Muslim converting to Christianity are less than 100 to 1, as far fewer less than 1% of the over 1 billion Muslims convert to Christianity each year.[1] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

"Random mutations are never beneficial." oh help me I did not get enough sleep last night that sentence is shutting down my brain 24.22.24.138 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Stolen from eslewhere on the web: "Shakespeare expressed a similar sentiment in Love's Labours Lost, 1588"

“”Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean, Needs not the painted flourish of your praise: Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye, Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues

Why do we even bother looking these things up anymore. We would be better off simply assuming he is always wrong about everything.

Of course Andy will simply say, "No one uttered the phrase 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' before the atheist David Hume. To say otherwise is to deny logic, God, truth, the beauty of autumn foliage, the tires on my automobile and Frank Sinatra's silver cigarette case. We are not fooled by your kind here." -- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 00:04, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

"Random mutations are never beneficial." - Although I'd agree with someone telling me that about down syndrome, I can't help but think that since Andy said that, it sounds more like an insult. Norseman^Wassail! 00:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

"In Molly Bawn, 1878, there's the line "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which is the earliest citation of it that I can find in print."[2] Toast 00:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The origin of the phrase has nowt to do with whether it's true or not. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that beauty is, at least to some exent, subjective. All it needs is a few obvious examples of things that some people find beautiful & others don't (e.g. modern architecture, elephants, Angelina Jolie, etc.) Aesthetics is a matter of personal taste, as is appreciation of music, literature, food, etc. etc. I should be saying this at CP instead, but I can't be bothered with the argument anymore. It's just too stupid to bear. weaseLOId~ 07:00, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Where are all the ugly women then? Because I guess most men marry thinking that their wife is beautiful. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Congruence bias. Just because you have one plausible explanation doesn't mean you can stop looking for other plausible explanations. This is especially true for one-time events that happened in the past, since you can't run the experiment over and over to pin down the causal relationships. --Toiretni 00:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

CLEP exams

Dear god, I hope none of his kids really expect to pass this. I don't knwo if this has been noted or not yet, but here is the latest on CLEP "Because several students are taking the CLEP exam, and because it is the best of the College Board exams, we will follow its format. The CLEP exam divides American history into two periods. The first CLEP American history exam covers through Reconstruction (Lectures One through Six, but not Seven), just like our midterm exam. Our midterm exam will follow the CLEP's subject matter breakdown for questions:

   35% of questions are on politics, such as the president, Congress and government policy 
   25% on social developments, such as slavery, utopian communities, religious and reform movements 
   15% on intellectual and cultural developments, such as books and inventions 
   15% on foreign policy, such as foreign wars, treaties and diplomacy 
   10% on economics, such as inflation, taxes, and protective tariffs 

Please tell me he does not really think his tests are preparing kids for a CLEP exam, which back in 87, required like 2 hours PER QUESTION, and required a damn site more than "I like washinton cause he praised god".--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT) 23:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

2 hours per question? I don't think so. It is multiple choice. --CPAdmin1 23:58, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow, when I took it in 87, we wrote, and wrote, and wrote. But I guess that's changed.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 00:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

(EC)

From the CLEP website:

"Each exam is 90 minutes long, and, except for English Composition with Essay, is made up primarily of multiple-choice questions; however, some exams do have fill-ins."

Toast 00:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Multiple choice? lol Wow that explains a lot about the US's current educational standings in science, maths, literacy etc etc. Why don't you do proper exams?

Damo^Hi 00:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Does the phrase "dumbing down" have any application here? Toast 00:19, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I went to the web site, and they had a few random questions, and they were actually somewhat easy from what I remember. The AP exams I sat, kicked my highschool tush. these sample questions (granted, there were only 10...) seemed rather simple to me. easy to answer by elimination.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 00:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

APs are hard, still. Difficult multiple choice followed by long-form essays. Require actual knowledge (fancy that!).-caius (soldier) 00:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Here's a subject for Andy; Mathematics: 10% Logic

• Truth tables
• Conjunctions, disjunctions, implications, and negations
• Conditional statements
• Necessary and sufficient conditions
• Converse, inverse, and contrapositive
• Hypotheses, conclusions, and counterexamples

Toast 00:30, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Wait—are we talking about the CLEP or the AP exams? Or are they the same? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:32, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

They's different: CLEP gives credit for actual semester(s) of college study. Toast 00:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

No, both are ways to take an exam that *may* be accepted by a particular college as the equivalent of having taken a college-level class. You don't *have* to take a class to prepare for either exam if you don't want to. The AP exam is more rigorous and more likely to be accepted for credit by a particular college. --Too tired to log in 09:23, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see. I was getting confused, as people were starting to mention the AP, as if it was somehow related. Are they administered by the same organization? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Not to be twee about it, but I bet wikipedia knows. They know everything! ħuman 01:07, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Ohhh, I thought they were the same, as well. Ours was an AP class, maybe that's the difference. Wouldn't you think that CLEP tests would be harder than AP tests?

En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 04:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

No, the AP tests are harder, and more colleges grant credit for a good score on an AP exam than on a CLEP exam. --Too tired to log in 09:23, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

AP exams are "Advanced Placement" for high school kids. The idea is their high school US History class should be on the level of a college class at a fairly rigorous school. These classes are taken by high-achieving kids, usually in their last two years of high school. The exam has some multiple choice questions (which are *hard* and require both knowledge and *using* the knowledge), as well as an essay question or two (again, requiring knowledge) and a document-based question or two (DBQ). Typically, kids who take the AP have been doing essays and DBQs all year long to prepare. The exam is scored on a scale from 1-5, with a 5 being the highest. Different colleges treat the scores differently. Very selective colleges may give no college credit at all, but expect their applicants to have taken several APs and done well on them. The next tier of schools will favor applicants who have taken APs, and will either give college credit or allow the student to skip a basic-level class (so, say, they'd do Computer Science II instead of starting with CSI) if they get a good score. CLEP, on the other hand, is designed for adults who never went to college to get some credit for their life experience. These exams are more on the level of a community college class. Lower-level colleges will give credit for a good score on these exams, but higher-level colleges are not impressed and will not give credit. Andy throws around these terms like they're the same, but they are *so* not. (Oh - and AP teachers who want to call their class "AP" has to have their syllabus reviewed by the company that gives the AP - which Andy has not done. So his kids can take the AP exam, but they cannot call their class an AP class.) --Too tired to log in 09:16, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Take a look, for example, at Virginia Tech's charts of credits awarded for CLEP and for AP. The way the whole credit-awarding thing works is the college considers the exam to be the equivalent of one of the courses they actually offer, and they give you credit as if you had taken that course. You can see that quite a few of the CLEP tests offer no credit whatsoever, and it's mainly the foreign languages that transfer (and a few classes that don't sound all that challenging in the first place - health?), whereas some of the APs are the equivalent of TWO substantial classes - a 5 on Physics B will get you EIGHT credits. --Too tired to log in 09:33, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Laws of thermodynamics (I presume)

Can someone explain, in words of one syllable, for the benefit of PJR why this: "... And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-losing mutations, whereas evolution requires information-gaining mutations," just ain't necessarily so! (that ought to be one of our theme songs! "Those things that you're liable / to read in the Bible / They ain't necessarily so!" ) Toast 07:28, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Information doesn't work like that, Phil! Cripes, I'm beginning to understand what one commenter on YouTube said. Next time you hear a creationist say "information", kick them in the nuts. It's the only reasonable way to discuss the matter with them. --Kels 08:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

You'd have to go right back to the beginning. The "mutation can't add information" thing is hardwired into Creationist arguments against evolution. Ajkgordon 08:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The song sounds like it would have sort of a Scott Joplin ragtime feel to it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 09:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

It's from "Porgy & Bess" George and Ira Gershwin. Toast 09:16, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The explanation you're looking for is: "Which makes more sense, idioqt or idiot?" And there are mutation events which increase the amount of information, for example polyploidy and oh to hell with it.Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:54, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I think a lot of this can be put down to an inability to imagine the sheer numbers of steps and the complexity of genetic coding. You can see it in PJR's posting on this subject about how changing one letter in a simple phrase makes a nonsense of the original meaning therefore all mutation loses information.

What he doesn't seem to be able to grasp is that all letters in the phrase can change, do change in mutation, and the success of those changes is dependent upon natural selection. Many, maybe most, are harmful and are selected out (primarily due to reproductive feasibility), some make little or no difference, and a small number result in the production of a slightly different protein that gives the organism an advantage.

And then you have the sheer length of time it takes (or rather the sheer number of generations), which, of course, is anathema to Creationists because there's only been 6,000 years for it all to happen.

And on top of all that, increased genetic code is dismissed out of hand for no apparent reason that I can fathom. Ajkgordon 11:09, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The 6,000 year thing is a non-starter. If someone is a die-hard Biblical literalist, they've already decided that a vast amount of pretty clear scientific evidence is rubbish, that there's no point trying to discuss anything. PJR is one of the more reasonable people over there, but he still has {{User Youngearth}} on his user page. --Toiretni 12:45, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

It's especially amusing when individuals like PJR invoke the language argument to explain away most of modern genetics. Two words: Old English. Kallium^talk 13:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

A little insight into the way PJR thinks on these kinds of issues - I seem to remember someone giving PJR three examples of changes of the exact kind that evolution requires (from memory, one was a single-chambered heart in an organism becoming a dual-chambered heart, another was the gain of the ability to digest milk past childhood, and the third was monkeys gaining a protein that protects their cells from infection by retroviruses), but he systematically argued that each of them was, in fact, a 'loss of information' or a 'duplication of existing information' in one way or another, and, because each of those changes was not an example of a species becoming a completely different species, they weren't the kind of changes evolution requires. 92.0.192.10 11:19, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

See, this is why I consider PJR to be either a liar or an idiot. He accepts CreationOnTheWeb and AiG, who spread repeatedly refuted obvious lies, as if they were fact, and argues against things that are repeatedly cited to him and explained in minute detail. Remember the story of the bee that wasn't able to fly? PJR's like someone who still insists it's impossible after it's been proven to be possible, and in fact denies bees even exist after he's been stung by five of the little bastards. So there you have it, an example of how he's either a liar (by deliberately spreading this falsehood about a spurious and incorrect definition of "information") or an idiot (by uncritically accepting the AiG/CotW version, and they definitely know it's false, so they're liars anyhow). Either way, on origins, biblical literalism and related topics, he's one or the other. --Kels 17:46, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

It takes hard work and effort to be THAT ignorant. --Gulik 05:26, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you sure those are the only two options? Your assertions that AiG/CotW know their claims are false are just that - assertions. What if they genuinely believe what they say? You might not be able to understand it or agree with it but it doesn't follow that they must be lying. Unless you have evidence - persuasive evidence - that they're lying, then your assertions have little or no value and the field of possibilities of what PJR is opens up. Ajkgordon 05:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

So you're saying that AiG are not liars? That they aren't deliberately peddling this "new information" nonsense, when it's obviously garbage and they've been told so frequently? That they don't have this sort of thing on their website, that's been refuted countless times? You're telling me that both sites don't spread this sort of misinformation that has been publicly refuted many times, and leave it there even after the refutations, because it's good at convincing people who don't know science? That's lying, and I'm sorry you don't see it. --Kels 06:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm saying that I'm not sure they think they are liars. And I give PJR the benefit of the doubt that he finds their arguments and evidence persuasive and does not think they are lying. Don't forget, he wants to believe them. They say things that fit with his creationist ideology. The fact that you and I see huge holes in the logic he and his sources use - such as assuming that God exists and not assuming that God exists are equivalent - does not make him a liar. Or stupid. Ajkgordon 06:31, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

He's either really stupid (which I don't believe) or he's committing the ultimate "Appeal to Authority" (God!, in which case he's illogical.

TOAST

^{and butter} 06:40, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Citation Needed

Heh, a user got banned for adding Citation needed for a load of the stupid claims on the Obama page. It would seem that Andy feels he doesn't need to provide references for claims on an encyclopedia. Crundy 08:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

He is above the encyclopedic law of citing your sources. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 09:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Er, it was Jpatt not Andy who done the blocking. But basically that Obama entry is sacred ground. Only Andy & his trusted cronies can edit it, & anybody adding any sanity into it or calling its outrageous claims into question is liable to be defenestrated. weaseLOId~ 09:17, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

OMG I love that word! Best execution method ever. Etc 10:05, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The existence of wp:Category:Execution methods guarantees that challengers will appear. Defenestration from a helicopter is self-evidently better. But super party vans and trampling fetishes are good too. --Toiretni 16:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Ugh. I had tried to forget about that elephant thing. Etc 17:14, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

People are sometimes blocked for adding "ideologically motivated citation requests" to articles other than BO. JazzMan 23:47, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Phil doesn't, really doesn't, appreciate Kels

[3] Toast 09:56, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Kels is a guy? I... I'm confused. These mixed feelings... :(

I don't know half the stuff Philip says, so if someone says he's lying, I can't take any side regarding who's right or wrong. Pretty sure I'm not the only one in that sense. Norseman^Wassail! 10:16, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

First I'd heard of the gender switch thing. You'd think I'd have noticed. 0.o As to the rest, see above. PJR's frequently given evidence, cites, explanations, book recommendations, weblinks and everything else, and yet he tosses all logic and reason aside to accept AiG and such as gospel, even though they're proven liars again and again. So either PJR's a total liar, or an idiot for believing in them despite having his nose repeatedly rubbed in reality. Now folks like Ken, Andy, and so forth, they're liars and idiots. --Kels 17:50, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Put it like this: "Godditit" - no more argument, no discussion just that one fact, that's all that's needed. Toast 11:25, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Remember, in CP-land anyone with any talent or intelligence must have a penis_censored be male.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 13:32, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I love this post "I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say" tranlation, we won't just accept his drivel as unassailable truth and may actually call on him to defend his stupidity. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 14:36, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Alternate translation: "I've only got so much time and RationalWiki isn't enough of a priority for me compared to other things in my life." But no, that's not douche-baggy enough, so let's use Chuck's. 97.113.44.201 14:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

You know, I'd accept the alternate if A, he didn't hide behind Conservapedia to claim victory when he's afriad to debate in an uncontrolled environment. B, he didn't use Creationontheweb and AnswersinGensis for EVERY ARGUMENT EVER and C, if this random bunch of numbers would grow a set of balls (ovaries?) and create an account. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 15:25, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

A- I'm curious how you know he never leaves CP? Just because he doesn't go where YOU want him to go doesn't mean, for example, he doesn't regularly engage fellow Australians in free and open exchanges. He's also known to respond to email from just about all comers.

B - if the resources are useful to him, and he considers them valuable/reliable, why not use them? If he always used Encyclopedia Britannica I doubt you'd be complaining. I know, I know, "the difference is EB is all true and stuff, and those web sites are bullshit." Sez you.

C - This is Aziraphale, my testicles are the normal size and both have dropped, and I'd sign in to write this except I want to prove it's me rather than signing in afterwards, in which case I could be accused of speaking for someone else. Apparently one gets logged out after X time - a week? Dunno.

D - Nice counterexample of douche-baggery by the way. 97.113.44.201 15:58, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

It's a slow day before a fall break, so I'll play the game.... First off, we’ll go with the whole never leaves CP thing.... I'm not stalking the man, so I wouldn't have a time stamped record of his activities. You show me one site, outside of his control where he engages in open debate with someone and I'll happily apologize right now. I still think he's afraid to come over here because he knows that he doesn't have the power to revert and ban any uncomfortable statements.

Moving on, I would criticize him if he only used EB. One should never limit themselves to one point of view or one authority figure. You should be able to look at evidence from many sources and use them. Hell, you should also be able to dissect opponent’s arguments. Instead, just like the little kid he is, he runs to his favorite friendly source and argues from them, without seeing the serious flaws that most of their pages hold. I don't give a damn where he gets his information from, he can post from Westboro Baptist for all I care, but he needs to see that relying primarily on one resource makes him look stupid.

I'm sorry I insulted your testicular fortitude; I didn't think an offhand comment would cause so much hostility. However, I wonder why this hostility is directed toward me. As a Freud student, I have some theories, but none of them are too flattering.

I don't see how complaining about Phil's lack of will in debating us over here and comments to an anonymous poster are comparable to a device used for holding the ingredients of a vaginal cleansing and the resulting discharge... But I won't argue semantics with you. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:13, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I don't stalk him either, so I don't have the proof. I'm curious, do you really feel certain that PJR reverts uncomfortable statements and bans the users? On the contrary, I feel like he's shown tremendous patience in allowing people to continue saying things he finds to be patently false. He consistently does his best to refute those statements, but he lets them continue to exist.

I'll concede the "you think he looks stupid" point, because I don't see that shifting much, being your opinion and all.

I wasn't particularly offended; I don't see a huge difference in my tone and the tone you've been using, but if I've misjudged that and gone "over the top" then I'm sorry. Your cutesy Freud comment will thus be ignored, as I figure you're responding at the level you think I went to. Or something. I will say, you started out with terms like "drivel" and "stupidity," so I'm not sure how calm and level you thought you were being. So no, I didn't start off in polite mode, but this didn't seem to be a polite conversation. Aziraphale 16:50, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I do think PJR is better than a lot of Conservapedia thugs, and I respect him for that. However, he has shown that he can be just as bad if not worse than some when it comes to defending any percieved slights against his religion. Showing better patience and judgment that Andy Schlafly is not a high bar. As for the he looks stupid thing. You're telling me that when you see someone constantly referring only to a select few friendly sites as back up for arguments, no matter what subject or side they argue, that you don't think they appear stupid? One of the first rules of the debate team is variety is good. (right after no swearing :) I never claimed to be using a unbiased or polite tone, I will say that I take offense in the general principle of anonymous debate... but that's a different story. and The Freud thing was a joke... trying to imply that I'm not really all that concerned about the issue. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 17:07, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

NightFlare The odds against a [particular] Muslim converting to Christianity are less than 100 to 1, as far fewer less than 1% of the over 1 billion Muslims convert to Christianity each year.[1] 17:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Hi Nightflare - seems like we've actually backed away from the brink, so warning is acknowledged but disregarded for the moment. ;)

Chuck - he might come down on hard on perceived slights, but as far as I know he lets the comments stand, at least on talk pages. Main space articles are another matter, of course, but that's not the same as stifling discussion. The Andy Schlafly comment is clever, but also assumes that he barely clears the bar. I think it's nearly irrelevant to compare the two, they are so different.

Yes, I'm telling you that he doesn't look stupid. When someone's faith leads them to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant, you can argue that their faith is misplaced, but beyond that what case is there to be made? This is why arguing about religion is (imo) pointless. You can get as red-faced as you want about the obstinacy of your opponent, but the conversation is, by definition, out of the realm of pure logic. (Philip will dispute me on this because he feels that the Bible can be proved inerrant. This, also imo, simply proves my point.)

I won't diss your debate team's rules, but I'll point out that debate team is an incubator for reasonable discourse. As such, its rules should be viewed (yet again imo) as training wheels. Useful, but not to be relied upon for higher applications. Aziraphale 17:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

HS Mom's comment and citations

soooooo, totally off topic, but how exactly DOES one cite something like a "wiki", or any other website for that matter, when websites can and do change. Are you obligated to do a snapshot? or is mearly identifying the day you found your info, enough? I know, totally stupid, but i'm old enough that we barely used computers for research much less teh "interwebs". and i ban my first years from "interwebs", cause, well... I still don't trust them.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 17:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Basically cite with similar information used from any source (author, title, etc.) as well as URL and when accessed. The constantly changing form on internet is a problem in citation, as someone can cite something that later disappears. During my schooling days I never cited anything off the internet that was not either from some very, very legitimate source (government, etc.) that was not likely to drastically change the citation or was not simply an electronic form of printed work (journals, etc.) I think this is a pretty good rule of thumb in guiding people to use online sources, and proper citation encourages people to think critically about what they are citing. ----CWaddell 17:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Citing a wiki is more problematic as it is much more liable to change than say citing a news item from the BBC or CNN which are posted and then remain stable. Although web-sites are mutable so are books as different editions may have been revised. That's why you need to cite the edition. Of course you can cite a particular version of a web page in a wiki as we do ourselves in WIGO. Personally if it's something I might need to refer back to then I save a copy of the page in .mht format. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:42, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Good points - I think the question though is if you want to write a scholarly or at least vaguely academic article (as ostensibly, although not even remotely in fact, CP does and schlafly encourages of his students), citing Wikis is something to be avoided like the plague, and the reason has little to do with the liability for the source to change - as you pointed out, books do this often (sometimes quite radically) between editions. Schlafly has a very strange aversion to both proper citation and, more importantly, identifying credible and usable sources, something that should have been beaten into him in "earning" his degrees. ----CWaddell 18:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, as the web improves, it's getting better. Most major publications seem to do a good job of using unique, unchanging urls for their articles, and of course MediaWiki wikis provide both the "permalink" and "difflink" features that work well - as long, of course, as the article is not deleted. But citing a site that does not necessarily provide either of these things is much trickier. The wayback machine can help a bit, and isn't there some "web citation" thing out there that does the snapshot for you? ħuman 18:54, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct]. NightFlare The odds against a [particular] Muslim converting to Christianity are less than 100 to 1, as far fewer less than 1% of the over 1 billion Muslims convert to Christianity each year.[1] 20:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Mommy won't link to my site!

Not a WIGO, but I was amused to discover that Mommy's website 'Links' page doesn't link to the site her nasal droning son has builted. SMACK! TO YOUR ROOM! AND NO TEA FOR ANDY! DogP 17:33, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Aha! but see here Not only the first link to CP but look at all the (Andrew) Schlafly courses.. below. Toast 22:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The funny thing is, last time I checked, those were the "raw notes" for his lectures - which he has "improoved" on CP lately. Oh, and the Andy-schools... yah... hahaha ħuman 23:04, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Speaking of "improoving", why doesn't he work offline and post the finished article "onwiki"? All he is doing is exposing the "workings" of his totally haphazard "brain" to public ridicule. If I've got anything over one paragraph to publish anywhere, I compose in an editor & drop the finished article in public. As a lawyer^(sic) one would think he'd have some comprehension of good editing/publishing tactics. Toast 23:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

My Favorite Sysop

What super secret information does Conservative - [4]? Or is this just his way of continuing to convince himself that his google rank is directly related to conservatives hunting him out? ---CWaddell 18:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

He ought to do one of those "what links here" things. What he has are unique titles, and links on CP so google can find them. ħuman 18:50, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I thought that on-wiki links were "nofollow"? Toast 23:21, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Here, and at WP, yes (I think), but the point is you could be the #1 google hit and still have no "in-links" of any value. Unique titles and phrases always google high - that's one of the cool things about google, you can find crap you wrote on your own web site, even if no one else cares. Kinda like Kenny's case. ħuman 23:40, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Ken is a splendid example of retrograde development. His mental age actually seems to be going backwards. He reminds me of the Peter Cook character in the Secret Policeman's Ball doing the "I've got a viper in this box" sketch. Can't find a YouTube link for it unfortunately. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:49, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

You're thinking of External Links. Regular wikilinks aren't tagged that way, which is why they keep linking their key articles, even on talk pages. Ken is turning CP into his own link farm - if fifty bazillion pages on CP link to his pet articles, Google is bound to think that it's more important than, say, their article on cp:Office of Naval Intelligence. And then there are things like him spamming on forums and blogs picking up on that "Homosexuality articles in the Top Ten Pageview Count Stats" thingy. Oh yeah, and those overly specific and unique titles. --Sid 05:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I didn't know that - most interesting! Toast 05:39, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

PS: doesn't google have rules about this sort of thing - link spamming type of thing? Toast 05:41, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

My understanding is that if reported, Google will remove links to, or zero pagerank of, sites that engage in linkspamming. I don't know how serious it has to be - getting your pals to link to your site is clearly OK, running a spamlink bot is obviously Out, but I have no idea what's in between. Pseudomonas 12:53, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Funny thing is, the site that AlanS mentioned, the Dan Barker one, links to CP in the sidebar webroll, which I'm not sure Google will pick up on at all, given it's a javascript form. Does someone want to break the news to Ken? Pseudomonas 13:13, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

A warm Conservapedia welcome

Not sure whether or how to WIGO it, but this welcome message from Andy on Main Page talk makes me laugh. weaseLOId~ 21:00, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Open.Your.Mind.

--SpinyNorman 10:51, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Cute frog. Andy is The Perfect One, who has contemplated Everything (TM), has nothing to learn, and now only exists to be a Bohdisatva to others who have oh so much to learn, cause they still think they should THINK.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 11:09, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.-caius (soldier) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh shit, not thiALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 22:49, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Hah, only fools get cauALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:01, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

What's wrong with you peopALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOADPFoster 23:10, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Damnit, gALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD! Barikada 01:08, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

There's a sucker born every minALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:22, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

It's simple, people, just don't look into his eyes, because when you look into his eyes, youALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD! Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:18, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hermes went on a week-long vacation to the Brain Slug planet, and decided to stay an extra month of his own free willlllllllllllllllll-caius (soldier) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Goodbye, constructive debate!

Farewell, sanity! You are non-encyclopedia.--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 13:07, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Isn't that the point of the debate space?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 13:13, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Code for "Ken's making an ass of himself and I'm going to cover the tracks, will Rational Wiki please save the entire content somewhere for the whole world to gawp at." ArmondikoV^pathetic 13:46, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Wait wait wait... Things on Conservapedia have to be encyclopedic now?? They're going to have to delete a lot of stuff. --Toiretni 13:55, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I have an archived copy of the page. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:58, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Looks like Andy will have to use a larger stone if he wants this discussion to sink...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:52, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Like this one? And I actually managed to look at the "new debate", and it was just Alan asking why they could have debates like the "cats are useless dogs" one, but not one questioning Ken's "articles". Lovely. Also, major LOL at the "second block" bit - the first block was a petty revenge by Jpatt for that Bias on WP discussion about Pius XIII. --Sid 15:01, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Missed the last few posts to that page while in transit. Anyone else got a copy? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:23, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

My only pre-deletion version was from last night (I did check again about... ten hours ago and found two or three more posts after that Epic Smackdown one, but failed to save it), but I managed to grab the text of the recreation that got Alan blocked:

“”"unproductive waste of time; be productive, or go elsewhere. thank you" Then why do we have a Debate space, anyway? There even is a prominent link to Conservapedia:Debate Topics in the side menu, so I don't understand why a debate was so abruptly deleted. Shouldn't all debates be deleted, then? Especially debates like "Are cats just useless dogs?" or "Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?" look completely off-topic, compared to the site's educational goals. Or are a sysop's articles so sacred that users aren't even allowed to discuss if there are too many, too non-notable ones among them? The sysop in question even entered the discussion (although his arguments consisted of Google Rank bragging and "hunches" about future events), so I wouldn't call it a waste of time at all. --AlanS 14:42, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, that's all I got. Were there any more comments before the deletion? The last ones I saw included things like that interesting comment along the lines of "demonizing them is not a conservative value, but it is a conservative value to point out it's a sin" --Sid 15:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

POOF! It's gone. Andy can carry out threats. But I think the answer was a firm YES, they DO have a homosexuality obsession. ArmondikoV^pathetic 16:46, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

So I updated the WIGO to show the defeat of Gay Bowel Syndrome on the interwebs, but the voting doesn't work now on that particular entry. Does anybody more wiki savvy than me know why? Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 16:56, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes it does. It just won't let you vote an entry up which you've already voted up once (even if it's been updated since). One user, one vote (per WIGO entry). But if you're desperate to boost it, you could do so deceitfully (sock, anon IP). ;-) weaseLOId~ 17:08, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

That would be a very, very tedious way to wandalize. I guess I voted earlier and forgot. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 17:11, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

The last post I got was Corry's "Women in pants" reference. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:31, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure that was the last one. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 18:34, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Biden's interview

How is this gaining ANY traction at CP or other conservative sites. Unless I imagined the last 2 months, it seems to me Palin has only granted 3 interviews, and they were SCRIPTED. Hello??? and what about mccain calling out the press for tough questions like "what do you read" and "what judicial decisions do you know". God, I hate the hypocrisy on CP. Well, in conservative land in general. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 14:16, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't think the Couric interview was scripted, was it? JazzMan 21:29, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

If it was, then Letterman must have written it. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 21:42, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

"Bimentalism"

Freudian slip in the last answer? Trying to rationalize Andy's take on reality with actualy reality may lead to this condition, after all... --SpinyNorman 14:39, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman-Conservative-some-feedback-regarding-your-user-page

• 1. What's with the peanut butter thing? "it appears likely many American liberal men may be eating creamy peanut butter even though they prefer crunchy peanut butter deep down. :)" Um, OK then.
• 2. What is it with cruelty to cats? Not content with bludgeoning them with a shoe, you now have this picture on display. This is a strange fascination.
• 3. I notice that, since you last washed your page & talk page, all references to Operations Grassroots & Flying Fortresses have vanished. Do we take it that these missions have been unsuccessful &/or abandoned?

weaseLOId~ 10:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

"creamy"? Do americans really call smooth peanut butter "creamy"? Or was that just a freudian slip? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 10:15, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I've always liked the assumptions that (a)liberal men are bossed around by their women and (b) no one considers that it's possible to purchase both crunchy and creamy so that both halves of the relationship are happy. At the end of the day this is simply Ken's assumption that liberals can't be 'real' men but are pathetic wimps meekly eating the 'wrong sort' of peanut butter - but then anybody who's dumb enough to be a YEC will believe anything. Silver Sloth 10:56, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I've always imagined he doesn't have a wife. And that he's never kissed a girl. PFoster 11:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

"1 Hour Photo" comes to mind when I think of Ken. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I bet he likes it creamy and all over his face. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

In a (pea)nut shell I'm reading "Those crazy Liberals actually discuss with their wives what should be bought rather than dictating it and insisting their wives obay." If my wife obayed my every commandment peanut butter wouldn't enter into it. (or would it?) 217.41.92.46 11:45, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Personally, my butch feminist wife won't allow me to eat peanut butter at all, and forces me to eat mustard instead. I once asked her permission to buy some creamy peanut butter - I was too afraid to ask for the crunchy stuff - and she threw me across the room and then pounded me with a shoe. I blame Hollywood values. JuanK 11:55, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

We can see who wears the trousers in your house. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Indeed! It is almost certainly Katharine Hepburn's fault that 60% of henpecked liberal husbands cannot eat their preferred choice of nut-based spread, while their pants-wearing feminist wives shirk traditional gender activities like baking. Curse those Hollywood values! JuanK 12:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm way late and slightly off topic but I must admit I have avoided all references to Conservative and letters to gentleman etc as I found them boring. I only now just looked at his user page. The guy is a complete and utter nutter. Bonkers. Deluded with his own grandeur. Sorry that I am so late in adding what you all seem to know. Continue.Damo^Hi 13:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I still think stupid is a better description than nutter. He probably is literally one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered. DickTurpis 14:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Have you checked out the little blog he's been creating down at the bottom of the main page? They obviously can't do anything about him over there, and he just keeps getting bolder, so he might as well just call it Ken's Kreationist Korner (KKK? That can't be good) and get it over with. --Kels 14:23, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I've been reluctant to beat-up on poor Conservative because I think we're dealing with a twelve-year-old. Fifteen, max. Does anybody here have any information to the contrary? If Conservative is a bona-fide adult, then the piling on is (mostly) all fair. On an unrelated note, the level of parody over there is off the charts. Half the time one of my socks tries to put up a new work, someone's already staked out that territory with, in most cases, obvious parody. Simple 14:43, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, he's an adult alright (40+). His mental state, however... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:52, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I imagined him as about 13 too, but he at least pretends to be older, and he pretends to be *snicker* smart. He also denies being autisitc, having Asperger's (which he calls "hambergers") or other serious mental disability. It's pretty clear something is not right in that head of his, though. I imagine he at least is one of those people whose social skills are so embarrassingly poor that everyone around him has trouble tolerating him. DickTurpis 15:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Well we see that enough on Conservapedia. weaseLOId~ 15:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

A quick Google of Ken Demyer will bring up the fact that he's 46 years old and still living with his mum and dad. But his writing style is so turgid and unimaginative, and his humour so puerile that people may be forgiven for assuming that he's a pre-pubescent teenager. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:57, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Huh, you're right. I had been assuming that he was a small boy... now I feel kinda kreeped out. And yes, smooth peanut butter is called creamy in at least a good part of America. And I'm a liberal male who got my wife to switch from crunchy to creamy after our marriage. So there. 74.7.166.234 16:53, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should find out if Kenny had any homeskolaring in his past. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:17, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

We've only his word for it that he's had any skollaring of any kind - I'm inclined to doubt it.

TOAST

^{and butter} 17:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

One of the really bizarre things about Ken is how I think he still believes we can't prove it's really him, or in fact can't even tell if "Conservative" is even male or female. It's kinda like the spy in TF2, except nobody sees his disguise as a bad paper cutout. --Kels 21:00, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, I think the various 'peanut butter' references are something to do with the video he linked to. However, a few things he missed:

1. One of the tags it's filed under is 'comedy'.
2. The comment for the video is 'Chuck Missler takes the misunderstanding of evolution to a whole new level'.
3. The various parodies and responses to it.
4. The video is supposedly 'disproof' of evolution, but it utterly fails to deal with any aspect of evolution - it, instead, argues a strawman against abiogenesis.
5. Liberalism, evolution and atheism are three different things.

Zmidponk 18:52, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey now, quit disrespecting a prominent creationist! You'll make PJR cry. --Kels 20:47, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

'm an utter peanut butter nutter from Sanitarium I take the freshest peanuts in the world and pour them in

I'm an utter peanut butter nutter & this part is my job for Sanitarium freshness I just push this shiny knob

I'm an utter peanut butter nutter & this part I like best the peanut butter nutters' peanut butter tasting test

We're such utter peanut butter nutters when the whistle goes for lunch we eat peanut butter sandwiches smooth, salt-free and crunch Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 19:25, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Credit where it's due, it seems to me that the peanut butter bit is a clear joke, and is funny. More in that vein please, Conservative.--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 05:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

The Red Telephone is in another castle

I'm sorry Phil, I can't hear you. You'll have to step a bit closer. --Kels 15:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Amazingly, however, you can. And he plainly states why he doesn't come here; I don't drink for much the same reason. RW carries on near-constant conversation with Conservative's craziness via multi-site back and forth, what's so risky about doing the same with Philip? Aziraphale 17:37, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, Kels has been IP blocked for some time. One of the early /16 blocks took out many of the ISPs in eastern Canada. --Shagie 19:05, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I meant that Kels could, in fact, hear him. PJR doesn't need to come any closer than he already does. Aziraphale 00:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, I'm in Ontario, but there's been at least one /16 block here in town that I know of, and I doubt it's been undone. I'm from NS, though. As to going over the CP, what's the point? To explain the exact same things to Captain Creationist that have already been explained, often in eloquent detail with full citations, by literally dozens before me, only to have him immediately fall back to "but..but...INFORMATION!!!111ELEVENTY!!" No, thanks, I know the difference between giants and windmills. Oh, and as to disrespecting the prominent creationists, cry me a river. --Kels 20:24, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

disrespecting the prominent creationists... Classic. I guess it makes you a shade worse than if you were disrespecting the prominent people who believe in the Tooth Fairy, I suppose. Are there any creationists who are prominent as creationists, outside of creationist circles? Are there any "prominent creationists" teaching creationism at Harvard, or Yale, or la Sorbonne, or the American University in Cairo? Or Columbia, or NYU? How about Michigan? McGill? The London School of Economics? PFoster 20:42, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Ooh, check it out. Captain Creationism just posted a list of "Creation Scientists" (presumably prominent ones), some of whom do "real research", presumably at "real universities". Damned peculiar not a single one of them seems to have come up with any, you know, evidence of a young earth during their research. --Kels 23:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

:: "...otherwise religion really needs to be kept out of the scientific arena.": Atheism too? And Naturalism (the belief that nature is all there is, and there is no supernatural? No Phillip, not atheism. Or naturalism. Notice that they don't get capitalised, for starters--and do you know why? "Cause they're NOT RELIGIONS!!! So don't equate them like that--it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about. Which you don't. PS: Just re-read your post. Naturalism isn't a belief like Islam or Judaism--because it doesn't require faith in that which we cannot see/measure/quantify--it involves dealing with the world as it is presented to our senses. PFoster 23:21, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

As for that list of scholars--they can believe what they want, but can they teach it in the university system?--I want to see a syllabus from a secular, accredited university that shows that one can get credit in a biology, ecology, geology, or other hard science course by attributing natural phenomena to divine intervention. Or Ph.D. dissertation from an accredited secular university that attributes natural phenomena to divine intervention. PFoster 23:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

It is interesting the PJR should complain about "disrespect to creation scientists" when CP has, in the last 15 mins, claimed Richard Lenski only got where he his through nepotism and has been added to the deceit category. Also PJR, if you are watching, there are a series of youtube videos called "The 12 Falsehoods of Creationism" that you might enjoy. It rebuts many of your arguments. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:46, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Hah, I watched (or rather listened while I worked on homework, but man it was totally worth it) the whole thing a few days ago. Grand stuff, and the guy's got a great narrating voice. I also watched the whole Origins Made Easy series, which is also excellent. --Kels 20:51, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah the guys voice is great - he sounds like Hunter Thompson. But yeah, it was a great series and, well, blows dubious creationist claims out of the water. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:56, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

But evolution can't add information (let's not define "information" or explain why it can't be added)! Someone faked some illustrations once! RADIOMETRIC DATING!!! --Kels 20:58, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

I though TK blocked your specific IP the moment it was revealed when you edited while signed out? Or am I thinking of someone else? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:29, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about my imaginary sock. I don't think that was a range block, though, it was before they realized they could hit entire cities in one go. Besides, TK never did those so much, that was the Koward's style. --Kels 07:49, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

You know, free advice and worth every penny, etc etc... but what on this Earth makes anybody think they can be asses towards Philip or anybody else AND expect to be engaged in a thorough conversation/debate/whatever you want to call it? You want to chalk his beliefs up to lunacy, laugh about how stupid he is, and generally make merry at his expense? Knock yourselves out, free country and all that jazz. You want to try and hold his feet to the flames for not engaging you in a thorough exploration of any damned thing under the sun? Wake yourselves up to knock yourselves out again. How do you POSSIBLY think you can have and eat this cake? Who does that?

And please, drop the canard about him not coming over here. He's said straight up why he doesn't, and whatever you think about his positions does he really strike you as someone who'd lie about it?

I know, I'm starting to sound like a broken record around here. I'm not trying to be an advocate for his positions, he can stand or fall on his own. But jeez, for a bunch of people who jump on every last hypocrisy and act of stupidity at Conservapedia your behavior is absolutely pathetic. Aziraphale 00:55, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

But no, tell us how you really feel.... Seriously though, I won't get into a detailed list, as this will simply take us around in circles. The main beef (that I have anyway) with PJR is that, as semi Rational as he is at times, and as respectful and polite as he can be, he still resorts to the same stupid arguments every time he gets challenged, and he won't leave the safety net of his little corner of Conservapedia, where all the articles are locked and all the malcontents get 90/10'd in a few days..... I have no problem with his belief system, all we want is for him to actually defend his claims... not his religion, HIS CLAIMS But he is unwilling to do that... therefore, on behalf of the IFOP, I say lay on Rationalwikiduff, and shame be to he that will first hollar Nuff yes, I know that's not a verbatim, I'm quoting off the top of my head here. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 02:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Which claims doesn't he defend? He's so point-by-point in his posts that he'd be an amazing member of a debate team, unless things have changed greatly in the last 20 years. I get that you think his responses are wrong, but that's not the same thing. Aziraphale 13:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for an accredited secular university curriculum or Ph.D. dissertation that gives credit to divine intervention for natural phenomenon. PFoster 14:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't call him a liar, but inserting this, especially the last sentence, without a personal disclaimer "in my very fringe opinion", borders on lying in my book. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 04:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Face it, if it doesn't include Goddidit PJR will treat it as fiction. On the other hand if it does include Goddidit we're going to treat it as fiction. We have no common ground and should probably leave him to wallow in his delusion.

TOAST

^{and butter} 04:13, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

And Philip, "This is obviously meant as an analogy of my close-mindedness rather than an actual argument that I use, but ironically, that's something that I used to believe, but no longer do, as can be seen by a recent edit I made here. And as Kels smears leading creationists along with me, I would also point out that Creation Ministries International (and AiG) have long published a list of arguments creationists should not use[8], which includes arguments that they themselves used to use! The facts are that CMI, AiG, and I are all prepared to change our minds when presented with convincing evidence". No, you will never change your minds - you will never accept science. Let me tell you what all you creationists are: a bunch of lawyers; you, Andy, all "creation scientists" are just lawyers, having their clearly guilty client (creationism) to defend. All you do is looking for evidences that could put the opposite side in bad light - regardless of the intrinsic value of the evidence: all that counts for you is to convince the jury. When this "evidence" is shown wrong (the flying bee), it is just put aside in your list of arguments creationists should not use and new "evidence" made up in your lawyering thinktanks. Well, this is not how real science works. Sure, there are fierce debates; but:

1. scientists don't have the lawyer's bias of defending their client, guilty or not
2. even if they did, the scientific community doesn't work as a jury in a trial
3. the purpose and methods of science are always constructive, not destructive
4. science is done by real scientists, who have studied for years, specialized, scrutinized and shown their value and dedication. They are not lawyers who look for catch phrases in websites.

Oh, I have nothing against lawyers, and everybody should be granted the best possible defense in a process. But this is not a process. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 04:27, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law (The Devil's Dictionary) -- Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Repeated accusations of lying are ultimately counter-productive. While it's an easy claim to make and loved by "anti-creationists (yes, I can see what they're doing by inventing that phrase)", it doesn't help to persuade anyone else that PJR and YEC are wrong. Indeed, in many cases, it may help to achieve the opposite. The most effective way of selling rationality is to argue rationally however frustrating that might be. To the non-scientist and college kids, PJR is beating you at your own game. Ajkgordon 05:47, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I think that we try to make rational arguments in our article pages. In talk pages people can say pretty much what they like. Nevertheless, when you're arguing against faith-based rather than reason-based ideas rational argument doesn't always work that well. But there again, nothing really works very well under those circumstances.--Bob^{bing up} 06:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

GPWM about the articles. Ajkgordon 06:44, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

But, of course, nobody is arguing with PJR to change his mind. I don't think anyone is under the impression that this type of discourse will make PJR any less a Creationist.

No. This is debate with an audience. If you want to persuade the audience that the rational rather faith is correct, then you must use rational argument. Ad hominem against PJR can only be counter-productive. Ajkgordon 07:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll be honest, I don't outright call PJR a liar/fool very often, although I do often deny that he's much better than the rest over there despite his sheen of reasonableness. When I do actually go so far as to make an accusation like that, it's merely venting, and I'm not expecting it to be a particularly strong debating point. Just an expression of frustration as to how anyone can have their nose rubbed in evidence again and again and bloody again and still come back with "But INFORMATION!" as if that meant anything. --Kels 07:58, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I wonder ...

... if Taj read what he was deleting (last two words).

TOAST

^{and butter} 04:19, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

:-D Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 04:27, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

DAMNIT! That was favorite piece of CP wandalism! Its been there for aaaaaaages also. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 05:08, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

That was a good one indeed. Etc 06:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Taj = she. (not he). :p yes, read it, but didn't see any need to comment on it, just fixed it. :) ^{— Unsigned, by: Taj / talk / contribs}

About those damn evil gay cowboys again

That CP:Brokeback Mountain article confuses me greatly. All the "audiences witness the families torn asunder" stuff makes the movie look like anti-homosexuality scare propaganda.

Now, when a respected movie director makes a critically acclaimed movie which, according to that article, shows the terrible dangers associated with homosexuality, how it apparently destroys traditional marriages etc, this is bad in Andy's twisted mind!?

It doesn't make sense! Etc 06:33, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

If a): you're Andy; b): you haven't seen the film; c): you said something ages ago as a knee -jerk reaction and can't retract any statement d): believe that "Hollywood values" are bad, regardless of content/context, Then it makes perfect sense.

TOAST

^{and butter} 07:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

This one's nothing to do with Andy; it's all Foxtrot's work, although he's dealt with it in an Andyish way: hasn't watched the film, refuses to consider watching the film, refuses to let other editors who have watched the film make changes to the article (see the talk page). weaseLOId~ 07:18, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Notice the nice picture he's added (nothing to do with the film) to show how non-gay real life cowboys are. Priceless. Is Foxtrot a parodist, or just a cretin? weaseLOId~ 07:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Agree the article's nothing to do with Andy, but have you seen the talk page?

TOAST

^{and butter} 07:29, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

(3x EC Grrr)Andy always comments on movies he hasn't seen. I mean he thinks Forest Gump is liberal propaganda, Trainspotting makes glorifies drug users/makes them look like victims and other examples too if you look at the CP:Greatest Conservative Movies page. I really think Andy should stick to talking about things he knows something about - like Australasian approaches to gun control for example.--Damo^Hi 07:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy moves in mysterious ways. But, of course, that's the beauty of CP, you never know what kind of craziness they will come up with. But this one really frustrates me. Etc 10:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Back to the different tests...

Here's a fun Andy-Beth discussion about the different tests. Very Heartwarming

"I'm actually seeing your attempts breed disrespect for your teaching..." Classic. Why is it that a 13 year old is smarter than Andy? And isn't the entire "big classes are teh awesome!" rationale that larger classes encourage more competition? And now he has these separate tests to discourage exactly that. What an idiot. They even sent around a petition against the separate tests, and apparently only 5 students didn't sign. (Interesting that she mentions 50 students in the class. That isn't reflected int he homework t all.) Assuming Andy does wise up and realize what a bad idea this is, will his pride let him change his mind on something like this? It never has before. DickTurpis 10:46, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and get screenshots. I don't think Andy will keep this airing of dirty laundry public for long. I got one already, but get more if it continues. DickTurpis 10:47, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Good for BethanyS, sticking up for her principles on this. Where is the debate she's referring to? Is it presumably something that took place off-wiki in the classroom? weaseLOId~ 10:50, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think my favorite line is "The side for different tests didn't mention the Bible either." That girl has some stones. Or maybe "To be honest, I don't see your point anymore." Interesting to see how Andy will respond to such a high performing student (but aren't they all? ----CWaddell 10:54, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

WIGo-ed. I think the debate took place in Andy's in-person class based on the comments. --SpinyNorman 10:55, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

(undent)

A little OT, but I've had the same observation about Andy's class-size versus the number of students submitting online homework as well. The simplest explanation, especially with Bethany confirming the in-person size, is that most of the students either don't have internet access in their homes, or are not allowed to use the internet even for this class (don't want them reading all that homosexual content on CP, after all). --SpinyNorman 11:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Those that signed the petition didn't really mean to sign it. Well, that's settled then. The rest of the post tells Bethany to shut up or leave. Silver Sloth 11:09, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Classic Aschlafly: Everyone agrees with me. Those who say otherwise are lying or have been tricked.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:13, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Dammit SS, you beat me...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:13, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Dammit. You all beat me. But I'll add this--this last bit of madness--"those who signed didn't mean to sign" and essentially "those who want to can leave and the true believers will stay"--strikes me as really cult-like. PFoster 11:15, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

"All glory to the Hypnotoad Teacher! --SpinyNorman 11:35, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Damn you, you gave me an idea and I actually went through with it. ALL GLORY TO ANDYTOAD! GODSPEED! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:38, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

ALL GLORY TO HYPNOTEACHER! --SpinyNorman 11:27, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Where did this sudden obsession with "chivalry" come from anyway? Andy, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. DickTurpis 11:16, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it stems from his "libruls want to treat everyone the same" schtik. If a librul says something, it is evil, so Andy latched onto boys$\neq$girls and began pushing it to the limit. Physically different becomes mentally different and spiritually different. Then as any good conservative he simply cast his mind back to the 50's and had the "insight" that the world needs more chivalry. Also his mother is obsessed with feminism so these ideas are probably more deeply seeded than appears on CP.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

(strange edit conflict) MOTHER F DO I NEED TO RANT! What the fuck about the word "chivalry" has ANYTHING to do with giving girl's an easier test, and treating them like children when the class at large disagrees with his contentions. As a professional, he's lost it. He's unable to understand that his recreated world view is simply not a natural, normal, useful, or respectful world view. it is "truth", and "you can leave". hello, they are STUDENTS. This is a 5 year old stamping his foot saying "i can hold my breath longer than you". his students are FAR MORE MATURE than he is. But what is most sad to me, is none of this is parody. this is REAL LIFE to these students. He's not instilling chivalry, as he claims, he's being a simple bigot. Not just a sexist, but an out right bigot of the women in his class. I hope the kids tell the parents and he gets what is coming to him. This is beyond absurd, it is out right criminal to inflict his views of "weak girls" upon the women in his class who will have to go out in the real world and compete with men for real jobs, in a VERY TIGHT market. God i detest this man around children.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 11:19, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I love this little back bench rebellion. Doesn't the Assfly know the customer is always right? These kids are paying good money to have Assfly force feed them nonsense, the very least he can do is let them all take the same test if they want. --JeevesMkII 11:22, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

To understand all this you need to read CP:Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students. Note the bits about the girls baking cookies whilst the boys carry their bags. You'll love that bit, WfG. (SS watches as there's a small thermonuclear explosion somewhere in Colorado as WfG see's decades of feminist advances disappear down the khazi) Silver Sloth 11:24, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Cleary you are mistaken "JeevesMkII" (if that is your real name). People want more chivalry, even though they may be tricked into saying otherwise. The petition is clear proof that my students want to take seperate tests.--teh assfly

His rationalizations to Bethany make Bugler look like Kieth Olbermann. My favorite part (just added to the WIGO for emphasis), is not his mature "If you don't like it, then leave", but his Freudian slip - he wants to teach compliant drones who may personally object to his f***ed up worldview, but silently defer to his authority nonetheless. Thanks for electing to remain with my American Misogyny History 101 course, acolytes kids. --SpinyNorman 11:30, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

His rules of chivalry sound like they came right out of a 1950's era school film. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 11:33, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

More like 1550. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 13:02, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

You edit conflicting jerks! Not really, I was just gonna agree with Godot, this is a bit tragic to watch (as is much of the homeschooling). Watching a relatively intelligent, if incredibly misguided, Bethany get beaten down in the name of bigotry is almost painful to watch. On the other hand, I have a sick sense of humor, and it's also quite hilarious. ----CWaddell 11:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm very glad that she had the backbone to (respectfully) stand up to his authority. At least now. I didn't like seeing her "I will submit" comment awhile back. The ability to stand up to what you know is wrong is a very important skill to have. Of course, Andy didn't plan that as part of the lesson. -Lardashe

What's tragic is that it will probably end with her backing down. Or at least quietly allowing andy to have the last word. It's really sad to watch. ----CWaddell 11:38, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Kind of ironic, because they're getting to the part of American History dealing with the Womens' Suffrage movement. I'll have to re-read his lectures to see how he equates equality for women in this context with the patronizing misogyny of his "chivalrous" attitude. --SpinyNorman 11:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Beth's references to multiple attempts to force chivalry on the students makes me wonder if Andy has them "practice" his rules during class. Girls are assigned to bake cookies, and the boys have to eat and compliment the treats. Andy lines up the gals before class begins to rate their clothing choices ("Beth--that's a lovely floor-lenght calico dress. Suzi--you look like a little whore in those jeans..."). Mock dates, where the boys practice opening doors and try not to gape or grope while the girls bat their eyes in admiration and hold back the profanity. Stuff like that.--WJThomas 11:41, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I hold out an inner hope for Bethany. She has the intelligence to separate sense from nonsense, and the courage to challenge a so-called authority figure based on what she's determined for herself to be right. I was a lot like her at the same age, and once I got into college and started living by my own, evolving convictions instead of worrying about the approval of my parents and others, life got a lot better and I've never looked back. --SpinyNorman 11:44, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

She did just call in reinforcements --dumbasswhoforgottosign--CWaddell 11:52, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it's been posted here before, but it bears repeating: [5] DickTurpis 11:49, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Where'd you get the video of dinner at the Schlafly's ? --SpinyNorman 11:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm interested in Andy saying the church youth groups are notoriously unchivalrous. What goes on at these places?--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 12:01, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Even more interesting is the assertion that "when boys and girls date outside the church group, the value of the church group (and all that enormous effort) is totally lost." A startlingly frank appraisal of the role and goals of a church: to indoctrinate as many people as possible and to shut out all other ideas and lifestyles.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 12:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

...And an admission of how weak such indoctrinations are when they face the real world.--WJThomas 12:19, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me, or did Andy's rapid-fire responses to Bethany suddenly stop cold once she suggested asking the other parents what they think? His response, when and if it comes, should be priceless. --SpinyNorman 12:18, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

And there it is: "Only the parents of dumb kids complain, and you'd better shut your pie hole if you know what's good for you..."--WJThomas 12:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

He can't seriously be thinking that parents are going to agree with him after he implies that their opinions are un-informed. I'm thinking he's just trying to bluff Bethany out of this, but high fives to her for forcing this escalation. ----CWaddell 12:38, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

"A few parents have even left my classes when their child did not do well on the exams and did not receive awards." I'm torn between facepalm and lol. He really doesn't think it is his fault these kids fail. Tragedy and comedy all in one package. --JeevesMkII 12:44, 31 October 2008 (EDT

Well, it is obvious not his fault of his students fail. Have you seen the grades he gives? You'd have to actively try to get a poor grade in his class. DickTurpis 14:33, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Sighs... I know we've hashed out these "rules" of chivalry 100 times here, but my god he cannot be serious. Beth is smart, no wonder she's bucking the system. Hello, yes i want my brains to be belittled because I am a woman who has likely gotten BETTER TEST SCORES THAN ALL THE BOYS. That's cause I'm smart... and f-you teacher for not understanding that. bugger off!--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 12:49, 31 October 2008 (EDT) If she submits, I'd cry for her and those like her who are really being, in my mind, abused. it is child abuse not to let your children "be all they can be" in teh arrrmmyyy (or wherever.).--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 12:49, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

(undent)

Where does one start?

"I will send out a general email, hopefully after I've graded more of this week's homework!"

- How long does it take to paste "Good insights" or "superb" after each answer before giving all your students a 97 or higher?

"An opinion is only meaningful if it is informed."

- In other words, it make take a few days to try to find a way to spin misogyny as chivalry.

"A few parents have even left my classes when their child did not do well on the exams and did not receive awards."

- Who was disappointed with Andy-grades? The parents whose kid only got 94 instead of 99?

"I'm confident that, after listening to the reasons, most parents and students will agree with my rules of chivalry"

- Maybe, but most likely because you'd asking them to agree with the idea that chivalry is good, while leaving out the way you apply it in practice by treating girls as inferior.

"As I said, anyone is free to leave but I am confident that the 'silent majority' wants more chivalry as I'm doing"

- The less inquisitive you all are, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

"Rest assured that there are many in the class who do not like the rather outspoken attempt by a few to impose 'equality' on all."

- Anyone who hasn't said anything on this is in agreement with me by default, so I win.

THIS is why you teach compliant homeschooled kids in a basement somewhere, Andy, instead of making a living by competing in the marketplace (or in politics) on your skills and qualifications. You are too ignorant, unskilled and unqualified to be a teacher, and your pushback on a loyal student like Bethany exposes you for what you are - pathetic. I only hope a copy of that email sees the light of day. --SpinyNorman 12:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

As to your first point I think you're forgetting just how busy he's been. StarFish 12:52, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Someone needs to send Beth an invite to RW. The gal's got the kind of snarky balls that would go down well here. 144.32.180.65 12:52, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

You forget, but she hates us (or was it Sharon who hates us? I forget.) Anyway, one of the sisters S despises us as the sort of slimy anti-American worms one finds a Frenchman eating in a Toulouse street cafe. --JeevesMkII 12:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Most telling I think is "most parents and students will agree with my rules of chivalry (which, by the way, I announced by email at the beginning of the course)". But his announcements that the tests would be different came after the course had started, so whatever he emailed before was just general rules of chivalry. Clearly the email he's going to send out now is just going to be reiterating the same general rules & saying that some students have challenged the rules of chivalry, and going to completely whitewash the fact that his "chivalry" extends to different tests for boys & girls. weaseLOId~ 12:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Good point. He could have solicited an email that stated "kittens are cute," and then instituted a policy of public floggings for spelling errors. "But if you are in favour of recognizing that kittens are cute, it follows logically that you should want me to beat your child in front of the class everytime he makes a spelling error."-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 13:08, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Edit Button (should this bit continue for a little longer

Something tells me Andy's email is going to be along the lines of how O-Ren Ishii dealt with an unruly subordinate in Kill Bill Volume I, with the one replacement noted:

As your leader...

...I encourage you, from time to time, and always in a respectful manner...

...to question my logic.

If you're unconvinced a particular plan I've decided is the wisest, tell me so.

But allow me to convince you...

...and I promise you right here and now no subject will ever be taboo.

Except of course the subject that was just under discussion.

The price you pay...

...for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage views on chivalry or teaching style as a negative is:

I collect your fucking head.

Just like this fucker here.

Now if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say...

...now's the fucking time!

I didn't think so.

-Respectfully Yours, Andy Schlafly, Esq.

--SpinyNorman 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Yep, sounds about right. But Andy hates liberal films, and you can't get more liberal than Kill Bill, I mean, it gives some respect to the Japaneses so it's obviously complete claptrap. So, I doubt he'd get the referrence. ArmondikoV^pathetic 13:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, Andy wouldn't like Kill Bill because of its inaccurate portrayal of conservatives. Seriously, do you believe that an in an entire church full of Texas Christians no one was carrying the mostly defensive weapon of gun? --SpinyNorman 13:19, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Good point, I never considered that. Although it's now ripe for adding somewhere "The highly liberal film Kil Bill shows what happens when Gun Control is brought in. What would have happened if one of the wedding party were armed as conservatives prefer?" (well, besides a much shorter and much more boring film.) ArmondikoV^pathetic 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

If the wedding attendees were real conservatives, Kill Bill would have been about as long as this. --SpinyNorman 13:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

On the plus side, the heroine was homeschooled. --SpinyNorman 13:33, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it's great to see these kids thinking for themselves and trying to take some kind of action. Even if it's not successful, something like this can help lay the groundwork for future intellectual freedom. Should BethanyS be banhammered, if she submits, or if she simply quits, she's probably going to think for herself more than she used to. These are high school kids, and they're at the age when they're really starting to see authority figures as fallible human beings. Good for you, BethanyS.

This whole chivalry thing goes back to something that really annoys me- taking a grain of truth or reason and then distorting it beyond all recognition.

• Chivalry. Great! I hold doors for people (men and women). I believe in watching my language around people I don't know, and especially around children. Before I was married, I would pay for dinner, etc. when I was on a date. This does not translate into misogyny, though. This is just me trying to be nice and generous, which is how we should be to all people. Now we somehow jump from this to not having any competition between boys and girls, necessitating seperate exams. Ridiculous.
• Inherent differences between genders. Yep, they're there, even mentally. There are CNS differences in men and women. Men and women tend to have differences in average grades on different kind of subject tests. Does this mean that all men are better than all women on some subjects, and vice versa? Does this make is unfair that men and women take the same godless, liberal AP exam? No, of course not.
• Hollywood values. Are there societal factors in Hollywood that can lead people to self-destruction? Uh, yeah. Look at Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and a slew of other people that grew us with celebrity. Trainwrecks. Does that mean that everything that comes out of Hollywood is liberal and bad? No!

So to conclude my rant: fight on, BethanyS! You're fighting for a lot more than you might realize. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 13:40, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

And so the cover-up begins. PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:44, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

WIDOed. I love the block reason. They need a new reason on the dropdown- "Using truth to make me look bad." Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 13:50, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I suspect that "I'll send out an email to all the parents as soon as I finish grading" is said in the same sense as "I'll give HelpJazz night edit rights as soon as I talk to the sysop who's out of town for the weekend".--WJThomas 14:11, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I liked how someone attempted to revert Andy's deletion of the 'inappropriate' text from Beth's talk page, and was subsequently blocked. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 14:14, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

...and her talk page is now locked. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 14:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

God I'm fucking angry again on her behalf. I assure you she will back down now. How could she not, with someone who is such a control freak, that he cannot even allow other users to say "you go, girl". She took a chance to stand up to him, but thorugh his techniques will feel TOTOALLY isolated in this endeavor, because anyone who warns her or just says "you are a good person" is told to stuff it. Easiest way to win? Divide the enemy and isolate him. FUCKER. I assure you this is exactly what abusive husbands do. and the wives quickly learn to simply submit, cause it's just easier.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 14:36, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

So, when do we start the rumours about what Slackfly does to poor Bethany in windowless rooms? We all know he wants to beat his wife and probably (female) kids, but not in a good way. ArmondikoV^pathetic 14:44, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

We don't need to resort that. He's enough of an asshole already. Vicious rumours just make us look like assholes instead. weaseLOId~ 14:47, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Concur. The truth is ridiculous enough. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 14:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, in case she ever reads this (if she doesn't hate us), You go, girl! Do not back down to tyranny! Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 14:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I do wish that the parent's addresses were public. Cause i'm sure none of the parents of girls would accept that 1) they are getting "easier" tests, making them less prepared for the real world, or 2) that andy tells his students they better not get support from friends, or the friends will simply be banhammed. The parents need to know what kind of man he is. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 14:59, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think when Conservapedia Day rolls around RW should present Bethany with an award from us on her Talk page, assuming Andy unlocks it by then. --SpinyNorman 14:58, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

My opinion of li'l Bethany has certainly improved. I like how she phrased the initial question: "have you decided to do the same test yet?" Not "have you made a final decision on whether you'll be giving separate tests?" No, she's taken it for granted that he is wrong and will have to come around, and giving him a chance not be such a complete douchebag. I hope she doesn't back down too much, and I hope she doesn't mind getting her parents on her side. That's something Andy might respond to, though at this point it's pretty clear he's decided he's right and once he's done that he will NEVER EVER admit he was wrong. I wonder what sister Sharon thinks. She's Andy's TA. DickTurpis 15:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. She doesn't need to be singled out. she doesn't need to be ridiculed. and that's what will happen. it's what always happens :-) This is the one aspect of CP I wouldn't fuck with, the real students in his class. I would send her a simple card or something, e-mail... but of course she doesn't have email active. heh. she's on her own. and that's unfair for her, but maybe there's a slim chance she doesn't bend and says "fine, i'm fucking out of here" get's her parents to get her to a REAL school so she can make something out of herself. unless she likes being "chilverous" by baking cookies. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 15:09, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, her email's not enabled on CP, so I can't send her an encouraging letter. Still, she's definitely learning an important lesson here, just not the one Andypants intended to teach. :-P --Gulik 15:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm curious. Does the locking means that even she can't edit her own talk page????? Gauss 15:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

She has enough mad powers at CP to unlock pages. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 15:34, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

We don't have a page about Beth to add this incident to, does one of our WIGOers want to make one? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 06:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Eh, probably a bad idea. I'd rather avoid getting too focused on the actions of the kids themselves, aside from admiring ones like Beth here. --Kels 09:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Just to Make the Point Explicitly...

I would strongly suggest that anyone tempted to email Bethany or contact her in some similar direct manner over this just leave her alone. She's still a kid, and folks from RW reaching out to her, even in support, may come off as creepy. I don't think there's anything wrong with supportive posts to her User/Talk page because that's a more public forum, but her personal space and privacy needs to be respected. --SpinyNorman 11:48, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Prior discussions on this subject have concluded that we distance ourselves from the kids. And for those in any doubt, Ken is actually 46. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:57, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Good point actually. While it's encouraging to see people want to stand up to Andy over stuff like this, it's one of those things you shouldn't directly interferre with. ArmondikoV^pathetic 13:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Very well, Phil

I'll retract my accusation of lying. Like I said, it was venting so I don't particularly feel tied to it, and it won't hurt my pride to take it back. There's no deliberate deception there, even though creationism and biblical literalism are factually false. You believe it truly, so if you're lying to anyone it's yourself, but that's between you and you.

As to evidence, you've been provided with it. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. And it all comes back to what was said above about lawyering. That's a better comment than I'd be able to come up with, so go read that two or three times and see how it applies to your own position. Again, you're denying the bee can fly even after you've been shown conclusively not only that it can, but how it can.

By the way, all those awesome YEC scientists, I took a look. Let's see how they did at "YEC science" (the quotes denote an imaginary term, no need to be afraid).

• Russell Humphreys - Made a now-falsified model of Earth cooling, and a cosmological model based on faulty calculations and assumptions that doesn't bear out in practice. No data that backs up YEC.
• Raymond Damadian - Medical doctor whose scientific work doesn't seem to connect to the age of the earth, origins of life, and so forth. Doesn't seem to have done any YEC-related science at all.
• John Baumgardner - Geophysicist, published papers seem to have no relation to the age of the earth. No actual YEC data, although he made a theoretical model of the flood. AiG, who you'd think would be all over this stuff, seems to have very little on any actual discoveries by him. Pretty much the closest thing we've got to any actual data, although it's still just smoke and mirrors like the Humphreys stuff.
• Geoff Downes - According to AiG, who again would be all over real data the way they are over fake data, doesn't have much on him, except he works in a field of science that doesn't seem to be concerned with the age of the earth at all. Namely, wood quality issues, which seems to be what his published papers are about. So no YEC science again. Apparently shares his name with a good drummer.
• Ian Macreadie - Microbiologist, at least that's pretty relevant. Published work doesn't seem to actually apply to age of the earth or other YEC concerns (although they look pretty interesting). Adjunct professor, which by Andy's standards means he's nothing much. ;D
• John Hartnett - Apparently shares his name with several actors and directors, which is interesting. Difficult to find much info aside from the usual Creationist haunts, but it seems like his business is trying to poke holes in the big bang model. Which is fine, since it's a developing bit of science and could use some hole-poking to keep everyone honest. But there's nothing proved there, and apparently there's very little actual science in his YEC books.

Pretty disappointing lot, Phil. A bunch of scientists doing stuff with little relation to YEC, although I see you have the usual "but they wouldn't be able to do YEC science" dodge in place. But data is data, there's no "creationist data" versus "evolutionist data" (don't be scared, Phil, they're only quotes). There's data. If they can't apply that data to YEC better than an old earth, then what the hell good is YEC? But thanks for having an excuse in place beforehand, it's like a pre-emptive apology for a bunch of disappointments. --Kels 11:40, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

No offence meant to either side, but Philip seems like a nice man and I hope you stop berating him now. Awoogar!--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 12:32, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Could you maybe make a red telephone of your own and keep this off the main talk page? This kind of drama isn't what I come to WIGO to see. --71.236.174.254 12:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

That was harsher than I intended. Sorry. What I mean is, this seems like a more back-and-forth discussion between the two of you rather than a watchful eye on Conservapedia, which I took WIGO's purpose to be. --71.236.174.254 12:41, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Eh, whatever. I'll leave it off there, then. I really should be working on my Character Design homework anyhow. --Kels 12:44, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Character design? Are you doing an undergraduate degree in Advanced D&D? :D --JeevesMkII 12:47, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I've got this character with an amazing number of flaws, can you do anything for it, kels? Terra 12:52, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

No, no. I'm in a prep course for animation and illustration. I'm aiming to work in comics and illo, preferably. Character design, layout/backgrounds and life drawing are the core courses, with portfolio prep, digital photography and history of animation on the side. --13:09, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

ECx2

Nonsense to Kriss & B.O.N. This is exactly what I come to WIGO to see. Kriss, Philip is a very nice man, but that doesn't stop him from being incredibly wrong to the point of stupidity. Terra 12:45, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually I think BoN has a point. Why don't we create a whole separate page for these telephone conversations. They are mildly amusing but they do get tiresome after a while. If we had a WIGO red telephone or something that would be better in my opinion--Damo^Hi 12:55, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll give the typical Liberal response.... If you don't like/are not interested in something, just skip the postings and don't read it. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 13:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Damo: been there, done that, got teh T shirt.

Chuck: Spot on! (Sorry, that was Terra. must have dropped out without noticing) 13:08, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

The Red Telephone does get annoying sometimes. Sure, it's nice to Ken-bait but it does get a little distracting and too much sometimes. What about "WIGO:In Ken's Brain"? (the obvious answer being "not much") ArmondikoV^pathetic 13:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey Phil, I hope you read this; this is the only section I know you will check. Just wanted to ask you if you could email Andy and advise him to take the whole discussion he is having with Bethany S to email rather than in public. Otherwise, having it out in the open he will be forced to uphold his public image and save face by humiliating her, since it doesn't look like she's going to back down. I disagree with you about a whole host of issues, but I think we can all agree that we don't want to see the poor kid hurt, and that Andy doesn't have the wherewithal to control himself.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Too late, it seems. Maybe PJR hadn't read this, but Andy's gone ahead and said stuff he'll never take back now (see WIGO). Seems he's quite happy to lose students for the sake of his own pride. --Kels 09:45, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Ohhhh spelling wars

Guess you know you have no arguments left, when you are left with "(insisting on reinstating edit with spelling and capitalization errors; your next block will be longer if necessary)" as your reason for the banham. Gosh, can we apply it to ASchafley, hisself?--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 15:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

(almost) Every single block reason can be applied to Andy. He does seem to be ramping up his blocks to be much longer. As he ramps up his crazy, so does his amount of blockings. Coincidence?! :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:54, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy seems to be very touchy about his academic record and political history, very touchy indeed. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:10, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Science and the US Election

Nothing to do with WIGO/CP directly, but since this is out most visible page, I thought I'd post here: BBC World Service is running a doc on the place of science in each of the two mainstream presidential campaigns. Check it out. PFoster 18:48, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Where's Bugler?

Off with Ed Poor? He hasn't edited for two whole days now...PFoster 21:03, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

He's working on his doctorate, of course. --Kels 21:11, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

So am I Kels--but here I am, giving the people what they want. PFoster 21:14, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Full frontal? o.0 --Kels 21:40, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Considered it. But one would need a WIDE SCREEn monitor to get the full effect. PFoster 21:49, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Now that's the IMAX experience! --Kels 22:27, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm only four inches, but most women don't like it that wide. Maybe Bugler is planning his next move, or (if by some small chance he's not a parodist) he's locked his doors and windows in preparation for teh evul Eve of Hallows. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel}

He's back now. weaseLOId~ 10:12, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

And there go all the blog articles

Someone edits the articles to include mention of the author, as well as pointing out they are all by the same person. Then...delete! New article with old version! Lock! It's his standard way of working, but this example is so blatant that I can't help but shiver. 76.105.223.176 22:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

It's amazing, the sheer contempt he has for....well, pretty much everyone else on CP. He gives token regard to Andy, but it's pretty obvious he doesn't give a damn about the guy outside of that. The other sysops he either ignores or uses, and everyone else is less than the dust beneath his feet. It's impressive, to be so incredibly arrogant with so little to be arrogant about. --Kels 23:28, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to see his next Red Telephone message to us. He really got pwned this time around. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Eh, not as much crazy as to make it entertaining, but at least it's got a couple of useless YouTube links that I didn't bother to follow. The funny part is he had to create and delete it twice so far before he came up with a title he liked, and it still sucks ass. --Kels 11:10, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Just out of curiousity, I did look at the vids and, from what he says, something like the Omaha Beach invasion is going to occur, somewhere, presumably by some 'anti-evolutionists' or 'anti-atheists' (in which case, I hope Kendoll is going to volunteer to be first off the landing craft), and a 'Darwinist' is going to be upset because some soldiers randomly crush his car using an AAV (Amphibious Assault Vehicle, for those not aware of what that stands for). Zmidponk 16:35, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'd ask if Ken

had lost his mind, but it would be a rhetorical question. --Kels 23:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Good grief, I guess it's official. Ken considers the ToE talk page to be nothing more than his personal sandbox and place to promote his articles. Not for discussion or trying to improve the article, since he ignores all of those anyhow. Again, contempt for the entire rest of CP, and probably a lot of his readers as well. --Kels 10:29, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Reruns?

Didn't we discuss this gem a while back? Far as I can see is, believing in an invisible man in the sky and people rising from the dead means you're less likely to believe in unseen forces and ghosts. Wait, what? --Kels 09:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I remember seeing this in the press some time ago. CP's sneering aside, if the data shows what world net daily claims it shows, then we rationalists are a smaller segment of the population than we think.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 09:19, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather check the source instead of relying on WND. In particular, it is fairly important to consider which subsets of which group believe in certain things and what "does not attend church" actually means:

“”In both the 2005 and 2007 Baylor Religion Surveys, researchers found than 11 percent of the national sample reported they had "no religion." Although nearly a third of the "no religion" group are atheists who reject "anything beyond the physical world," the Baylor Religion Survey found that two-thirds of the "no religion" group expressed some belief in God and many of those are not "irreligious" but are merely "unchurched" (Ch. 17, "The Irreligious: Simply Unchurched-Not Atheists"). Delving into the actual religiousness of those who report having no religion, the Baylor Survey found that a majority of Americans who claim to be irreligious pray (and 32 percent pray often), around a third of them profess belief in Satan, hell and demons, and around half believe in angels and ghosts. (...) The Baylor Survey found that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases credulity, as measured by beliefs in such things as dreams, Bigfoot, UFOs, haunted houses, communicating with the dead and astrology (Ch. 15, "Credulity: Who Believes in Bigfoot"). Still, it remains widely believed that religious people are especially credulous, particularly those who identify themselves as Evangelicals, born again, Bible believers and fundamentalists. However, the ISR researchers found that conservative religious Americans are far less likely to believe in the occult and paranormal than are other Americans, with self-identified theological liberals and the irreligious far more likely than other Americans to believe. The researchers say this shows that it is not religion in general that suppresses such beliefs, but conservative religion.

The article is really more about subsets of religious people ("religion" vs. "conservative religion", "goes to church" vs. "doesn't go to church") than about the religion/atheism divide from what I can see (Disclaimer: I only speedread the article since I'm not really that interested in the subject). --Sid 09:53, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Confusing logic

Not particularly going after PJR here, but I'm really having trouble following his logic on this edit. He seems to be claiming that since Galileo and Copernicus were opposed by the church who said their views were not based on the Bible, they were just like modern Creationists, who are supported by churches and whose views are based on the Bible. What? That doesn't really follow. Aside from which, he simultaneously says that Creationists follow scientific evidence, although he can't actually point to any, and has often said that YEC scientists are prevented from getting any scientific evidence by the establishment. I get that he's trying to smear science, or at least the "scientific establishment", whoever that is, as being analogous to religion, but it's still not making much sense to me. Can anyone untangle all that? --Kels 09:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I think he's saying that the medieval belief that the sun & planets revolve around the earth was not actually based on something stated in the Bible, although it was upheld by the church doctrine of the time. Hence Copernicus & Galileo were regarded as heretics for contradicting the church, although they were not actually contradicting the Bible. Thus there isn't a true analogy with evolutionists versus creationists, since creationism is based directly on biblical teachings. I don't get the rest of what he's saying, but I think it has to do with his belief that creationism is also supported by scientific evidence as well as the Bible, while some churches advocate secular sciences like evolution which are not supported by a literal reading of the Bible. weaseLOId~ 10:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

"our class will be stronger for it, even if slightly smaller"

It's been said many times before, but what a bastard. Obviously some of the students have threatened to walk over the separate tests thing, & Schlafly just doesn't care. Presumably his course fees are non-refundable - at least I'd be very surprised if he agreed to refund or reduce fees for students leaving the course. So he'll probably be getting his money either way, & probably the parents will reluctantly make their kids stay on the course anyway since they've paid for it. Meanwhile he proves that he can enforce his will, regardless of what students, parents & other CP editors & sysops think, just like the petty, misererable, manipulative little dictator he is. weaseLOId~ 10:50, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Reminds me of cultism, unsurprisingly. InaVegt 10:55, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I did a spit-take when I read that line, myself. Nothing emphasizes class unity like blindly enforcing the teacher's vision, even when students are willing to leave the class because of it. I had hoped that he would handle his classes at least a bit better than he handles CP, but the entire "I won't change my mind, no matter what. Love it or leave it." mentality really made his way into his "teaching".

I kinda hope the students simply do a mass-boycott during the test. Let Andy hand them out, and then let him watch as 95% of the class simply sit there and stare him down. --Sid 10:59, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

What a sad little man. He's another Charles Van Doren: scion of a success, condemned to ignominy by his own flaws. Van Doren eventually found solace in serious academia... Andy's gone the less noble route, crafting himself a tiny kingdom of tin soldiers that are small and indoctrinated enough to consider it an honor to be clutched by his maddened claws. "Dance," Andy commands, eyes dulled with bubbling spite at the world. "Call me Editor-in-Chief. Call me Congressman! CALL ME... PHYLLIS!"--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 11:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

He's insane. Just fucking insane. He's running a business here, and he's hurting his own bottom line over some ridiculous point of principle. It's bad enough that he's a grown man trading on his mummy's name (that's not so unusual in the spoilt little rich kid set, see also Ivanka Trump) but making stupid decisions because of some petty and chauvinistic principle he has? It beggars belief. No wonder this wanker couldn't make a career for himself in any industry. I wonder if he refuses to attend meetings with people he regards as too liberal? --JeevesMkII 11:08, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Imagine him trying these tactics in a court of law! He'd be in the Hoosegow (sp) for contempt before the first day was over. Terra 11:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Did he even say what the parents' decisions were? I'm hypothesizing that some didn't like it and threatened to pull out, some didn't care, and some liked the idea and stayed in (sexual references <3). This is clear evidence he's more interested in molding these kids to his will than educating them. Largest class my pale, muscular, cleanly-shaven ass. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I was going to comment on this earlier when Andy first made the post but I had to get outside and take a walk in the fresh air. For the man who shouts "open your mind" at everyone who doesn't accept his POV then this is the height of hypocrisy and "close[d]-mindedness". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

"Most people find it intrinsically uncomfortable competing with someone of the opposite gender." Yes, Andy has sexy issues.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 12:08, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

As WGOI has just proven, IT'S ALL EVE'S FAULT, so i have a right and a duty to treat the girls in my class like shit.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 12:19, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I liked the hyperboly about the competition rising to violence. Wanna bet some chick beat the shit out of him on the playground when mummy wasn't around? poorlil andy.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 12:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

He lost when he told Phil to read the Bible. Different times, different culture, different place... but it's the perfect excuse to treat women differently from men? I hope Phil drills him hard and penetrate that thick skull of his (yes, more sexual references <3). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:32, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

What is this weird conflating of competition and violence? (from an economic conservative, no less) Does he have personal experience with domestic violence?

Granted, the idea that "separate is sometimes better" isn't uncommon among Christians (see Promise Keepers), but it's still a pretty big stretch to think that same-sex tests could have any influence on domestic violence. --Toiretni 13:44, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure whether he's saying it would cause domestic violence, so much as just saying that competition between boys & girls is bad for the same reasons that violence between men & women is bad (which is a stupid argument). Interesting that he's referred PJR to the Fall passages of Genesis regarding this issue, which say that men are to work hard & women are to be ruled by their husbands.[6]. So it would seem that his idea of education is to prepare the boys for pursuing a career, & prepare the girls for being good obedient little wives. weaseLOId~ 13:57, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

He narrows it down to the season to which girls should behave LOL. What's he going to do, order them to humiliate themselves, and if they don't, he gives a bad grade for not listening to the Bible? I shudder to think what the next season might be. This isn't chivalry, by far. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:12, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Andy is pushing the envelope for ridiculousness. We were wrong to say that Andy wishes the world was a 1950's sitcom... Andy thinks the world is a 1950's sitcom.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 16:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I was ammused by the line "adults of different genders do not usually compete with eachother". Since when? He's a lawyer. He competes with other lawyers, roughly 40% of which are female. He deals with the medical establishment. I'm guessing 30% or more of all doctors are women, and in fields about children (vaccinations) or "female issues", i'm guessing that number is much higher. every article he's written has likely been replied to BY women. Women compete for space on the freeway; women compete for his attention in advertising on the tv; women compete with thier husbands over who gets the remote control; women compete for patent rights; what you spend your entertainment dollars on; and unless i'm mistaken, one women is competing ON HIS SIDE with 2 men over who will be the next president. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 18:14, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Far as I can see, he doesn't want women to have careers at all. Not even singing or making movies, if Hollywood Breast Cancer and so forth are to be believed. Makes you wonder why he's teaching any of the girls at all (well, obviously money), since he doesn't really want them to do anything with their educations but play unpaid domestic servant. --Kels 18:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Here's possibly the craziest exchange yet. Catherine, I really hope you're a parodist. weaseLOId~ 19:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

My students are teenagers, including many who are 17 or 18. - I'd never thought that his students would be that old! BTW, shouldn't he have separate tests for different age-groups? --LArron 21:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

This whole thing is a perfect microcosm of the reason the USA needed the feminist movement. Who were Liberals. I think I need to sock up and point that out at some point, even though it'll get deleted instantly. --Gulik 00:21, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Maybe I've been away for too long...

...but what the fuck is Ken going on about? A youtube video of, respectively, a bunch of American soldiers getting killed in Saving Private Ryan, and a bunch of American soldiers behaving like jackasses in real life.

I really just don't get it or him. Bondurant 12:28, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Family friendly indeed. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:33, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

He loves these visual metaphors of destruction, which has something to do with his dellusional predictions of atheism being obliterated. At least these don't involve cruelty to animals, unlike half the pictures on his user page. weaseLOId~ 13:26, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

As I mentioned earlier today, he had to delete and re-create his shout-out twice before he even found a title he wants, so I doubt there's much actual sense to be made. And take a look over at the ToE article, for him treating the talk page as his personal sandbox, since he doesn't really listen to any suggestions over there anyhow. --Kels 12:43, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'm intrigued by the phrase "you can continue to nibble on the trousers of anti-atheism if you want". The hell does that even mean? Apropos of nothing, I tried Googling the phrase "nibble on the trousers" & all that came up was a blog about a sheep, which contains the line "I cherish the nibble on the trousers and laugh at the gentle stamp of a hoof". Kinda reminds me of Ken. weaseLOId~ 13:35, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Not really sure where I'd look for it, but is there any evidence at all that there has been any particular change in the traffic to "evolutionist" sites (I guess PZ Myers and..I dunno, what would you consider a major evolution site? Nature?) during the time Ken's rant screed quote mine article has been up? --Kels 13:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'm not familiar with most evolution websites, but this[7] should help you find out. InaVegt 14:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Very interesting. Nearly a fifth of our readers come from Finland. Maybe we should write them a message. weaseLOId~ 14:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

There's a thought. Let's see, the horribly liberal, evolutionist rag, Nature. Let's see, how's it been doing for the time Ken's been pimping his article? not so bad, really. Maybe Ken's doing damage somewhere else, but Nature ain't feelin' it. Although it's funny that the regular fluctuation that happens to all sites probably far exceeds the entire pageviews of all of CP. Edited to add: And they do! The regular pageview fluctuations of Nature sit at roughly 0.0008%, while the highest peak of CP's traffic over the past 6 months has been less than half that. Way to stick it to the evolutionists, Ken! --Kels 15:28, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The nibbling on the trousers remark obviously compares us to herding dogs nipping at the legs of a flock of sheep... Oops, Metaphor fail.

Moreover, Ken has already stated that, "it's the cat who gets hit by the boot that often sqeals the loudest"... Oops, Taxonomy fail.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 16:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Is there a new search engine starting with G? Ken's results don't seem to apply to Google (it comes up as #23 on mine, somewhere in the middle of the third page or so, nicely hidden between this and this). --Kels 16:19, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Thing is:

• Google remembers your searches (I know this for a fact, because google TELLS me how much I've visited some sites, and it apparently takes special notice if I don't backtrace to google, keeping the result on top)
• Google looks at several data from your http request to better serve you data. (Not 100% sure, but I believe I read this somewhere, and it doesn't seem terribly unlikely anyway)

As such, one individual's google results are quite irrelevant to show how high google rates a page. InaVegt 16:32, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I just think that Ken still doesn't quite know the meaning of "grassroots". It's not exactly a grassroots campaign if it's just you sending begging link exchange mails to various people and spamming blogs and forums. But according to Ken, nobody can ever prove anything (not even that Conservative is Creationist is Peter Moore is Ken) as long as he doesn't admit it, so whatever. --Sid 16:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that's one of the amazingly pathetic things about him. I still remember him denying that we even knew what gender he was, let alone all the rest. But hey, want a blast from the past? Here's Ken almost a year ago bragging about how he'd gotten the ToE article to #5 on Google, and yet...nothing untoward seems to have happened to any of the major science sites. And whenever I go to Google, Wikipedia and a pile of real science sites kick CP's ass on a regular basis without even bothering to mention him. He even comes in behind the movie! --Kels 16:44, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

[Y]ou are still not thinking expansively enough. Think grassroots. Think WII bombing of Germany. Aw, how come Germany gets bombed with Wiis and we don't? C'mon, Ken, how about a Wii bombing of America? --Marty 17:09, 1 November 2008 (EDT)actually I think the Wii did quite well in Germany

"...the evolution article really only started to climb recently as far as the search engone result evolution." I think Ken would fail the Turing Test. Really, he can't string two sentences together without repeating the same hackneyed phrases. It's almost like he has had to copy and paste everything he writes from somewhere else (and that's excluding the moronic out-of-context quotes).  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Maybe that is why he claims that we don't know anything about him. Everything we have found out about 'him' is actually information about his creator. InaVegt 17:20, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

That would be both creepy and hilarious. --Sid 18:21, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Doctors and Evolution

Only 78% - wtf! I guess this is because it is a US survey. Anywhere else in the western world the figure would be ~100% Silver Sloth 14:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'm not so sure. There is a figure like this in Europe too - because a large proportion of our doctors are Muslims from southern Asia or Arabia. And while they seem to have embraced much of western culture, they still hang on to a lot of their religious beliefs. 86.45.217.35 15:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT) (Marcus Cicero)

It's also doctors, not scientists or biologists. I think that makes a difference. JazzMan 16:41, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Kids Parodists these days

They don't even have to try to be subtle any more, do they? (No, I'm not saying who I'm talking about, although they're pretty obvious, and it's not from within the past few minutes either). --Kels 15:34, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I know what you are talking about. JazzMan 16:39, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I think/hope/fear that Andy knows exactly that the place is overrun with open parodists - he just doesn't give a shit. Just like he doesn't care that Ken's overriding the commandments and abuses his sysop rights to protect the articles of non-notable blogs against deletion and inclusion of basic facts (like the fact that Mariano is involved in all and owns most of them). Just like he never cared about Croco introducing the MYOB "rule". Or just like he never cares about anything that isn't directly related to his agenda. These people just provide padding for him to embed his insanity into. They also make the place look alive - not to mention boosting his pageviews. And of course he likes having an echo chamber filled with a choir of people who will go "Yay, Andy, you're the greatest, Andy!" whenever he says something. --Sid 16:44, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

It's sad, really. Not only does this push CP away from its original goals, which Andy really seemed to believe in way back when this whole thing started, it practically straps rocket engines to the whole mess and points it in the opposite direction. --Kels 17:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Mind you, rocket strap-ons are not always a bad thing. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

They're good for females, but males can get a nasty case of Gay Bowell Syndrome SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:51, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

See also

Joaquín, you rock my world. --Marty 18:02, 1 November 2008 (EDT)actually, Norm did deal with those issues in a few episodes...

To be fair, cp:Norm was Much Improved, thanks to it starting out as a typical "Ed Poor Stub of Random Thought +2". I did get a good chuckle out of the Mona Lisa one, though. --Sid 18:19, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Ah, so the Mona Lisa doesn't have eyebrows. Holy shit, Conservapedia has taught me something. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Cantonese independence

...was deleted. Reminder to WIGOists not to expose "unnoticed parody" (which includes funny things that aren't parody, and not-yet-reverted things inserted by blocked wandals; but does not necessarily include funny things inserted by well-known and -loved parodists such as Bugler or Aschlafly).

So, what was on the cp:Cantonese independence page, anyway? Was it funny? The bot has saved an image of "Page contains no content", which isn't enlightening. --Marty 18:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I can't blame CP for not noticing the parody earlier. I read the article and had I not known it was parody I would have thought "that's interesting" and not given it another thought.--Damo^Hi 18:28, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I googled "Cantonese Independence" and got 47 hits. That tipped me off--independence movements tend to leave bigger footprints. PFoster 18:31, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Here is what my browser cache gave me. No clue how far it differs from the original parody since I just accessed it once. Never read it, either, so I dunno. Enjoy? --Sid 18:52, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The parody itself wasn't actually funny, just incorrect information. What made it funny was the way the sysops reacted. What CP sysops should learn from this (but hopefully not) is that if you block every editor that points out errors, then your editors won't point out errors, and your encyclopedia will be full of them.

I never point out errors or correct information on CP, it's just too risky.

Also, combined with the 90/10 thing that forces you to make mainspace edits, your'e practically challenged to insert errors. I usually do something like this:

• Select a random article
• Google the subject to find a new fact that wasn't previously mentioned, or just make up a new fact
• Make sure there's a few invisible errors in the fact, such as incorrect dates, so that my next sock has something to "clean up"

Result: plenty of easy mainspace edits for everyone!! Etc 01:37, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

My signature move was to edit the Gilbert & Sullivan article, I can't fully remember how much of that is real any more. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:32, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Ken, you're doing it wrong.

Ken seems to think that a methodological question among a group of specialists is equivalent to a questioning of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary science. Read the abstract closely, Ken. That's not what's happening at all. PFoster 18:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I'm no big Ken-fanboy, but he didn't say what you claim he said. He pointed out that scientists are often willing to use failed methodologies -- and the paper does illustrate his point. Ungtss 18:31, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I misread his post. Cheerfully withdrawn. PFoster 18:34, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I think the thing isn't what Ken actually says, but rather what he intends. Compare to the "news" item just below, the one about "a Democrat" asking "in an email being widely circulated" what Obama has done for America. Technically, there isn't much of a point since little is said, but the message is clear in both cases: "Don't believe pro-evolution scientists!" and "Obama hasn't done anything for this country!". Same with the Lenski Affair: Give people the impression that something is wrong, no matter how small. --Sid 18:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Ungtss 18:43, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Pathetic SEO attempts

Does Ken

not relise that by changing all the direct links to the evolution redirect he is just creating a link farm which will have the opposite effect he is hoping for as Google will just penalise his article? - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:16, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

No one understands Ken

's SEO attempts... ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:29, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Sing it, Sistah!

Can I nominate HSmom for new leader of CP? She's so much better than, well, all the rest of them put together. --Kels 19:26, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The analogy with affirmative action is spot-on. She's hit the nail on the head about everything that's hypocritical about Andy's concept of different standards for boys & girls. Has anybody invited Hsmom over here? She seems fairly Rational, comparative to the rest of CP. weaseLOId~ 21:12, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Dunno if there's much point, really. She doesn't give me the impression that she'd be down with making fun of CP, especially to the degree we do it. But you know, I'd love to see her try what Andy said he wanted to do in the first place, which is put together an encyclopedia by homeschoolers for homeschoolers, but with an emphasis on just the sorts of things she talks about. Following the individual interests of students, self and directed study, and so forth. She's certainly seen enough of the mistakes at CP to know a lot of the bigger pitfalls to avoid. Heck, I imagine there'd probably be some way for her to get funding and network with other homeschooling groups of whatever persuasion to get something like that going, it'd be way better than trying to turn back the tide at CP. --Kels 21:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I would be amazed if someone as intelligent and as astute as HSMom wasn't aware of us and hadn't checked us out. If she wanted to come on board she would. Silver Sloth 14:12, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Homework problems

Ok I have stopped reading most of the homework answers and have just been hitting the model ones for laughs but the urge to commit violence is starting to get alittle high with some of these. I mean come on one of the two greatest inventors of the time being called his investor's "assistant"? Tesla did go little off the deep end near the end of his life but to call the inventor of A.C. and radio Westinghouse's assistant is just wrong. --BoredCPer 19:44, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Not to mention the AND gate, wireless transmission of electricity, the Tesla coil, VOTL aircraft, possibly the unification theory... I would even argue that Nikola Tesla was "the most influential person between 1877 and 1896" including Edison.--ζειαηđδηǐ (τ|ϛ) 20:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

And that's the problem with Andy's course--nobody teaches history that way anymore. To talk about one guy as being "the most influential" is to ignore broader social/political/economic factors. A lot happened in tose years; Edison represented part of a strand of those changes, but those changes can't be reduced to him....PFoster 20:33, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Check this one out. I'm pretty sure at least one of his students is cribbing their answers off of *gasp* Wikipedia!! --Kels 20:38, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Bah, that's nothing. Check out the quoted bits of #6 and #7 here. --Marty 01:52, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Homework scoring has hit the ceiling... and tries to break through it.

I only checked two graded homework pages today, and what did I find?

• Congratulations: a perfect score including honors. 100/100.
• Perfect paper. One of the best in the entire class all year. Score: 100/100. Congratulations.

To make matters worse, I started reading [H3] of that first link ("Why should the government break up monopolies? If they do, they give no incentive to owners of companies to improve their businesses; the owners know that as soon as they are doing well and are beginning to corner the market, they will be broken up."). I didn't even dare to read anything beyond this "Excellent point." --Sid 21:32, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I was curious how much Bethany's comments impacted her grade. She got a 68/70 with: "Explanation is right, but the date is wrong. It was decades later. Also, you might have added the source of the term: Mark Twain. (Minus 2)." - no mention of date, no mention of Twain.[8] Ok...

• [9] has no mention of Twain and no points off.
• [10] has no mention of the date and no points off.
• [11] has no mention of Twain and no points off.
• [12] has no mention of Twain (not complete)
• [13] has no mention of Twain, large date range, and no points off.
• [14] has one sentence, with no mention of Twain or date, -2.
• [15] has no mention of date, no points off.
• [16] has no mention of Twain, no points off.
• [17] has no mention of Twain, one sentence, no points off.
• [18] has no mention of date, or Twain, one sentence, and graded as "Good, but incomplete. See model answers. (Minus 1)."
• [19] has no mention of Twain, one sentence, no points off.

It appears that Andy was a bit harsh with grading Beth. Furthermore, if you wrote a complete sentence, you were guaranteed 8 points. Should we talk about grade inflation now? Btw, good piece of parody/criticism there of Andy's methods by our favorite parodist. --Shagie 01:55, 2 November 2008 (EDT)

Nice research! Tomorrow, when I can once again edit the trusworthy 'cyclopedia, maybe I will chine in once again about "yellow submarines". Thanks for the coolness, Shagie. ħuman 01:05, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I did a similar analysis of another AmHisHW with similar results. The grading is impossibly easy, and largely arbitrary. Most teachers have a rubric: x points for saying this phrase, y for saying that phrase, and so on, but I think Andy reads each one individually and decides what it's worth, more like rating a Netflix movie ("I liked it but it wasn't perfect so... 4 stars [-2 points]"). JazzMan 01:10, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, but if he had anything like that kind of standard, he'd be a decent teacher and we wouldn't be having this conversation. :S ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:22, 2 November 2008 (EST)

To be fair, Bethany didn't just neglect to mention the date, she got it just plain wrong, and by a significant amount. She certainly deserved at least one off for that. By anyone else's standards she probably deserved more than 4 off, but using Andy's grading practices one seems like it would be standard. Two isn't much out of the range of his regular patterns. I wouldn't put this down as punishment yet. DickTurpis 11:32, 2 November 2008 (EST)