Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive88
How much?[edit]
How much proof does Conservapedia need before they hammer an obvious parodist? I mean really. The true Irony here is that had Andy not been his paranoid, refuse to admit I'm wrong self, this wouldn't be an issue. He won't promote anyone else to Admin status, and the Admins he has a incompetant to the point of hilarity. Ken is way too busy sac-tickling the gays and monitering his Google ratings, Ed is doing... whatever creepy thing Ed wants to do and Andy himself is going through Obama's garbarge looking for proof of him being a muslim. As it stands, the only people I can remember actually trying to build a decent encyclopedia are HelpJazz, who Andy won't promote because of his political leanings. Tim, who's been MIA for months and PJR, who at least tries to do something, but even he's screwing himself into the ground over evolution.... I think CP has reached a real crossroad here. If they continue how they are, they're doomed to collapse under the weight of the massive parody and vandalism, but if Andy makes an executive decision for once in his life, and takes it back over, they might have a chance to rebuild. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 15:17, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- The only way for CP to have any credibility at all is if he gave the keys to HSmom or someone similar and gave her carte blanche to do whatever she liked, and to hire and fire sysops as she saw fit. PJR would probably stay on staff since loony as he is about evolution and related subjects, there's nothing too bad about him otherwise. Andy himself could have a namespace all his own to put whatever "Liberal brickbats", etc. he liked, and all would be well. Unlikely to ever happen in a million years (or 6000, if you're a creationist), though. --Kels 16:02, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Andy depends on not putting his "Liberals = Evil" essays into a new namespace because he wants to sell them as encyclopedic fact. And no way would he let anybody else decide which sysop to fire. --Sid 16:16, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Andy would have to burn the entire power structure down to get any change done. And doing so would cost him people who agree with at least some of his radical views. Or do you seriously think that Ed or Ken would stay if they were de-sysop'd for being idiots who simply abuse their status to enforce their views?
- No, I think that Andy wasted his long-term chances back during the first year. The months after the first blog rush defined CP's core, and Andy decided to give the biggest nutjobs (like Ken, Ed, Kara, etc.) ultimate power while driving off anybody who doesn't like his views, no matter how valid their points were. The rules are also engineered for this situation (especially 90/10 and the fact that sysops not only are above the rules, but can also make up new rules on the fly).
- So really, any non-groundbreaking change Andy makes now would only be a short-term patch with no actual result. --Sid 16:12, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Now you see it - now you don't![edit]
Ken's talk page magically got purged again. Guess which recent discussion is miraculously missing in the recreated version... --Sid 15:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
More copyright violations[edit]
The Terms of Use at http://www.britannica.com are quite clear. But that doesn't stop Ken from using [1] to decorate articles on atheism and the Marquis de Sade. Probably too commonplace to be WIGO-worthy. Gauss 15:49, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- It may be commonplace, but we get some interesting details... --LArron 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Okay, aside from the obvious stupidity of equating a hundred year old painting with the photograph of that painting, is the Andy who just said swiping from Brittania is fine the same one who wrote point 118 here? --Kels 19:07, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Yep. It's one of his weirder 180° spins. He ranted on and on about how Wikipedia kickstarted itself by importing a bunch of public domain articles... and later started his copy-pasting sprees from government sites, claiming that it's totally okay, even without attribution. --Sid 19:11, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- For what it is worth, I dropped a message in the contact section of the image library's website. --Shagie 20:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Yep. It's one of his weirder 180° spins. He ranted on and on about how Wikipedia kickstarted itself by importing a bunch of public domain articles... and later started his copy-pasting sprees from government sites, claiming that it's totally okay, even without attribution. --Sid 19:11, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Okay, aside from the obvious stupidity of equating a hundred year old painting with the photograph of that painting, is the Andy who just said swiping from Brittania is fine the same one who wrote point 118 here? --Kels 19:07, 7 November 2008 (EST)
If in doubt...[edit]
...revert EVERYTHING. Including things such as adding cp:Evangelist to the category "Christians". --Sid 18:07, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I must have missed something, I'm assuming they did the whole edit pages to spell out a message vandalism, but what did it say? SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 18:55, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I kinda doubt it. The contribs list doesn't look overly suspicious to me, and only two articles were deleted, so you don't have that many wildcards for letters. I think it was a case of trying to hide category wandalism in a flood of okay edits. Andy maybe just happened to pick one of the wandal edits for his random sampling. See for example here. But I dunno for sure since I only sampled a few edits myself. --Sid 19:09, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Look at their contribs, not the reversion list. The earliest edits spell out CONSERVAPEDIA IS A HIT. Who knows what it said if there were some deletions/recreations to clean it up. Oh, cripes sake, this is from mid September folks. This is the one that PJR managed to selectively "fix" by careful choice of deletions, we even congratulated him for the slick reverse pwnage. I suspect the "missing" letters are an S and an E. ħuman
22:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, it used to say CONSERVAPEDIA IS A CROCK OF SHIT, but he used oversight or whatever it's called to make it say CONSERVAPEDIA IS A HIT instead. I'm unable to make any letters from the latest contribs, but it's got to be something. Or, maybe Andy finally got responsible for once and looked at someone's contributions and block log and axed them for their past wandalism art.
NorsemanCyser Melomel 22:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, it used to say CONSERVAPEDIA IS A CROCK OF SHIT, but he used oversight or whatever it's called to make it say CONSERVAPEDIA IS A HIT instead. I'm unable to make any letters from the latest contribs, but it's got to be something. Or, maybe Andy finally got responsible for once and looked at someone's contributions and block log and axed them for their past wandalism art.
- Look at their contribs, not the reversion list. The earliest edits spell out CONSERVAPEDIA IS A HIT. Who knows what it said if there were some deletions/recreations to clean it up. Oh, cripes sake, this is from mid September folks. This is the one that PJR managed to selectively "fix" by careful choice of deletions, we even congratulated him for the slick reverse pwnage. I suspect the "missing" letters are an S and an E. ħuman
- I kinda doubt it. The contribs list doesn't look overly suspicious to me, and only two articles were deleted, so you don't have that many wildcards for letters. I think it was a case of trying to hide category wandalism in a flood of okay edits. Andy maybe just happened to pick one of the wandal edits for his random sampling. See for example here. But I dunno for sure since I only sampled a few edits myself. --Sid 19:09, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I must have missed something, I'm assuming they did the whole edit pages to spell out a message vandalism, but what did it say? SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 18:55, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Well, much as I'd love to keep you all guessing... Yes, Sid has it right. Melisande's revival was only due to the post-election closing of registration; I had to go back to the unbanned sock drawer. There's no secret message this time. The funny edits were Edmund Scarborough, Fillmore!, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Oral tradition. Some of the others, like adding cp:Burr conspiracy to cp:Category:American History, were sort of "gentle humor", if you see what I mean. But basically it was all a big smoke screen to try to sneak Sean Hannity into cp:Category:Tools. Which I should have known wouldn't work; Andy probably has the high-value targets on his watchlist. --Marty 22:58, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Sarcasm[edit]
I got banned for "sarcasm." I haven't seen that one yet. Only a three day ban, but WTF? -CP's EternalCritic
- Sarcasm blocks are an oooooooold rule/tradition and only happen once in a while. Congrats, you got a Rare Block. :P Disclaimer: I'm not claiming that I'm the first one to get a sarcasm block, but I think I was definitely one of the first, and most likely the first to get such a warning. --Sid 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Heh, yeah, Poopie Ed once blocked me for "anti-project snark" for like a day or so. ħuman 22:30, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Heh, yeah, Poopie Ed once blocked me for "anti-project snark" for like a day or so. ħuman
- Three days - that's lenient! At the moment, there are eleven editors banned for at least five years for sarcasm:
| No. | editor | block-reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bananapants | sarcastic vandalism |
| 2 | Baruch | Injecting Liberal POV/Sarcasm. Bye. |
| 3 | BungleJanny | obvious sarcastic vandal |
| 4 | CaeserOct | apparent sarcasm |
| 5 | DarrenSmyth | sarcasm and insulting feebs |
| 6 | David Spart | continuous sarcastic articles |
| 7 | JDB7484 | sarcastic nonsense |
| 8 | LordFountlery | inappropriate sarcasm |
| 9 | Ms Sensorital | sarcastic vandalism |
| 10 | Touchedbyabear | warned; silly and sarcastic edits, combinedwith silly user id name; account recreation with new name allowed |
| 11 | Whosedunit | Unsupportable sarcasm |
--LArron 03:44, 8 November 2008 (EST)
A lot of really sensible names there. David (Dave) Spart is a character from Private Eye magazine who adopts an extreme left-wing Socialist Worker style rant that often goes round in circles and ends up contradicting his original premise. Lily Ta, wack! 04:20, 8 November 2008 (EST)
The pain!![edit]
just accused someone of selective quotation. I think my head just exploded! --Kels 18:58, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, he is the master, so he can surely judge the skills of others at doing this? ħuman 01:03, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, he is the master, so he can surely judge the skills of others at doing this? ħuman
- That discussion is beyond giving me headaches. Or maybe I'm finally becoming detached enough from that place to simply smile at the complete trollfest Ken is having there. --Sid 19:03, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- ...reading over that page again, I finally realized why the last few strips of "College Roomies from Hell!!!" (that strip, plus the two after that) looked so damn familiar. Hmmmm... --Sid 19:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm not making a lot of headway over there. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 19:59, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Poor thing. but once you said you were no longer xian (wasn't that you?) you were DOOMMEEDD whahahahahahahah ROTINHELL and all that. ;-) my first and only sock was blockd for a month, just cause i said Ed was a meanie. ;-) course, i think andy clearly doesn't like girls. how HSmom has survived is beyond me.--
En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 20:27, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- No. It was I who said that I was no longer a follower of the greatest lie ever told. I believe it was on the Obama talk page. I got banned for something totally unrelated and utterly incomprehensible. I didn't even know I was banned until I saw a note on here that linked to someone who said I'd been. Don't they usually tell you or something? EternalCritic 01:18, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Poor thing. but once you said you were no longer xian (wasn't that you?) you were DOOMMEEDD whahahahahahahah ROTINHELL and all that. ;-) my first and only sock was blockd for a month, just cause i said Ed was a meanie. ;-) course, i think andy clearly doesn't like girls. how HSmom has survived is beyond me.--
- I'm not making a lot of headway over there. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 19:59, 7 November 2008 (EST)
A peek in Andy's brain[edit]
The edit in which Andy removes the section on Obama's ties to an Irish terrorist gives us a rare chance to examine the hierarchy of Andy's moronic things he believes. There are certain "truths" Andy knows to be true, but what happens when they contradict each other? Which prevails? Here we have fact 1: Obama is in league with terrorists. Fact 2: Terrorists are exclusively Muslim (or at least not Christian, maybe atheist). But here we have Obama associating with a terrorist who is Christian. Which will win out? In this case, he clearly went with the Christians cannot be terrorists fact, and hence removed the reference from the article. So defending Christians is more important than smearing Obama. Now we know. DickTurpis 21:27, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- (edit conflicted) Yeah -what reason has Andy got in his fucked up head that can rationalise his removal of what seems to be a well-referenced jab at Obama, while leaving behind the vast tomes of totally unreferenced hogwash and parodic vandalism that litter the Obama article? The suggestions that the man has really lost it are clearly true. He never did have any internal consistency in his arguments, but here's a prime opportunity to make hay, and he's turning it down as "silly and inappropriate?". Bonkers, I tells ya. DogP 21:28, 7 November 2008 (EST
- As it was American Catholics (isn't Andy American and Catholic?) who largely funded the IRA, it's not surprising that he removed the Obama/Rita O'Hare piece. I do like the quotes around "terrorism" though! and butter 21:30, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Andy has often shown sympathy for Irish republican terrorism. Funnily enough he has also shown sympathy for Ian Paisley. I have a sneaking suspicion he doesn't understand that they are on opposite sides! It's all symptomatic of AndyWorldTM where everyone is either completely good or completely bad. Ian Paisley is an ultra-conservative christian, therefore he is completely good. Republican terrorists fought against British imperialism like in the American war of independence, therefore Republican terrorists are completely good (plus they have the word Republican in their name for bonus good). The fact that they would happily kill each other is irrelevant. Matt 21:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- It was exactly that hierarchy I thought of when I posted the WiGO on it. Andy's a screwed up boy, mama Schlafly did a good job in really messing up his brain. --Kels 21:44, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Have sympathy for his poor, simple mind. It must be so difficult to parse a situation where two set of Christians, who are automatically right and moral in everything they do, are disagreeing about something. Worse still, violently disagreeing. I guess the solution is to declare one or more parties as non-Christian to make the equation satisfiable. (BTW, once again the advertising at the bottom of the screen is scaring me. Now it wants me to search ebay for "girl adoption." One shudders to think.) --JeevesMkII 21:59, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- It was exactly that hierarchy I thought of when I posted the WiGO on it. Andy's a screwed up boy, mama Schlafly did a good job in really messing up his brain. --Kels 21:44, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh my god, does his mind really work like that? It hadn't occurred to me he that might be that messed up. How does one make it through Harvard and still have that kind of view of the world? --Toiretni 22:20, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh yes. here we find Andy removing "liberal bias" from the Ian Paisley article - stuff that was inserted by Auld Nick (if that is your real name). Ironically, amongst the stuff he removed was a claim that Paisley frowns on dancing - a Muslim perhaps? And here we see Andy's take on Irish terrorism. Except the word terrorism doesn't get a mention in the context of the Irish troubles. Matt 22:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Who opened up Andy's Brainz in here??? Gawd, that smells awful, stick it back in the pot and bury it, it can't be ripe yet... ħuman 22:36, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I like how he removes it all as "unsupported liberal bias", including the bit about Paisley seeing the Pope as the Antichrist, supported by Paisley himself. Dreaded Walrus 04:39, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- You've got to love a guy who is willing to potentially upset a lot of men (by typing Irish "terrorism") who have might have carried out their share of kneecappings. It wasn't that he didn't just pick one side to annoy, but both Loyalist and Republican groups at the same time. Eeeech. stunteddwarf 03:53 08/Nov/08
- I believe that the Andy that went to Harvard is a different beast to the one that runs Conservapedia. His failure as a lawyer with AT&T probably caused severe embarrassment and damaged his self-esteem which forced him to make some life-style changes. This is probably when he got mixed up with the evangelicals and decided against an old Earth and evolution which he said that he used to believe in. However, that stuff doesn't just disappear overnight and it's only from a prolonged period of reaffirmation that he's embraced the whole spectrum of religious fundamentalism. Although Mommy helped him out he probably had to reciprocate by doing stuff for her Eagle Forum. I suspect that it was the EF that got him going on teaching and activism. I mean, why would a qualified engineer and lawyer think of going into homeschooling in a church basement was a good career move unless he had no choice? He keeps up his lawyering with a retainer from the AAPS (a sinecure probably obtained through a little help from Queen Phyllis) and maintains the facade of being a lawyer by trying to make CP a repository for supreme court cases. This project appears to have taken a back seat now that he has had to start cobbling course material together and marking papers (in the loosest sense of the term). You would think that with his engineering background he'd be teaching physics and maths as well, but apart from announcing his "Critical Thinking in Math" course he doesn't appear to have done much and he has hardly set CP alight with a raft of mathematics or physics articles. I wouldn't be surprised if he's waiting for Ed Poor to finish the maths articles before he embarks on his course but as this appears to be a "don't hold your breath" he's had to postpone it. Lily Ta, wack! 04:12, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I've always firmly believed that the psychological dichotomy that Phyllis Schlafly represents fully explains just how Andy's brain works these days. Given the incompatibilty bewteen Physalis' message and her lifestyle it's hardly a surprise that poor old Andy shuts out facts, new ideas and the real world, they're all just too dangerous. stunteddwarf 23:35 8/Nov/08 GMT
- I believe that the Andy that went to Harvard is a different beast to the one that runs Conservapedia. His failure as a lawyer with AT&T probably caused severe embarrassment and damaged his self-esteem which forced him to make some life-style changes. This is probably when he got mixed up with the evangelicals and decided against an old Earth and evolution which he said that he used to believe in. However, that stuff doesn't just disappear overnight and it's only from a prolonged period of reaffirmation that he's embraced the whole spectrum of religious fundamentalism. Although Mommy helped him out he probably had to reciprocate by doing stuff for her Eagle Forum. I suspect that it was the EF that got him going on teaching and activism. I mean, why would a qualified engineer and lawyer think of going into homeschooling in a church basement was a good career move unless he had no choice? He keeps up his lawyering with a retainer from the AAPS (a sinecure probably obtained through a little help from Queen Phyllis) and maintains the facade of being a lawyer by trying to make CP a repository for supreme court cases. This project appears to have taken a back seat now that he has had to start cobbling course material together and marking papers (in the loosest sense of the term). You would think that with his engineering background he'd be teaching physics and maths as well, but apart from announcing his "Critical Thinking in Math" course he doesn't appear to have done much and he has hardly set CP alight with a raft of mathematics or physics articles. I wouldn't be surprised if he's waiting for Ed Poor to finish the maths articles before he embarks on his course but as this appears to be a "don't hold your breath" he's had to postpone it. Lily Ta, wack! 04:12, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- You've got to love a guy who is willing to potentially upset a lot of men (by typing Irish "terrorism") who have might have carried out their share of kneecappings. It wasn't that he didn't just pick one side to annoy, but both Loyalist and Republican groups at the same time. Eeeech. stunteddwarf 03:53 08/Nov/08
- Who opened up Andy's Brainz in here??? Gawd, that smells awful, stick it back in the pot and bury it, it can't be ripe yet... ħuman
- Oh yes. here we find Andy removing "liberal bias" from the Ian Paisley article - stuff that was inserted by Auld Nick (if that is your real name). Ironically, amongst the stuff he removed was a claim that Paisley frowns on dancing - a Muslim perhaps? And here we see Andy's take on Irish terrorism. Except the word terrorism doesn't get a mention in the context of the Irish troubles. Matt 22:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Andy has often shown sympathy for Irish republican terrorism. Funnily enough he has also shown sympathy for Ian Paisley. I have a sneaking suspicion he doesn't understand that they are on opposite sides! It's all symptomatic of AndyWorldTM where everyone is either completely good or completely bad. Ian Paisley is an ultra-conservative christian, therefore he is completely good. Republican terrorists fought against British imperialism like in the American war of independence, therefore Republican terrorists are completely good (plus they have the word Republican in their name for bonus good). The fact that they would happily kill each other is irrelevant. Matt 21:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Obama Youth[edit]
Andy seems to think there is a possibility that Obama's 'mind control' tactics to win the election will cause the atrocities of a 1930's - 1940's Germany. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 22:39, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Man, you think a sick little shit like that would have hit rock bottom, but he's gotten out the jackhammer and started to dig. --Kels 22:46, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- He's describing himself, literally. Did he just forget the whole chivalry embarrassment just a few days ago? HAAAAA! NorsemanCyser Melomel 22:49, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- He's describing himself, literally. Did he just forget the whole chivalry embarrassment just a few days ago? HAAAAA!
- Andy's working hard on moving the goalposts for the parodists at least. Gotta keep'em on their toes! First the IRA thing, and now this. Will the parodists keep up? ...and wouldn't this mean that the Hitler pic now finally qualifies for inclusion in their Obama "article"? Oh, Keeee~eeeen... --Sid 22:53, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh, this is brilliant: "Guys, your knee-jerk defense of Obama's government mind-control program for youth only illustrates how dangerous it is. As to Craig, rest assured that a 21st century type of Hitler would adapt to 21st century culture, and not announce his goals in a book for all to see on the internet."
- Yes, Andy. Because the 20th century was all about announcing your evil plans in books. And nobody saw that book, of course. They only, like, found it afterwards and went all "Oh crap, if only we had read this book before WW2!" (A 21st century Hitler would use Twitter of course. :P) And government mind-control program? However will the parodists keep up with THAT? Or maybe I'm thinking in the wrong direction - they can simply disable all their "Am I pushing it too far?" checks and just go wild now. --Sid 23:00, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Fuck. Andy is well and truly a sick puppy. This may be the most offensive thing he's done yet--crap on the graves of Holocaust victims in order to further demonize Obama. Sick. And bothersome on a number of levels--there are lots of things you could attack Obama for, policy-wise and other-wise (just like any politician). by sinking well past the lowest common denominator, Andy makes it look like the legit criticisms are equally full-of-shit....PFoster 23:06, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- Cheapening the Holocaust is a Conservative thing, it would seem. --Kels 23:32, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- The Holocaust can be passed off as typical hyperbole. Godwin's Law just about predicts that both sides will resort to it. But mind control?? That's uniquely crazy Andy. --Toiretni 23:46, 7 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm also finding it funny (in the have to laugh so I won't cry sense) that these are the same people who vehemently deny that the things that right wingers say can have any effect on behaviour at all. But they're all too willing to buy into Obama and his mind control. --Kels 23:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)
(unindent) Does anyone else find it not only highly ironic but also a little scary that the views espoused on CP and from the far-right in general (religious fervor, patriotism, emphasis on "character over knowledge", distinct anti-science views, etc) are nearly identical in content and often form to the Italian Fascists and Nazis. I was reading the documents of Mussolini and Hitler for a class, and it struck me that the vast majority of what those two said, I have heard on CP before. And yet they turn around and use fear of Hitler as a weapon:).--Thinker 00:34, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Gee, you noticed, too? ħuman 01:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Yep, it's why we have an overworked workshop especially for repairing broken irony meters. So, did anyone add old Andy boy to Dickipedia? Surely this kind of thing has to qualify him. ArmondikoVnarchist 13:03, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- It disappoints me that someone has not yet found a way to Hitlerize the Obama article and make it stick. If we could get the Obama Youth jibe to stick (damn you PJR!), we could add the old Adolf Ranting picture. Ideally in the first paragraph. DogP 13:17, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Um, wind Ken up into doing it for you? Tell him that what the Obama article really needs is a coupla sections on Obama Displays The Following Non-Biblical Views In Regards To Questions of Homosexuality/The Theory of Evolution. A locked article with a Hitler pic at the top is yours for the taking. Robledo 13:37, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Great idea. Obama did, after all, specifically mention gays in his victory speech... ħuman 13:55, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Great idea. Obama did, after all, specifically mention gays in his victory speech... ħuman
- Um, wind Ken up into doing it for you? Tell him that what the Obama article really needs is a coupla sections on Obama Displays The Following Non-Biblical Views In Regards To Questions of Homosexuality/The Theory of Evolution. A locked article with a Hitler pic at the top is yours for the taking. Robledo 13:37, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- It disappoints me that someone has not yet found a way to Hitlerize the Obama article and make it stick. If we could get the Obama Youth jibe to stick (damn you PJR!), we could add the old Adolf Ranting picture. Ideally in the first paragraph. DogP 13:17, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Such a sad story[edit]
He's only gonna break your heart, kid. --Kels 00:23, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, but he's probably one of us, or some slashdotter, or a visitor from anywhere sane out there. Andy would be well off keeping his guard up when some outsider wants to be an "admin". After all, look what happened with Ed Poverty, Ken and his Dolls, Popeye the Sailor, etc... Andschlrew has his hands full already not caring! ħuman 01:16, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, it tongue's schlafly's arse just about enough, but they'll never give powers to anyone who isn't an obsessive nutjob and that can actually write coherently. ArmondikoVnarchist 13:01, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Did Conservapedia go off the deep end recently?[edit]
Or was it always this bad? I first created an account there back in the summer of 2008 just to discuss the site with its users. Sure, it still had a strong bias from what I saw of it, but Aschafly and other users were actually discussing my disagreements with me in a civil manner and didn't just ban my account as far as I know. I came back a few weeks ago, and now it pretty much looks like anyone who disagrees with Andy or the contents of any of the articles is immediately perm banned without discussion or a real reason even being given (e.g. "Inappropriate edit to Obama article"). Has this gotten worse over the years, or was it always this bad? (Maybe I was just lucky with my first account).--ParisianBlade 02:43, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- We've been saying this since RW was founded and I think it is true. The place is going downhill and I think it shows just how successful the insurgents have been. Andy has developed paranoia and groupthink to an advanced level. Only PJR of the established editors has the cojones to actually question his loony rantings. The problem is that when you surround yourself with sycophants you eventually to get delusions of grandeur and infallibility. I think the great Danish philopsopher
Søren KierkegaardHans-Christian Andersen portrayed it brilliantly in his fable of The Emperor's New Clothes (with Bugler being one of the swindling tailors). Will Bethany be the one to see him as naked? Lily Ta, wack! 03:13, 8 November 2008 (EST)- I vandalized two of the articles on Conservapedia and wasn't banned. no comment 03:18, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- CP is becoming crazier every day, yes. Most of the sysops roughly remain at their level of craziness (on average at least; PJR for example developed a healthy lack of respect for Andy's wild claims while Ed and Ken became a bit more unhinged with the Anti-Math Crusade and the Must-Insert-Hitler Spree), but Andy is spiraling more and more into the crazy territory. Maybe it's because the parodists make him believe that he finally succeeded in attracting people who fully agree with him, or maybe it's something else, but it's noticeable. He went from "Liberals are Bad" to "Liberals are Evil Incarnate" to "Professors and Hollywood are all Evil Liberals (except for the conservative ones, of course)" to "Lenski WTF" to "I shall disprove evolution by claiming that autumn leaves are pretty" to "Obama is the new Hitler who uses Mind Control", so yeah, he's dragging the place down. --Sid 06:54, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- When I first started following CP, during the very first, and largest, blogburst, I was expecting it to be very Karl Rove in nature, with a lot of swift boating and general lies couched by relatively reasonable material to make it more believable. What I found was more along the lines of Bill O'Reilly, heading towards Ann Coulter, with more outright insanity that nobody who wasn't already a True Believer would really follow. It still had some verneer of sanity back then, but it was patchy and thin, and easy to see the rot underneath. But by now, between the parodists that Andy lets run rampant, the corrupt sysops, and the raving insanity of Andy himself, they seem to be aiming more for Little Green Footballs: The Wiki.
- And that's just terrible. --Kels 09:11, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Apart from his "lectures" [sic] Andy and the clique of sysops have totally removed themselves from any pretence at creating an encyclopedia and are now using the
blogwiki as a propaganda machine. and butter 09:19, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Apart from his "lectures" [sic] Andy and the clique of sysops have totally removed themselves from any pretence at creating an encyclopedia and are now using the
- I rarely have read anything other than what has been linked from RW. But in the last week or so, I've checked out what's happening on their main page talk. The places is about 90% parodists. The others either ignore it or don't get it. It's an amazing thing that anything actually gets done. -Lardashe
- I have this fantasy that Andy's really rebelling against his mother and the state his life got to by single-handedly trying to discredit the entire Conservative movement with a deliberately crazy wiki, but it's more likely that he's a loser nutcase who thinks this is a documentary. --Kels 10:16, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- The pages don't even load for me today at all, blank white pages galore!
- His blog-site would be so much better if Andy just grabbed his pants and lifted them up in a comical fashion that he's ready to do some serious work, and put his sysops in place and the parodists out to pasture. He refuses to do so, so CP's downfall isn't because of clever wandalism or parody, its 100% his fault for doing jack shit about it. And at that note, time to sip some of my new brew. NorsemanCyser Melomel 11:01, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I think one of the reasons CP is doomed to failure is that they run all the intelligent conservatives off. Imagine a Mac vs. PC type of debate:
- I have this fantasy that Andy's really rebelling against his mother and the state his life got to by single-handedly trying to discredit the entire Conservative movement with a deliberately crazy wiki, but it's more likely that he's a loser nutcase who thinks this is a documentary. --Kels 10:16, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Conservative: Obama's plan for Iraq is short-sighted and pandering. Schlafly: That's because he's an evil Muslim. Conservative: Muslim? I don't see any evidence of that. Schlafly: I see they've gotten to you, too. Conservative: Um, at any rate, Obama's economic policies won't work. Schlafly: Of course, not. He's a socialist. Conservative: Socialist? I don't think so. It's just that his liberal policies... Schlafly: Liberal policies like Josef Stalin. I think we can all agree that Obama is the next Hilter. Conservative: Now hang on, that's a bit harsh. Schlafly: Okay, you're banned for life, liberal. Godspeed. Czolgolz 18:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)
New template[edit]
I think we should add it to every article about evolution. Barraki 13:46, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- "Hitler's pictures"? Shouldn't that be "pictures of Hitler"? Or "Hitler pictures"? ħuman 13:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- That... is awesome. But it should be "pictures of hitler" EternalCritic 13:57, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- And it should be "moar" Stile4aly 15:54, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- That... is awesome. But it should be "pictures of hitler" EternalCritic 13:57, 8 November 2008 (EST)
New user[edit]
How long will this new user last? Proxima Centauri 14:01, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- 30 minutes.. not bad. I am better. Candlewick 14:13, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Dude, you edited IN spelling errors? :P NorsemanCyser Melomel 18:26, 8 November 2008 (EST) Karajou unblocked you too!
- Dude, you edited IN spelling errors? :P
They’re suffering an invasion at the moment. The new users have names like, T.Paper and BoyfriendOfSchlafly. Doesn’t Schlafly like his boyfriend? I‘d guess it’s all the same person with a dynamic IP or a proxy. While the enemy is dealing with this it’s fun to watch. Proxima Centauri 14:18, 8 November 2008 (EST)
T.Paper's contribution to the article on paper. Proxima Centauri 14:27, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- "I am better." I think Kettle's cheating. Blocked and unblocked twice — it's like he has some kind of in with the Schlaflys! :S
- Unrelatedly, though, I'd like to know whether there's a story behind this username. "GbobDojesuschristle"? No contributions, yet blocked within one minute by Buggler as Idiot and rascal. Way to go, whoever you were. --Marty 02:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I assume some other group has got wind of conservapedia and started on it, RW tends to be far more intelligent about teh wandalism... ... okay, maybe not. ArmondikoVnarchist 10:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Pretty quick turnaround[edit]
Not unexpected, but the whiplash some of those Conservatives must get switching from "you cannot criticize the President, you must respect the office" to "President Obama? I don't owe him a damn thing, and he's a dirty muslim besides" should keep chiropracters in clover for years to come. --Kels 16:05, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, that one surprised me, too. The entire "George W. Bush is the President! Elected by the people, for the people! He represents the will of this country! You must respect him, and we shall report no bad about him!" concept suddenly became some sort "Yeah, who's this 'President' guy, anyway? Only liberals care about status while we conservatives don't give a damn about some bloke sitting in some white house." trollfest.
- If anything, I somehow expected conservatives to, you know, stick to their values and traditions and just bend the side rules a bit to dress up their smears as "We keep the President accountable for his actions!". But Andy's attitude, combined with Ken's "Yeah, we don't need any of this Tradition bullshit" posts, really shows that all that talk about respecting old values and traditions is... well... just talk.
- By now, I fully expect Andy to refer to Obama as "Senator Obama", "'Professor' Obama", "Muslim Obama", "Barack Hussein Obama" or just plain "Obama", even after he officially becomes President. I honestly don't think he has the integrity to refer to him as "President Obama" at any point. --Sid 22:16, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Hey, if they HATE AMERICA (tm, GOP), they can just LEAVE. (But where could they go?) --Gulik 18:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)
If not now, then when? If not this, then what?[edit]
Alright, my hat is off to whomever is using mock-Ken edits and pictures of Hitler and Stalin and Andy and an oxen-drawn cart to ridicule CP. That's some nice work. My question is: if THAT doesn't convince Andy that 1: Ken is ruining his little project and 2: he needs to SERIOUSLY re-tool the wiki, only let approved editors contribute and possibly scrub it and start from a tabula rasa, then can anything get to him? PFoster 16:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- He'll outright ignore it. If it spills over to his talk page, rearguard will allow him to avoid any involvement. NorsemanCyser Melomel 16:52, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I reckon the only person that could get him to clean house is Mommy dearest. If CP became such an embarrassment that it started affecting her (profitable) Eagle Forum activities, then we might see some action. It's way too obscure for that to happen at the moment, though, so it'll probably just continue dying its current slow and painful death. --Robledo 17:06, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Here it is. Aziraphale 18:48, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Dawkins defeats Hitler[edit]
Ok, so any bets on who leaned on Ken
? He certainly didn't do this of his own free will. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:29, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Eh, it probably was his idea. Follow the history for a bit, it's in line with his usual style. Put something inflammatory like that up for a couple of days, then change it around, then put something else new, and so forth. All part of his usual SEO efforts, and regular style of changing a perfectly average hit piece by a bunch of cranks to a totally unreadable shitpile. By a bunch of cranks. --Kels 17:42, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- (ec) Well, it's hardly a concession (or suggestive of a sane hacker). The Hitler image is still viewable from the top of the page, and Dawkins' exact same "quotation" is now used twice in the same section. 131.111.8.99 17:44, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I disagree. If you have ever tried to debate something with Ken you would know that a brick wall is more open to compromise and since this one (Dawkins actual picture on top and Hitler's below) has been proposed by several people on the talk page it is a big concession on Ken's part. Remember he is a very small man when it comes to this type of thing. --BoredCPer 17:50, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I agree with Kels. It's pretty much the pattern. Remember when he first started playing with the Hitler pictures a month or two back? He had a pic of Hitler on the front page for a few days, then took it down, then wrote us a message promising it would be back again some day. At the time some of us wondered if he'd been told to take it down, same as now. I think it's just part of his OCD to constantly make minor changes to whatever articles he's highjacked, including moving the pics around & revising the captions repeatedly. weaseLOId
~ 17:56, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I agree with Kels. It's pretty much the pattern. Remember when he first started playing with the Hitler pictures a month or two back? He had a pic of Hitler on the front page for a few days, then took it down, then wrote us a message promising it would be back again some day. At the time some of us wondered if he'd been told to take it down, same as now. I think it's just part of his OCD to constantly make minor changes to whatever articles he's highjacked, including moving the pics around & revising the captions repeatedly. weaseLOId
- It also keeps people talking about the article, which he thinks helps his Google rank or something. When he put Hitler on the evolution (or Darwin, I forget) article, it was the same thing, and then he took it off. And then back on. Then in a different place. Then back to the top but a different Hitler pic. And on and on, same old stuff. I expect it's the same thing again, probably part of some Operation Pantsload or something. --Kels 18:02, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- It keeps things in view, just like adding a period to his "Gentlemen" articles at intervals. He's an attention whore, when all's said and done. and butter 18:04, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I haven't participated in any boycotts here (because I don't think they have much effect), but boycotting Ken might actually be one I'd support. --Toiretni 18:29, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- This response after being asked for the nth time to use the preview button is pretty good. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 19:32, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I haven't participated in any boycotts here (because I don't think they have much effect), but boycotting Ken might actually be one I'd support. --Toiretni 18:29, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- It keeps things in view, just like adding a period to his "Gentlemen" articles at intervals. He's an attention whore, when all's said and done. and butter 18:04, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- It also keeps people talking about the article, which he thinks helps his Google rank or something. When he put Hitler on the evolution (or Darwin, I forget) article, it was the same thing, and then he took it off. And then back on. Then in a different place. Then back to the top but a different Hitler pic. And on and on, same old stuff. I expect it's the same thing again, probably part of some Operation Pantsload or something. --Kels 18:02, 8 November 2008 (EST)
Hmmm...don't know if anyone's seen it, but this admission is rather revealing. Now by looking back at old forum posts, Ken's always been a bit off anyway, but would this account for some of his recent behaviour, which is erratic even by his standards? Like tonight's fun of spamming people's talk pages, including people who have been inactive for the past year with that bizarre image and quote? Food for thought. --Kels 22:16, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Image backup for the admission. --Sid 08:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Kenny has a new toy!!!![edit]
It's a cute little picture about a professor getting knocked out by evilution! Ken's just spent about an hour pasting it on everyone's talk page - but oops! They all have spelling errors!-caius (soldier) 22:10, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, that's just fucking SUPERB. Now he's off to correct each and every one of them, one by one. What a fucking twat. DogP 22:14, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm really beginning to wonder what's wrong inside that head of his. Asperger's would make sense to a degree, including the poor social skills, ignoring arguments and obsessive studying of a narrow field, and being caught by creationists would help explain the basic stupidity. But is anyone else thinking that he's been way weirder than usual the past month or two? --Kels 22:21, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Does anyone think that we might be mocking someone who's not responsible? The more he says and the more he does, the more I think he's "not all there" so to speak. and butter 22:24, 8 November 2008 (EST) (Edit conflict, by the way)
- Well, we've kinda been over this stuff before. Fact remains, Ken's an adult who functions in the world and deliberately puts himself in the line of fire, so I see no reason to hold back in that regard. I'm thinking though, if he's actually being honest about having sleep deprivation recently, it goes a long way to explaining some of his more bizarre recent actions. --Kels 22:35, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- If he knows he is sleep deprived, he shouldn't edit on an encyclopedia. In that condition, he's likely to make mistakes he or others will have to hunt down later, and his behavior obviously causes concern, aggravation and friction (in the social sense, not the dry-humping one). What's next? "Oh, it's okay. I was just drunk when I wrote that. I'll proofread my fifteen thousand edits once I'm sober again... sometime next month maybe." Really, it's not Quantum Physics. Sleep deprivation should be a sign not to edit, not an excuse for aggravating the last few people on CP who still give a damn. --Sid 22:47, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Yes, I get extra hypocrisy points for posting the above at 4.47am local time. :P But at least I just stick to this talk page - and I still make more sense than most CP sysops. Food for thought, gentlemen at another website? --Sid 22:53, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Heh, no surprise that he ended up burning his talk page down in order to hide that little admission of his. He really hates to release any personal info, so this was a pretty huge slip. --Kels 00:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Thanks for alerting me that he burnt down his page yet again. I managed to grab a copy of it from my cache (see the section where you posted the link). And yeah, he really acts worse than some socks. Can't even make up any consistent info and instead insists that he's absolutely trustworthy when nobody knows anything about him at all. If I recally correctly, even the SDG people (including Andy) didn't know for sure who he is. --Sid 08:15, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Heh, no surprise that he ended up burning his talk page down in order to hide that little admission of his. He really hates to release any personal info, so this was a pretty huge slip. --Kels 00:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, we've kinda been over this stuff before. Fact remains, Ken's an adult who functions in the world and deliberately puts himself in the line of fire, so I see no reason to hold back in that regard. I'm thinking though, if he's actually being honest about having sleep deprivation recently, it goes a long way to explaining some of his more bizarre recent actions. --Kels 22:35, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Does anyone think that we might be mocking someone who's not responsible? The more he says and the more he does, the more I think he's "not all there" so to speak. and butter 22:24, 8 November 2008 (EST) (Edit conflict, by the way)
- I'm really beginning to wonder what's wrong inside that head of his. Asperger's would make sense to a degree, including the poor social skills, ignoring arguments and obsessive studying of a narrow field, and being caught by creationists would help explain the basic stupidity. But is anyone else thinking that he's been way weirder than usual the past month or two? --Kels 22:21, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Always keep in mind that "Conservatives don't gloat", according to Andy. More proof that Ken's actually a liberal? --Sid 22:59, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, look who, according to Koward, he was taking advice from - incidentally K has reverted all GeorgeK's Dawkins edits on the principle that they were done by a parodist rather than on their merits. Way to go Koward! and butter 06:29, 9 November 2008 (EST)
BTW, the site bible.ca he links to is - let's say - strange... Here's some marriage advise. And the incident he's gloating about took place in 1996. Any details anywhere? --LArron 08:53, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- 1994, even. Google gave me this sideline summary:
“”Don Patton, a Texas Creationist, came to do a three-day lecture series in November of 1994 at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. I attended the event and tape recorded it. The bulk of the 'scientific lectures' consisted of a collage of these greatly recycled out-of-context quotations from prominent evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould. Patton euphemistically refers to this approach as the "Hostile Witness." This tactic has angered many of their targetted scientists. (Gould, Stephen Jay, "Misquoted Scientists Respond", pp. 34-44)
|
- And the site Ken points to apparently lists many of the quotes used during the presentation (See the "Documentation (quotes)" links next to the videos), so those of you who are more familiar with the Creation/Evo debate could take a look. --Sid 09:16, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Why is it that when Ken does this, none of his victims come out and say what they must surely be thinking: I'm not in the slightest interested in that, and I'll thank you to keep your garbage off my talk page in future? --JeevesMkII 09:59, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Doing so would mean interacting with him in some way, and everybody avoids that until it's absolutely necessary. Ever noticed how almost no sysop ever fully weighs in during discussions with Ken? Look at the Dawkins talk page and article. Ed once tried to move the pic and instantly was dragged into a private conversation (Imagine being locked in a room with Ken and trying to convince him of anything... I don't really blame Ed for going all "Okay, okay, Hitler stays!" after just a few minutes.), and Henry is the only other sysop to speak up was Henry with his two one-liner posts. --Sid 10:54, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Why is it that when Ken does this, none of his victims come out and say what they must surely be thinking: I'm not in the slightest interested in that, and I'll thank you to keep your garbage off my talk page in future? --JeevesMkII 09:59, 9 November 2008 (EST)
"This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell either"[edit]
Something that may be relevant for the WIGO entry (It's past 4am here - I'm in no condition to make this call or ponder about how to include it!):
Yeah, it's highly likely that that mother doesn't teach her kid about Hell. In fact, it's likely that she's an atheist opposing classroom prayer! After all, that's why she sent her kid to Westlake Christian School! And while Andy apparently thinks that such an intense experience is totally awesome (Sideline note and disclaimer: I've been in a Concentration Camp turned into a museum. They showed us the "showers" and the ovens. It was a chilling experience, and I totally don't blame an 11-year old girl for being creeped out by some sort of "imagine YOU are in a gas chamber after your family was possibly raped or experimented on" visualization exercise.), "Cliff Melvin, Senior Pastor of Palm Harbor United Methodist Church which operates Westlake Christian School" actually quasi-sided with that mother. Hmmmmm...
If Fox returns please all be tactful about the Holocaust. He or someone he knows may have family who died in the Holocaust. Proxima Centauri 12:49, 10 November 2008 (EST)
But this really makes me wonder. Did Andy teach Phyllis like that? "Close your eyes, dear daughter, and imagine being in Hell, suffering eternal pain and torture as demons boil you alive and then tear off strips of your flesh. Can you feel the blood flowing out of your wounds? Does it hurt? But don't worry. You can't die. You are already dead." (Disclaimer: It's almost 4.30am, so I made this up on the spot without really checking for what the Bible actually thought up in regards of Eternal Suffering.) Yep, BEST DAD EVER! :D --Sid 22:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Not a ton of detail, actually. But as we all know, the Bible has a Liberal Bias. 71.194.134.131
- I once got an unsolicited message via Frakbook where some woman was preaching how it was child abuse to not teach children about hell. I think it was in response to some comment about how, lacking a real reason to be a good obedient sheep, they resort to scaring the shit out of otherwise innocent children about something that, it all ration likelyhood, isn't real. ArmondikoVnarchist 10:39, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, Andy... Andy, Andy, Andy... it's not a bad thing to admit once in a while that you made a bad move. Why set yourself up for such ownage? Seriously, this is worse than that "There is only far left and far right in politics!" gig he apparently believes in. He now implies that either you present the full force of the Holocaust with all the horrible and utterly disturbing details to an 11-year-old girl... or you deny that evil exists at all. Again, no middle ground. But then they go on and demand that CP should be family-friendly and that they shouldn't mention Bad Things because kids read the site. Does Not Compute. --Sid 11:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm just getting "Conservapedia Has a Problem"... which, IMHO, will never get old. ArmondikoVnarchist 11:18, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Pink for Girls, Blue for Boys.[edit]
The boys' and girls' exams are up. I know jack about American history--can Ames or Researcher or someone in the know tell me 1. how hard they are (they look pretty detailed, better than the homework, to be honest) and 2. which one is harder, if any? PFoster 22:58, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- The boys one is only hard insofar as it's tough to get at his motivations for each question... #21 is a good example... and that it's not really productive knowledge he's fostering. The whole "which great man said this" theme is really quite worthless-caius (soldier) 23:10, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- I'll go through them more tomorrow, thanks for posting the links. Editing to say "closed book" on an internet test? What's the point of posting it, the only way to do a closed book test is to present in a closed environment (classroom) before they've seen it. Maybe they already took it? Now he'll have to write another
onepair for next term! PS, multiple choice for "college prep" history tests is totally bogus. ħuman 23:28, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- FWIW, homeschoolers who take classes outside the home often do tests for the classes at home - no sense wasting the teacher's paid classroom time on a test, better to reserve that for lecture or tutoring. Typically, it's done on the honor system, and/or with mom serving as proctor. Seems strange for those who haven't dealt with an honor system before, but tests without teachers/proctors are not uncommon even in schools, if there is an honor system in place. --Too tired to log in 10:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Blue 5:"A cartoonist claimed that Stephen Douglas really deserved an “over the knee” spanking by all American for which of the following reasons?" Typos on tests are phail for the teacher. Srsly. ħuman 23:29, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Blue 8: "I was a "dark horse" nominee for president who then won by supporting annexation of Texas. Who am I?" ditto. ħuman 23:31, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- Pink 8: "Harriet Beech Stowe is credited with which of the following?"
Typos inMisspelling the fucking names of famous historical figures, even if they were pinks, are inexcusable. ħuman 23:32, 8 November 2008 (EST)
- My quick once over is that the multiple choice answers are in no way thought provoking or knowledge driven. the "wrong' answers are so amazingly silly, that i was able to get the 2 or 3 that i'd never heard of, correct, just by elimination. I mean, I read it like "What causes the sky to be blue" (something i know nothing about) 1) crayons, 2) water colors, 3) scientific something or other, or 4) it's isn't really blue it's orange. == though I agree with Human that some of the questions were mere opinion, and hardly realistic for a multi choice test.--En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 00:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- My quick once over is that the multiple choice answers are in no way thought provoking or knowledge driven. the "wrong' answers are so amazingly silly, that i was able to get the 2 or 3 that i'd never heard of, correct, just by elimination. I mean, I read it like "What causes the sky to be blue" (something i know nothing about) 1) crayons, 2) water colors, 3) scientific something or other, or 4) it's isn't really blue it's orange. == though I agree with Human that some of the questions were mere opinion, and hardly realistic for a multi choice test.--
- I'll go through them more tomorrow, thanks for posting the links. Editing to say "closed book" on an internet test? What's the point of posting it, the only way to do a closed book test is to present in a closed environment (classroom) before they've seen it. Maybe they already took it? Now he'll have to write another
I'd say that most of the questions are pretty reasonable. I mean, they aren't AP US History quality (being multiple-choice), but the actual questions are not bad, and I won't make fun of them. I will make fun of the fact that Andy's pink and blue tests are largely identical. The boys get 30 questions, plus 10 for honors; the girls get 29 questions, plus 7 for honors. Of those questions, 33 are shared by both tests; the boys get 7 that the girls don't, and the girls get 5 that the boys don't. One question, a quote from John Tyler, is a regular question for the girls (#29) and an honors question for the boys (#31). (I'll take that one as an example of a reasonably good question, because it requires the student to recall that Tyler was a Vice-President before becoming President. "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too." It's reasonable, trust me.) What's the point of having different tests if they're going to have basically the same questions on them, just in different orders? What's so confusing about the name of the Know-Nothing Party (#2) that you can't ask the girls that particular question? Also, I agree that misspelling "Harriet Beecher Stowe" is definitely a boo-boo. --Marty 02:37, 9 November 2008 (EST)
And regarding "I agree with Human that some of the questions were mere opinion", I'd say that some of the questions are tending toward "parrot what you were told in class last week", but I wouldn't say any are asking for an opinion; they're merely asking the student to recall something vaguely alluded to in the question. For example, girls' #20, boys' #21 is "The President who had the most difficult time handling criticism was probably:" which of the first five? I assume that Andy is looking for John Adams, because of the Sedition Act. He's not really asking the kids to speculate about Madison's home life, or what have you. --Marty 02:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Has anyone considered burning some socks by posting the answers somewhere? Preferably with "this is a bad question because..." or "these answers fail to capture the actual range of the issue?" --Shagie 17:03, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Hehe[edit]
Pink 27:
27. The Trent Affair involved which of the following:
(a) During the Jackson Administration, this scandal caused nearly all of his Cabinet to resign
(b) During the Washington Administration, this led to the Whiskey Rebellion
(c) Trent infiltrated Shays’ Rebellion and allowed it to be suppressed
(d) During the Civil War, the Union seized a British ship and arrested two Confederates
(e) During the Adams Administration, Trent was one of the “XYZ” agents
Oooh, I know I know!!! It was when one Tmtoulouse was very briefly sysopped on Conservapedia!!! ħuman 16:55, 9 November 2008 (EST)
<yackety sax>[edit]
(apologies for page stretching) --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
![[1]](http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg){kind=link}
Beyond the huge pics[edit]
Injury, meet your new best friend, Insult:
- 06:17, 9 November 2008 TerryH (Talk | contribs) unblocked BRichtigen (Talk | contribs) (From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.)
And all because BRichtigen was dumb enough to mass-revert vandalism. That'll teach him! Potential Lulz might happen in this section of TerryH's talk page, btw. --Sid 07:56, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Also, note the existence of a 1-hour period where overnight editing is allowed, and no-one appears to be on ... --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
- That's impressive damage. I assume it all got reverted. If you interspaced it with lots of sock accounts doing "genuine" edits so that they fall off the bottom of recent changes, I'm pretty sure you could have got away with a lot of those.ArmondikoVnarchist 10:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- My important, risk-taking decision... huh? Granted, the user has been blocked before, but this was clearly a a bot mistake. Usually the unblock would be fairly straightforward. Am I missing something? --Toiretni 13:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I really dunno. The next edit talks about the block as if it's a completely unrelated issue, so I have no idea WTF he's talking about there. BRichtigen also seemed to be confused, so it apparently wasn't something overly obvious... --Sid 17:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- My important, risk-taking decision... huh? Granted, the user has been blocked before, but this was clearly a a bot mistake. Usually the unblock would be fairly straightforward. Am I missing something? --Toiretni 13:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- That's impressive damage. I assume it all got reverted. If you interspaced it with lots of sock accounts doing "genuine" edits so that they fall off the bottom of recent changes, I'm pretty sure you could have got away with a lot of those.ArmondikoVnarchist 10:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Also, note the existence of a 1-hour period where overnight editing is allowed, and no-one appears to be on ... --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
- Yes, the damage was reverted, and (judging by a quick look at the contribs) the one who did the work was BRichtigen... who was also banhammered by the Guard Dog. TerryH then undid the block, but left those very odd remarks about trust on his own and BRichtigen's talk pages.
- That really highlights one of the major downfalls of the Guard Dog: Unless you're on the Whitelist, you will almost inevitably revert fast enough for the Guard Dog to ban you. And either TerryH or PJR apparently tweaked the script to increase the default banhammer time to FIVE YEARS, which always looks lovely in the block logs, especially next to a message saying that it's for suspected vandalism. --Sid 17:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)
They are so proud of their silly article about Noah and the flood.[edit]
They've featured their article on the Great Flood this week. During the Lenski affair we featured at least one Lenski article permanently as well as the normal featured article. How about featuring our Global flood article permanently till they change their Main Page? Proxima Centauri 06:32, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Or an AOTW? Totnesmartin 07:21, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm not sure that we should change our mainpage just to match something CP has done.--Bobbing up 07:55, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- We do a lot of thing just to counter CP's latest idiocies - why not on the main-page? --LArron 10:28, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- There's nothing wrong with using our AotW to "counter" theirs. In fact, it's the easiest, laziest way to keep our AotW "fresh". Just make a new AotW subpage with some links and an intro and (probably) the CP slider/button set and intercom the mob to check it out before subbing it in. Ask me if you need help with the clunky part of any of those steps. As I recall, we have one or two decent articles on the "Flood"? ħuman 15:03, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- It is very lazy to do it that way, but I think we need to make sure RW isn't just mirroring CP's activity constantly, the site needs to evolve so we don't want to restrict a very good concept to just looking at CP. It works well for the first few where we weren't sure where to take it and indeed, we can come back to CP articles every so often, but actually making it so that we reflect CP's featured article does restrict it somewhat. ArmondikoVnarchist 15:53, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- It's a lazy way to stop it from getting stale. It's an easy way to take a cure and change it every few weeks. No one has suggested in any way that CP's AotW be the only thing we use, there is no restriction at all, implicit or explicit. Now, if we had a steady flow of good suggestions for things to target with our AotW, there wouldn't be much room for CP-oriented ones. But that is yet to be the case. ħuman 16:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- "...easy way to take a cure and..." - I'd fix that but I have no idea on earth what I meant to type. ħuman 17:14, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- "...easy way to take a cure and..." - I'd fix that but I have no idea on earth what I meant to type. ħuman
- It's a lazy way to stop it from getting stale. It's an easy way to take a cure and change it every few weeks. No one has suggested in any way that CP's AotW be the only thing we use, there is no restriction at all, implicit or explicit. Now, if we had a steady flow of good suggestions for things to target with our AotW, there wouldn't be much room for CP-oriented ones. But that is yet to be the case. ħuman
- It is very lazy to do it that way, but I think we need to make sure RW isn't just mirroring CP's activity constantly, the site needs to evolve so we don't want to restrict a very good concept to just looking at CP. It works well for the first few where we weren't sure where to take it and indeed, we can come back to CP articles every so often, but actually making it so that we reflect CP's featured article does restrict it somewhat. ArmondikoVnarchist 15:53, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- There's nothing wrong with using our AotW to "counter" theirs. In fact, it's the easiest, laziest way to keep our AotW "fresh". Just make a new AotW subpage with some links and an intro and (probably) the CP slider/button set and intercom the mob to check it out before subbing it in. Ask me if you need help with the clunky part of any of those steps. As I recall, we have one or two decent articles on the "Flood"? ħuman
- We do a lot of thing just to counter CP's latest idiocies - why not on the main-page? --LArron 10:28, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I'm not sure that we should change our mainpage just to match something CP has done.--Bobbing up 07:55, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Creationist style[edit]
Not a swipe against PJR in particular, since he's definitely not the only one to use it over there, but doesn't this comment involve a certain degree of dirty pool? The conversation mostly deals with concepts, and yet when JZim says something that threatens the Creationist position, it gets shrugged off with "well, you didn't provide specifics/evidence/cites", therefore presumably the point doesn't count. But nobody in the conversation had been going into that sort of detail, so why would JZim have felt that he needed to? Again, it's not PJR specifically, since Ken uses it all the time to dodge having to defend his "articles", and the others to a degree. It seems more of a Creationist ploy in general, to suddenly change the degree of detail required in the conversation depending on what the other guy says, so claim that he isn't living up to that requirement. --Kels 09:54, 9 November 2008 (EST)
#41302.[edit]
- 41302. It looks like there have been 41302 blocks over there. That's my block id. Proxima Centauri 10:33, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- 41310 I made a new account. I wrote something nasty to the sysop who blocked me. Bugler has done me now for agression. Proxima Centauri 10:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)
I never thought I'd feel sorry for a sysop who bollocked me. Philip J. Rayment is in bigh trouble. Proxima Centauri 14:13, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Nice, Jallen made a /16 IP range block. Haven't seen one of those in a while. /clap 
NorsemanCyser Melomel 15:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- They may as well ban any IP that's located outside of the Bible Belt. ArmondikoVnarchist 15:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)
You've got a cool userbox to say that you've been blocked at Conservapedia. Where is it? Proxima Centauri 07:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Gentlemen, expect some major changes in the next few weeks. I'll have you know my mother told me that if I could go an entire week without pooping in my pants she would let me have a computer in my own room! Well, it's been 6 days and I'm feeling good about tomorrow, so expect my time online to increase dramatically in the next several weeks. Imagine how high Conservapedia's google ranks will climb when I am able to devote all my spare time to it. Can you begin to imagine the changes? I bet you can't![edit]
Gentlemen, expect some major changes in the next few weeks. I'll have you know my mother told me that if I could go an entire week without pooping in my pants she would let me have a computer in my own room! Well, it's been 6 days and I'm feeling good about tomorrow, so expect my time online to increase dramatically in the next several weeks. Imagine how high Conservapedia's google ranks will climb when I am able to devote all my spare time to it. Can you begin to imagine the changes? I bet you can't! Kendoll 15:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh well, I guess we'd better enjoy our last few days of atheism, evolution, and homosexuality on the internet before they are gone forever! ħuman 15:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- WOOOOO SCAAARRRRYYYYY! EternalCritic 15:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh well --Hubble 15:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Given the subject matter, I can smell the change coming... :S ArmondikoVnarchist 15:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Ah, well. It was a good run, I guess. But with all the atheism, evolution, and homosexuality gone, that means there's more room for porn! (Did I say that? Forget I said that.) --Kels 16:17, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Given the subject matter, I can smell the change coming... :S ArmondikoVnarchist 15:50, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh well --Hubble 15:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- WOOOOO SCAAARRRRYYYYY! EternalCritic 15:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
No Penalty[edit]
That is hardly a fair WIGO. It is pretty obvious what is meant by the phrase. He simply means that he will not be doing negative marking. — Unsigned, by: 90.202.164.100 / talk / contribs
- But isn't it Andy's trademark to only mark down points based on wrong answers, and never increase points for better than average answers, or did I miss something?--stunteddwarf 20:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Maybe but this is still a cheapshot in my opinion. Marking down in multichoice tests is a relatively common occurrence so it is good form by Andy to specify the rules of the exam. --DamoHi 19:43, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Sorry, I should expand the above statement - As far as I can tell i) Andy wants to show his classes getting as high as possible marks so he starts the marking process with a maximum score/person then (grudgingly) deducts points when the gradee provides a wrong answer. Although the overall aim is to produce remarkably good scores the actual effect is ii) Creating a teaching base for all of Andy's lessons which is that failure is punished but better than average success generally isn't rewarded (which fits in with what I can see of Andy's psychology and philosophy). Having used that for the teaching base for the entire course Andy then iii) completely reverses the entire base underlying the course by now rewarding success but not penalising failure, but this, presumably, is only going to last for the length of the mid-term, at which point iv) the old teaching base comes back into effect.--stunteddwarf 20:07, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Or my thinking on this is screwed. Too much goat maybe.--stunteddwarf 20:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- And has just been pointed to me, having copy and pasted my preferences from another wiki (not CP though) of course my signature isn't right. Not my day today. Ignore everything posted by me today, probably suspect.--stunteddwarf 20:01, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Of course, being Welsh doesn't help, either, but we'll make allowances. and butter 20:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- To be fair to my fellow Welsh men, women and goats, they don't come with Default Factory Setting:Idiot. I do. ;-)--stunteddwarf 20:11, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Whoa, are you both Welshish? (Toast and butter, and stunted coal miner)? Let's take over the wiki and make lots of pro-Cambrian edits! ħuman 21:13, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- So when are you boys gonna get a half decent rugby team? You used to be our second greatest foe (after South Africa obviously) but you haven't beaten us in more than 50 years. Sort it out please. --DamoHi 22:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- When you sing better than us, we'll worry about rugger, eh? ħuman 22:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Whoa! Make that 4 of us. Bora da! Although, given where I currently live, I had seriously divided loyalties on Saturday... --PsyGremlinWhut? 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- You live in RSA Psygremlin?--DamoHi 00:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Indeedy. Exiled here 30 years ago, because they found out in the Rhonda that I couldn't sing... or play rugby. --PsyGremlinWhut? 03:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- You live in RSA Psygremlin?--DamoHi 00:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Whoa! Make that 4 of us. Bora da! Although, given where I currently live, I had seriously divided loyalties on Saturday... --PsyGremlinWhut? 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- When you sing better than us, we'll worry about rugger, eh? ħuman
- So when are you boys gonna get a half decent rugby team? You used to be our second greatest foe (after South Africa obviously) but you haven't beaten us in more than 50 years. Sort it out please. --DamoHi 22:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Whoa, are you both Welshish? (Toast and butter, and stunted coal miner)? Let's take over the wiki and make lots of pro-Cambrian edits! ħuman
- To be fair to my fellow Welsh men, women and goats, they don't come with Default Factory Setting:Idiot. I do. ;-)--stunteddwarf 20:11, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Of course, being Welsh doesn't help, either, but we'll make allowances. and butter 20:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Sorry, I should expand the above statement - As far as I can tell i) Andy wants to show his classes getting as high as possible marks so he starts the marking process with a maximum score/person then (grudgingly) deducts points when the gradee provides a wrong answer. Although the overall aim is to produce remarkably good scores the actual effect is ii) Creating a teaching base for all of Andy's lessons which is that failure is punished but better than average success generally isn't rewarded (which fits in with what I can see of Andy's psychology and philosophy). Having used that for the teaching base for the entire course Andy then iii) completely reverses the entire base underlying the course by now rewarding success but not penalising failure, but this, presumably, is only going to last for the length of the mid-term, at which point iv) the old teaching base comes back into effect.--stunteddwarf 20:07, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Maybe but this is still a cheapshot in my opinion. Marking down in multichoice tests is a relatively common occurrence so it is good form by Andy to specify the rules of the exam. --DamoHi 19:43, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Karajou and alcohol[edit]
I'm kind of "eh" on that one. All he's really saying is the old saw in vino veritas. Whether we think it's true or not, it's a common enough belief that it seems unfair to really pick on him over it. Researcher 20:59, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, but he phrased it really badly... ħuman 21:06, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, but do we make fun of every single case of bad phrasing over there? I don't follow the place, but if we did we'd have nothing but stupid malapropisms and "weapon of gun" jokes, wouldn't we? Researcher 21:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh, sorry, you want WIGO CP to be "smart"? It's, er, not been that for a loooong time. The gems get voted up and end up at Best of CP, the clunkers get voted down to obscurity... ħuman 21:15, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I think we should institute a Hall of Shame. The really sucky WIGOs (say those with <-50 feedback) get put on display with the name of the author so we can laugh at them for all of eternity. Or not. I'm flexible. JazzMan 00:52, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- As the one who originally added this WIGO, I'll tryand explain what I was going for. From a Psych. standpoint, and personal experience, not everything a drunk says is what they really believe... Quick show of hands, how many guys made up all kinds of crap thinking they could get some.... But Karajou is convinced that everything someone says while ramblign is their hidden true thoughts. Thus, in the world of Karajou, Mel Gibson completely hates the Jews, 90% of the world's males are really, really attracted to large women and RationalWiki's own SirChuckB thinks he knows the secret to ending all political discourse.... That's what I was trying to mock. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 02:15, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I think we should institute a Hall of Shame. The really sucky WIGOs (say those with <-50 feedback) get put on display with the name of the author so we can laugh at them for all of eternity. Or not. I'm flexible. JazzMan 00:52, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Oh, sorry, you want WIGO CP to be "smart"? It's, er, not been that for a loooong time. The gems get voted up and end up at Best of CP, the clunkers get voted down to obscurity... ħuman
- Yeah, but do we make fun of every single case of bad phrasing over there? I don't follow the place, but if we did we'd have nothing but stupid malapropisms and "weapon of gun" jokes, wouldn't we? Researcher 21:09, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Screenshots don't work[edit]
Apparently, the "img" captures the Conservapedia site in real time, not just from a certain point of time. That's what i found when I tried looking up a diff for the "Do we put enough emphasis on homosexuality" debate earlier. -AP 22:19, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, it's just a bot ;) Complain to user:Tmtoulouse, he wrote it. ħuman 22:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Archive time[edit]
Can someone selectively store this pig? (It usually works when I whine suchly) ħuman 22:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)
One of the things I'm looking forward to most at CP[edit]
After Obama's inauguration, I really can't wait to see Andy and pals making a big fuss about the book Obama took the oath on, and how you can't prove it wasn't the Koran because you can't see the writing on the cover on TV (and if you could see it, it's a Koran in a Bible binding; that Barack Hussein Obama is so full of deceit and his taqiyya). The lulz will be priceless. DickTurpis 23:04, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- There are three possibilties: 1) he clearly uses a Koran, 2) it isn't unquestionably clear (most likely), and 3) he clearly uses a Bible. CP's respective reactions would be that he is: 1) blatantly declaring his desire to destroy America, give asylum to terrorists and convert the government to a fundamentalist Islam, 2) see comment above, and 3) that he's masquerading and by extension blatantly insulting all Christians and Americans. More simply, 1) he's being genuine, and that's bad, 2) it's a Koran, see #1, 3) he's being disingenuous, and that's bad. Kalliumtalk 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Ah, but what if he swears on neither? We know he's about as secular as you can expect from a US politician these days. ArmondikoVnarchist 04:30, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Like most Presidents, he will probably be sworn in on a famous Bible. So what you'll actually have to look for (in order of likelihood) is more claims that he is still hiding it with taqi'ya, fervent discussion of how he managed to switch JFK's Bible with a Qu'ran, or speculation about how long JFK was a Muslim.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 06:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I was going to regale you with the fact he wasn't sworn in on bible but it turns out that was LBJ. Kennedy was sworn in on a Douay-Rheims Bible, which should upset the King James Only brigade if he follows suit. 219.90.133.165 06:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Maybe Obama will make an elaborate fake of a Kennedy's Bible, hollow it, and store a miniature Koran in it? The crafty bastard! Barikada 10:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Arm, hadn't thought of that one. That case (#4) would be a mix of 1 and 3: he would be blatantly declaring his desire to destroy America and by extension blatantly insulting all Christians and Americans; i.e. he's being genuine, and that's bad, while being disingenuous towards
CP's extremist fundamentalist literally-but-selectively interpreted view ofGod, and that's bad too. Lose-lose-lose-lose. I suppose as a fifth, it is possible that he doesn't take an oath at all. Of course he will, but I'll bet some at CP are giving that serious consideration. Kalliumtalk 12:11, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Thanks Arm, hadn't thought of that one. That case (#4) would be a mix of 1 and 3: he would be blatantly declaring his desire to destroy America and by extension blatantly insulting all Christians and Americans; i.e. he's being genuine, and that's bad, while being disingenuous towards
- Maybe Obama will make an elaborate fake of a Kennedy's Bible, hollow it, and store a miniature Koran in it? The crafty bastard! Barikada 10:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I was going to regale you with the fact he wasn't sworn in on bible but it turns out that was LBJ. Kennedy was sworn in on a Douay-Rheims Bible, which should upset the King James Only brigade if he follows suit. 219.90.133.165 06:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Like most Presidents, he will probably be sworn in on a famous Bible. So what you'll actually have to look for (in order of likelihood) is more claims that he is still hiding it with taqi'ya, fervent discussion of how he managed to switch JFK's Bible with a Qu'ran, or speculation about how long JFK was a Muslim.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 06:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Ah, but what if he swears on neither? We know he's about as secular as you can expect from a US politician these days. ArmondikoVnarchist 04:30, 10 November 2008 (EST)
"NEVER try to refute the myth that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Seriously. Just don't."[edit]
I might have made a tiny mistake... Oopsie! ħuman 23:32, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Human, you filthy lying atheist liberal Muslim, you know better than to delete the truth from the hallowed pages of Conservapedia. 00:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- How dare you even consider that a black man isn't muslim you whore of a lefty... I really hope he abuses his powers as President to get Schlafly sued for extreme slander and libel. Obviously, that could send the message that being muslim is somehow wrong, but you can do some clever legal backflips to get the site quietly destroyed for incitement to racial hatred. ArmondikoVnarchist 04:27, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Andy did such a lot to help Obama to win. If Conservapedia ever goes down for good we may wish it were back. Ha Ha Ha Ha Proxima Centauri 06:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Eh, it only got me Schlaflinated for a day... pretty reasonable considering I followed in the site owner's tracks undoing his
lieswork. I wonder, did he just revert, or did he keep my other improvemints? (I think I also fixed some grammage & stuff?) ħuman 14:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Eh, it only got me Schlaflinated for a day... pretty reasonable considering I followed in the site owner's tracks undoing his
- Andy did such a lot to help Obama to win. If Conservapedia ever goes down for good we may wish it were back. Ha Ha Ha Ha Proxima Centauri 06:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- How dare you even consider that a black man isn't muslim you whore of a lefty... I really hope he abuses his powers as President to get Schlafly sued for extreme slander and libel. Obviously, that could send the message that being muslim is somehow wrong, but you can do some clever legal backflips to get the site quietly destroyed for incitement to racial hatred. ArmondikoVnarchist 04:27, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Obama Affidavit.[edit]
Now, to his credit, Assfly is being guarded about the trusworthiness of the affidavit he mentions in this edit. But still-this thing doesn't even pass the stink test. Maybe the Bishop who wrote it isn't a native English speaker, so we'll overlook the atrocious grammar and syntax. But to misspell "bishop" when you are one? (see the last page of the doc.) No way. And the Luo are majority Christian, no matter what this guy says. PFoster 23:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- Wait, wait...the affidavit in question is hosted on THIS site? Andy--how the hell did you find this? Do you have a "thing" for models over the age of 55? (not that there's anything wrong with that.) Why is a site dedicated to a model "who's over 55 and admits it" hosting poorly-crafted legal documents about the citizenship status of the President? PFoster 23:46, 9 November 2008 (EST)
- I was about to comment on the site the file is hosted on, but you beat me to it. Really, WTF? "Dubious" is to put it mildly.
- Also, that affidavit, even if legit, is nothing but hearsay and proves nothing. DickTurpis 23:52, 9 November 2008 (EST)
w:Devvy Kidd is apparently an income tax conspiracy theorist with connections to WorldNetDaily; see e.g. Quatloos' page on her. I guess her day job wasn't paying the bills, so she's got a modeling site now. (To be fair, PFoster, it doesn't appear to be an "adult" modeling site.) --Marty 02:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Good find. Her other website is full of tax protest stuff & conspiracy theories. weaseLOId~ 09:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Does anyone fancy making a new article at CP?[edit]
It's actually really funny and reminds me of Monty Python for some reason. StarFish 02:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Very Pythonesque. The one with the "women" battling with handbags in a muddy field. A re-enactment, wasn't it? and butter 06:40, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Of the Battle of Pearl Harbor, yes. With handbags. Bluefish 12:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Short Stint of Ed Poor[edit]
After two month of exile, he appeared for only 30 hours. He destroyed only one math related article. Granted, two editors got blocked in the procedure, but that seem to be ridiculous few...
And when he came to this discussion (Geocentric Theory) - absolutely clueless, of course - he didn't follow up, but left it without blocking anyone.
Deeply worried, yours LArron 04:09, 10 November 2008 (EST).
- I liked his appearance on Geocentric Theory, classic parodist stuff. Basically just walked in and loudly said "I have no idea what you're discussing, so lemme just jump in there." It's like he just hit Random Page and didn't bother to read the title, just saw a name he didn't recognize and assumed they were bad. --Kels 06:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Frankly, I've read that talk page about five times & I can't make head nor tale of what the dispute's about it seems to be a matter of terminology rather than fact. and butter 06:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- RSchlafly wants to phrase the page in such a way so that it seems like people still use geocentrism, and so he is fighting like hell not to understand the difference between people assuming the Earth is stationary for the sake of utility (like in assigning coordinates and the like) and people thinking the Earth is the center of the universe/solar system. He continually insists on sources from everyone else, demanding they explain elementary things to him. It's very sad.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Intelligent stupidity seems to be a Schlafly trait (without the intelligence, of course). and butter 07:40, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- RSchlafly wants to phrase the page in such a way so that it seems like people still use geocentrism, and so he is fighting like hell not to understand the difference between people assuming the Earth is stationary for the sake of utility (like in assigning coordinates and the like) and people thinking the Earth is the center of the universe/solar system. He continually insists on sources from everyone else, demanding they explain elementary things to him. It's very sad.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Frankly, I've read that talk page about five times & I can't make head nor tale of what the dispute's about it seems to be a matter of terminology rather than fact. and butter 06:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Ed's back and blocking again
and butter 08:49, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, that's the way to go: block now, ask never! Of course, in case of Concerned Scientist just a measly one week block, but at least an encouraging note is left on the door step: Don't come back. --Ed Poor Talk 08:27, 10 November 2008 (EST)
--LArron 09:25, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- And we have a writing assignment! Woot! Haven't seen one of those in a while. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- And another one for BRichtigen. BRichtigen doesn't like it, I suspect --LArron 12:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- refusing an assignment - that doesn't go well with Ed. --LArron 13:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Effing hell! He's really gone power mad now - wonder if PJR'll say anything. and butter 13:12, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- refusing an assignment - that doesn't go well with Ed. --LArron 13:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)
The origins of Republicans defeat[edit]
Wonder if Croco actually read further than the article in the Wash Times ref. The comments are pretty damning, presumably mostly from card carrying Republicans.
and butter 09:13, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Conservapedia sysops?[edit]
What is a Conservapedia sysop? Who are those Conservapedians who arn't sysops but can block? Proxima Centauri 10:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Love his "special powers. Was he bitten by a radioactive spider, I wonder. and butter 10:36, 10 November 2008 (EST
- He was bitten by a radioactive conservative. Totnesmartin 17:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Bungler Bugler can block
this and this are what the sad little blocked user did.
He's been doing a steady series of blocks all day and yesterday too. Proxima Centauri 10:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Here's one site that Bungler thinks is defamitory. It should make interesting reading. Proxima Centauri 10:45, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Ahem! See Ames/Caius' entry next but one below. and butter 10:47, 10 November 2008 (EST)
It's my site: Bugler says it's a "rubbishy slander" site :(. Apparently, just for calling a spade a spade.-caius (soldier) 10:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- made my comment look silly ames. ;) and butter 11:01, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Sorry!! Not my intention!!-caius (soldier) 11:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- made my comment look silly ames. ;) and butter 11:01, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Hi Ken![edit]
Apart from Conservapedia and Wikipedia (!) all the Google search results for Conservapedia evolution are negative (as far as I can be bothered to check anyway), many taking the piss out of the Hitler connection. So if the article [sic] does achieve top ten google ranking, it'll just bring more and more ridicule on Conservapedia. (sorry for encouraging the loony, folks, but he needs stamping on)
and butter 10:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- DEAR KEN: Please have a look at google search result #9 for "andy schlafly" - here.-caius (soldier) 10:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Was deleted somehow?-caius (soldier) 10:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Or, if you want to be more formal, look at number 2 for Andrew Schlafly here. and butter 11:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Andrew leads to us but Andy goes to WP and Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is far less reserved with what they publish about him. Bad luck old chum, at least we're fair. ArmondikoVnarchist 12:58, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Or, if you want to be more formal, look at number 2 for Andrew Schlafly here. and butter 11:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Was deleted somehow?-caius (soldier) 10:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Wow[edit]
I feel like Ken, editing WIGO over and over. Today is especially insane, Andy admitting to gossip (well, not directly admitting), Karajou blocking someone over Ken's retarded "Creationist stumps Dawkins" video, Ed using an email as a source, Bugler blocking people inappropriately left and right... is it that time of the month for fundies or something? The mountain-climb just turned into 120º climb for the respectable editors there. NorsemanCyser Melomel 11:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- The poor things don't know what to do, having been so trounced at the polls, it's obviously driven them (further) round the bend. and butter 11:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- It's just the run-up to Conservapedia Day, and a good bit of venting those bad feelings from losing the election. --SpinyNorman 22:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)
No Way...[edit]
Did Ken actually just stand against the Obama's a muslim bs!? EternalCritic 11:59, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Yup! and butter 12:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Ah, Ken. The title gave it away a mile off. Y'see, this is why Conservative is awesome. Somewhere, buried under that deep bloody-minded wrongness, there's a small bit of right.--מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
- Funny, i thought ken was way too far right... ;) EternalCritic 12:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Ken has his own obsessions: atheism, evolution, and homosexuality. Anything else he doesn't take a dogmatic stand on, so he's free to see just how idiotic Andy's reasoning on this is. That he actually does so is surprising, however. DickTurpis 12:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Funny, i thought ken was way too far right... ;) EternalCritic 12:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Ah, Ken. The title gave it away a mile off. Y'see, this is why Conservative is awesome. Somewhere, buried under that deep bloody-minded wrongness, there's a small bit of right.--מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Bungler is insulting Philip J. Rayment[edit]
It's here Will anything develop from this quarrel? Does it say anywhere in the bible that a Christian shouldn't compare another Christian to an insect with a Proboscis? Proxima Centauri 12:06, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- it's been ongoing for a month or two now, Bugler seems to think that he's the annointed one & PJR's the epitome of appeasment. and butter 12:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- It would be interesting to see if Burglar can push PJR out. Perhaps we can have our next Fox? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
- Philip J. Rayment is an out and out creationist. If he leaves he may not come here. Proxima Centauri 12:39, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Considering PJR outranks Bugler and doesn't seem nearly as bothered by his antics as Bugler is of Phil's, I don't see him leaving because of an obnoxious parodist. Though I will say that if PJR weren't already a sysop, Andy would never promote him to one now. DickTurpis 12:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- PJR is levelheaded. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him on YEC issues, he never (not that I have seen) blocks hastily, resorts to theatrics (I'm leaving if some people don't hurry up and kiss my ass!), or makes useless "contributions" which would be more appropriately called mind-vomit. He's also completely unfazed by Bugler. If Philip left because of Bugler, it would be if Bugler makes a power play, complains to Andy, and Andy gives Philip the boot. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 13:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- From his logs, Phil isn't a sysop, but everything else apparently. I agree though, he'll never be one. NorsemanCyser Melomel 12:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Bungler is allowed to be aggressive but others get blocked for aggression. Proxima Centauri 12:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- PJR is a an admin: [2]. DickTurpis 12:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- There's no rank of "sysop" on CP, as Dick says, its Administrator. and butter 12:36, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Aren't the terms interchangable? DickTurpis 12:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Yup! but it's probably what confused (?) Norseman. and butter
- Yeah, my mistake. I didn't know until nao. :D NorsemanCyser Melomel 14:01, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, my mistake. I didn't know until nao. :D
- Yup! but it's probably what confused (?) Norseman. and butter
- Aren't the terms interchangable? DickTurpis 12:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- There's no rank of "sysop" on CP, as Dick says, its Administrator. and butter 12:36, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- It would be interesting to see if Burglar can push PJR out. Perhaps we can have our next Fox? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
New World[edit]
Missed this a week ago: Ed using the New World Encyclopedia. "The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon. NWE editors are guided by scholarly texts expressing the theological and philosophical systematization of his life and teachings, the universal values and ideals inherent in the great religions, philosophies, and teachings of conscience, and the core principles of the Universal Peace Federation."(my emphasis). "... ours is much shorter but pretty much to the point." For anyone who doesn't know, Ed was in on the creation of NWE over a year ago. Wonder how long it'll take for direct copy/pastes? It's a wiki but not as we know it.
08:30, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Alabama Man[edit]
Gay. Totally gay. Liberace gay!—Cartman, Stan, and Kyle focused grouped for new toys
--Edgerunner76 
11:54, 11 November 2008 (EST)
No Remembrance Day on CP?[edit]
At least as far as I can see!
09:08, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- All I could find on the CP veteran's day article was a mention that congress tried to change the date of the celebrations in 1988, then changed the date back in 1978 (sic). I blame liberals. Czolgolz 09:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Rememberance day is probably far too European. Remember, World War II only started when Pearl Harbour was bombed... ArmondikoVnarchist 09:54, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Isn't it commemorated in the US then? It's actually the date & time of the signing of the WW1 Armistice. 10:07, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- It's called Veterans' Day here.Czolgolz 11:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day#United_States Turns out yes, in a way. ArmondikoVnarchist 10:13, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Except no one pays any attention to it, except as a "feel good" yay! Veterans kind of thing. Researcher 10:21, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- I was kinda touched to see the last 3 WW1 veterans in the parade. Sort of hits home just how long ago it actually was. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:18, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Better late than never.
and marmite 19:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Better late than never.
- I was kinda touched to see the last 3 WW1 veterans in the parade. Sort of hits home just how long ago it actually was. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:18, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Except no one pays any attention to it, except as a "feel good" yay! Veterans kind of thing. Researcher 10:21, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Isn't it commemorated in the US then? It's actually the date & time of the signing of the WW1 Armistice. 10:07, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Rememberance day is probably far too European. Remember, World War II only started when Pearl Harbour was bombed... ArmondikoVnarchist 09:54, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Headdesk[edit]
One for the wait... what? dept. (soon to be blocked) TheCount: Obama drinks beer, ergo, can't be muslim. Andy I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though. Sigh. will the insanity never end? --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:09, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Only in Andyland--Muslims who drink beer but don't dance. PFoster 13:15, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- I think = fact. NorsemanCyser Melomel 13:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- There is no think in Andyland, Everything is either Liberal Deceit or God given truth. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 13:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Too true. I must have skipped the "Circular Argument-Go-'Round" ride. NorsemanCyser Melomel 13:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Too true. I must have skipped the "Circular Argument-Go-'Round" ride.
- There is no think in Andyland, Everything is either Liberal Deceit or God given truth. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 13:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- I think = fact.
Ah, but it's American beer, so it's OK for Muslims to drink it. Totnesmartin 14:00, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Does that even count as beer? --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:09, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Doesn't really matter, anyway. Even if definitive proof is found of Obama dancing, boozing, gambling, and whoring around with atheists, Andee can still fall back on the "Muslims can do and say whatever they want in order to distract all us good folk from Their nefarious deeds". What I don't get is the "Obama could be sworn in on a Koran" bit. I mean, if Obama's Big Plan involves Americans not knowing of his Muslilmishness, being sworn in on a Koran would ruin those plans, right?--WJThomas 14:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- You forget Dub, now that he's been elected, he has no reason to hide his secret religion anymore.... We all know that once Obama unveils that Koran, there's nothing the average person can do to stop him, he's immune from action. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 14:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Except that the outcry would be tremendous, and his plans would be thwarted before they'd begun. Obama is too smart for that. He'll wait until he's re-elected four years hence, after he's had time to plant his evil minions into all levels of government, learned all the secrets, dismantled the military, and taken away our guns. Then there will be nothing we can do as his liberal terrorist Muslim hoards overrun our country, enslave the Christian men, ravage our Christian women, and eat Christian babies.--WJThomas 14:31, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Obama could be spotted dancing around the street drunk, wearing a Muhammed with a bomb turban t-shirt, and eating a giant plate of bacon and Andy still wouldn't believe that Obama isn't a Muslim. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 14:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Except that the outcry would be tremendous, and his plans would be thwarted before they'd begun. Obama is too smart for that. He'll wait until he's re-elected four years hence, after he's had time to plant his evil minions into all levels of government, learned all the secrets, dismantled the military, and taken away our guns. Then there will be nothing we can do as his liberal terrorist Muslim hoards overrun our country, enslave the Christian men, ravage our Christian women, and eat Christian babies.--WJThomas 14:31, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- You forget Dub, now that he's been elected, he has no reason to hide his secret religion anymore.... We all know that once Obama unveils that Koran, there's nothing the average person can do to stop him, he's immune from action. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 14:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Even if he is sworn in on what looks like a Bible, I'm 95% confident it'll be a Koran in a Bible dust jacket. You know how evil those secret Muslims are. Don't you see how sometimes you can estimate the Koran when someone else conceals it? --JeevesMkII 14:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- The worst part is that this is flat religious persecution. Andy's not the only one to push this idea that Obama's a Muslim, and it's a disgusting attempt to use fear of Muslims to take votes away from Obama. Let's paint Obama as a big, scary Muslim, and people won't vote for him. The fact that these people are playing on fear and prejudice for political gain is reprehensible. And the claim that they're just fighting for the truth is laughable. Obama doesn't dance? It's like, as a friend of mine would say, arguing with a garbage disposal. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 15:15, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- You're dead on Corry, also note that Assfly is the first (and loudest) when it comes to shouts of religious discrimination and hate crimes. It's also rather racist. If Obama wasn't a dark man with an arabic name, this wouldn't be an issue. The thing I love the most about this whole muslim thing, is that Andy keeps screaming about how a Christian would have changed his name, and taken on something new, but he leaves out that names are mostly regional and cultural, not religious. My own name (Charles) is an English corruption of a french name, that does not make a member of the COE. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 15:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- I think Andy's persistence with this Muslim thing needs putting into perspective. The "conservative" movement is in a mess: it overreached massively during Dubya's 8 long years; it's just taken a pasting at the ballot box; and its wank-fantasy Veep candidate is now a laughing stock. Remember: a McCain win, swiftly followed by a fatal heart attack and Palin's anointment, would have suited them just fine.
- Now remember that Andy's on a mission from God. According to his internal narrative, it simply doesn't make any sense for the good guys to have taken such a kicking, unless he factors in some brand of evil/deceit/conspiracy. The idea of Obama having won under false pretences (by being a Muslim and thus a Bad Thing) is a comforting bedtime story he can tell himself to avoid having to deal with a) the failure of his pinch-headed worldview and b) the non-existence of that oft-touted "silent majority". --Robledo 17:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- You're dead on Corry, also note that Assfly is the first (and loudest) when it comes to shouts of religious discrimination and hate crimes. It's also rather racist. If Obama wasn't a dark man with an arabic name, this wouldn't be an issue. The thing I love the most about this whole muslim thing, is that Andy keeps screaming about how a Christian would have changed his name, and taken on something new, but he leaves out that names are mostly regional and cultural, not religious. My own name (Charles) is an English corruption of a french name, that does not make a member of the COE. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 15:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- The worst part is that this is flat religious persecution. Andy's not the only one to push this idea that Obama's a Muslim, and it's a disgusting attempt to use fear of Muslims to take votes away from Obama. Let's paint Obama as a big, scary Muslim, and people won't vote for him. The fact that these people are playing on fear and prejudice for political gain is reprehensible. And the claim that they're just fighting for the truth is laughable. Obama doesn't dance? It's like, as a friend of mine would say, arguing with a garbage disposal. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 15:15, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Even if he is sworn in on what looks like a Bible, I'm 95% confident it'll be a Koran in a Bible dust jacket. You know how evil those secret Muslims are. Don't you see how sometimes you can estimate the Koran when someone else conceals it? --JeevesMkII 14:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)
I like this woozle... Prophecy: Aschlafly will delete his entries - citing some obscure reasons - but he'll rely on a block-by-minions to get rid of woozle. --LArron 15:12, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Everyone is forgetting that Obama smokes the evil tobacco too, in order to complete the bamboozlement. ħuman 17:39, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Wait, does he smoke it from a hookah? QED! CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 18:33, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Noooo - he smokes it from a hooker!!! (took me an hour and a half to come up with that brilliang riposte!) ħuman 19:50, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Only Republicans do that. It's the conservative, traditional, way to go. EternalCritic 20:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Noooo - he smokes it from a hooker!!! (took me an hour and a half to come up with that brilliang riposte!) ħuman
- Wait, does he smoke it from a hookah? QED! CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 18:33, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Franken vs. Coleman, meet Siplin vs. Ortiz[edit]
They're still belly-aching over Franken being "defeated" and refusing to concede, but they don't realize Gary Siplin and Belinda Ortiz, where Ortiz (R) lost to Siplin (D), but "you guessed it" also refuses to concede. While I'm actually rooting for Ortiz (Siplin is a corrupted asswipe, sadly), it's the same story between the two senate races. It's just a fine example of CP bashing what they perceive as "liberal tactics" when the other side practices it too, shooting themselves in the foot with hypocrisy. NorsemanCyser Melomel 13:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Liberace[edit]
This just in Liberace wasn't really gay! Wait, what? EternalCritic 18:05, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Already Wigod.... you know the truly sad thing... All these parodists are ruining my enjoyment of Conservapedia. It used to be that when you saw something truly stupid, you could look around and see Andy, Ken, Ed, TK, etc behind it. Now you look at most of the insane crap, and it's from very obvious and known to everybody but Andy parodists (Saxplayer being the obvious example, but there are others). Andy needs to shut down and come back in his flaming glory.... And he still refuses to come debate me on campus. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 18:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- "Andy needs to shut down
and come back in his flaming glory...." - Fixed that for ya. --Kels 18:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- "Andy needs to shut down
Think I'd get banned for adding Freddy Mercury? EternalCritic 18:42, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I'd add John Schlafly. That would get the article deleted instantly. NorsemanCyser Melomel 19:42, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Or Phyllis... oh, but she just looks like a corpse. EternalCritic 20:06, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I fuckin' Double-Dog-Dare you to add John to the list. That would be awesome. PFoster 20:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I can pretty much guarantee it will be my last. Seeing as that's the case I think I'll link them to Encyclopedia dramatica. EternalCritic 20:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Alright, its up. Take your pics now if you want them. check it EternalCritic 20:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Arg, even the sysops and respectable editors are contributing to this now! Dear parodists, you're out of a job. Sysops can do it faster and cheaper. Also, you missed Rock Hudson. --JeevesMkII 21:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I... I... I wasn't banned... wtf is going on. I got banned for "Sarcasm" on godwin's law but not for bringing up the taboo of the gay Schlafly. My brain may explode. EternalCritic 21:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- J. Edgar Hoover would be a great addition. --SpinyNorman 21:52, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I... I... I wasn't banned... wtf is going on. I got banned for "Sarcasm" on godwin's law but not for bringing up the taboo of the gay Schlafly. My brain may explode. EternalCritic 21:32, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Arg, even the sysops and respectable editors are contributing to this now! Dear parodists, you're out of a job. Sysops can do it faster and cheaper. Also, you missed Rock Hudson. --JeevesMkII 21:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Alright, its up. Take your pics now if you want them. check it EternalCritic 20:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I can pretty much guarantee it will be my last. Seeing as that's the case I think I'll link them to Encyclopedia dramatica. EternalCritic 20:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I fuckin' Double-Dog-Dare you to add John to the list. That would be awesome. PFoster 20:09, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Or Phyllis... oh, but she just looks like a corpse. EternalCritic 20:06, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I'm with Sir Chuck on this one. That we are now WIGO'ing blindingly obvious parody means that not only CP has run its course, but so, dangerously, might we. We would do well to remember that the much vaunted death of CP is something we will be lucky to survive ourselves. Things are, indeed, increasingly going to hell in a handbasket, and I don't think Andy sees that at all. Not at all. Which frankly means that we're dealing with a much more stupid person than I had heretofore thought. I had previously imagined him intelligent but a raving misguided bigot, but now it's obvious he's really pretty unintelligent - you'd have to be to not notice that CP has simply become a playground for parodists (and here I should naturally declare an interest, of course). Oh well. What's next folks? DogP 00:40, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- As the guy who WIGO'd the Liberace piece, here's my 2 cents' worth. I knew it was parody, but I don't see that kind of big, obvious, err flaming parody as the kind of thing that we shouldn't WIGO, as opposed to the clever subtle sorts of things that we try to let go by (like the bit about the hunters. You know what I'm talking about.) What's worthy about the Liberace bit is that it shows exactly what you're talking about, and, in effect, What Is Going On At Conservapedia is that this kind of editing has been the norm, and articles that are obviously bullshit can stay up for a long time with senior admins editing them. So Chuck is right, as usual--CP is no longer the same old madhouse we all knew and loved back in the heady days of Spring 2007. It's something much different--and way more crazy now. I don't see it going away anytime soon though--Andy will continue to tolerate that which we doeas not care about and focus on Obama and whatever his obsession du jour is....PFoster 00:54, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- "What's next folks?" Indeed. We will never find a
cesspitgoldmine so deep and so concentrated as CP, but we must foray wider and enter where there may be dragons! Or something like that. Onward and furward! Unmask ye the fidels of the internet and pwn them so deeply their wounds bleed for a moon! Task ye with the trolling and sailing forth into murky waters and bring back yore prises to be delected upon by the mob! ħuman 01:46, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- "What's next folks?" Indeed. We will never find a
- What about Rapture Ready? Barikada 02:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- If I understand this correctly the really remarkable bit is that Ed Poor added to the article without noticing or acting on the very obvious parody (including a bit about John - a Shlafly that dare not speak it's name). If HE can't spot parody it is very telling of the state CP has got into and well worthy of a WIGO. StarFish 02:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- What's funny is that Ed's additions are way more crazy than the parodists', taking the article off at a tangent to mention Martin Luther King & group sex. 07:35, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- If I understand this correctly the really remarkable bit is that Ed Poor added to the article without noticing or acting on the very obvious parody (including a bit about John - a Shlafly that dare not speak it's name). If HE can't spot parody it is very telling of the state CP has got into and well worthy of a WIGO. StarFish 02:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- What about Rapture Ready? Barikada 02:04, 11 November 2008 (EST)
(unindent) All the parodists have missed "the big one". --Toffeeman 07:30, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Argh! Hearing Ed say Shall I take you under my wing? should be enough to bring on a case of the heebie jeebies, screaming willies and just about anything else you can think of. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:04, 11 ::November 2008 (EST)
- Oh my God. I feel dirty. StarFish 08:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
COPPA and CP?[edit]
While elsesite, I saw a moderator block a user for being under 13 years old with the reason for COPPA. Incidently, the moderator was a mother with children of her own (to give some perspective). COPPA is the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and is the orgin of those "you must be 13 years old or older to enter this information" things you see on various forums. In short, a website cannot collect any personal information on someone younger than 13 without verifiable parental consent. That information includes first and last name, and email address. By enforcing the first name last initial, does Andy run close to violating that act? If one requires the email to be active too, that certainly violates it. Has anyone reminded Andy/the authorities of this? --Shagie 13:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Ed and Gay bashing[edit]
Not seen Ed in a while. He comes back, and BAM starts bashing gays all over the place, with not only edits, but new articles like "gay aggression", and "gay selfishness". Didn't know he was so very anti-gay. --
En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 13:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)(ec)
- Don't forget, the writing assignments have returned. And the sysop abuse comes rolling in! NorsemanCyser Melomel 14:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Damnit, everything he does can be a WIGO entry. Now he blocks LiamG citing 90/10 rule, but look at his contribs! ROFL This guy is single-handedly the most fucking idiot to ever touch a keyboard. NorsemanCyser Melomel 14:16, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Those gays are bad, don't you know. Eskimo should be the "propper" word used, too, simply cause "he doesn't knwo what the difference is between Inuit, Aluet and the perjorative "eskimo". "what a maroon, what an ig-no-ramus."--En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 14:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Parodists and vandals should just pack it in. Ed is parody/vandalism with an enforcer twist. He is aggressive ignorance embodied. Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Looks like Ed dreams of one day being a senator. Oh and when he said all gays should be locked up he didn't really mean it. He just meant that sinning should be against the law and homosexuals should be held responsible for their "sin".--ScottA 15:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Best part is he didn't have to wait for his senate run to get fucked by his bigotry. That quote helped sink his misguided quest to become a Wikipedia admin. It's embarrassing that he got as much support as he did. DickTurpis 15:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Looks like Ed dreams of one day being a senator. Oh and when he said all gays should be locked up he didn't really mean it. He just meant that sinning should be against the law and homosexuals should be held responsible for their "sin".--ScottA 15:18, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Parodists and vandals should just pack it in. Ed is parody/vandalism with an enforcer twist. He is aggressive ignorance embodied. Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Those gays are bad, don't you know. Eskimo should be the "propper" word used, too, simply cause "he doesn't knwo what the difference is between Inuit, Aluet and the perjorative "eskimo". "what a maroon, what an ig-no-ramus."--
It's his blatant Holocaust denial that left me speechless. So all those gay people stamped with pink triangles and rounded up into concentration camps were "predators" who simply distract us from the "real victims." Revolting. 74.7.166.234 15:27, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Revolting. But fascinating. 217.42.187.237 16:56, 10 November 2008 (EST)
[3] "There was also a Nazi named Ludwig Tiene." BEST EVIDENCE EVER. -unsigned
Huh... actually found references to support Ed's bullshit. But you guys can all do the research yourself =P EternalCritic 16:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- (Block log); 21:46 . . Norseman (Talk | contribs | block) (blocked User:EternalCritic with an expiry time of 2 seconds (autoblock disabled): Failure to complete assignment!) Let that be a lesson for you! :P NorsemanCyser Melomel 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- ow... banhammers hurt.
- Speaking of bans, mine is over later today. How should I celebrate? I was thinking of making an article on Sudden Crusade Syndrome. EternalCritic 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- The quote I found was that 40% of Americans believe man was created by god... not that the world is 6000 years old. but i'm not playing any of that game. just cause Americans are fricking stupid does not mean anything regarding Truth and Reality and, you know, HELLO.--En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I did NOT miss this prick.-caius (soldier) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- But he's so damned charmingly folksy and bigoted! EternalCritic 17:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Hardly charming. he's out right rude to other posters who are good willed, just different opinion. he and bungle the bugle are two of a pair! Wonder if they are up to any hanky panky when the lights go down at CP? They are both homophobic to a fault, and you knwo what they say, "less than 1% of the people who are homophobic own dogs, adn all gays own kittens therefore Ed is gay" or something like that. I'm still new at conservative statistics and logic.--En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 17:34, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Please note, I was banned for sarcasm. EternalCritic 17:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Hardly charming. he's out right rude to other posters who are good willed, just different opinion. he and bungle the bugle are two of a pair! Wonder if they are up to any hanky panky when the lights go down at CP? They are both homophobic to a fault, and you knwo what they say, "less than 1% of the people who are homophobic own dogs, adn all gays own kittens therefore Ed is gay" or something like that. I'm still new at conservative statistics and logic.--
- But he's so damned charmingly folksy and bigoted! EternalCritic 17:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I did NOT miss this prick.-caius (soldier) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- The quote I found was that 40% of Americans believe man was created by god... not that the world is 6000 years old. but i'm not playing any of that game. just cause Americans are fricking stupid does not mean anything regarding Truth and Reality and, you know, HELLO.--
Thanks to whoever pulled up this year-old quote from Ed, saying all gays should be locked up in asylums & prisons. This should definitely be added to our article on him & not forgotten. "Everyone seems to approve of Islamic sharia law,really? so why not do the same thing here in Christian America?" Great idea Ed. :-S weaseLOId
~ 17:37, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I hope Ed is not as expert in electronics as he is in teh maffs, since I edited some basic lextrix articles while he was away playing "teacher". ħuman 17:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- It takes a special level of hate (or repressed projection) to be that bigoted on such an open level. I mean, even the fundies pretend to care about the gays. ED is all but calling for them to be rounded up and put through reeducation. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 18:15, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Yep, he's back. Yes, our resident vanity published conspiracy theorist can write whatever he wants! To hell with writing an encyclopaedia! --JeevesMkII 18:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Man, Ed's just a one-man wrecking crew over there. If CP had any credibility, it definitely wouldn't survive that guy. Like always, I wonder whether he's trying to discredit the place for some reason, or if he's just utterly insane. --Kels 18:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I'd love to see how he teaches. "Do you have your assignment, Billy?" "No. :(" "Sorry to say this, Billy, but you're expelled from this school forever." Maybe that's why he came back, was fired? NorsemanCyser Melomel 21:01, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- I'd love to see how he teaches. "Do you have your assignment, Billy?" "No. :(" "Sorry to say this, Billy, but you're expelled from this school forever." Maybe that's why he came back, was fired?
Ahh, I begin to understand what's (or who's) up Weird Ed's ass lately. Check out this and tell me it doesn't sound like all of his new "gays are TEH EBIL!!" articles are cribbed straight out of it. He even uses the damn thing as reference for his "gays weren't really victims of the Nazis" trash. And the site he got it from isn't much better. --Kels 21:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, Ed has at least one guy in his corner. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 00:12, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- As a parodist/disruptor, Bugler will always chose the position that will drive away the most people with a bias to driving away those individuals that might actually help CP become an actual encyclopedia. In furthering this goal, he backs the people who are the nuttiest. Ed Poor is indeed the biggest idiot and thus Bugler will always back him up...Since Poor Ed's olfactory cavity and Andy's colon share the same space, Bugler doesn't have to worry about running into conflict with Andy. You'll note that he doesn't go after HSMom - doing so might get everyone against him (including Andy)... but going after other sysop types, he can foster editor dissent with Andy's inaction and block any potentially helpful editors before they become valuable. --Shagie 00:44, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- The above got lost in an edit conflict... but some of the imagery is particularly vivid. It also bears repeating with the current PJR vs Bugler dinner theater. I believe Andy is able to ignore more than PJR can put up with and that PJR will realize that CP is a hopeless cause and leave. Not that I'm rooting for Bugler, but rather that if Bugler is somehow disposed, PJR still won't be able to reign CP in and it will remain a soapbox for Andy's brand of conservativism and a new Bugler will arise... but that is another section of the talk page. --Shagie 12:55, 12 November 2008 (EST)
In regard to Eddy's argument with myself someone I have never met (under the Selfish subtitle), I can see his debating skills are severely lacking. I This person was invited to undertake a "discussion" (after my their account was blocked, nice invite, Eddy). Subsequent accounts were then blocked when I they took Ed up on his offer to partake in a discussion.
Ed created the sub-section "Selfishness" based on some wandalizm that was put in the article by me this person. He agrees with it totally, admitting he is selfish, but then screams "Personal Attack!" when that's pointed out to him.
Ed tried to steer the conversation from Selfishness to Empiricism, then has the balls to accuse me his opponent of shepherding the conversation away from its main topic... Scroll up a bit Ed, the topic is Selfishness.
It would appear that Ed is a very poorly educated man. Even public schools teach the value and effectiveness of a good debate, and teach us how to undertake one. Poor Ed Poor, never paid attention in school, eh?
Aaah, the theatre. -RedbackG'day 02:53, 11 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry I can't hear you[edit]
over the sound of Brossa's giant brass balls clanging together. Well done, Brossa! Stile4aly 18:05, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- Whoops, looks like Andy was getting pwnd a little too much over at the Obama page. Sorry guys, time for a holiday. --Kels 18:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)
- The amazing thing to me is accusing me of misrepresentation when I claim that Andy's attempt to tie Obama to Islam is in order to attack him. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 19:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Vandalism proportion[edit]
Could one of our clever macro/php/perl editors compute the percentage of edits on CP that are vandalism & reversion - I'd estimate it at about 80% - any other guesses?
and butter 13:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Users get blocked for critcizing Schlafly. Christians are taught to trust God and God's representatives. Therefore it took a long time before the users came to see that something is seriously wrong with Conservapedia. A few months ago you needed email confirmation to start an account. Schlafly had to stop that because there weren't enough editors. In a few more months he'll have to reintroduce email confirmation because there won't be enough sysops to control the vandals. What them I don't know. Proxima Centauri 16:57, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Ed Poor: racist, idiotic, or just insensitive?[edit]
Maybe all three: check out his edit comments on the Gandhi article:
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mohandas_K._Gandhi&action=history
--Simple 19:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Makes a statement from a base of zero information (Kingsley's white) & then humorously corrects it! Plain stupid & insensitive, I'd say. Not racist really. and marmite 19:58, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- It's more subtle then that. notice he's the one who is name calling, then he whines about name calling, then he makes a joke about name calling, then he chastizes himself. it's like... it's like there are two people playing at being Ed, and he's at war with himself.--En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 23:33, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- It's more subtle then that. notice he's the one who is name calling, then he whines about name calling, then he makes a joke about name calling, then he chastizes himself. it's like... it's like there are two people playing at being Ed, and he's at war with himself.--
oh, the horror[edit]
"olks, you have to do better than that. We're an encyclopedia here, and statements in entries have to be meaningful and proven. Proof does not consist of asking questions, for example, or relying on popular vote.--Aschlafly 13:08, 11 November 2008 (EST) " yet he insists on things like "most americans agree that god made us" as proof of god.--En attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 18:47, 11 November 2008 (EST) Andy himself is a parody, right???? righta???
- In a perfect world anyone as dumb as this would be a parodist. Barraki 19:30, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- In a perfect world, being that stupid would be painful. As it is, he makes my head hurt. --Kels 21:36, 11 November 2008 (EST)
The fact that Uncommon Descent linked to Conservapedia strikes a death blow...[edit]
...To my respect for Uncommon Descent. Previously, I thought Dembski was a misguided scientist. After seeing him link to Conservative, though, I've realized he's quite simply a misguided, idiotic man who abandoned science for invective long, long ago.-caius (soldier) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- 'Tis WIGOed. and marmite 19:59, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- "P.S. The main author of this article is also the main author of the Conservapedia article on evolution" "main"? How about "only"? Ken writes his own press releases, right? or does he... I note a complete absence of the word "regarding". ħuman 20:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- (ec) I particularly like how it's just a baldfaced advertisement- basically links to Conservative's Atheism and Evolution articles for no good reason. Operation Donkeyshow Gentleman is Taking Off! I just checked the two articles. Atheism has a picture of de Sade on the top (???) and Evolution is still Hitlerific. Good job, moron! CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 20:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- I don't know if this specific tidbit is WIGO-worthy, but I love "science Journal Science," and how instead of linking to said journal, Ken links to some random webpage. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 20:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- He can't himself link to journals like Science. The facts printed in it would sear his eyeballs if he looked at them.-caius (soldier) 20:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- You will notice that whenever CP decides to comment on a study by a legitimate source they will always link to an article about the study on Newsbusters or WND or some such site and never to the study itself. This is because 99% of the time these "news" sites will completely misrepresent the study to advance the conservative viewpoint, and CP certainly doesn't want anyone to look at the what the actual study says. DickTurpis 01:55, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- He can't himself link to journals like Science. The facts printed in it would sear his eyeballs if he looked at them.-caius (soldier) 20:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- I don't know if this specific tidbit is WIGO-worthy, but I love "science Journal Science," and how instead of linking to said journal, Ken links to some random webpage. CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 20:17, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- (ec) I particularly like how it's just a baldfaced advertisement- basically links to Conservative's Atheism and Evolution articles for no good reason. Operation Donkeyshow Gentleman is Taking Off! I just checked the two articles. Atheism has a picture of de Sade on the top (???) and Evolution is still Hitlerific. Good job, moron! CorryHey, who wants to take me to the hospital? 20:05, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- "P.S. The main author of this article is also the main author of the Conservapedia article on evolution" "main"? How about "only"? Ken writes his own press releases, right? or does he... I note a complete absence of the word "regarding". ħuman
I'm still a little puzzled why Ken wants even more people to laugh at his articles. --Kels 21:27, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- An as yet undiagnosed medical condition that affect his cerebral cortex? "Web fever"? Hi Kels! ħuman 23:18, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Hey, Human. Is it appropriate to brag, even if it's off-topic? --Kels 23:24, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- It's RW, Kels. Inappropriate is our specialty (not that I'm saying you were!). That's a big one! Nicely drawn, too. My quick reaction - not geologic, probably "erected" by savages concerned about their "ammunition". Oh, PS, coastal clouds often make a weird curved pattern - those look more like plains clouds? Anyway - at least they look like fucking clouds! Mine look like thought balloons... Yikes. ħuman 23:34, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- Ugh, I agonized over those damn clouds. We weren't permitted to use shading, and clouds are usually rendered using shading or colour, so they're a pain to do using just lineart. And well spotted, the location is actually supposed to be a gully in the midst of grasslands, rather than by the coast. So it works better than expected. --Kels 23:37, 11 November 2008 (EST)
- It's RW, Kels. Inappropriate is our specialty (not that I'm saying you were!). That's a big one! Nicely drawn, too. My quick reaction - not geologic, probably "erected" by savages concerned about their "ammunition". Oh, PS, coastal clouds often make a weird curved pattern - those look more like plains clouds? Anyway - at least they look like fucking clouds! Mine look like thought balloons... Yikes. ħuman
- Hey, Human. Is it appropriate to brag, even if it's off-topic? --Kels 23:24, 11 November 2008 (EST)