Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive95

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2008. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Go Bethany, Go!

Beth is giving Bugler the red ass treatment. I like it. Bjones 15:50, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It has to be said that the distaff side on Conservapedia are generally quite sensible and have a degree of integrity. They obviously need to be got rid of. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Yay! Someone has backbone! JazzMan 16:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Jazz, I detect that you've decided to give up on night editing rights. Bjones 17:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I have high hopes for Beth. I hope that, once she gets out of the grasp on Andy and people like him, she'll look around and see how the world really is. Before anyone jumps on me, No, that does not mean I think that Conservative or religious positions are wrong, there are several religious and Conservative people here that can contribute to debates in a very logical and respectful manner. I see Beth as one of those people. Keep fighting girl. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 18:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Her input is a good insight (UNDENIABLE TRUTH!) on what Andy's students probably think about CP in general. Since her stance on the equal testing for boys and girls, she really hasn't shown anything but distrust for Andy's blog. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:33, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure how old Bethany is, but I believe that in the past Andy has (quite rightly in my book) insisted she not be contacted off-wiki. So a bit worrying to see TK trying to talk her in to dealing with him and Bugler in such a way. I'm assuming Bugler is a parodist so hopefully would not want to do anything nasty out of the public eye. But TK... I'm not so sure. Matt 20:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)

How old are Andy's students? She's been on CP for two years now, so she is at youngest 15, and probably more in the 16-18 range. Doesn't make TK's actions any less creepy though. Hactar 18:53, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I think that she is about 14 now maybe even 15. She was certainly young when she started and don't forget her older sister Sharon (where she go?) is probably about 17.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I stand corrected and disturbed. Creepy. Hactar 20:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Image Protection

What's the point of protecting images if you have to have upload rights? Seems kinda redundant and a waste of time. Jrssr5 16:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Because they don't even trust the people with upload rights, or block rights or even sysops thanks to Andy promoting the obvious parodists just because they kiss his arse. Conservapedia's just one big giant suspicion fest. --JeevesMkII 16:13, 3 December 2008 (EST)

That "rule" (Unless I'm mistaken, it's actually not really a rule, just one of those unwritten things they kept doing until everybody "knew" it's "policy") came into effect before they took uploading rights away from everybody else introduced "Upload Rights". Some people wandalized images by replacing them with Goatse and stuff, so they first came up with the "protect every image instantly" plan, and they kept doing it even when almost nobody was able to upload anymore.

Or what Jeeves said. It also sounds plausible in a very sad way. --Sid 16:17, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I think in this case Sid is closer to what happened. It had to do with the Conservapedia logo or something. It was slightly before my time so I don't remember the details. I'd look them up, but I'm really lazy. JazzMan 16:39, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I remember that happening and them instituting the "policy". I just thought it seemed odd to keep doing it. But the parodist point is a good one. Jrssr5 08:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure, but doesn't the protection also (or maybe just) apply to the image's description page? That is, protecting the image also keeps normal editors from being able to give information about the image and its provenance on the description page. For example, nobody can post <blink>NOT A BANANA</blink> on cp:Image:Banana.jpg. (That said, it strikes me that there has not been enough use of the blink tag on Conservapedia to date. I suggest blink should be used in addition to bold to introduce the very important subject of the article. For example: "<blink>William McKinley, Jr.</blink> was the 25th President of the United States of America, serving from 1897 until 1901 as a Republican." Okay, I'm done now. --Marty 01:07, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, it protects NOT A BANANA, but more likely it protects from NOT FAIR USE. JazzMan 02:02, 4 December 2008 (EST) PS: Blink doesn't seem to work on my browser. :-/ JazzMan 02:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Then you are a lucky, lucky man Jazz. *carries on sticking needles into Marty's voodoo doll* --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Jazz are you using Opera? I remember being incredibly happy when I read that it didn't allow the blink tag. I'm almost tempted to go back to it just to avoid that. Hactar 18:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Range blocks

This is a wonderful conversation about TK's range blocks. Corry^{I've made a huge mistake.} 17:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah. I thought this was an interesting edit that got removed. I'm also not pleased with TK trying to enforce the whole "we don't discuss anything interesting in public" policy. But what can you do? Bjones 17:42, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Man, TK is obsessed with getting people to email him. Why? W H Y ?--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 18:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Because on a one to one basis he can seem quite reasonable and will lull you into a false sense of security. _and marmite 18:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

My guess: purely ideological blockings, discussing it on CP means it might eventually be called out for what it is, and to keep it censored, they'll stop any talk about it before people catch on that they yet again can't follow their own damn rules. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Another reason TK gets people to email or IM him is because then his words can't be used against him. If he says something that runs counter to his actions later, there's no proof, and anything offered would be either labeled as made up or at the very least an invasion of privacy somehow. He's done it loads of times in the past. --Kels 18:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It also means that all conversations will be filtered through him. The entire setup is simply a Secret Court in which only certain people will be heard. And because TK always makes sure to stress that whatever he decides is simply what Andy wants (based on him "suggesting" quite a few things to Andy in the past and Andy just going "Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever you think..."), he becomes the judge and thus Second In Command.

People with actual knowledge are simply ignored, which ensures that all important decisions will be based on the technical knowledge of the sysops (BWAHAHA) and the guy with the most convincing style in private (TK). And since none of these mail convos will be officially on the record, what's to stop TK from making whatever claim he wants? People will take TK's word (or the word of Ed/JM/Geo/etc., who will confirm that whatever TK says is likely true because how could their great friend not tell the truth?), and the case will be closed before people even know that there ever was one. --Sid 18:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)

You all make him sound so sinister. It doesn't really square with my mental image of him, which looks like the popular British TV personality Terry Nutkins.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 05:03, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Terry Nutkins? TERRY NUTKINS? I will not have that man's name mentioned in my presence. --Tony Soper

TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:

Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the anon proxy part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable. Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

Chiming in, these quite recent blocks: :04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany ) :03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places) :02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy) :00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites) :21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy ) :20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.) lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate.

I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --AlanS 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)

--BRichtigen 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST) [1]

What will happen to sad little BRichtigen? Proxima Centauri 12:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Update he's been blocked for "endless bickering on settled subject" and unblocked. That must frighten him. Proxima Centauri 08:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Well, his block-log now has 16 entries, TK's 25, AmesG seems to hold a kind of record with 50. Perhaps I should take a survey of the number of entries in the block logs... --LArron 09:01, 7 December 2008 (EST)

There are 4 more big range blocks

216.54.198.0/24
THE INSTITUTE FOR FAMILY ENRICHMENT TWTC-NETBLK-1. Aschlafly doesn't want families to be enlightened unless he teaches them, perhaps. Proxima Centauri 12:01, 7 December 2008 (EST) 210.54.0.0/16
87.112.0.0/16
87.113.0.0/16

They’re all here. Proxima Centauri 07:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Is there an easy way to find which institutions use these numbers? --LArron 08:58, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Google - Whois - & work from there. One's a New Zealand Software place - not checked the rest. Fortinbrass 09:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Well, that's manual labor... I don't like it ;-) But it is easy for the last two rang blocks:

• inetnum: 87.112.0.0 - 87.115.255.255
• netname: UK-FORCE9-20050729
• descr: PlusNet plc.
• country: GB
• org: ORG-PTL1-RIPE

Ahhhh, just a major British internet provider.... Let's Bugler file the complaints... --LArron 09:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Only Americans matter. Brits don't. Proxima Centauri 09:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

With a bit of luck Bugger'l be on PlusNet - wouldn't that be poetic justice? Fortinbrass 09:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Teh Bugler hasn’t edited for some time. Proxima Centauri 10:10, 7 December 2008 (EST)

HERE is a linkie , dont use the /16 part Hamster 11:50, 7 December 2008 (EST)

216.54.198.0 TW Telecom Holdings Littleton Colorado 216.54.128.0 - 216.54.255.255
210.54.0.0 APNIC > BMC Software Auckland New Zealand (15 numbers) + collateral damage
87.112.0.0 Ripe allocated to Plusnet United Kingdom
87.113.0.0 Ripe allocated to Plusnet United Kingdom
edit conflict - Hamster 12:19, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Please don't archive this till these new range blocks are copied into Conservapedia:Range blocks. I haven't got time now. I've got to deal with the proxies article. Proxima Centauri 14:10, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Now Deans is doing it.
84.232.0.0 Ripe --ServiHosting NetWorks S.L. Internet Service Provider SPAIN Hamster 17:11, 7 December 2008 (EST)
84.232.128.0 Cable Link Romania - 84.232.128.0 - 84.232.131.255 Hamster 18:06, 7 December 2008 (EST)
74.63.0.0/16 Lightwave Communications Portland Oregon 74.63.0.0 - 74.63.15.255

"So a humble user asks teh assfly for upload rights to add to his article. "

What the hell is up with those diff links? PFoster 18:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Fixed, apparently. PFoster 19:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

OOPs

better than a link:

See that comment above from BenjaminS? That should never happen. No user should ever be forced to think that they have no say in a matter.

I weep for the future of Conservapedia. It has become a dictatorship where opinions against the leader's are silenced. It has become a hive for people who put on conservative masks and hide underneath the protection of this leader's infinite powers to further their own ends. It has become a shelter to those who deny the necessity of logic and reject the importance of evidence. It has become a slum where those who make every effort to end the poverty are stopped, so that the dictator's ultimate rule is preserved. It has become a battleground whose spectators laugh and whose warriors destroy the very thing they are fighting for. Conservapedia has become a failure. But it is not over yet. Conditions may yet improve for this endeavor. -- JArneal 19:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

And there's the block. _and marmite 19:34, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Round of applause for TK! Well done that man, no one can do more damage to Conservapedia than their own f**king brute squad. Sod the wandals, it's the real editors that are the problem. ArmondikoV^narchist 05:09, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nightline and Poor Ed

A miss is as good as a mile? ħuman 22:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Oh dear! Too hasty, wasn't I/ I'll comment it out. Sorry folks! _and marmite 22:34, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Hehe, no biggie, I presume you were thrown off by the "auto comment" that listed the text at the edit? ħuman 22:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Right! I thought it read like Ed's blustering too. _and marmite 22:43, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Had me fooled for thirty seconds... ħuman 00:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(talking about this edit summary) That's not an "auto comment" — auto comments only appear on the edit that creates a new page. (Also, the edit summary does not match the text Ed changed; it's a quote from the same paragraph, but that's where the similarity ends. Also, it's a full sentence.) No, Ed deliberately cut and pasted that quote into his own edit summary. Why? Because he's f--king ED POOR, that's why! --Marty 01:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Not really CP-related, but...who reads Questionable Content?

I think my favourite webcomic might be reading CP or RW. Or not. It's still pretty funny. PFoster 20:52, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Nice, thanks :) ħuman 21:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I can't even remember how long I've been reading QC (which means at least a week). Didn't know he had it up that early, though. --Kels 21:43, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I only read Explosm daily comics, but that QC stuff looks good. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:32, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Heh! It just came up on StumbleUpon! _and marmite 05:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Too Good

I love Andy. About 4 months ago I thought I would take the piss by adding one of Australia's most conservative politicians to the list of "liberal" politicians who have received a professorship after he was given a visiting professorship at my university. Unsurprisingly someone eventually noticed but was reverted on rather good grounds so he thought he would clarify that he was conservative. Andy after finding a conservative was given a token position (as well deserved as it was) redefines a conservative to reflect his view. Now Downer is pro-gun control, his government introduced the current laws, but given he voted against the us of RU486 in Australia, most pro-abortion is a big stretch. I just love how Andy will defend and even shift the boundaries to keep what was a piece of snark in. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 03:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

So basically, Andy can't bare to say "I was fooled by the wandals, therefore I'm going to undo it and put in real info". No, he has to be "oh no, it was deliberate. He's librul, he's librul, he's librul, he's librul if-I-say-it-enough-times-it-becomes-true, he's librul, he's librul, he's librul." What a f**king idiot. Really, this would be hilarious if it wasn't so beautifully tragic. ArmondikoV^narchist 05:15, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Hmmm, by Andy's warped logic Fred Nile would be a liberal because he supports gun control! Jimbo 05:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

yes, it's like you have to tick every conservative box otherwise you're a secret liberal. Totnesmartin 05:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I think we have the beginning of a game here. Think of the most conservative politician you can (non-US so that Andy won't have heard of them). Find one cite of a stated opinion that doesn't comply with Aschlaflyism. Insert said cite into their article (create one if you have to) and add cat:Liberal. One point for each such insertion that stays in place for 24 hours. Ten points if Andy defends the inclusion. Matt 06:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I accept your challenge. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 06:29, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Andy's Messianic inability to admit he's ever wrong, or made a mistake, or doesn't know as much as the next person, has probably done more harm to CPs cause than any amount of vandals. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Actually it has been known for him to admit as much. Just rare. Ajkgordon 07:59, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The last time I've seen Andy admit to a mistake was months ago, when he blocked someone for reverting vandalism instead of the vandal. He actually responded on his own talk page with an apology. Nowadays, he wouldn't have cared. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Rare Like rockinghorse shit. _and marmite 08:07, 4 December 2008 (EST)@~

Double points for getting BNP members into the liberal category?ArmondikoV^narchist 09:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I think I can stretch to that. Anyone know Pauline Hanson's views on school prayer by the way? Matt 16:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

She would meet Andy's definition of pro-abortion, despite her gun loving. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nice block & Nasty block

1 nice block and 2 nasty blocks so far

Nice block

Aschlafly thinks that was a nice block. Note! He hasn’t tried to counter the arguments in the links that CharlesG made. Perhaps he knows he can’t. Proxima Centauri 09:11, 4 December 2008 (EST)

What argument would that be? All he (you?) did was hide links to pro-evolutionist sites within random words. Not only was no argument actually made, but you have given Andy more evidence to claim that "evolutionists" (and by extention "liberals") are deceitful when it serves their purpose. JazzMan 12:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Well, the words may have been random, but the links at least look to be "on topic" for the words chosen. ħuman 16:45, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, PC, but that was a fair block. It would have been censoring of a legitimate argument if the argument had presented openly instead of through a backdoor. --SpinyNorman 13:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I guess anything that helps protect him from the real world counts as 'nice' to him. Still, when last did he actually congratulate any of the peons over there for anything other than a block? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Here's one, though it may not count due to 'Godspeed'. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 09:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nice-ah block! Speakerface gets it. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 10:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

He congratulates people on blocks and when Ed and similar idiots beg for compliments by showing off their pathetic little pieces of shit on his talk page. Speaking of which, hasn't Ed written enough one sentence articles, quote-only entries, and external links that he's due for a "Daddy! Daddy! Look what I did!" DickTurpis 12:19, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nasty block

TK blocked JArneal, presumably for this comment.

• This comment got teh blockie as well. Surprise, surprise. Proxima Centauri 09:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)

WIGO?

What IS going on over there? I can't seem to be able to bring up their page today. Did they crash again? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 09:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nevermind. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 09:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Freudian slip?

I loved this little gem from TeaCake: "removed, discredited sysops, and ones who constantly argue with Andy" ... er, that's actually an accurate description of you, isn't it, TeaCake? Fox 09:36, 4 December 2008 (EST)

HA! So in other words, he's tainting poor Bethany. COLD SHOWER TIEM! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:31, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Statistics for Conservapedia Day

top 100 RW vs CP

Well, though there was a project at CP for CPDay :"A statistical analysis of the first and the second years' growth, accomplishments, and major contributors. ", nothing happened. Surprise, surprise.

As a substitute I've updated our information on active users at RW and CP.

Enjoy, LArron 10:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

What do you use to make those graphs? They're very pretty. --JeevesMkII 10:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I use R. --LArron 11:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nice stats! Well done. Interesting to see that there only 30-odd (ok, strange) people actually running CP these days. The site is growing rapidly! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Not to complain, but how come I don't turn up on those graphs (the CP side)? My prefs page over there shows that about 1900 of my edits still survive... or am I missing something? ħuman 16:53, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Of course. The instant I hit "save" I found me, right between CPAdmin1 and Hsmom... nevermind :) ħuman 16:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

PS, can you re-run it and exclude the bots? (capturebot and bestofbot run a lot and are on the graph) Although maybe we should include them? I dunno... ħuman 16:59, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks all of you for your appreciation! I excluded the bots in the tables RW and CP, but I don't plan to exclude them from the graph --LArron 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I am surprised Conservative has so few edits given the number of edits he makes to one paragraph. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Actually now I think about it his edit count would be kept artificially low because he keep deleting everything he has ever contributed to. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 22:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Having fun

With the Homosexual obsession article. UPDATE: Received Infinite Block from RodWeathers

Ed again

I think he's high on something again. His The Shadow reference was weird, but what the hell's with this? If you look at the kid's user page, he's got one misspelling and hasn't edited it sint 4th of July. Too much coffee? Smyth 12:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Kid needs to capitalize things, too. 74.7.166.234

meh EC, but anyway. Ed's also seen that the axiom of choice has been causing problems. How shall we fix it? By letting somebody who knows what they're talking about fix it? Nah... I'll take the easy way out... and we can start the whole process over again. Excuse me but... FUCK! The man drives me mad sometimes. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

WHAT THE HELL, ED? I didn't have (m)any problems when Ed before he went on his little vacation, but since he came back (at the exact same time that TK came back, I'm just sayin'...) it's almost as if he's actively trying to make Conservapedia worse. (Not that this isn't a new tactic, however. He did the same thing months ago on an article I was working on. I had to find a Google cache of the page to even know what he thought was wrong with it. Turns out there was nothing so wrong with it that it needed to be deleted.) JazzMan 12:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Jazz baby, he did the exact same thing to me when he brought TK back last time, deliberately creating bullshit articles and being a dick to provoke me into quitting. It's just S.O.P. with CP's resident Dumb and Dumber/Himmler and Goebbels. Fox 15:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'm Jewish, I admit we can be pretty paranoid at times. Let's not get into that, mkay? But... but... I've never quite gotten over the Ed/Moonie/CP thing. You know that feeling you get, when you KNOW there's a connection somewhere, but you can't... quite... join the dots? I know this may seem like heresy, but I have to say that on the few occasions I have had exchanges with Andy, he has seemed a decent chap with a decent plan ... albeit one that has gone awry. PJR - really nice, likeable bloke. DeanS likewise. LT... HJ... BrianCo... In fact, I've only ever really come to dislike Teacake and PaedPoor.

What exactly is Ed's interest in all this and what exactly is his hold over Andy? I've considered that maybe the UC is funding CP. I've considered that the UC wishes to "normalize" (ie have every article written from a UC pov) CP. And why isn't Ed - the self-proclaimed ultima hero of wikis - involved with the UC's "New World Encyclopedia" wiki? Is it because he's a public embarrassment to their project? Incompetent as an editor? Is he trying to undermine CP to the point that the UC can buy it out? Is he ensuring that it will never challenge the conservative position of the NWE? We all know the name alone "CONSERVApedia" is worth its weight in platinum. It should have been something worthy to behold. But it got warped, twisted. And along the way I think Andy lost sight of his aims and intentions. Like Yosser Hughes and Wormtongue? Andy and TeaCake? Back in the day, he admitted to me that he had little control over TeaCake, that he was like some guard dog that had gone rogue and was now a liability but at least still attacked vandals - as well as everybody else. I dunno if I still have that email, it's doubtful, I'll check though. The constant attacks from RW have really entrenched Andy in a position where he has become almost a caricature of himself. I'm not saying that anybody should stop. After all, the shite that some people are writing there deserves to be countered and the he fact that they have blocked all discussion means they have invited hostility. It's often difficult for me, as I have friends there, and have enjoyed email exchanges with a lot of the "faces" there - PJR, Tim (CPAdmin1), Taj, Joaquin, Dean, to name but a few - but ultimately all I see is Ed Poor and TeaCake destroying it from within, creating a fascist, right wing, intolerant hate site. Back to the thrust - Ed poor isn't there for anything except to discredit the site. TeaCake has admitted as much here that that is his only motive. Between the two of them, they will continue to undermine good-faith editors and the encyclopedia's credibility. Bugler, RW, et al don't count, because they're 5th column anyway. Fox 16:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Ed, look at the relationship between Moonies and conservatives. The Moonies tend to attach themselves to conservatives and give them money in exchange for influence. Here, you've got a conservative website (related to Phyllis Schafly) with a number of young minds. The conservatives are not hostile to Moonies and he has a chance at advancing the Moonie philosophy and maybe get a convert or two twenty years down the road. Notice that Ed likes to show up at Conservapedia events. Why its Ed there rather than a more skilled Moonie? More local than others? Skill appropriate to the website? I don't think he's intentionally trying to destroy CP but rather has found a place where people don't laugh at him to his face. That he is an incontinent buffoon is another matter. --Shagie 20:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I reall hope you meant to write "incompetent buffoon" there. Otherwise, that's a level of knowledge of Ed I'm really not comfortable with. --Kels 22:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Fox you're right, the few e-mail exchanges I had with Andy that weren't "I'm suing you, Trent, and everyone at RationalWiki" were quite pleasant. I think somewhere under the dogma and paranoia cultivated by TK, there's probably a decent guy. Whether he's retrievable at this point is another question entirely.-caius (decider) 16:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Although one can't make direct analogies, Ed strikes me just like the pointy-haired boss from the Dlbert strip - he thinks he's a good administrator but he can't write a half-way decent article with formatting and categories and when he doesn't understand what other people write he throws it away. I can only surmise that the CP biggest idiot award isn't enough for him he wants it magna cum laude.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Now There's a new one...

Andy just demoted Deborah for among other things, not keeping Kosher. --SpinyNorman 13:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Wow. So inserting incorrect info into an article is now punishable by demoshun. When will Andy be demoting himself then, I wonder? Although, fair play, Debs has been rather silent lately, apart from her anti-Mormon burst just before CP Day. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Inactive? She just edited a couple months ago. JazzMan 14:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Her last edit was like November 19 or so.... By that standard, CollegeRepublican is clinically deceased. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 14:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I meant weeks, not months. JazzMan 14:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Thing about Deborah was she was definitely pulling the wool over someone's eyes. Back in the day, I caught her on checkuser as a previous vandal/sock/troll/RW freedom fighter, call em what you will, and also had reverted a lot of her socks' previous dubious edits. Originally she/he/it claimed to be an Orthodox Jew. Then in later incarnations was a fundy Christian. I always suspected it was TeaCake because of their "I love all Jews and Christians but not those Messianic Jew assholes" attitude. Sure, we're not popular, but *sometimes* you just know when people are aiming directly at you, not just the crowd you're in. He/she/it also did a lot of 404 page not found stuff. As regards the kosher page, I seem to recall starting to correct it and make it a bit more encyclopaedic, but then got banned and run out of Dodge by the Parodist's Posse and TeaCake. I never did remember to go back and fix the absolute shite she'd written. Fox 15:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The edits to Kosher were back in July, and "her" recent inactivity is due to a self-ban for calling Moonies and Mormons "cults", and then apologizing and grovelling to Ed and Croc. I'm guessing something else has been going on behind the curtain, probably unrelated to all of the above.--WJThomas 15:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

She'd started by reappearing within a matter of hours of my first edits to CP on my last appearance. I'd begun work on the Messianic Judaism article, and she jumped in and started firing off both barrels about what scum we were. I took it to her talk page, where she carried on, and eventually took enough rope to hang herself. Fox 15:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

An article very close to Ed's heart, being the frum that he is. Apparently. Fox 15:45, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(Leans over) I'll just be taking that 'frum' as my word of the day, thankyouverymuch.--Martin Arrowsmith 15:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

You're welcome, go have fun with it. Be aware that it also has a delicious use - often by me with a butter-wouldn't-melt-expression - when being snarky in that it is also an acronym for "Fiel Rishus, Veinig Mitzvos" which means just the opposite: lots of evil, few mitzvos. Fox 16:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Would that be 'frum' as in 'drum' or 'frum' as in 'doom'? Do I need to clear my throat in the middle ('fffrughm', I guess)?--Martin Arrowsmith 16:31, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I guess there are regional variations, but I was raised to pronounce it "froom". As in "mushroom" however, not simply "room" (which is longer) (and I really can't be arsed to look up the correct phonetic way of explaining that lol) Fox 16:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Funnily enough, Deborah just had a pet article featured. More funny is that she pretty much just cut and pasted from some webpages. Also, here's her "heresy list" that she posted on her user page while telling Fox what level of hell he's going to. For some reason that probably seemed good at the time I didn't take a screenshot. Corry^{I've made a huge mistake.} 17:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

There was more, regarding LDS, but the Messianic Judaism talk bit she deleted is here. Fox 18:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Last I checked she had blocked herself for a month to "cool down." I think that was about 2-3 weeks ago, so that may be why she hasn't been on in a while. Hactar 18:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sure Ed's Andy's decision had something to do with this little side project of Deborah's. Notice that she removed "Moonies" from the list of "biggest threats to Christianity" only after Ed noticed it there. --Marty 22:28, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Advertising

Some of you might find this debate interesting. I'd certainly like to know if any of you have any good ideas. OneForLogic 14:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Karajou and Irony

Our old friend spent way too much time swabbing the deck and not enough studying. I don't about you guys, but I count Three seperate ironic grammatical errors in this deletion. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 14:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I got this: should be "an," not "and"; should be "idiots'" not "idiot's"; what am I missing?-caius (decider) 15:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Hm, not sure, but I'd have corrected it to "An idiotic page about an idiots'/idiotic website" Any advances? Fox 15:33, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(Edit conflict, damnit) I'll argue that since 'idiot' is a noun, not an adjective, it should say "An idiotic page..." or "An idiot's page..." for "an idiot's website" or "a website of, for, and by idiots" or "an idiotic website". Also, I think that both "idiot's website" and "idiots' website" could be justified: a website enjoyed/owned by an idiot or enjoyed/owned by multiple idiots.--Martin Arrowsmith 15:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Still funny anyway. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 16:10, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Axiom of choice ?

oops, see alse Ed Again section above Hamster 17:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Well , the article was too contentious and nobody understands it anyway , so leave the talk page and DELETE the article , that'll do it Hamster 16:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

1st in the list of very thin books: All the maths Ed Poor understands --LArron 16:29, 4 December 2008 (EST)

To be fair, he has written one in depth text. Okay, so it was called "Niggers, Jews and Arse-Bandits - Why They Should all Be Jailed", but credit where it's due. Fox 17:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Don't think they make 1 page books. _and marmite 16:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"This page intentionally left blank" ħuman 21:06, 4 December 2008 (EST)

From Andy's talkpage:

Could you restore the article on the Axiom of Choice? Granted, it isn't elementary stuff, but that's exactly the point... --BRichtigen 15:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Did someone delete it??? I'll check this out.--Aschlafly 17:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Surprisingly enough, he did check it out - and restored! Ouch, Ed Poor --LArron 17:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I was about to say he would, Andy has a weird hardon for bashing the axiom of choice. I'm not sure what his gripe is really. Probably something to do with liberals, no doubt. --JeevesMkII 17:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's part of his view of how mathematics should work. Keep in mind that he also regards Proof By Contradiction as vastly inferior ("When resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself." - Andy on cp:Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math). --Sid 17:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nah. He'll realize that Foxtrot valiantly tried to smear it and that nasty liberals (AndyJM/BRichtigen/AlanS) tried to censor Foxtrot's "insights". Ed's deletion will be completely forgotten (Rule #1 of CP: "Sysops can do no wrong." Rule #2 of CP: "If a sysop does something wrong, see Rule #1."), and we'll see a few "much improved" edits, along with permabans and/or warnings. --Sid 17:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Andy said its an important article . He also needs it for his homeschooling class om fermats last theorum , or somesuch. Andy should understand math well, cause he an engineer ;-) Hamster 17:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I should've become an engineer, too. Somehow, that would have given me expert authority on physics, biology, theology, maths and whatever else. --Sid 17:48, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Indeed. All this historian's "Well, we can't really say anything certain about anything" thing is no fun. :-( --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

And Foxtrot is back in business with promises about how he and his buddy Andy will valiantly fight the facts lies! And he starts by replacing factual statements with anecdotes about how he was deceived by a "guise" of the AC. And always remember: "It's not a bad analogy to compare it to drug dealers who get you hooked, and then you won't know how you could have done mathematics without it." - God, I love this place so much. Even though I'd probably throw a screaming fit if I actually tried to improve articles there. --Sid 06:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

PJR, Come home!

Holy shit, that's an ass whuppin. Please come over here PJR. I'll gladly talk to you about gun control, evolution, whatever you want. And I promise I won't just make it up. Bjones 17:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Philip will never come here, because he is the "real deal" in as much as how he describes himself. He is a genuinely faithful Christian who has adopted YEC because of his sincere belief in G-d and the inerrancy of the Bible. I'm not criticising that - I also believe without a shadow of a doubt in the existence of G-d and that Messiah Yeshua is His manifestation in flesh. I differ only in that I believe the Tanakh to be a layered document which should not be read literally. Philip was - and he has told me so - seriously offended by some of the verbal "tongue foo" (by which I mean not the intellectual criticism but the personal insults) he received from ... some people here, and hey, that's not a crime. Being slagged does hurt, and when you realise that he perceives that he is defending something as important as his immortal soul, then you should at least accept why he feels the way he does. I'm a little ashamed to say "Philip, I TOLD YOU SO" insofaras that in our last emails, some months ago, I did warn Philip that this was exactly how he would end up being treated at CP. After all, first they came for the Jews... Fox 18:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

For me, I don't want Philip to come here, he'd probably hate it. But I'd like to see him go somewhere he wouldn't be treated like trash all the time. Certainly there are loads of places like that. --Kels 18:25, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's funny- my exposure to CP and WR has actually shown me that there are people with views extremely far away from mine who actually can be reasonable and thoughtful. Seeing the infighting at CP with PJR trying to be reasonable and fight back (especially in the Obama article) makes me more willing to actually sit down and try to figure out why people believe the way they do. So, I suppose, in one way CP is working, although not the way Andy meant it to. (Fox, you and Jazz both have my respect even though I think my politics are fairly far away from both of yours.) And I agree with Kels to a degree, I think that PJR should get out of CP and find somewhere where he'd be respected. I would hope that RW would be that place, but I'm not so sure...Hactar 18:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Exactly. PJR is someone I respect - he is nothing if not polite, but more importantly his beliefs are intelligently held and very, very internally consistent - even though I totally disagree with them. I'd very, very happily sit down and chug a few cold ones with him, and if I were in politics, I could 'work across the aisle' with him. I'll bet we'd both enjoy it too. Whereas on the other hand, I would run screaming from the company of every single other senior admin at CP. DogP 18:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'll add my Internet pint to the ones already waiting for him here on the bar. ;) --Robledo 19:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Don't hold your breath: A) his views have been ridiculed here too much; B) he doesn't drink. _and marmite 19:10, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Is there a site (not necessarily an attempt an an encyclopedia) that you guys know of where people of differing political opinions actually can talk to each other without people giving them crap? Or is this just me being sicker than I thought and hallucinating? 71.183.183.21 19:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it, for this reason. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Try our debate space BlueSprite has been having a good go in there recently. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 20:06, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The problem with Phil is that he keeps doing that thing where if someone (with power) goes off on a tangent, Phil follows it while trying to stay on track. More tangents (Andy, Bugler, TK) and then his posts get longer and longer answering each one, which dissolves his argument. What he should do is this:

1. IF Gun-related deaths in the US: over 10,000 each year.
2. AND Gun-related deaths in AUS: less than 70 per year.
3. THEN Population difference: AUS x 15 = US, so 70 x 15 = 1,050
4. SO 10,000+ divided by 1,050 = ~10%
5. THEREFORE Australia's gun homicide rate is only 10% in comparison to United States.

Disclaimer: I may be wrong, but I'm trying to express the simplest form of math to prove Andy and TK wrong. 12% to 14% "United States is the winner" my ASS. That's a good indication that TK returned just to wreck havoc, because nobody (aside from Andy) is that stupid. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:35, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Classic Andy: "Basic logic dictates this result, as defensive uses of guns inevitably outnumber criminal uses by a 100 to 1 ratio or more.--Aschlafly 23:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)"

I think we just got another thank you note. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:59, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Aw. He wuvs us (even if there are a few holes in the socks). --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 20:31, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Please, PJR is just as nutty as anyone over there. His pleasantness just makes him insidious. He'd gladly urge his jack booted Christian soldiers onward to burn us all just to save God the trouble. And his latest rant--though so very sweet--is complete poser bullshit. It isn't as if he has suddenly had some epiphany and discovered Andy is a . . . dishonest person . . . it is simply now Andy's sliminess is direct at him,. So now PJR takes it personally gets all bratty and righteous and takes a yank at the polite fiction (AKA the big fat lie) that is Andy's integrity. Fuck them both and their collective horses. Bonus: The place PJR could prosper and do well as a contributor is called Wikipedia. He just couldn't go all postal. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 22:28, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The sliminess is now directed at him in regards to gun control, but it seems like that's blowback from his taking a stand on the Obama/Muslim issue. I'm left to wonder why he picked that particular hill to die on when there are so many other clear examples of ASchlafly's dishonest debate tactics: Lenski/PNAS, Hollywood/breast cancer, blatant falsehoods on the mainpage news section, etc. If PJR could ignore those other episodes, why did he draw throw down the glove over the Obama article? Has he always known that ASchlafly was a shitbag, or did he just now twig to it? I might understand if he suddenly got his back up over some doctrinal distinction-without-a-difference, but an article about an American politician seems kinda prosaic.--Martin Arrowsmith 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The gun control issue isn't new, it's just resurged. I think he was so pleased to be able to put forward his own whacky ideas(6000 year earth & Biblical infallibility) that he was willing to overlook the general tenure of the site. When Andy started to know more about Australia than Australians, though, it seems to have triggered some sort of "Road to Damascus" event._and marmite 23:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's the wacky ideas that'll keep him off WP for the foreseeable future. He seems mostly interested in arguments against evolution, bogus information theory stuff and a bit of apologetics and general biblical scholarship on the side. Not stuff that flies too well in an atmosphere where "the bible is history, not science, even when it's contradicting science" is not considered a compelling argument. But honestly, there's got to be places that do accept that junk that are huge amounts better than CP. --Kels 00:03, 5 December 2008 (EST)

But at most of those places he'd be one among many. On CP he's the authority. _and marmite 00:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Is he? He doesn't seem to be on a power trip, to me, at least. But, there must be a reason why he wastes his time there, after all our generous suggestions of slightly saner places to expend his efforts... ħuman 00:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't mean that he was power mad, just that no-one knows more than he & he'll be appreciated more. _and marmite 00:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent) I can't say I have any problem with PJR.... He seems like a good guy who actually joined Conservapedia for decent reasons. I think he's a little....fervent in his defense of YEC, but that's religious figures in general. Hell, I think we had the crusades for that reason. Anyway, I would welcome PJR on this site and I would really hope that we could be civil in person.... I mean, we were even nice to that fuckwad TK until he shitted all over everything and I tried to be nice to the Jinx....for a minute or two. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 00:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)

RE: Why would he "just now" be up in arms about all this, even though Andy's always been illogical: he probably discovered early on (as I presume most rational people who edit CP for any longer than a week before being blocked also discover) that you have to pick your battles. He indicated before that he ignored the mess on the Obama page for a long time. If all you did was avoid anything Andy wrote, you actually would have a pretty similar editing pattern to that of Philip's. JazzMan 01:47, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I think he tolerated some of the antics as serving a greater good , but pebble by pebble it bothered him more and more until he finally had to say THAT is intolerable , and battle was on, it might be a subtle ploy though , to lull people into complacency while they set up the destruction of the evil evolution religion , maybe in Ireland Hamster 02:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Seeing all of this going off between Aschlafly and PJR is pretty amusing for a couple of reasons.

The first, mentioned above, is that PJR has been wilfully ignorant of Aschlafly's (and his cohort administrators) more unpleasent (and frankly, un-Christian) side for so long simply because CP gives PJR a platform to spout off his wacky views that he struggles to get elsewhere. PJR has been an appeaser of a despotic regime because it suits him. Does that make him better than the others? I doubt it. A decent man would have left long ago.

The second is that when PJR is arguing with Andy on gun control and Obama, he's experiencing exactly what it's like to argue with a young Earth creationist. Basically, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, Andy is deliberately ignoring it, quote-mining, taking things out of context, making ad-hom attacks, changing the subject, making up "facts" and figures and so on, just like a YEC-er.

It'll all die down again, and PJR will get back to his YEC articles, Aschlafly, and co. will get back to their usual unpleasentness and Conservative will do... whatever the hell it is he does (linking to copyrighted stuff on youtube, from the looks of it). Bondurant 05:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) If you think that arguing with Andy about Obama is the exact same thing as arguing with PJR about YEC then you clearly don't know PJR very well (or Andy, for that matter). More evidence of this fact is that you think PJR actually has some sort of malicious intent for arguing against Andy. Also, I think you are ignoring the fact that Philip isn't the only one arguing about Obama; he's arguing with the support of several other sysops (and let's face it: are any of the people he's arguing against, except Andy, actually serious? I doubt it). JazzMan 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

An excellent insight. PJR, used to being on the 'faith' side of faith v. reason, now finds himself on the 'reason' side. Do you think he realizes that Andy puts the Obama=Muslim stuff in there because it is an article of faith for him? Obama could change his name to Jesus Christ Superstar, eat bacon three meals a day, and nuke Mecca on Jan 22nd and Andy could still crow about how deep undercover he is because of the taqiyya loophole. Someone should burn a sock and ask PJR how it feels to try to counter faith with reason.--Martin Arrowsmith 13:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Except that Philip doesn't argue based on faith, wheras Andy more or less actually says "I believe it so I'm logically right". There's a *huge* difference between PJR saying "this is what my faith tells me, and here are the logic and reason that I use to back up my faith" and Andy saying "You are a liberal [ad hom]; nobody seriously denies this [ad pop], etc.". PJR is finding out what it's like to counter baseless faith with reason, which I highly doubt is something he's ever been on the other side of. JazzMan 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I would respectfully disagree, because faith cannot be arrived at by reason. ASchlafly has faith that Obama is a Muslim; therefore the arguments about 1% of Muslims converting, the Hussein middle name, the 'missing' baptismal certificate, etc. are the logic and reasons that he uses to back up his faith. PJR believes that the world is 6000 years old, and that the Bible is inerrant in some metaphysical way, and he can quote his own set of justifications for those beliefs. To those who don't share either underlying faith, neither Andy's nor PJR's justifications seem adequate; they are equally baseless.--Martin Arrowsmith 14:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Best bit

"...it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind...": So now I'm a fool? Philip J. Rayment 17:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Slow down, pardnuh! When Andy said "fool's errand" he was referring to himself. --Ed Poor Talk 19:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, Ed, I know he was referring to himself. My comment apparently went over your head. Philip J. Rayment 20:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Superb! Oh boy, you're gonna burn in hell for that one! (Not really, PJR. It's a line from some film.) Ajkgordon 04:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That's a win. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 10:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Answering the 'phone

Ken's call on the Red Telephone... I have to admit, I do enjoy his tongue-in-cheek nature, and the way he calls a spade a spade and outright directs people to this site. /chuckling. Fox 19:28, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(L-R) Bungler, TeaCake and RationalWeathers.

It'd be awesome if he kept adding to the dancing irish jailbait pic, making the caption text reeeaaaally long. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"...I think you know by now that I believe in using the tactics of speed and stealth to help achieve victory. :)" Indeed. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

He's been using the tactic of speed for what, a year or so now? At least he's bragging enough about the stealth to keep us all up to date. --Kels 20:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"Our chief weapon is speed...speed and stealth...stealth and speed.... Our two weapons are speed and stealth...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are speed, stealth, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as speed, stealth.... I'll come in again." Fox 20:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

And brevity. Do not omit in regards to brevity, which is of course bad news for evolutionary nonsense regarding brevity!-caius (decider) 20:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Still awesome. Fox 21:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Heretoforth the trio will be known as Biggles (that's just too damn close to Bugler), XiminezK, and FangWeathers. Publius 02:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I wonder what this big 'victory' is. Let's try Googling conservapedia evolution to find out. Could it be the article on noscope.com mocking it, or the forum thread on bigsoccer.com mocking the appearance of Hitler on it? Could it be the entry on the blog intheweird.com calling the whole site 'insanely stupid'? Could it be forum post on richarddawkins.net, in the 'Debunking Creationism' forum, where even the opening post calls it 'really biased' and notes that, 'it doesn't make a clear distinction between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution'? Or maybe it's the entry on the 'Nondiscovery Blog' calling it 'pure and simple propaganda'? And that's just the first page of hits on it. Zmidponk 21:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, none of those. It was the entry at The Pacified Citizen calling Conservapedia "a scary part of the internet". DogP 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Antics vs. content - an observation

CP is obviously stuffed full of ridiculous antics at the moment, especially since the return of TK and Ed. But what of the content? Is refute-ready stuff still being created under a smokescreen of comedy? Or is everyone busy trolling and arguing? Ajkgordon 04:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Not just trolling and arguing--There's categorizing going on, too.--WJThomas 08:05, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well, as no one outside of CP thinks it's a genuine encyclopedia, just an extended blog using Media Wiki and a red colour scheme, "actual content" and "talk page antics" are pretty much indistingushable. ArmondikoV^narchist 08:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)

There hasn't been much lately, as far as I can tell. Andy has been pretty quiet lately (not even an essay, or mystery to chew on) and apart from the tiff surrounding Obama and Ed et al trashing maths again, I can't think of any significant entries. Maybe 'Counterexamples to Evolution' with the usual 'irreducible complexity' arguments. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I'd love a new mystery to ponder upon. They're always so....inspiring, those mysteries. I'd do a mystery myself except you can't edit articles with a question mark at the end ot the title via most proxies. DogP 11:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)

They should just make a category named "Fucked Up Articles" because that's what half of all the articles would fall under (being generous, probably 7/8 of all articles). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Possibly not, 7/8 of the articles are probably too short to be considered fucked up or otherwise. ArmondikoV^narchist 11:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Though, I miss the days when all the articles had citations to some big book o' creation science or other. I want to say The Junior Encyclopaedia of Space, but google tells me it was "Exploring Creation Through General Science." It is kind of sad to observe the standards for citations have gone somewhat downhill since those days. --JeevesMkII 11:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Jessica's OK (Except when she's blocking) & Bert's really done that KAL thing well. Apart from them - forgetit._and marmite 12:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I bet "in the old days" you didn't think the standards could slip even further! ArmondikoV^narchist 12:12, 5 December 2008 (EST)

And as if by magic, Andy wants nominations for Group of the Year. I vote for ABBA. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:59, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Plagerism!! ArmondikoV^narchist 13:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)

We should absolutely support his nomination of LDS for group of the year in passing prop 8. Continued association of the religious group with the political just helps further the argument that they should loose tax exempt status. Go Andy! --Shagie 14:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Is it?

SusanG. _and marmite 12:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Doubtful. From what I remember Susan has always claimed to have never edited CP. Why would she start now when she's not even editing here? JazzMan 12:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well, we don't know that she's no longer editing here, just not under her old name. Also, I believe that I have seen her sticky fingerprints round CP, they just didn't last long. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:14, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well *sure* if you want to be all paranoid about it. Maybe Susan was really TK. And TK is really Andy who's really Ames, who (we all know) is really Bohdan (who's really HenryS). JazzMan 13:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Regardless, I'm Bugler. You can never know online so it's best not to worry about it and treat every individual post as if it's from someone completely different! :P ArmondikoV^narchist 13:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Armondiko is a liar. Everyone knows I'm The Trumpeter. Pay no heed to Armondiko's bluster. DogP 14:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(undent)I'll go ahead and put the rumors to rest by claiming the sock. I tried several variations of SusanX and SusanG was just the first one that wasn't already taken. Goodbye little sock, goodbye....On the bright side, we'll get to see which CP idiot is perusing the cesspit. Bjones 14:04, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Whatever happened to SusanG anyway? DickTurpis 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Conflicts from within our wiki, though I'm not sure myself. In regards to CP, someone made an account for me too. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

It's well known that Auld Nick is the hornblower. 67.159.5.99 05:13, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Foxtrot to PJR: "You do not know mathematics"

Okay, what the fuck. I know not everybody here is exactly part of the PJR Cheerleader Squad, but Foxtrot is really going to far here.

Is he testing just how much shit he can get away with? --Sid 17:14, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Damn, I like that "I outrank him, therefore I'm right" on PJR's talk page. Not like it doesn't have precedent on the wiki, though, just take a look at, well, everything Andy writes. --Kels 17:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)

ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Over 2700 edits! Thats over 511!

seconded. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:41, 5 December 2008 (EST) And Bugler now joins in. So much for the "overstepping boundary" part when Bugler joins in.

Phil should play their game and give him a MYOB block. --Kels 17:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That would be fun, but it wouldn't matter: They will win as long as Andy looks away while parodists and trolls gang up on sysops who actually try to make CP look halfway serious. --Sid 17:50, 5 December 2008 (EST)

"Why did you not discuss this block with me before undoing it?" -- Proof Foxtrot is a parodist great nominator for sysop. His own talk page turns his accusation upon himself. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I love it. Foxtrot has somehow imagined that he is a higher rank than PJR, and therefore PJR can not say or do anything that Foxtrot does not agree with. I was on the fence about whether he was a parodist before, but now I simply don't see how he can't be one. So who does that leave? Sysops, parodists, trolls, vandals, wikignomes and... is there a single editor there who's not in one of those categories? The normal, adds-stuff-to-articles-for-the-sake-of-adding-stuff-to-articles type editor? I guess RJJenson falls into that category, though he doesn't actually do any work beyong copy/pasting work he's already done; I'd consider that a wikignome. JazzMan 20:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That's not what Foxtrot is saying. He's saying that he's a higher rank than AndyJM, so his facts are right and should not be replaced, and since he's right by that "logic", then PJR is in the wrong for undoing the block, since he's going against someone who's right. No better, mind you, but that's my read on it. --Kels 20:29, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, I see. I think you are right. But... that's even worse than what I thought he had said. (Plus from what I gather, Andy agreed with the blocked user. And the user was given absolutely no warning before being blocked for 5 years -- he was actually trying to be helpful, and Foxtrot reverted his request without explanation. It almost makes me wonder if Foxtrot thought someone was onto the fact that he (FT) doesn't know as much about math as he pretended to, and hoped to slip it under the rug without anyone noticing.) JazzMan 20:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)

IIRC, Andy agreed with Foxtrot because the AndyJM/BRichtigen/AlanS team accidentally tried to remove some of the "The AC is completely disputed!" FUD. Even when bitchslapped with the paper that proved Foxtrot wrong, he went all "Mh, maybe, but I still don't believe it, so Foxtrot is likely right anyway." --Sid 20:39, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Parts of Andy's posts: "I'll look into this further but upon first glance agree with Foxtrot." and "AndyJM repeatedly deleted insights from entries, without explaining his deletions. That can be highly destructive if allowed to continue. We can debate the validity of his deletions, but at first glance AndyJM appears to me to have been wrong." (both from the top half of the "My edits" section) --Sid 20:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Ah yes, thanks. I think I was remembering where BRichtigen showed that AndyJM was correct, and then got that switched around in my mind to think that Schlafly actually agreed with removing incorrect material. Either way the point stands that the guy never knew he was doing anything wrong, was never given a warning, and it was never explained to him why he was blocked. Ergo, Foxtrot is a parodist. JazzMan 21:30, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Bugler and Foxtrot (and I think Rod) repeatedly talk down to sysops, though. They're definitely imagining that sysops aren't allowed to undo their blocks. Also, note how Foxtrot quickly asserts that Philip has no say in the entire Axiom of Choice discussion because "[y]ou do not know mathematics". So in a way, Foxtrot is pulling rank on multiple levels on Philip. Though Kels is also right about the reasoning. Foxtrot claims the block was completely justified, he just glosses over the whole deal where AndyJM removed factually wrong information. He seems to imagine that there is a rule that says "You must not remove anything from articles. If you find something that's wrong, correct it, even if the result makes no sense in the context." --Sid 20:39, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I think there is a lot of "missing the point" here (though I may be wrong). lately, Fox has been more "one of us" than "one of them" so it makes perfect sense for him to indulge in Bungler-esque parody of the style of discussion on CP. He can't be "found guilty" for anything he said as all his points are now well-entrenched Common Law on CP, however, using the points in the way he is (and as do the Bungles, RWs, and TorQuemadas over there) points out just how foolishly the wiki has "evolved". In other words, Foxy has gone deep cover. ħuman 20:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I think you are talking about the wrong Fox? We are talking about Foxtrot. Unless I mistook what you meant by "one of us"? JazzMan 21:30, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Oh shoot, you may be right. Does it make any difference, though? ħuman 21:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)

CP Content

So looking over some recent changes and random pages over at CP, something struck me: there's a lot of CP server space being used up with articles on Tolkien and other fantasy writers, Star Wars, video games,and NFL football. I know from comments that Andy has made that he has a real classist self-superior attitude toward professional sports, and I can't imagine he cares much for pop fantasy literature, anime or Nintendo. Does he tolerate this stuff--which weakens the ideological punchiness of his project (it's hard to write a conservative, YEC article on the Denver Broncos)--because it gives him free content/inflated article counts, or because he just doesn't care about anything besides guns, God, gays and where Obama was born? PFoster 19:49, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Yes.--WJThomas 20:30, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I do find it hilarious that he bitches about WP having articles on every anime ever made, and about a billion Pokemon, while his own site is cluttered with a more or less random assortment of largely the same stuff. My guess is, Andy rarely actually reads the articles on his own wiki, just skims the Recent Changes for anything potentially juicy. --Kels 20:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, same as everyone else. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)

There's nothing wrong with a billion Pokemon! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Gotta spend the rest of your life to catch 'em all! --Kels 23:38, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Ed Poor endorses CE over AD

Ed Poor endorses CE over AD, wonder how Andy will respond to that: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate%3ACan_conservapedia_become_the_next_wikipedia%2C_is_this_good_or_bad&diff=575458&oldid=575456

Oldie but goodie

I wonder if this fantastic Andy dialogue got WIGO'd back in May? I just blundered into it, and it's just fantastic the way Andy lurches off the rails in half a second when asked a completely reasonable question about whether Mommy is involved in CP or not. Kwalitee stuff. DogP 15:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Wow. Normally, the man is paranoid and retarded, but this takes the cake. It makes no sense, no matter how you approach it.

"Is Phyllis part of this?" "HILLARY. RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY?" "Uhh..." "YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF. ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG." Publius 20:47, 5 December 2008 (EST)

To answer the question, I'm sure it was. ħuman 21:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Wow, just... wow. The first two posts (i.e. the first post of Ferno and Andy) speaks volumes about the stability and paranoia of the leader of Conservapedia. JazzMan 21:31, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I love that after only two confused responses from the head-scratching Ferno, it's already turned into a stern Andy interrogation. God only knows what asking a question in class must be like if you don't understand something - it must be like being in the movie Cloverfield in there. "Excuse me Sir?"....."GGGWAWARRARAARRRRRRRR!!!" DogP 21:41, 6 December 2008 (EST)

John Travolta Reference?

As this computer won't load YouTube videos (dirty picture protection) somebody want to fill me in on this? 19:55, 5 December 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked StefanL (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (BROKEN ARROW!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wruBPDRoLuk)

It is my first block from Conservative, though. Bjones 20:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Apparently not Travolta. Ken's getting moist over war movies again, this time it's We Were Soldiers, and apparently "broken arrow" is a code meaning a unit's been overrun and is calling for air support. No friggin' clue why he used that as a block reason. Maybe he's been awake for another week, and he's hallucinating. --Kels 20:26, 5 December 2008 (EST)

It may be this. There's been a lot of account creation today. Apparently the Karajou is temporarily out of commission. Bjones 20:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Hey Kendoll

We now know how Andy feels!--TimS 20:38, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I wanted to WIGO it myself, but I think that may have been the work of wandals. Note the "20099" date there. And Ken's shout-out apparently still exists. --Sid 20:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Good catch. Ken's original is still there [2]. ħuman 21:22, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Ken, I wish you nothing but the best. I hope your Evolution, Atheism, and 400 Homosexuality articles get seen by every man, woman and child on the internet. Seriously, nothing could do the causes of Creationism, literalist Christianity and homophobia more harm than that. --Kels 21:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)

First quarter of 2009, eh? Let's say nothing does happen, Ken, what then? I expect him to ignore my question, since he's been touting predictions for like a year now. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Look, he noticed me!

I'd give specifics, Conservative, but you delete your shout-outs to us all the time, probably for the very reason that when your words fall flat on their face in the future, you can ask for proof and know there is none left. However, what one says in the past tells more than what they say in the present... like this which calls for something drastic to happen in a few months (which hasn't happened), or this, or this, or this, or this image summary, *yawn* here too, and lastly this picture. The latest is almost 5 months old. Now that I've shown you to be wrong in your assertion, I also must point out that in less than a SINGLE FUCKING DAY (merely 15 hours, you expect me to be sitting at my computer watching your every edit or something?) of challenging me, you post a response saying that my silence is telling. Lawl. Now, begone, insignificant ant, delete your subpage and cowardly hide behind the range blocks and radically ideological bullies who abuse on a whim. Act as if your challenge was never issued. There's nothing you can do (except grow a pair and talk to me HERE, where I promise not to block you, even though I know the hospitality wouldn't be mutual) or say to save face. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:28, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I also present a picture to resemble the validity of your edits on CP in its entirety: Norseman^{Cyser Melomel}

WIGO poll numbers

Are in the 800s. Can they handle quadruple digits? Did we not have an issue with limits at one point? PFoster 20:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

We had a 256 or so limit once upon a time. I believe we are now safe until at least 64,000,000,000 or so. Trent fixed the limit when he automated "best of"ing, so the votes would be retained in the database forever for sorting. ħuman 21:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)

PS, if you're nervous about it, create poll ID=1000 (or whatever), vote it up once, have an accomplice vote it down to neutralize, then delete it, to test the functionality. ħuman 21:25, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Use of anyones Trademarked logo is free use , a lawyer told me ??

logos are free to use , what silly lawyer told ya that ??? think I will be doin some emails once they load up :( I am fairly sure some of the trademark owners wont be amused Hamster 23:26, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Didn't they go around about a year ago, removing all the MLB or NFL or whatever logos, since they were copyright and even Andy didn't wanna mess with them? Sounds like TK wants them all put back. --Kels 23:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Good for TK! Not that he'll be welcome back here when his mission is done, or anything. But getting MLB and the NFL to dump a pile'o'lawyerin' on the Assfly would be an accomplishment. ħuman 00:20, 6 December 2008 (EST)

(edit conflict - Human beat me to the logical explanation for this) - Unauthorized use of an NFL Logo is both copyright and trademark infringement. The NFL is vigorous in defending its intellectual property, so they run a very real risk of an expensive infringement case. TK is either very stupid, or, this is part of his plan to sabotage and discredit Conservapedia from within. 85.195.119.14 00:28, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I am involved in computer generated graphics as a hobby and copyright and trademark are common discussions. My paranoid side wonders why the question asked on andys page was answered on TK page with a request for the list to upload VIA EMAIL ?? Is this "what andy doesnt know wont hurt" or is the presumption that the lawyer asked was Andy hisself ? Hamster 00:33, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Don't discount the possibility that TeeKay is reporting exactly what Anne-Dee told him. The man has yet to demonstrate any particular grasp of legal principles, his CV notwithstanding. Andy has said similar stuff in the past, including, "It isn't a copyright violation unless/until the owner complains" (paraphrasing).--WJThomas 10:37, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Not sure it matters here but the NFL, MLB, and NBA logos are on their respective wikipedia pages, and have been for some time. -- Simple 12:28, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe because WP is an actual educational resource, while CP is a blog using wiki software? Or maybe their logo policy is acceptable to all parties, I dunno. --Kels 12:32, 6 December 2008 (EST)

wikipedia have a fairly detailed "fair use" claim on the NFL team logos Hamster 13:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)

That might be part of it. Andy's a damn poor excuse for a lawyer, but even he probably realizes the piss-poor excuse they have for "policy" on CP won't stand up to the sports association lawyers any more than a single Kleenex^tm will stand up to a bullet train. --Kels 13:17, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Over a month

look at the last2 words. _and marmite 00:12, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Funny, but it is DeMyer people. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 01:11, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I hate seeing TK pretend he's nice

Seven years of being an idiot

Especially to new users. Poor guy won't know what hit him.-caius (decider) 01:46, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Hehe, at least TK has his constitutional law pretty much straight - or, at least, pretty. Constitutional whore. ħuman 04:59, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I see TK and Ed are preparing to take their double act to the Featured Article committee now. Oh and this public display of fawning just about made me ill. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 02:25, 6 December 2008 (EST)

This is a trolling comment about blocked user in TK’s opinion. When users can’t make reasonable comments they get frustrated and vandalize. Proxima Centauri 04:48, 6 December 2008 (EST)

PC, perhaps we need to create a special "sock report" space for you? ħuman 04:56, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, that was rude of me. Your comment and sockie report were "on topic", please forgive me. ħuman 05:08, 6 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipV isn't one of my sockies. I was sorry for him. He's obviously committed to Constipedia Conservapedia. If I'd looked at his userpage before I wouldn't have been sorry for him. Proxima Centauri 05:17, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ooooh, yeah, he's an idiot. Salmon - freshwater fish? Only when they're dying... to breed... gross. Anyway, as I said, I apologize for my previous comment, PC. I hope you will forgive my rudeness. ħuman 05:21, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I will try to practise Christian forgivness. Proxima Centauri 05:28, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'd prefer the real kind ;) That is, if you will accept my apology. ħuman 05:31, 6 December 2008 (EST)

(EC x 3 bastards!) wait... he's a YEC who collects fossils? Odd. PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:33, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, that's fucked up. My dad has some awesome fossils he could show him. Although, the YEC part might interfere in the pleasant conversation. I think he's a sockpuppet... ħuman 05:42, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Should we hope for the end of Conservapedia?

Before democracy there was a saying in England. Never pray hope for the death of a king. You don't know who will replace him. Conservapedia does a brilliant job of showing Internet users how ridiculous conservative ideas and conservatives can be. Conservapedia with the Schlafly family money behind it is so large other saner Conservatives can't compete with it. The Kraken drives committed YEC creationist conservatives away? Should we help TK to destroy Conservapedia? Should we just keep on pointing out how stupid that place is? Proxima Centauri 05:25, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Do you really think CP is "large"? They've never come up on any of my searches on the internet (unless I was looking for them). Like, what's the "conservative" take on tankless hot water heaters? Nada... (etc, ad infinitum) ħuman 05:40, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Doesn't matter either way. "Internet users" don't see much of it anyway. According to alexa, the reach of CP is by more than three orders of magnitude smaller than that of Wikipedia. Factor in the majority of visitors who are there just for fun and mockery, and it's obvious that CP is really just a fart in the wind. --Just passing by 07:19, 6 December 2008 (EST)

It's fairly safe to say CP is operating in a vacuum - nobody (except for people Ken has spammed) links to it in a serious way, Mommy ignores it, wingnuts like Coulter seem unaware of it and I'm sure nobody, except (or even!) Andy's students use it as a resource. Looking at the stats, there's only about 30 active contributors left, and quite a few of those are parodists. Will CP die? Not anytime soon, although if Andy loses his homeschoolers (which seems more likely to happen), then CP's mission will have effectively ended. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:01, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Concur. If it weren't for the trolls, vandals, socks, and those fighting against them, CP would dry up, and exist only as a place for Andy's students to post their homework. We and our allies are keeping CP alive.--WJThomas 10:46, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Gentleman Kendoll! Soon your country will be as well educated as Romania!

Romanian eyes are smiling!

It seems that Conservapedia has won a major battle on the internet! The Romanian government has read Conservapedia's evolution article and decided that actually they had been totally deceived by the Darwinists and that the world was in fact created by almighty god 6000 years ago.

I look forward to the day when the USA will step in to the light too, and become as well educated as the Romanians in this area! To prepare for this day, I have invested my money in donkey breeders and mortuaries. --JeevesMkII 08:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

As this legislation was passed before Conservapedia existed, this must mean that Romanian conservatives came back from the future when evilutionists had finally conceded defeat at the hands of Conservative, and allow their ass-breeding ancestors to sit at the right hand of teh Assfly's throne as the leader of the intelligent world instead of being enslaved in his quote mines or mystery mills. Strelok 11:16, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'd say the Romanians are sailing pretty close to this Council of Europe resolution In fact, I've sent the Council of Europe's delegation in Romania an e-mail about it. Yes, I'm sure that an e-mail from me will make no difference, but I felt better. The resolution also makes quite interesting reading. --Bob^{bing up} 14:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Wow, that makes me feel a whole lot rosier about the EU. It's nice to know they're doing something more useful than attempting to foist unwanted copyright extensions on their member states. That resolution is a veritable tour de force of legislative righteousness. --JeevesMkII 15:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, I thought it was pretty impressive. We could copy it word-for-word here and it would fit in perfectly.--Bob^{bing up} 15:43, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, but while I think about it, the Council of Europe and the EU are not exactly the same thing.--Bob^{bing up} 15:45, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ugh creepy

• Why does TK bullet everything he says? It makes him look like a creepy weirdo. Ugh.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:47, 6 December 2008 (EST)
  • He's always done it. He can't help himself - it's a sure tell for his sox as well. _and marmite 11:50, 6 December 2008 (EST)
    • (he is a creepy weirdo) _and marmite 11:53, 6 December 2008 (EST)
      • What do you mean, his sox - oh bugger... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:59, 6 December 2008 (EST)
        • You mean like the time Ed Poor used a bullet? I pretty much make (made) it my mission to remove any bullets from conversations I'm in with him. JazzMan 12:33, 6 December 2008 (EST)

That picture is just WRONG! Hamster 12:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)

It lifts and separates. Two in one! :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:21, 6 December 2008 (EST)

We shouldn't learn about American genocide.

Roger Schlafly will try and insist on getting the Trail of Tears article deleted. I've rescued it. conservapedia:Trail of Tears Proxima Centauri 12:12, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I moved it to where you should put droppings like that, the CP namespace. Also corrected link to point to new location. ħuman 21:37, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Someone should point out that he should first talk about the Obama article if he wants to delete things with a terrible POV bias. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:22, 6 December 2008 (EST)

The Obama article is Andy. The Trail of Tears is Roger. They probably see eye to eye. Proxima Centauri 12:30, 6 December 2008 (EST)

There's a reason they were called RogAndy on talk.origins. --Kels 12:56, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I never got to see the SDG stuff ;_;. I should've said that in the first place, where LearnTogether keeps Palin and other articles nice and tidy, so its like they've been assigned territories so that they don't step on each others' toes while making things horribly unbalanced. Oh look, according to Roger, the misery of the Indians were unbalanced. KelsNorse 12:59, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I really don't understand why this is Roger's pet issue. It's what got me hooked on reading WIGO in the first place - a big debate we had on the Indian Removal Act in which I posted quote after quote from every book I had on the subject - only to see Roger play dumb and act like he couldn't understand the relevance of the quotes. I just wonder why he cares so much about glossing over the US's treatment of Native Americans. Bluefish 15:25, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'm guessing but were Papa Schlafly's family involved? A great many Americans were. Perhaps you can edit here and add your experiences, Bluefish? Proxima Centauri 15:33, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Someone else WIGOed it, months and months ago when it happened. Don't think it made it to the Best Of page. [On CP [as well as on Wikiindex, where you and I had a recent argument over coverage of CP, Prox] I go by "Fishal".] Bluefish 22:29, 6 December 2008 (EST)

They shot down the Jews, because they needed to be able to rewrite their definitions of genocde, and their causes of genocide. They shoot down the Native Americans for the same reason: NOBODY is allowed to be more of a victim than their republican (not Conservative, Republican) viewpoint decrees. They hate anybody who may genuinely be on the receiving end of intolerance or racial abuse UNLESS it is intolerance/abuse directed from their own pages. This Fox has gone to heaven. Fox 18:17, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Fox, i'm not quite sure I follow you--alright, I get the "CP wants to exculpate Christianity from its involvement in antisemitism more broadly and the Holocaust more precisely." I think it's way more complicated than your reading, but whatever. if anything, CP and the American Evangelical right fall into line with the most conservative readings of the phrase genocide, that it should only be reserved for the Shoah or a VERY FEW other instances. This bears out in their short list of events that are "acceptably" called "genocide." They NEED the Holocaust to be the purest, most unique instance of genocide in order to 1. Maintain an ideological touchstone for their support for Israel as a nation-state in the continued suppression of Arab nationalism; 2. justify redemptionist discourses about Israel and the Rapture; 3. Keep the Holocaust in reserve in order to use Nazism as a weapon against their own opponents. CP/the Christian right are very sympathetic to the Jews and their suffering when they need to be. PFoster 18:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)

The Right luuuurves the Jews in large numbers. It's individual Jews they don't seem to care for. --Kels 18:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Well, the evangelical right needs the Jews. Specifically they need them to be destroyed in the battle of Armageddon so the rest of the good Christians can be saved. Evangelicals only support Israel because it figures in their end times prophecies. Israel seems willing to take the help, ignoring the ideology behind it, which I can understand given the tough row Israel has had to hoe. Nevertheless, were I Jewish I would be quite annoyed with evangelical support for Israel. Stile4aly 23:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)

How ungrateful. You'd think they _minded_ being the Dope Mules of the Apocalypse! --Gulik 02:47, 7 December 2008 (EST)

CP's tame historian wades in and basically calls Roger liberal. (Already WIGO'ed). Somebody buy that man a goat. Plus, thanks to Andy bequeathing powers, he's also "untouchable". --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:00, 7 December 2008 (EST) The debate continues as does the edit war. Proxima Centauri 13:37, 7 December 2008 (EST)

The only problem is that Roger is a sysop and can have the last word by deleting the page. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:03, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Want to make Andy's blood pressure rise quickly?

Easy: Just show him what some of his old classmates and HLR peers are doing now... ;) --Sid 13:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)

What you mean Obama doesn't have room on his team for a secretary of state for school prayer, or creation czar? Who'd have thunk it? --JeevesMkII 13:44, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'd love to know what their (Andy & Obama) relationship was like back then. Clearly Andy isn't a blip on Obama's radar, but Andy clearly bares some grudge towards da Prez. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:49, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I REALLY want to know if Schafly ran for prez of HLR...-caius (decider) 13:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe someone knows a freelance journo or a current writer for the review they can persuade a to write a where are they now? piece on the President O's peers on the review. I think it'd be fantastic if the rest of them were all high flyers with private jets and Manhattan penthouses while Assfly is stuck in New Jersey miseducating kids. --JeevesMkII 14:07, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I think that's already the case. I actually view Andy's case as quite tragic. It's clear that he's a smart fellow (or, his mommy bribed his way through school), and he's done nothing with either his intellect or his degree. I suspect there's personal tragedy, or serious character failings behind that inadequacy. It's almost Shakespearean.-caius (decider) 14:09, 6 December 2008 (EST)

If he's got a character flaw that I can identify at this sort of range, it's inability to focus on anything. He's spent what must be eight years of his life at one university or another. For myself, I was happy enough to put in my three years, collect my degree and be on my way. Others I know have gone the academic route of post doc, teaching and research. I've never known anyone take the bizarre middle ground of collecting undergraduate degrees. The various jobs to which he's shown shallow commitment, the abortive political career, who knows what this man wants to do? Does he even know himself? Perhaps he's found his passion teaching kids, its just a shame he's so god damned awful at it. You know, if Roger applied for a job I'd advertised (which is scary, if distinctly remote, possibility) I'd have to take him seriously. The Assfly? Straight in the circular file. --JeevesMkII 14:27, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Obama's dad went to Harvard and despite being black he did better than teh Assfly. Proxima Centauri 14:29, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ames, I can never figure this out. The Andy we've all come to know and love is an idiot, full stop. But that can't always have been the case. Nobody gets the kind of letters he has after his name from the schools he got them from while being that stupid. Pedigree will get you in the door, but nobody gets a Harvard law degree unless they meet certain standards. Nobody gets an engineering degree unless they can do the equations. I've had to work hard and scrimp and save and do without and put off school for years in order to be doing what I'm doing now, and I've seen quite a few really talented grad students have to give it up because the money just wasn't there--so it kind of appals me that, given the opportunities that just fell on this guy's lap, THIS is the best he could do. PFoster 14:32, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Hrm. I'm not so sure. Firstly, I have a strong suspicion that universities with good names have them because they're selective about who they take, not the quality of the education process. I also have a suspicion that the selection process can be short circuited to some extent by the size of the wallets of the prospective applicants. Researchers have to eat, too. As far as I can tell, getting a degree isn't actually terribly difficult anywhere. There are just people who don't have the right mindset to complete the process, which is not the same as saying stupid. That said, I'm not sure that the Assfly is an idiot either. He just has opinions that are entirely made of fail, and no motivation to think about them logically. To some extent, I envy people like PJR who also hold opinions that are entirely failful, but can compartmentalise them to the extent that they lead a full and productive inner life except when it comes to those particular issues. --JeevesMkII 15:09, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Perhaps he's out of touch with reality due to some psychiatric condition, not through stupidity. I'm guessing. I have no evidence. Plagiarism has been known. There have been cases where someone paid someone else to write a thesis. Well? Proxima Centauri 14:46, 6 December 2008 (EST)

er... if that's the case, should he be allowed to teach children? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:52, 6 December 2008 (EST)

He shouldn't be allowed to teach children in any case, given that he's totally incompetent at teaching children. --Kels 15:02, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I have to agree with Proxima and Foster. Ivy League schools are difficult to get in to, but once in, if you're reasonably competent and, more importantly, motivated, one can often do the work and get your degree without being brighter than the average college student, particularly if you study in areas that don't require much intellectual critical thinking. In a way an ivy league degree means you had good grades in high school, or, in Andy's case, had some connections that got you in the door. I've known some quite average minds with degrees from prestigious colleges, as well as the examples of Andy and W. That being said, I don't think Andy could have been as stupid as he clearly is now and gotten through Harvard, at least not magna cum laud. Obviously I am in no position to diagnose, but after a year and a half of looking at Andy's writings it really looks like the guy is paranoid and losing touch with reality. I guess we really have to know if he actually believes all the stuff he says, or if he's just unwilling to ever yield any ground in anything. Maybe some of it comes from his training as a lawyer. When you represent someone, you can't admit that there is any possibility that they did anything wrong, and in this case his client is a set of kooky beliefs. OJ's lawyer can argue he didn't rob some guy in a Vegas hotel room even though they have a tape of him doing just that, and Andy can argue whatever crazy beliefs he wants dismissing all facts to the contrary, often completely contradicting himself. He just can't admit that those beliefs are false, or that he's ever made a mistake (beyond, "oops, that was a typo"). If he believes everything he writes, he's a complete idiot, if he doesn't, then he's a hack who sees it as his job to defend a position no matter what. DickTurpis 17:19, 6 December 2008 (EST)

On the subject of Ivy League Schools and their students' intelligence, remember that George W. Bush got his degree from Yale. --Gulik 03:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Academics and college lecturers are taught scientific objectivity. Most seem to try and follow it most of the time. Marking student essays, assignments and examination papers is inevitably sometimes subjective. Suppose a student has rich influential parents. Any lecturer will be very careful not to mark that particular student down for subjective reasons. Lecturers will be less careful not to give that student a high mark for subjective reasons. Added to that Andy’s momma may have given Harvard generous donations or lecturers may have hoped for generous donations in the future. Therefore lecturers were much more inclined to put a great deal of effort into getting Andy up to standard. Andy could pay for any amount of extra private tuition.

I once knew a Leeds University student. His thinking was totally crazy. He managed to keep the crazy stuff out of his course work and examination papers. He got a good degree. Leeds University is in the Russell Group. That’s the British equivalent of the Ivy League. Proxima Centauri 03:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I went to Leeds and got a good degree (a gentleman's degree, not a swotty first). Maybe that's why I fit in so well over there. Fretfulporpentine 14:23, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Gentleman's degree = 2:2? It also applies to ladies. :)-- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 14:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Bugler has just edited cp:Leeds. Significant or what? -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 15:02, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think that Andy was that crazy as a student. Although he probably regurgitated his mom's drivel at the time he has admitted that some of his beliefs like YEC only came later and his descent into paranoia and denialism seem to have only taken off over the last 18 mo. - encouraged by the snivelling toadies he has accumulated around him but almost certainly exacerbated by Obama's rise to power. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 04:06, 7 December 2008 (EST)

All the news that's fit to ignore

Won't be seeing Croc o' Shite post this to the main page any time soon, heh. --Kels 14:44, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Is Conservative using stealth or fraud the get the Evolution article up the search engines?

Conservative just deleted the evidence!

They admit to stealth. What's the difference between stealth and fraud? I just logged into google. In a search for, "Theory of Evolution" the Conservapedia article came third. When I searched just for "Evolution" The Conservapedia article wasn't on the first page. Does anyone here have contacts with influential scientists who can point out that Google is giving priority to unscientific rubbish? Proxima Centauri 15:48, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Whatever he's doing, he's failing epically at it. His articles are going down, not up, in the Google rankings. --JeevesMkII 15:55, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry. Conservapedia's Theory of Evolution ranks third on the first page of Google. That's not epic fail. Proxima Centauri 15:59, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, yes it is. :D --JeevesMkII 16:03, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ken's rants are the leading humour articles on the subjects of evolution, homosexuality and atheism. No one seriously denies that. --Kels 16:06, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Fraud... well, I guess that depends on the definition. From what I can see, Ken's optimizing both on-wiki and off-wiki. The former is basically turning his pet projects into gigantic wikilink portals filled with various key phrases (he occasionally mentions how it's better to use full names and to often list groups of terms together, such as "Peter Labababa, President of Homophobes for Faith" or whatever he's called). The tons and tons of mini-spinoff articles are also part of the plan, I think. And outside the wiki, he tries "to get the word out". This basically means that he asks every website on the planet to link to his pet projects (see all those Anti-Atheism blogs, that Uncommon Descent site, Peter Labababa's site, etc. etc.) and simply socks up on tons of forums and blogs to spam comments like "Did you read this article? [linkplug] I think it was quite interesting!" all over the place. Other than that, lots of finetuning and obsessively researching how Google ranks pages. If it came out that Google gives pages with a pink background a higher ranking, then Ken would be first in line to lobby for a new site theme. That's the key thing, really: He cares more about the ranking than about anything else, and it hurts CP's remaining reputation more than Andy's crazy "insights" in my opinion. --Sid 16:16, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I've told Conservative. Bugler thinks it's nonsense or gibberish Proxima Centauri 16:26, 6 December 2008 (EST)

This later version is even funnier. Will Bugler unblock the account of HumorouS so I can use British or American spellings? If Conservative is so confident he can defeat our arguments perhaps he'll let us argue on Constipedia so he can show all those homeschooled kids how wrong we are. I don't think he's confident enough for that. Proxima Centauri 02:00, 7 December 2008 (EST)

This page lists the things that Google says they shouldn't do. And this is where you can report it to Google. So, PC, if you really think fraud is involved it's the way to go.--Bob^{bing up} 17:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Hmm...I don't see much in the specifics that he's doing, except maybe the "doorway page" one for some of his homosexuality stuff. However, he violates almost all of the general principles for quality, but we already knew quality isn't important to him. --Kels 18:03, 6 December 2008 (EST)

"Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content." All the Homosexuality and Atheism articles that aren't the main one do this. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)

He might also be close to violating the don't participate in link schemes portion. It specifically frowns on excessive "link to me and I'll link to you" deals.--Bayes 11:36, 7 December 2008 (EST)

"...which I like better as tend to enjoy more manly looking blogs" I lol'd. Of course you do Kendoll, of course you do. --JeevesMkII 18:35, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'm still confused. How is making CP an even more public laughingstock supposed to hurt atheists, et al? Make them pull a muscle by laughing, maybe? --Kels 18:56, 6 December 2008 (EST)\

Exactly. I am desperately hoping Ken gets his articles to Number One on Google. It will be the greatest thing EVER. In one fell swoop, millions of previously unconcerned and uninformed people will realise "OH, gosh, these right-wing evangelical Christians really ARE a hateful bunch of uneducated crazies, aren't they? Darling, have you seen this crazy site filled with stupid Hitler fans? It's hysterical!" There could be no better cause for RationalWiki to support than Ken's articles getting to Eleventy One!!!!One!!!! DogP 22:05, 6 December 2008 (EST)

PC, there's no "they" or "their" involved here. It's just Ken. ħuman 03:01, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Ah fuck it

I have spent a long day in discussion with my rabbi about the ethics of this. The conclusion is thart I'm finally going to release into the public domain the texts of the emails I have received from such various sources as Aschlafly, TK, LT, EdPoor, PRayment et al. Contact me immediaytely if you feel you have a case to withold... Fox 18:40, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Many of us are curious and would probably like to read those mails, but that doesn't justify it. Andy is a dick but that doesn't mean you should be a dick too. That being said ... nevermind, listen to your rabbi. Or not. Etc 19:25, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Jesus Christ Fox, your Rabbi sounds like a first-class asshole. Or a moron, I'm not sure which. it strikes me that if I e-mail someone, I'm e-mailing them and not the whole bloody world. Putting aside my ideological differences with anyone for a moment, those are real, living, breathing people with jobs and lives and families who (I would imagine) were communicating with you in good faith that you wouldn't spam it all over the net. I would urge you to desist because 1. It may bite you in the ass in a legal manner, and 2. It's a pretty mean, selfish, petty thing to do. PFoster 18:50, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'd encourage you not to do it too, but actually I'd love to see what they're really like when not on wiki behaviour. I missed out on SDG day by a couple of hours, so I'm intensely curious about all their petty squabbles. Curse the upright integrity of the people who won't post the SDG archives! --JeevesMkII 18:54, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I lol'd. At least they said please! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:11, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Unlike PFoster, I don't think your rabbi's an asshole :), but I'm sure you made an argument about why you'd like to release them to him that you're not telling us here. If you're hoping that exposing them as hypocrites/antisemites/evildoers will somehow bring relevant change, that could be a serious counterbalancing factor. Without anything on the "plus" side, the one thing on the "minus" side - privacy - will trump a lot. For example, we've withheld posting SDG material for a LONG time now...-caius (decider) 20:26, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Honestly, I can't see there being a whole lot in those emails that would surprise anyone. Andy showing contempt for most of his users, general discussion of how to screw over the perceived liberal enemy, fear of any number of "others", and TK saying one thing in email while doing another in public, while making lots of claims to being both a loyal CPer and Fifth Columnist, depending on the email. Nothing we wouldn't expect. So if there's something of greater value, then it may be a good idea, but otherwise probably not worth the bother. In the end, Fox, it's totally up to you. --Kels 20:35, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Would Wikileaks care about posting insignificant ol' CP gossip/backroom conspiracies? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:45, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I'd say TK = fair game, but lay off the others. --Robledo 21:22, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I say fair game for all of them.... Unless their emails have something along the lines of a warning indicating that the emails are private and for certain people only, you're entitled to do whatever you want with them. I also don't have much of a privacy issue here.... I think people deserve their privacy, but they should also know that things they send to other people may be viewed by someone else down the line. Post away Fox. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 01:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, rab was against it, but could produce no convincing argument beyond social niceity (shit, I think I made that word up, but I can't be arsed to google it) why I shouldn't do it. However, in light of the emails I received overnight I am considering the legal position. Can anybody remember which journo said "publish and be damned", btw? Fox 03:00, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Duke of Wellington in response to a blackmail demand from a prostitute. Do I win a prize?--Bob^{bing up} 03:11, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Meh - you just beat me to it. I wanna share the prize. wanna! wanna! PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)

You'll just have to compete again in the next one.--Bob^{bing up} 03:20, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not a lawyer but even so I know that the rules might change under different jurisdictions. Normally I'd support the privacy of personal documents but if someone is saying one thing about you (or anyone)in public and lying in private behind your back then public disclosure could be justified. If you feel that any innocent party might be hurt or the documents contain any non-CP related infomation (e.g. about someone's family, financial affairs etc.) then make sure you redact the appropriate details. If they were politicians, then disclosure would be hailed as being in the public interest. They are running a public wiki and if they choose not to act with integrity then it should be exposed. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I try to follow the principle that what’s morally best is what gets the greatest happiness for the greatest number. I suggest you look into how hiding or disclosing information in these emails can increase or decrease different people’s happiness. Relevant points:-

1. Revealing confidential information may reduce trust in society. (Against disclosure)
2. Revealing wrong doing that is demonstrated in the emails may deter potential wrong doers in future. (For disclosure)

Aschlafly has a reputation for making threats of legal action that he can’t carry out. Get independent advice from a lawyer who specializes in American libel law or whatever law is relevant. Wait a moment. You’re British. Are you subject to American or British law? Ask an expert. Proxima Centauri 03:31, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think there is a case for libel about Fox releasing information as it is using their own words. Libel woud only apply to Fox sying something. As for jurisdiction, well that has always been a bit of a minefield. Often it is the case of where the site is hosted, but it can also extend to where the site is viewed. Apart from PJR the rest are Murcan so the chance that any would sue a British subject in a British court is rather slim and given the costs would be ruinousy vindictive. But is anyone going to invest significant funds in a legal action anywhere? Especially as the participants are largely just names on the internet? I would say that the worst that could happen is a request to cease & desist with an apology. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:57, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Fox--knowing that your Rebbe was against the idea, I withdraw my comment about him, with apologies. That being said, I still think these were private correspondences and should remain so. Print them up, put them in a shoebox in your closet, and when you shuffle off this mortal coil and they establish the Fox archives, let the historians go through the by-then legendary Fox-Assfly letters. But until then, I don't think you need to put them out there....PFoster 10:36, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I thnk that legally the only issue is one of copyright. The original author has claim to ownership of the text but not the medium. Unlike say, in camera discussions there is probably no expectation or requirement of confidentiality unless explicitly stated at the time. If the emails were sent directly and deliberately to Fox then he can do what he wants with them, I think fair use would apply to their public release. There is a fundamental difference between something that is sent directly to you by someone and say opening up a closed group like Teacake did with the SDG which was expected to be confidential. By opening the SDG, conversations between other people must have also been exposed rather than just between TK and whomever. So although the writers may not like it if their words are exposed in public they should have probably thought about it before depatching them through the ether. At work we are obliged to be very careful about what we say in emails and documents are classified for confidentiality. The major drawback in using emails however is that it is possible to deny them and claim that they are forgeries. A police IT forensics team could obtain warrants to examine server logs etc. but without a crimnal lawsuit that's not a legal issue and it's one person's word against another. It really boils down to how comfortable Fox is with himself in publishing them because once it's done there is most likely no going back (and I don't mean returning to CP). I think Fox has been unfairly treated at CP and it would be some form of justice if their duplicity were exposed. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 11:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Hmmm...does that fall under the same sort of guidelines as taping a conversation? So long as one party to the conversation is aware, then it's admissable? I doubt there's any real legal prohibition against making an email sent to you public, although there would be ethical considerations, but something like the SDG where the (re)poster isn't the specific target of the emails would be trickier. Dunno, just tossing some ideas in there. --Kels 11:58, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think there are any significant issues of libel or copyright here. I think it boils down to a question of what Fox wants to do. I'm all in favor of making them public, provided there is nothing deeply personal in them, such as personal family issues. If it's just TK, Andy, and Ed being assholes as usual then I say go ahead. An option would be to print them here and then delete them so only sysops here can read them (that's just about everybody). I'm not sure the legal grounds for that, but it's what Wikipedia does when someone posts copyright infringement or libel. Sometimes they just revert it so it's still in the article history for everyone to read. I've often wondered if that could be a legal problem for them. Even deleted stuff, as I said, isn't gone forever. DickTurpis 12:35, 7 December 2008 (EST)

A letter is the property of the recipient. I'd say that morally an email is the same. Go Fox! Or, at any rate, take this into some small account when making up your mind. Plus: no mercy for bastards! Fretfulporpentine 14:20, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Yes at Fretful. I was going to present the recent example of JD Salinger's old girlfriend auctioning off the letters he wrote her. Against his wishes, but legal - she owned them. ħuman 19:01, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Legal, perhaps. But still an asshole move. PFoster 19:08, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Fox: I think it boils down to this. If you think any significant good can be gained by disclosing some or all of the letters, in part or whole, do it but with redactions (say: if you have a letter from Andy saying, "GOD I HATE THOSE JEWS," or something similar). If their only interest is visceral/personal, though, keep 'em to yourself :-/-caius (decider) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Point taken from Ames--but I can't imagine there's much chance there's anything that obviously inflammatory in any correspondence from Andy or others, except about liberals or atheists, and in that case: so what? I think the key question you have to ask yourself is: what good can come of publicising the e-mails? We find out Andy's a self-absorbed yet clueless bully with poor grammar and spelling? We find out what Ed Poor really thinks of Ames and Human? We find out that TK is two-faced? We find out that people have online personas different from who they are in "real life?" PFoster 19:25, 7 December 2008 (EST)

More or less the same as what I said earlier in the conversation. We know Andy has contempt for most of the users, sees liberals as "the enemy" and has a skewed sense of reality. Ed probably hasn't written anything terribly incriminating, but we know he's pretty messed up. TK lies in person and in private, just in different ways. Nothing that we haven't heard or seen directly in the past, even on the wiki itself. --Kels 19:41, 7 December 2008 (EST)

WIGO counters

Someone accidentally added a digit to the counters (ie. it went from 822 to 8223)--I fixed it, but it appears as though (adopts passive voice) votes were lost. Mistakes were made. Sorry. PFoster 18:43, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Well, at least we know that it works after the 1000 mark now :D Plus this time, it wasn't me who fucked it up :D --JeevesMkII 18:47, 6 December 2008 (EST)

In regards to Ken in regards to conservapdia

File:Kens favorite picture.jpg

Obligatory Hitler pic

Now look Ken, I had the unfortunate luck to log on in regards to the internet and read your latest diatribe, you know - your hideous screed that you seem so intent on subjecting the world to, and I want to know why? I mean, dude, it is ridiculous! If your grasp of the English language was the only thing that set you apart from your peers then that would be enough but do you really think your malformed prose is going to convert one from the apparent dangers of liberalism and evolution syndrome to the "Ken DeMyer" (first name and last initial please - if you want credibilty) happy go-lucky land of myth and legend? No no Ken you must try harder. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 19:39, 6 December 2008 (EST)

That's true. For all Ken's bluster, he obviously doesn't have any confidence in what he's writing if he's not even willing to put his name behind it. Maybe that's why, even though his Google ranking has gone up, the number of non-parodists wanting to contribute or support CP has not. --Kels 19:26, 6 December 2008 (EST)

You may be tenacious Kendoll, but you're also a moron. You can be as tenacious as you like, but since you lack even the basic skills that would allow you to succeed the only thing you're ever going to get is older. Have you tried remedial education? --JeevesMkII 19:48, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I WIN. Predictable as ever. Mmmm, your tears of anguish sustain me. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:38, 6 December 2008 (EST)

So, Ken. What exactly was that major article that used CP as a reference that was due out in mid-April, anyway? It couldn't have been much, since I don't recall you ever mentioning it again. Could you pop up a link, there's a good fellow. --Kels 20:46, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I fear that Gentleman Ken may have gotten his videos mixed up. I believe his video more accurately reflects the state of affairs. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:54, 6 December 2008 (EST)

What the hell is he babbling about now? How will sending the Assfly books on writing style fix Kendoll's horrible prose? Will Amazon even ship to a PO box? Seems unlikely. Kendoll, if you were serious about destroying evolution on the internet, you would have proved god existed by now! Until then, you should buy some bibles and masturbate over them relentlessly! --JeevesMkII 21:16, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I suppose the idea is that Schlafly would forward them to Ken or something. Hmm. $2.49 for Strunk? I'm tempted. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:30, 6 December 2008 (EST)

If you do, it's easy to dig out the Assfly's real address since he donated to one or other of the republican candidates during the last election cycle. I'd suggest sending it there instead. --JeevesMkII 21:40, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Huckabee, for the record. Matt 22:08, 6 December 2008 (EST)

That seems a little stalkerish. Besides, I note that the Gentleman has now deleted his red telephone page, so I guess he wasn't serious after all. That's a shame; I'm always happy to support educational charity projects. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:53, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Wherein Ken's Argument Bites Its Own Tail

Popularity is a double-edged sword for Ken. 95%+ of scientists actively support/credit the theory of evolution as the best explanation for human origins; but that's bias and a meaningless popularity contest. On the other hand, Conservapedia gets more traffic than RationalWiki; that's obviously directly correlated with the validity of the worldview of each site.-caius (decider) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Also, side note: doesn't the aphorism, "nobody ever built a monument to a critic," apply with equal force to creationists, who do nothing but criticize evolution without positing an alternative theory?-caius (decider) 22:29, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Gentleman Ken - with regards to my responses to your criticisms, your silence is very telling! Thank you for your telling silence (did that sound enough like him?).-caius (decider) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, funnay. He restored it and then deleted it again. I beat someone on the internet... how many points for the victory? Kan I haz trade points 4 delicious caek? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:33, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Gentleman Ken - Expelled talks about three - maybe four - scientists. I'd call that well below 5%. Wouldn't you? And I'd also trust a poll over a schlockumentary. There are in fact many, many more scientists who credit evolution than credit creationism. The Discovery Institute struggled to get a few hundred to sign on; if I recall, the NCSE barely worked to get a list of three hundred people with the same given name who support evolution!-caius (decider) 22:45, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Gentleman Ken, further to the point your silence regarding my second talking point is deafening!! I'm about to go to bed - poor sick me - so I'm just going to assume I won this round. Send prize money to my PayPal account.-caius (decider) 22:50, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Gentleman CaiuS, if that is indeed your real name, you refer to "Steve's list" Project Steve. In response to the DI's list of, I think more like 600 signatories (many of whom work in fields unrelated to biology...), Steve's list was started (names in honor of S.J.Gould) - limited to morphs of the name "Steven" - and to people in fields related to the friggin' topic. And as you said, the number on that list quickly dwarfed the DI's pathetic attempt at argumentum par list o'nomina (forgive my, um, "Latin"). ħuman 22:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Ken? Did you ....

He removed the Hitler picture from the Theory of Evolution page. Wow. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 23:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)

$20 donation to the RW fund says he's just moving it to a different part of the article.-caius (decider) 23:25, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Oooh. He did scale back the likely results of his operation though.-caius (decider) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Operation... I should play that again.... ħuman 03:04, 7 December 2008 (EST)

WTF?

I just waded through this page and its associated links, and ultimately my slice of cake in reward was a youtube video of a fucking aeroplane?? Get a grip, Ken - you're American, just like TeaCake and Ed Poor. Statistically, that means you are a fucking moron. Stop playing with the family computer, it was designed for grown ups. Fox 01:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Hm. Fox, there are soooo many ways you could have skewered this guy–and the most scathing thing you can come up with is "you're American. . .[s]tatistically, that means you are a fucking moron"? I'm going to bypass all the moral and intellectual problems with using nationality to impugn the intelligence of an individual (because I'm a fucking moron, statistically speaking) and, instead, point out that, statistically speaking, you are a woman.

Also: are you a Bobby McFerrin fan? Bobby McFerrin is awesome. And I think I just misspelled his name. Maybe I'm more of a moron than I thought. A Writer of Vaudevilles 06:55, 7 December 2008 (EST)