Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive96

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <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)

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <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)

Persecution

They’ve got something on Christian persecution. They even admit that Christians have sometimes done bad things to each other. Will they admit that Christians have persecuted non-Christians? Fortunately Conservapedia can’t kill its critics. Proxima Centauri 09:33, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Make him stop! Make him stop!

PJR is at it again. This time more painfully than ever. Those glib creationist phrases like "molecules-to-man" and "goo-to-you" (it's only a wonder he doesn't go the whole Kent Hovind, and add the to-the-zoo stanza.) The complete and utter lack of understanding of evolution. 4 or 5 mutations over 40,000 generations! Observable reality doesn't seem to impinge on creationists ever. His insistence that the bible should be taken seriously by scientists (why not other creation myths? I for one am offended that biologists disregard the evidence that the world was created from the corpse of an ice giant licked free from the ice by a giant cow!)

I don't suppose he'll listen, but someone really needs to go school him on how sexual reproduction works (well, we know he doesn't drink, so maybe...) and how natural selection works to ensure favourable survival mutations are quickly distributed through a population. Someone needs to tell him that numbers of generations it takes to produce meaningful change in organisms reproducing by binary fission who have little capacity to effect meaningful change on their environments is in no way directly comparable with organisms reproducing sexually with a social structure and ability to compete with their rivals for mates. But most of all, someone needs to ask him if he directly observed this global flood, since he doesn't appear to believe you can know anything without directly observing it. Argh, I regret MOAR HITLERing Conservapedia now. The ignorance! It burns! --JeevesMkII 09:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I added a link to the comment above. Proxima Centauri 10:38, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Why PJR is so dangerous: the others are so obviously loony, but he appears to talk with such sweet reason, while being utterly MAD. _and marmite 10:08, 7 December 2008 (EST)

You see why I don't get on the "PJR is sooooo reasonable" bandwagon every time he does something different from the rest of the sysops over there? Like I've said many times before, he carries water for some pretty big liars, and does yeoman's duty twisting his own internal logic around to make it all fit with the real world in front of his face. The folks he carries water for would be only too happy to pull a Romania, and gut science education in the US, Canada, and elsewhere without a second thought for the damage they do to children. --Kels 10:41, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I'm with you on that one, Kels, and if SusanG were around, then I know she would be too. Bondurant 11:50, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Heh, Bondurant. Your teh funniest. :) Kenservative 12:52, 7 December 2008 (EST)

The adulteress should have been stoned to death.

I suppose that's what Aschlafly thinks. Biblical Translations He wrote the whole of the above article. C Palmer added a category. The rest was teh Assfly's work. Proxima Centauri 10:48, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Wait... "Jesus's emphasis on Hell."? WTF?? I thought he was all about forgiveness and not going to hell. I give up with Andy. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:07, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, I find it hilarious that he mentions the special emphasis on hell, given that their own article on the subject (wikilinked, no less) actually says there are less than 10% as many mentions of hell than heaven, most of which not directly by Jesus himself, and that the "eternal punishment" thing is largely derived from pagan concepts, rather than Jewish. Pretty messed up. --Kels 11:17, 7 December 2008 (EST)

The issue of the Adulteress story aside (which isn't even a question of translation, but of manuscript collation), I'd say it's actually quite refreshing to see an article that accepts that different Bible translations exist, and that they can lead to doctrinal differences, without necessarily condemning all but one interpretation as the work of Liberal heretics. That the actual examples mentioned are mostly completely trivial is another thing, but it's a good start nevertheless. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:27, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Teh Assfly will only let that grow the way he wants. Some of his less irational students might get the message. You can't rely on the Bible. Which translation do you rely on? Proxima Centauri 11:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Does John 7:53-8:11 Belong in Our Bibles?

Here’s what they say. So Luke left it out because people in his time wanted to be hard on a sexual sinner. Probably they wanted to be especially hard on a woman sinner. Does that remind you of teh Assfly?

Why not in the original gospel texts? The only speculation I have seen suggested is that this text was not included in a final gospel product because it seemed to have been too easy on those who committed sexual sin. However, I think a far more practical reason can be offered. In the process of composing his Gospel, Luke, following standard literary practice for the time, would have compiled notes which he later collected and collated into a full text. The pericope would be well designated as one of Luke's original "loose leaf" notes that didn't make the cut to the final gospel. Why? The pericope fits quite well in the context where it is sometimes placed in Luke (after 21:38). But it is also immediately before the Passion narrative. Luke's Gospel is just about the right size for a typical ancient scroll, so the omission of this pericope from his Gospel may have been for a no less practical reason than that Luke saw that he was running out of writing room! [1]

^{— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs}

I hate to write this, but teh Assfly is right here, at least in terms of the story not originally being in the Bible. At least according to Bart Ehrman, a really well known and well respected (and agnostic) historian/Biblical scholar. He has a great work Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why in which he explains the story was added in the 11th century (I think, it's been a while since I read it) or so by scribes. Before then it had been an oral history of Jesus that had been passed down among those who couldn't read (85% of the population). It wasn't added by liberal monks to soften Jesus' image. Of course, teh Assfly is also ignoring a bunch of other stuff in the Bible that was there originally, you know the whole "love thy neighbor" bit. Do you think I'd get a ban if I actually put in some sources on that page by referring to Bart Ehrman or do you think they'd trumpet that?Hactar 15:04, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I seem to recall making that suggestion somewhere once and our resident biblical scholar got quite irritated with me. At least I think it was that issue.--Bob^{bing up} 15:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)

There are so many things that irritate me, so I wouldn't rule it out, Bob. However, I think the fundamental problem here is the tendency to think of the Bible as one single source that can be traced back to a particular manuscript or even a group of manuscripts (as above: "Luke saw that he was running out of writing room"). Of course, the reality is that the earliest Gospel manuscripts exist only as fragments, while the first complete manuscripts only begin to appear in the 4th century. Interestingly, this is also the time when I believe the Adulteress passage is first referenced in other literary sources (so if Ehrman says 11th c. he's way too late), but that does not necessarily mean that it appeared at this time - it may just be that the earlier sources are lost.

(Also, I fully expect that Bob will now go and drag out some ancient quote where I say the exact opposite.)

On another point, I'm afraid that I can't really accept the title of "resident biblical scholar" in good conscience. That should really go to User:Interpreted. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I spent some time looking for it the other day. You were quite strong on it as I recall, but I couldn't seem to find it. --Bob^{bing up} 06:19, 8 December 2008 (EST)

That's too bad. I tried to go through some of my old talk page contribs to see if I could find anything, but the only time I seem to have discussed the Adulteress story seems to be here. On another note, it's really amazing how many things I have had an opinion on. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe it wasn't you. But it was on RW. I mentioned that some people thought the "cast the first stone" bit was a "pious lie" and gave a link. And somebody - I really thought it was you - came back with "Well he's wrong." (Talking about the link.) I remember it because of the surprisingly terse reaction. But I've searched every way I can think of and can't find it now. Opinions make us human - the more opinions the more human.--Bob^{bing up} 08:43, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, it was in this discussion. It's a little difficult to tell 18 months later, but I think that I disagreed particularly with this piece, because it ignores the complicated manuscript history that I referred to just above. I do seem to recall being distinctly annoyed with the article and the discussion in general, though, so that may have led me to express myself a little more concisely than usual. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The 11c. bit is my bad memory (really not sure on the date- was a stab in the dark, but I'm nearly dead certain it was after at least the 5th century according to him), but I do remember it being a late add in his view, and if I recall correctly, he puts it after the 4th century. (Only book by Ehrman that I currently own is God's Problem, which while really good, is not about the ancient text of the Bible.) Does anyone have a copy or another book with a definite date of it's first appearance either in the Bible or mentioned as a story in it?Hactar 06:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Scared of ghosts

At least one Conservapedian is quite convinced that Ghosts are real. We'ver got rather a lot of them here in Britain. Why? Skeptics will say it's something about what superstitious people in Britain believe. Here's what Conservapedia says about Ghosts. Let's see how this develops. Proxima Centauri 13:10, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Initiate DinsdaleP Blockwatch...

I'd be surprised if someone doesn't issue a block over this, but I'm irritable from a case of bronchitis and had to post it anyway. I suspect Roger's response will be another "I have no opinion", or some similar way of saying "Of course I have an opinion, but if you think I'm going to put it in writing for posterity, you're nuts." --SpinyNorman 13:48, 7 December 2008 (EST)

...and more whitewashing ensues. --SpinyNorman 14:06, 7 December 2008 (EST)

So we're down to the Trail of Tears being a perfectly legal event, done in good faith with the welfare of the tribes in mind, and there was hardship along the way. Oh, and it was somebody else's fault anyway. Gotcha, that's Fair and Balanced^tm reporting if ever I saw it. --Kels 14:11, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, liberals love to distort the truth by claiming it was immoral, but that's because they're too blind to recognize it as something that just built character though a little hardship instead. --SpinyNorman 14:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Initiated. Proxima Centauri 14:44, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and Roger responded as expected: "I don't know enough about the matter to cast a moral judgment." That one's not dignified enough to merit a response. --SpinyNorman 14:48, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Roger's edits remind me of the movie Quigley Down Under. It's a western in which this guy has a rifle that shoots amazingly far and accurate, and he gets revenge for Australian aborigines who are hunted down and slaughtered. Roger would call it "land expansion". Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:50, 7 December 2008 (EST)

For the record, I thought I'd leave this one with an observation and a prediction. Roger's attitude and edits are irritating as hell, but to his credit he doesn't use blocks to end arguments - he just wears others down with one incredulous reversion after another. I'm expecting that if a block is coming from this it'll come from Ed or someone else who's decided that Dinsdale's overdue for some 90/10 character-building of his own. We'll see. --SpinyNorman 14:57, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Dinsdale = blocked. You should know by now parodists watch WIGO as much as they edit CP. However, maybe he blocked you to get unblocked shortly after by Roger? In any case, you're psychic! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:30, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Calling a block in this case was about as psychic as predicting the sun will rise tomorrow :-). Chalk it up the the M.O. of Conservapedia getting more and more predicable. --SpinyNorman 15:46, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and for extra-bonus lulz, it's worth noting that I'm 1/16 Mohawk. That had nothing to do with my viewpoint when editing (wrong is wrong, after all), but it I actually laughed out lough when I realized that CP just implemented their own forced Indian Relocation (for a month at least). --SpinyNorman 15:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)

It appears as if Dinsdale has friends in high places. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 23:33, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Ed Poor runs amock ! Deletes

Ed goes on tiny deletion spree, hates Pastry, Pie, stud, and sprinkles ! Is there a connection ? Hamster 16:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)

He's trying to wreck my list of articles I created? ħuman 19:09, 7 December 2008 (EST)

He also deleted Revenge and Drowning. Idiot, if they aren't "good enough", improve them, don't delete them! Hell, he made the red link for pastry on my talk page! I thought it was a writing assignment... ħuman 19:15, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Do I detect a modicum of hypocrisy from Professor Poor?

Don't complain unless you are prepared to do your share of the work of fixing the problem you are pointing out. (Don't Complain)

Great work Ed. Fix it by deletion. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:35, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I think he might have created those articles. I know he created revenge, because I linked to it on my userpage. I would say that maybe he figured out he should stop creating retarded articles, but then I saw WiGO, and, well, I seriously think Ed either has a brain disease, or is purposefully trying to bring CP down. There simply are no other explanations for how a former WP admin can write articles so obviously devoid of fact, research, and which included FREAKING QUESTIONS TO HIMSELF WITHIN THE TEXT. JazzMan 11:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

IT may be Humans birthday today, if so , HAPPY BIRTHDAY HUMAN !!! Hamster 23:40, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you very much :). ħuman 01:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Happy birthday. I would have brought pie, but Ed deleted it. :-( --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Boy/Girl testing

Not much I can say about this. It's like he's trying to encourage competition. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:38, 7 December 2008 (EST)

competition maybe , but Chivelrous Competition forsooth milord ;) Hamster

First, shouldn't he comment about the high score for the girls? He went to the trouble of using different scoring systems to prevent comparison of grades (I guess he doesn't think his students can calculate percentages), so shouldn't good work from both sexes be equally valid? On a snarkier note, I love that the tests had largely the same questions, just rearranged. Good test questions are actually a challenge to write. Corry^{It's an illusion, Michael!} 02:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)

RodWeathers

Seems to think he's the new TK, blathering about "time-wasting" and banhammering people who don't like evolution. Unfortunately for him, TK is the new TK. Is this guy a parodist? If so, what's he waiting for?-caius (advocate) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

who is JessicaT and why am I suddenly lusting after in love ? "(Block log); 23:28 . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) unblocked DinsdaleP (Talk | contribs) (It is not for junior admins to decide 90/10, plus he has made NO recent edits to Obama article, so block reason invalid)"^{— Unsigned, by: Hamster / talk / contribs}

• is smitten by the power of the lovehammer* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 06:22, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I thought her unblock was a sincerely nice and ethical gesture, and then I wrote her to suggest that interjecting on my behalf like that might be more trouble than it's worth. She's sticking to her guns this time, though - she's one of the quieter types over there, but her principles run deep. --SpinyNorman 11:38, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think it really matters anymore, re: parodists. Whether Bugler, Rod, and co. are or not is immaterial. With Alberich TK running things, they've basically destroyed any credibility CP ever had, whether intentionally or unintentionally. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:11, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Pearl Harbour

Andy has put up something about Pearl Harbour on the main page today. Strange that they didn't feel it important last year. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 00:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

there was a teenie reminder posted HERE a few days ago , cant forget Pearl Harbor day ! Hamster 00:10, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Did you see what Andy put up? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 00:20, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I stopped reading after the first sentance, why spoil it :( Hamster 00:39, 8 December 2008 (EST)

It's Pearl Harbor you commies. My commemorative photograph. ħuman 02:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, and we all know that's when the real WW2 started, right? Ajkgordon 04:22, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Yup. Is there any mention of Lend-Lease on CP? ħuman 16:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)

We only finished paying it back a couple of years ago. Ajkgordon 18:03, 8 December 2008 (EST)

More Range Blocks

Jallen 240.220.0.0/16 This is Comindico in Australia Hamster 00:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)

TK also did a weird /17 block. Doesn't that do... nothing?-caius (advocate) 01:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)

you really have to look at the whole ip address as a 32 bit number a /17 is a slightly smaller block than a /16. Its still a big chunk of numbers 32,000 as opposed to 64,000 if I did the math right. It may make a difference as to how he specified the address number, I am assuming it works like a subnet mask Hamster 01:20, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Since he's been back:

5 * /16 blocks

212.116.0.0 (twice!)
219.93.0.0
207.58.0.0
81.210.0.0
163.118.0.0

320,000

1 * /17 block

84.232.128.0

16,000

2 * /24 blocks

193.200.150.0
216.54.198.0

512

4 * individual blocks

4

Maths might be a bit dodgy- sorry

Potentially over 330,000 people saved from CP. TK's doing our job - shall we retire? _and marmite 02:12, 8 December 2008 (EST)

tk blocked a single IP address and I kinda hoped he would do a /16 block on it cause that would have taken out Telstra in australia and maybe blocked our Australian buddies Hamster 03:12, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The very latest set of CP Range Blocks

Is 220.240.0.0/16 very naughty?

04:02, 8 December 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked 220.240.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of infinite (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism: Australian proxy account used by RW) 00:49, 8 December 2008 Jallen (Talk | contribs) blocked 220.240.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Users: MeganL, PhilipD, MatthewK, CraigD, CharlesJ, GeraldT, SamanthaP, JaydenL, AaronW, VictoriaS, VSinclaire, QLindley, HenryP, etc) 00:47, 8 December 2008 Jallen (Talk | contribs) unblocked 220.240.0.0/16 (Talk) ‎ (adding reason) 00:44, 8 December 2008 Jallen (Talk | contribs) blocked 220.240.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal)

And they think that's one of ours.

TK just added 87.114.154.0/24 (I have no idea what /24 means) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

"24 is a smaller range than 16.
At least one of Saturday's range blocks was undone. I can edit again. They've done a series of new range blocks. I haven't found mine recorded as undone. I just know I can edit without proxies. I don't know what's happening. TK and others have range blocked many more but somehow spared me. Proxima Centauri 15:23, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Sheesh, your latest sock's a bit obvious isn't it PC? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:49, 8 December 2008 (EST)

A question

How influential is CP?

Let's just admit, for argument's sake, that CP is a tool of the far libertarian right and that its stances on everything from evolution and school prayer to vaccination and breast cancer are simply manifestations of a higher cause - control. And let's ignore whether or not Aschlafly is an architect or unwitting agent.

How much influence does CP have in this crusade? How does it compare to other agents? How successful is it? (All from a US perspective, of course.) Ajkgordon 04:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

We need a world perspective as well. Proxima Centauri 04:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Do we? Why? It's a strictly American enterprise. Furriners are tolerated when they are useful, such as PJR and Bugler - YEC and jackboots. But, as TK never tires in pointing out, it's an American thing. Ajkgordon 05:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)

As far as I can tell, CP has no influence. To put it in perspective, Answers in Genesis has a yearly budget of $13 million. WorldNetDaily claims to have 8 million visitors a month. Then you have the megachurches, the televangelists, the big Baptist congregations, political organizations like Eagle Forum and so forth. Those are the big players on the far right, and Conservapedia is far too small and too badly managed to even try to compete in that field.

Further, while it has gained a certain notoriety in the blogosphere, I don't think it's ever mentioned in the media as anything other than as a curiosity. So basically, Conservapedia only reports on political trends, it doesn't create them, and that's really why it doesn't have any influence in the end. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:08, 8 December 2008 (EST)

If it did have influence, it would be minute. Nobody can be associated with CP as an actual resource of information and retain credibility anymore. Only the batshit insane (as a stretch) would consider it, and I bet even they take a second look before deciding. All the more easier for everyone to realize how crazy someone is. Exposes more of the crazies in my opinion. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 06:29, 8 December 2008 (EST)

People in other parts of the world read and edit CP. For example yesterday someone, presumably British said that Ghosts and other paranormal things happen more often in Britain than elsewhere. Unfortunately we've got our share of paranormal nuts in the UK. Proxima Centauri 07:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Don't tell Ken how miniscule and unimportant CP really is, what with his trying to get Google rankings. If this is so, then Operation:Whateverthefuck will just be a waste of his time. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 06:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I'm betting that's what happened with Dumbski's blog, or Unlikely Descent, or whatever the hell it was. They posted it sight unseen, based on some begging that Ken did, then took it off once they stated hearing complaints from people he actually knows and trusts. Might have actually gone and taken a closer look at it too, just to see how crazy it was, and dropped the damn thing like a fresh meteorite. --Kels 11:40, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Actually Dembski's thing was handed over to someone else (true) who premusably had one more braincell (i.e. total = 2) & wiped it forthwith._and marmite 11:45, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I wrote this section. I'm not American and I may have got it wrong. Proxima Centauri 07:24, 8 December 2008 (EST)

CP Libertarian? Look at the change log to the Goldwater (a libertarian-leaning conservative) article. Or Aschaflys recent changes to the Libertarianism article. They HATE libertarians. I spend alot of time arguing with paleo and other conservative libertarians, they aren't even close to this dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 10:04, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Wha?? AKJ, I'm guessing that was a typo or something? Trust me, not only are they not libertarian, but they marginalize libertarians (and in fact makes really really really really stupid, baseless and painfully obviously wrong attacks against them, instead of trying to make allies with them against liberals. JazzMan 11:59, 8 December 2008 (EST) (PS: I thought this was funny. Check out the link above, and compare it to this. Andy liked the statement before it was cited, but as soon as someone verified that the statement was at least partially true, he deletes it. What a moron.)

Hmm, you're right, I didn't mean libertarian. But I won't edit it out because it'll make your post look really silly :) Having said that, there is a certain amount of libertarianism in CP's stance on things like vaccination. But they're also authoritarian. So in CP World™, where reality is what it should be, you get these otherwise mutually exclusive rips in the spacetime continuum. Ajkgordon 12:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Influence? Here's the thing...I suspect that a significant percentage of CP-virgins are scared away in the first 30 seconds when they scroll down and see the Hitler pic, or a few minutes later when they start to browse through the "Favorite Articles". The stench is hard to miss. Anyone who stays beyond that is there to get a good laugh, or for the warm feeling that comes from knowing that there are people in the world who think just like they do. But, outside a very very few loonies (and I mean that in an almost-literal sense), I'll bet that virtually everyone who reads and/or agrees with the tripe at CP understands that it does the conservative cause no favors. And even if you can manage to ignore the political/religious crap, CP is useless as a reference--anything that goes much beyond a stub is either far more detailed at a thousand other sites (especially the hated Wikipedia), or is copied from one of those thousand other sites.--WJThomas 10:20, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I will say, too, though, that if Andy were to drop the encyclopedia pretense, delete almost everything except the "Breaking News" section and his various rantings, and re-invent CP as and out-and-out blog, it might be a fairly popular site. I'm not saying it would be less looney, I'm just saying there are a lot of popular blogs out there that are no crazier than CP, and Andy wouldn't have to spend his days worrying about vandals and socks and parodists (oh my!).--WJThomas 10:31, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Noah's Ark image

I notice that the photo of a scale "model" of the ark in CP's cp:Noah's Ark article is captioned '"Ark construction: Photo of a scaled model at the Creation Museum. This was taken by Conservapedia user TerryH." So a picture taken by a CP editor and released for "use in any article on any relevant subject" but without a Creative Commons Attribution license, gets a namecheck while all those other pictures (some of which are CCA but mostly just ripped off) can find no space for any sort of credit to the source or original photographer. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:22, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Love how they threw the criticism section to the very bottom, and kept it limited to points that Creationists are able to respond. Nevermind the fact that a 500+ year old man and eight others somehow built the ship by themselves, and I doubt anyone has considered the weight of the ship itself (plus the huge ass dinosaurs) would simply implode upon itself. Wood is wood. I'machargin' mah camera and take a pic of Mona Lisa and say I took the photo. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)

they explain dinosaurs on the ark by saying dinosaur EGGS arent very big , plenty of room , and Remember , only examples of each BARAMIN was on board :-) , and it took 100 years to build the thing , lots of time even as a weekend project Hamster 12:57, 8 December 2008 (EST)

That would explain why a tyrannosaurus wouldn't just bust down the ramp with its sheer weight or kill countless others before boarding, being untamed and all. But, a wooden ship that big can't withhold its own weight. It might be okay out at sea (weight distribution on the water etc.), but on land while being constructed, it would be like punching a row of graham crackers. Wood would rot in 100 years before they finished building the ship. Gathering the wood and basic logistics with only eight people would take decades... meh, they'd just come up with random reasons why it's possible. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:33, 8 December 2008 (EST)

When I brought up the predator problem (How could you have so many predators with so much prey and not have any carnage, a fundie professor I had replied, completely serious "It's obvious that God would pacify them to keep peace." That was when I really saw that reasonable debate is not possible with some people.... I mean, when you can pull the "God can do anything, for he is God" card out of your ass to answer any possible objection, you're unbeatable. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 13:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

One of the references for the article points out how absurd the Epic of Gilgamesh is, because that Ark was a cube 120 cubits on a side. Since such a shape is not inherently stable in the water, the Epic is clearly false. YHWH can make 50,000 (their estimate) animals hibernate for a year but Ea can't make a boat stay upright in the water.--Martin Arrowsmith 14:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Well duh, YHWH can totally kick EA's ass..... Where did you grow up? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:41, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Predator ? ALL animals before the FALL were vegetarians ! Read more carefully, the lionses and tigery beasts ate watermelons , theres a reasonable explanation for everything, and dont forget Pangea was breaking up and plate tectonics were swooshing continents into place during the flood Hamster 22:43, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Well they must be right since their new article on the "scientific basis for creationsim" is pretty devastating. Allow me to summarize the article: "creationism has strong support among scientists" (~0.4% is "strong" now), a handful say the Earth is younger, and at least one says creationism should be taught in science class. So "scientific basis" means "a few scientists like it". Unless it's evolution, of course. Kallium^talk 23:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I do like this phrase from the ark article: "Creationary geologists have also pointed out that much of the Earth's geology is sedimentary (water-laid) rocks, as one would expect from a global flood." That, or a 2/3 water-covered planet... Kirkburn  talk  contr   07:51, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Nice, but no where near as good as Creationist nearly discovers the sun. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 07:55, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Is that the original or just another copy of the same famously retarded quote? ArmondikoV^pathetic 08:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Addendum: CP statistics...

Date	Blocked	Not Blocked	Sum	Blocked %
Sep 18th, 2008	11476	11643	23119	49.6%
Sep 25th, 2008	11613	11693	23306	49.8%
Sep 30th, 2008	11681	11729	23410	49.9%
Oct 11th, 2008	12017	11882	23899	50.3%
Oct 16th, 2008	12327	11935	24262	50.9%
Nov 1st, 2008	12563	12102	24665	50.9%
Dec 1st, 2008	13389	12542	25931	51.6%

--LArron 09:44, 8 December 2008 (EST)

You gonna put that somewhere for posterity? _and marmite 09:46, 8 December 2008 (EST)

This site is blocking rapidly! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

That's interesting - over 400 non-blocked new users between Nov & Dec and not increase in editors - somebody has a whole herd of socks lurking over there. The trend is there for all to see, to misquote Blackadder "The plan is to kill everybody except Haig, his wife and their pet spaniel. Good lord, you know the plan too!"--PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:57, 8 December 2008 (EST)

About 50% of users at CP blocked, and untold numbers unable to edit due to range blocks. How does that compare to the evil librul wikipedia? Auld Nick 11:18, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia actually attracts, you know, editors and whatnot. A comparison would therefore be meaningless. JazzMan 11:25, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I Know but I was thinking along the lines of while Conservapedia has blocked about 50% of its registered users Wikipedia has only done so with 0.00000002%. Auld Nick 11:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)

(EC)I'm sure it's true, but there are factors which skew the statistics, and some of the factors aren't as evil as we might want them to be. For one, CP has zero tolerance for vandals, and thus permablocks them. To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia is a lot more forgiving. This alone would greatly affect the percentage of blocked users, and I don't think CP is really out of line in this policy. Secondly, CP attracts, as a percentage, waaaaaaay more vandals and trolls (even if we use the common definition of troll and not the CP definition). Now this is CP's fault, in a way (after all, it's a lot harder to get trolls on a site that's largely non-controversial, like WP), but it's not accurate to call the increased blocking their fault. JazzMan 11:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Get back to work! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:44, 8 December 2008 (EST)

You mean like this? Auld Nick 11:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Och aye. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:14, 8 December 2008 (EST)

And, of the CP sysops, how many are among the Wikipedia blockees' list? _and marmite 11:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think any of them are permanantly blocked right now, but I might be wrong. (Did TK ever edit at WP? Must not have, seeing as how the site still operates.) But seeing as how the entire reason they started their own website (or moved to the website) was because (they believed) they were being persecuted by the WP admins, it would be entirely expected that the CP sysops were banned at WP. JazzMan 11:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Now that you mention CP crazies being blocked at WP, I noticed RobSmith making a handful of posts on WP (User:Nobs1 I think) while he still hasn't returned to CP. He was blocked for almost a year and returned, oddly non-combatant as well. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:31, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Meanwhile, on the bridge of the S.S. Conservapedia...

Tactical Officer: Sir! The Supreme Court won't question Obama's citizenship! Our ignorance plating has taken a direct hit, and we're not able to steer this ship as far right as we need to anymore!!!

Capn' Andy: Dammit! Misinformation Engine Room - I need more right-leaning spin - NOW!

Engineer DeanS: Engaging reverse-spin thrusters now, Sir!

(Feel free to replace the redlink above with the inevitable Andy-approved pseudo-news story when it appears) (Done) --SpinyNorman 13:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

By which point, I now have a mental Scotty stuck in my head... "Cap'n, she cannae do it... she ha'ent got the power..." --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Mr. Gremlin...You're fired. --SpinyNorman 14:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Or, "Mr. Gremlin, Reality Warp Factor 9." Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:45, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Or, "Cap'n, she cannae do it... the hull skulls cannae take the strain..."

Glanced at the first paragraph, I almost thought it was Andy they were talking about. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:50, 8 December 2008 (EST)

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it..." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:39, 9 December 2008 (EST)

The "Right-leaning spin" thing makes me think of NMR spectroscopy... it's possibly the result of hitting left-leaning spin with radio waves in the presence of a political field, then it flips to right-leaning and conservative talk radio is the FID of the result. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:59, 9 December 2008 (EST)

British censorship

I'm not sure whether they're trying to criticise WP for child pornography or the UK for censorship. Any way for those who want to know what all the fuss was about I have uploaded the Image:Scorpions-virgin killer.jpg in question. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)

They're going after Wikipedia.... Social conservatives hate Wikipedia, and Conservative Christians REALLY hate it because it treats Xtian beliefs equally to Islamic, Jewish and others, and refuses to give them the special treatment they want. As such, Wikipedia has a liberal bias, etc etc etc and they look for stuff to attack them over. This one and the penis ejaculating video are the two biggest attacks I've ever seen. Someone even reported Wikipedia to the feds for hosting child porn, but nothing ever came of it. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 15:02, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Sombody informed Andy that the FBI investigated that image. He wasn't amused. Auld Nick 15:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

So maybe I'm just dim, but what's so bad about that picture? It just looks like a Lego man to me. Corry^{It's an illusion, Michael!} 16:49, 8 December 2008 (EST)

LOL. (We're laughing with you Corry, not at you.) -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

something glitched badly on that pic upload ;-) maybe THIS explains it better Hamster 23:29, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, well then... Corry^{It's an illusion, Michael!} 00:35, 9 December 2008 (EST)

A blurred out version? Sheesh, the image ain't that bad. Besides, it's reversed now, and the article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer Kirkburn  talk  contr   07:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Still, kudos to the IWF for bringing the image to the attention of the quite literally billions ^{[citation needed]} of people who had previously never heard of the Scorpions or the album. 217.41.247.51 08:58, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Kind of oddly, I had come across the image for the first time just about two weeks earlier from a Cracked.com article about ill-advised album covers. I work for a wiki company (Wikia), so we were watching the situation fairly closely - hopefully nothing like that affects us in the future (but we are also able to make use of the not-so-secret "Jimbo Wales" weapon). Kirkburn  talk  contr   09:47, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I'm still blocked. _and marmite 09:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Blocked from viewing or from editing? Viewing should be possible first, and depends on when the ISP gets around to it. Editing may take a little longer, due to other fallout. Kirkburn  talk  contr   10:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Both. _and marmite 11:16, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Seems Virgin Media (my ISP) acted fairly quickly ... Boo for yours :/ Kirkburn  talk  contr   13:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Jpatt

In the words of Andy Millman (Extras) is Jpatt having a laff? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:09, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Oh Dear

I know we're not supposed to answer the phone, but I think you-know-who has finally cracked under the strain of constantly refreshing Google on his screen.

Oh, and "your campaign against oonservapedia has likely utterly failed.". Ok - when did we start picking on oonservapedia and why wasn't I invited to that party? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:10, 8 December 2008 (EST)

He has already deleted it. Backup avaliable here. And yes, he cracked. Kinda makes me wonder how people feel about him officially being one of the most trusted editors. --Sid 17:22, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Nevermind. Somebody reacted indirectly and was promptly blocked by Andy. --Sid 17:25, 8 December 2008 (EST)

That is several kinds of crazy all at once. --Gulik 17:30, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Speed kills, Kenny. --Kels 17:32, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry--we were afraid you might blab. We'll be sure to let you in on Operation Rampant Pancreas once we get it started. --Gulik 17:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Rampant Pancreas? I thought we had agreed on Operation Enduring Flagellum. Publius 17:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

You're thinking of the phony Operation Irreducable Flagellum, designed to confound our enemies. Everyone knows there's no such thing as an irreducable flagellum, though. --Kels 18:20, 8 December 2008 (EST)

If you're last name is Behe thir might be. 198.214.232.10 18:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Nobody seriously believes there's anyone named Behe. --Kels 20:18, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Given our overabundance of confusing operation-related nomenclature, I propose an operation to systematize and clarify the whole scheme, Operation Nubile Parapet Publius 18:57, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Am I the only one to have the urge to register oonservapedia.com and stick a message on it saying "Closed due to utter defeat by rationalwiki"? --JeevesMkII 20:05, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The delusion train just keeps on runnin'. Ken doesn't seem to realize that the page views per user being down is a bad thing. It means that most of those page views are people coming, going "meh" and walking away. They don't stick around to look at a lot of pages on the site, they simply leave. Which is really the worst thing for a site like CP. --Kels 23:42, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Alexa keeps blocks of three month stats. There average for the last three months is 2.4 page views per unique user down 34% from the three months average of the three months before. When I first started keeping track of CP stats about 6 months ago there rank was lower, but there page views were around 5 per viewer meaning no one is reading lots of pages just (slightly) more people go there to look at one or two things before leaving, probably directed to go look at the latest stupid rant. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 00:51, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I've got a theory! It could be bunnies!

CP has been hit recently by some shockingly persistent "vandals." Vandals in quotes because they mostly don't get the chance to do anything - their names alone are blockable offenses. This, of course, necessitates more and more range blocks, which it seems TK was apparently resurrected to do. Does this strike anyone else as odd? I mean, most of the garden variety wandals seem to use relatively normal names, so they can actually survive long enough to edit something. This recent batch seems almost made for blocking. Obviously, can't prove anything, correlation/causation, blahdiddyblah, but something just tastes off about the whole thing. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:20, 9 December 2008 (EST)

So is the theory that TK or someone on his side created the thorny socks just to prove he's necessary? -caius (advocate) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Eh, I thought it was just to justify the range blocks, but on second thought, it's not like any of the golden children need justification for anything over there. I mistakenly thought there'd have to be a reason to allow TK to block half the world. Nevermind, I guess :-) --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:26, 9 December 2008 (EST)

No no, I'll join you at least on the sentiment that it's odd how many "oldies but goodies" came back just when TK did. Ed Poor, for one; there were more, but I forgot... I think there was something going on that made TK come back. Would not surprise me if someone threw up the "TK Signal": it's the only thing that explains his re-emergence with some old players, and Andy's sudden tolerance for him.-caius (advocate) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I notice, too, that Bugler seems to be far less active now that TK is around. Or maybe it's my imagination, and TK being TK overshadows Bugler being TK.--WJThomas 10:40, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I figured it was just a liberal plot to have the world blocked from editing CP so they can go back to reading the NYT. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 01:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

TK is a computer expert. If he used multiple accounts he can make it untraceable. he knows more about subjects like proxies than other Conservapedians do. He works as a computer consultant. That means he can edit from any number of different computer networks. His clients won't find out if he uses their computers for a bit of wiki editing that doesn't use many bytes. Checkuser won't be able to trace him. Proxima Centauri 03:25, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not quite sure how much of a computer "expert" TK is. He's probably more savvy than Ken (which isn't saying much as Ken had to ask TK how to upload images) but his programing skills are probably non-existent otherwise we'd have seen him making bots or advanced templates. There was an incident when he was supposed to be in Hawaii but was still editing from his home IP which he said was done through remote control software. A possibility, but not very efficient if you've got nothing to hide. So although he may know about how to use checkuser and run whois and use a proxy he's probably not an expert in any recognised sense of the word. He's also run his own socks on CP. AFter TK's bust-up with Andy, Karajou was quick to remove one of them although he was a bit more subtle about the reason. Incidentally, that may be the reason that RW user Matt was accused of being a sock of TK. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:44, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes.
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses.
And what's with all the carrots:
What do they need such good eyesite for anyway?
Bunnies, bunnies,
It must be bunnies!
Or maybe midgets.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:41, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Midget bunnies!

For small justice! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:05, 9 December 2008 (EST)

"This recent batch seems almost made for blocking." — At first I thought you meant RobertLudlowSr, RandyScroggins, etc. Then I noticed LouSkunt, NealAnblowmi, and MikeOxbig, which, yeah, that makes a lot more sense now. Actually, at first I had thought you might be talking about a couple I made where I just used the captcha as the username. They eventually got blocked with "Recreate your account with your real first name and last initial", but their (fairly minor) contribs are still there. --Marty 23:00, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Conservative says "bye for now"

He's taking a break. When will he return? That could depend on whether TK stays. Proxima Centauri 02:38, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know there was a specific history between those two. I mean, the SDG supposedly showed that no one like him, but did TK and Conservative ram heads over something specific? Or is it just the toxic atmosphere that TK brings? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:59, 9 December 2008 (EST)

It's not just Ken, Karajou has been far less active since TK returned. They have often had disagreements and TK was the cause of some of Karajou's "leaving and never coming back" episodes. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 03:04, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Assuming for a moment that this correlation indeed implies causation (I'm not saying that it does or doesn't), I don't think it's just TK, either. Just look at the new batch of Bad Cops that are currently trying to corner some sysops. Bugler, Rod, Foxtrot, and TK just joined the team (even though you might argue that he's basically the proto-Bad Cop, so it's more a case of the circle becoming complete). Tim's also not overly active anymore (six edits in December), even though that of course might be a seasonal thing.

On the original topic of Ken taking a break... I'd like to think that he finally realized how badly he snapped (See the "Oh dear" section). Or maybe Andy realized it and suggested a vacation. Or it's also just a seasonal thing. I dunno. --Sid 03:16, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I'm actually missing Karajou. I would love to see him explain the difference between a boat and a ship[2]... not quite as much fun as asking a marine the difference between a rifle and a gun. Short version - a ship can carry a boat (a life boat is a boat, carried on a ship). A landing craft is a boat. A submarine is a boat (mostly for historical reasons - they were originally deployed from ships). At least, thats the definition in the US, which is all that should matter on CP. In the British navy, a boat is anything below the water, a ship is anything above (a rowboat is a ship). Still, would have loved to see him reply to JM. --Shagie 03:34, 9 December 2008 (EST)

This prob doesn't count as a parthian shot, but Ken left a very strange message for resident parodist 2IC RodWeathers. Could he be *gasp* grooming him? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:53, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Which was follwed by more classic Ken: Darwin is done. Will see if Hitler article can be done quickly and will change it now if it can be done quickly. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Didn't Ken make a big deal back in October or so, saying he was going to be away for two weeks, then kept on editing as normal less than 24 hours later? It was about the time the homosexuality template was being made, I think. If I remember right, there was some implication that it was a medical leave thing, so maybe whatever it was got deferred for a few weeks due to scheduling or whatever. Probably little if anything to do with TK. --Kels 08:09, 9 December 2008 (EST)

What the- RefTagger hoverboxes?

What the Hell? I first noticed it in cp:Disputed Biblical Translations, but it's easier to spot in cp:Job. All Bible verse references (like all the refs in the "Job" article) have now been hijacked by RefTagger which displays the referenced Bible verse in a hoverbox.

While I think that the general idea might make sense (even though it's mostly an indicator that CP users are too lazy to just use the fancy Bible Verse Quote templates), I really haaaaaaaaaate these hoverboxes. Nothing is more jarring in my eyes than accidentally moving my mouse over a wikilink and having an oversized yellow box suddenly blocking the text above it.

Opinions? --Sid 03:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I hate those things, in my Yahoo mail certain words are underlined and if my cursor grazes the word it pops up. The worst ones stay put until you 'X' then away. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I usually hate those boxes as well, but I think this is actually a really good use for them. Saves the trouble of going somewhere else to look up the passage. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I hate them as well. I mean I need to have a use for all those Gideons which I have collected from hotel rooms (other than lining the bottom of my parrot's cage). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:02, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Generally pop ups like this are awful (doubly so when they start launching music and fancy graphics) like "oh, you hovered your mouse over me for half a millisecond, you obviously intentionally wanted me to load all this shit up." BUT, it's a nice idea for this purpose. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:54, 9 December 2008 (EST)

When I first saw one a few weeks ago I thought they were a pretty good idea. I don't like the ugly "show a whole page but tiny" ones I see on blogs, but these seem just about perfect - and they are automatic, no code or tags to remember. Although, I guess if the reference is a lot of a book, the popup might get ugly? Hmmm, I tried Job 1:1-21 (because it was easy) and the pop-up only showed Job 1:1, but the "more" link which opened in a new tab highlighted the whole section. Pretty nifty, really. ħuman 15:53, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I think it's pretty cool. Wikipedia ought to do something similar, except that their Bible-quoting templates are all a mess anyway, and I'm sure any kind of automatic system would give a lot of false positives (especially when you don't limit it to just the Protestant Bible, but throw in the various apocrypha and the Talmud and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and whatnot). Although I haven't heard any complaints about Wikipedia's automatic date-format-converting doohickey... --Marty 23:06, 9 December 2008 (EST)

there is such a tool for Wikipedia - hover your pointer over a link and you get that article's first paragraph and picture. It needs javascript. Call me over on wp (same username) and I'll see if i can sort it for you - now I've ridded myself of the lovely (not) Perfect Defender. Totnesmartin 09:06, 10 December 2008 (EST)

It'd be a nice idea for some internal wiki links too. The point of them is that you can highlight a word and go to it if you're interested or don't know what it was about. Hovering over for a very brief explanation could be nice. Though only if you can turn it on/off at will. Save navigating away from a page for too long (it could put an end to wiki-bushwhacking though). ArmondikoV^pathetic 09:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

There's also a gadget called KallOut which sets up internet searches of words you highlight. Totnesmartin 12:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Does he hell

Andy keeps on saying that Jesus talked more about Hell than Heaven. I'm pretty sure that's simply, unequivocably not true, but no one's ever really called him on it. Any takers?--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:07, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Yes but I think if you exclude all the evil Liberal ionsertions added to the Bible subsequently (ie all the bits where he doesn't talk about hell) you will find the truth has set you free. Andyland is a whole world of crazy and although I'm exaggerating I bet in his mind it runs along those lines. StarFish 10:50, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Exactly how the hell are we supposed to know what Jesus talked about most, even if he did even exist? It isn't like he left a diary or anything. Maybe his disciples simply failed to report his sermons about how marvellous heaven is, and how you'll never feel inadequate standing next to an angel at a urinal. --JeevesMkII 10:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You all should know that Andy discovered the truth of hell directly from Jesus over dinner one night a few years ago. I do wonder how often his mother told him that he would go to hell if he did something wrong (something the satan worshiping liberuls would do)?--TimS 11:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You are correct that Andy is (as usual) wrong--Jesus references Heaven about ten times as often as Hell. That said, you're as crazy as Andy is if you think that even unequivocal Biblical proof would give Andy cause to back down from a pet notion of his. But, if you're itching for a fool's errand, be sure to pick at him for his claim that God would send someone to Hell for "irritating" Him. Offend, ignore, or exclude, sure--but "irritate"?--WJThomas 11:09, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, but are you also including the preaching Jesus did in Kashmir? Zmidponk 15:43, 9 December 2008 (EST)

This NT Concordance has shedloads of mentions of heaven and far fewer of hell. Totnesmartin 09:14, 10 December 2008 (EST)

What about the euphemisms for heaven and hell? "Kingdom of my Father" and all that? ArmondikoV^pathetic 09:22, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Didn't look, sorry. Been out buying a satanic evil liberal pagan devil-worship idol Christmas tree. Totnesmartin 11:58, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Brain Damage

That's the only explanation I can think of for this. How can someone who has been so well educated lack such basic reading comprehension skills? I get the whole "things are either black or white, liberal or conservative, good or evil, and there is no in-between" mindset. But this is a case of basic reading skills. How could he - how could all of them - read this article and so deeply misunderstand what it is saying? Brain damage. --Too tired to log in 10:54, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Two words: "Deliberate Denial." --SpinyNorman 11:18, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I am tempted to say that I agree. Conservapedia lives in some sort of alternative universe, which worries me deeply. Red Link 12:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Don't worry. It's better this way. They can't cross into our universe without highly advanced technology which relies on relativity, which as we all know, is the atheistic work of Gaylord McLiberal-Darwinhitler. Publius 13:05, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Now Gaylord I know is a real name, something to do with a guy who owns a buncha hotels. I am not sure about McLiberal or Darwinhitler... Red Link 13:13, 9 December 2008 (EST)

My god, must all my life be spent pandering to those ignorant of simple history? There's no denying that the Darwin and Hitler family lines have an extensive history together, and were in fact essential in forming the Democratic Party (remarkably, the term Liberalism comes from the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Tearleidgh McLiberal, Darwin's great grandfather). Gaylord, in 1905, worked with Einstein on relativity, while establishing the Homosexual Agenda (Der Homosexenagender), and wrote an early draft called "The God Delusion" which would be picked up and published by some evil atheist a century later. On a side note, I've probably veered very little from the actual CP worldview. Publius 13:29, 9 December 2008 (EST)

And we all know that Hitler was descended from a long line of English queens, hence, his middle name (Elizabeth) and Darwin's middle name, (Lou) after King Louis of France (1-17) and the master of all evil. My viewpoint also might differ a bit from CP... Red Link 13:36, 9 December 2008 (EST)

And Gaylord is originally a French name, hence automatically suspect... --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:04, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Redlink: Actually, CP is part of the Republican Party's ongoing attempt to create an alternate universe, out of pure bullshit. Hence the Bush Administration's dismissive attitude towards the "Reality-Based Community", and their apparent belief that just saying something often enough would make it real. --Gulik 17:24, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Star Wars

A big congratulations to Leuan for making Conservapedia the bestest Star Wars site on the interwebs , well done ! but yer missing the "Homosexuality in Star Wars" article , a glaring lapse really Hamster 11:43, 9 December 2008 (EST)

And what precisely could cp:Homosexuality and Star Wars entail? I remember that they had a very "concise" article last time I checked it. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:49, 9 December 2008 (EST)

(Minor point: it's Ieuan, not Leuan. It's a Welsh name, pronounced a bit like "Yie-yin". alt 12:04, 9 December 2008 (EST))

I think the droids "ran both ways", on AC/DC. --SpinyNorman 12:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I think Microsoft and Logitech are missing out by not selling a special "Conservapedia Edition" keyboard, with ergonomically friendly shortcuts for high volume cut-n-paste use. --SpinyNorman 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Why a keyboard - a voice recognition would do fine. "Godspeed" to copy, "The Truth Shall Set You Free" for pasting. Were there any fights involving female and male Jedi? Would explain the hot, red, throbbing rods of raw power clashing against each other as men grunt and sweat... yeah... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:47, 9 December 2008 (EST)

This is curious. Maybe Ken should check it out. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 13:51, 9 December 2008 (EST)

In my universe womens dont has Red Throbbing Rods of power , no, theys are blue ;-) Hamster 15:32, 9 December 2008 (EST)

A challenge for PJR

Hello, PJR. Since I know you read this, perhaps you can get on the red telephone and answer this question for me. You consistently harp on about "information" and "genetic information" as if that term were well defined and understood, rather than just a creationist canard. Please, before you ever mention it again, could you answer the following questions about this term:

1. What is the basal unit of "information" or "genetic information"?
2. How is it measured?
3. How much information do some example organisms have, perhaps a fruit fly or a human?

Now, if you can't answer these questions with a rigorous definition and without handwaving, by what possible means do you assert that, e.g., a fish becoming sightless is a result of a loss of information? By what possible means could scientists demonstrate an increase in "information" if there is no rigorous definition of what "information" even is? --JeevesMkII 13:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Why wait for him to answer? We can start our own list of things that creationists say information isn't, to help narrow the field down. For example, it can't be the number of bases in the genome, otherwise duplication mutations, insertions, retroviruses, etc. would count as gain-of-information (GOI), and an amoeba would contain more information than a man (ideologically repugnant). It can't be the number of chromosomes or trisomy-21 would be GOI. 'Information' can't be quantified by the number of unique proteins expressed since they've already claimed that a duplicated and subsequently mutated gene product does not represent GOI. 'Information' can't be equivalent to unique phenotypes since they claim that new intestinal folds in certain lizards do not represent GOI. If 'information' can't be quantified by counting bases, genes, chromosomes, proteins, or phenotypes, then I'm not sure what you're left with.--Martin Arrowsmith 15:56, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Why think he wouldn't reply on CP if you put this on his talk page? It's never been demonstrated that he bans people for such questions, nor does he delete the questions from his page; he also responds to email. You may not think he answers to your satisfaction, but that's hardly the same thing. 97.113.32.133 17:35, 9 December 2008 (EST) Aziraphale, can't be bothered to log in

Others will, though; never emailed sysops, but I bet they get lots of spam from wandals, so it might get lost. Aziraphale is so cute! 18:15, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Problem is Bugler takes a look at it and you are banned, you don't get to have a discussion. What PJR describes as information is another example of mathematicians confusing the issue by giving something an name (think Andy/Foxtrot and imaginary number). Information theory deals with measures of information, for example 10100100010000 contains more information than 11111111111111 even though they are the same number of characters. The problem occurred when people stated to consider information transfers and found only a loss of information occurred, the equations they got for this were identical to the equations that show up statistical mechanics describing the loss of entropy in a system, so they called this quantity entropy. A few people got excited and peaked to early without thinking things through and decided that thermodynamic entropy was the same as information, without realising that what you in fact have where two models for two different thing that happen to have the same form (not entirely coincidental as they start from similar premises). Where PJR shows himself to be completely wrong is that even if this equivalence was true, the equations describe and ideal gas in a closed system, not a highly non-ideal gas in an open system which is how evolution occurs. Ideal gases under go perfect elastic collisions (helium comes the closest to this) and do not react. As a chemist will tell you a reaction can take place where two chemical join together (a loss of information) but the entropy of the system increases as there is heat disparated through the system caused by decrease in the chemical potential. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)