Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive99

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>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <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)

Ingrate

Well, I'm feeling a bit miffed tonight. Ken goes and puts up a whole new page of crazystupid, and it's got all the usual insanity we've come to expect, but does he even once thank us for the well-deserved awards we gave him? NO! I tell you, some people got no couth. --Kels 00:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Ken has no basic social graces, that is why he does pretty much everything you observe him doing. - User $\pi$ 00:16, 17 December 2008 (EST) PS He must be getting desperate he keeps recycling the same shit over and over again.

The "special sauce" comment made me throw up in my mouth a little. There's some things I don't need to know about you, Ken! --Kels 00:20, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I got 16 and before CP I found this video which is awesome. - User $\pi$ 00:28, 17 December 2008 (EST)

What in god's name is wrong with that man? His incomprehensible rants, obsession with google rankings, and weird habit of removing his own rants all contribute to make him much more bat-shit insane than Andy or Ed. Publius 01:46, 17 December 2008 (EST)

You has a fan, Gentleman Publius. Bondurant 10:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Wow. What can the hidden purpose be? Schizophrenia? Luckily I don't care about some random web-based psychopath to give it a second thought. In any case, I will heretoforth be Gentleman Publius, private eye. Also note how I magically become an evolutionist for laughing at his ridiculous behaviour, without actually making any reference to evolution. Gentleman Publius 10:22, 17 December 2008 (EST)

If anyone wants to know why we make fun of Creationists, you can just point them to that page anything Ken ever writes. --Kels 10:29, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Scientific Disputes

Looks like Ed's read another book review again. He's starting to push the same thing over at WP, presumably with the same old "Evolution and ID are a scientific dispute, and I guess it'll never be resolved so we're just gonna have to treat both as valid" nonsense. I expect to see loads more of the same on CP pretty soon. --Kels 08:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

MOAR STUBS!

Cripes, never mind the vandals. CP needs a full-time staffer just to clear up the shit Ed leaves all over the damn place. I like how whenever someone says "uh, Ed...what you just added has a problem/sucks/doesn't say anything useful", he immediately makes it their responsibility to write the article he claims he intended to write in the first place. --Kels 09:06, 17 December 2008 (EST)

It does seem like Ed's brought the lulz like mad today. I got a few in WIGO today alone! But without Ed, would CP be as loony? Probably. Irrationalatheist 09:10, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Probably best to lay off the Ed WIGOs for a bit, unless he does something spectacularly loony. Otherwise we'll end up with a list of nothing but Ed stubs, a problem we've run into before. Any time Ed reads an article or book review or something (I doubt he reads the actual books the quotes come from), he posts about a hundred of these nonsense stubs. Probably to inflate his article count, although it does a bang-up job at keeping people from taking CP seriously. --Kels 09:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)

You got your wish, the blcaks are all de same.--TimS 10:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Tim, I must take offense, we prefer to be called Negros or colored. Thank you SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 19:54, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Obama is the first coloured president? That don't sound right. --Kels 19:58, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Darkie is also acceptable. Obama is the first darkie president, just rolls off the tongue. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:31, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, I hear that and I think yorkie, and then I get all hungry. --Kels 22:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

OMG wow. Ed reposts his own "Michael Jordan has AIDS" quote, with a {{fact}} tag, in the Magic Johnson article. That's just frickin' bizarre. No self-deprecating yet offensive edit summary, no hint of why he thought this was a good idea — he just dumped the info (which by this point he knew to be blatantly, mildly-amusingly incorrect) into the article on the other MJ. --Marty 00:36, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Ed Poor and Science

Why does Ed insist on projecting himself onto scientific articles and people? He's so often wrong, one would think he adds to (or stubs) scientific articles just to catch drek from others. Is he a closet masochist? --Irrationalatheist 09:26, 17 December 2008 (EST)

There's been a lot of speculation that he's doing it deliberately to discredit CP as a learning resource for some reason, possibly connected to the Moonie church he belongs to. A lot of the rationale for that is most people just can't believe anyone could be that startlingly stupid all the time. On the other hand, Ken exists, so we know it's possible. --Kels 09:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I like it when Ed starts doing science. It makes me feel like a genius. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Ed's claimed credits are really getting excessive. In addition to all the "I'm an experienced math teacher" stuff, and the music teacher business (above, under "VB"), he claims he "teaches 4th grade math", "has math students", and "is a professional software engineer". And he "studied its [computer science] history quite a bit". Really? He didn't know what Herman Hollerith's first name was? The inventor of the punch card for data processing? And couldn't be bothered to look it up someplace? Like Wikipedia? He's heard of Wikipedia, right? And he thought that Charles Babbage wasn't important because he "only had one invention"? That invention was the computer! Gauss 17:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Michael Jordan has AIDS.

discuss. PFoster 10:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Don't be so literal, PF. Even if Jordan may not have AIDS in the strictest sense, he could hypothetically have gotten it at some point. Statistically, that's practically the same thing. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:44, 17 December 2008 (EST)

(EC, dammit) He already fixed it, presumably based on your WIGO. Guess he doesn't care that this is only one glaringly stupid error among dozens he's already made today. --Kels 10:45, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Glad to be of service--I found it odd that a few months back, Ed was all curious about why he'd never seen a black hockey player and was all concerned about racism in the NHL--but that he had a massive brain cramp and completely confused the (arguably) two greatest black American athletes of our times. Weird. PFoster 10:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Magic Johnson does not have AIDS. A misconception people have is that HIV and AIDS are the same thing. HIV is a virus which leads to the symptom of AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome of having no immunodeficiency in the body. One can be HIV-positive, like Magic Johnson, and not have contracted the symptom of AIDS. One also does not pass on AIDS, but HIV. So in pointing out Ed's mistake, RW inadvertently made just as glaring an error. --Irrationalatheist 11:09, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I know that. I was just quoting what Ed said, not writing an article on HIV/AIDS. And the best part is Ed's own terminilogy--"AIDS-infected." For sheer hatemongering, it's hard to beat that. PFoster 11:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Micheal Johnson, Magic Jordan all the same to me... ArmondikoV^postate 12:26, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, Magic Johnson can hit the curve ball. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 19:55, 17 December 2008 (EST)

You've got a double negative there: "no immunodeficiency". Kallium^talk 20:39, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I would have pointed that out but although in spirit the comment is correct, it then defines AIDS with a series of errors. It's not just "an immunodefishinsy", it's an acquired ID. The key being, it's contagious. (Via the vector of HIV). ħuman 20:47, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I could see it either way; I think that part is largely semantics- either "transmission" is referring to the symptoms or the physical entity. Either way, AIDS develops from infection by HIV, which as you said is the vector, and either way, both AIDS and HIV infection result from human contact. Tomayto, tomahto. As to what the medically correct technical usage is I do not know. Kallium^talk 21:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Mustard

Not sure if this is worthy of note, but the image used for mustard on CP, is in fact, not mustard, it's string. Apparently Foxtrot didn't check the image before he ripped it (possibly) from this page. Maybe I'm just being picky :) Worm 10:53, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I love this gem "Mustard is usually in a yellow plastic squeeze bottle because it is yellow; ketchup is in the red squeeze bottle because it is red."--TimS 11:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I realise that CP is open about its US centric viewpoint but it only mentions German mustard and the sort which comes in yellow squeezy bottles which is pretty much the same. As a bit of a mustard fanatic they don't know what they're missing. Silver Sloth 11:45, 17 December 2008 (EST)

MMMMMM, mustard! & horseradish!

^Marmite

on Toast

11:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Horseradish is, indeed, teh sex. Just about any hot mustard is worthwhile. --Kels 12:06, 17 December 2008 (EST)

But a mellow wholegrain has its place. English mustard + horseradish on the roast beef, French (Dijon) in the salad dressing, wholegrain with the Cumberland sausages. In case you hadn't noticed I'm as keen as er... mustard on mustard! Silver Sloth 12:10, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I used to make my own mustard. Too bad I lost the recipe :( never could make a decent horsey sawse. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Ooohh..making your own mustard? That sounds fantastic! That's definitely next on my experiment list....tommorrow night is meatloaf Worm ^{(t | c)} 18:07, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Making mustard starting with mustard powder is the easy way - just add water. Mustard powder (or better, wholegrain mustard) is good to put in dumplings (with thyme and/or sage, naturally) Pseudomonas 04:01, 18 December 2008 (EST)

More RationalWikians are writing here

Do we need to expand, Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?. Can we make new sections? Perhaps there can be a section just for Ed. Proxima Centauri 11:21, 17 December 2008 (EST)

It's been mooted before. Trouble is he comes in spurts (horrid image flashed across my mind), so for ages there'd be nothing, followed by an avalanche.

^Marmite

on Toast

11:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks, Toast, for sharing that with us. The image of Ed coming in spurts will stay with me for a while! Silver Sloth 11:42, 17 December 2008 (EST)

And this is worse than Ken's reference to "special sauce" how? --Kels 12:05, 17 December 2008 (EST)

What was the special sauce thing? I missed it. Is there a link or is it vanished now? weaseLOId~ 12:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

One of his loony shout-outs that he put up last night and deleted a little while ago. He was saying something about how we're all trying to figure out what his latest Google tactics were (we are?), and said he never shares his "special sauce" plans for his rants screeds quote mines articles anyhow. I just go the bad kind of squick over him, of all people, using that term. --Kels 12:32, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, we need to get over doing purely CP stuff. Well, eventually anyway, and nothing will delay that more than wanting to expand WIGO:CP. Just make sure the real best of gets mentioned on the relevant Conservapedia:sysops/whoever sections. But activity has just been really high recently. ArmondikoV^postate 12:22, 17 December 2008 (EST)

We could always WikiStalk Ed on WP - he's getting very active there.

^Marmite

on Toast

12:26, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Deletion Log

Conservative has deleted his user page 17 times and his talk page 28 times. You'd think he'd learn to stop putting embarrasing stuff on his pages if he has to keep burning the evidence. Jrssr5 12:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Law 101 remedial needed at CP!

How on earth can a site run by a lawyer be so unable to grasp the basics of copyright law? Another image uploaded that is still under copyright protection, with the excuse, "fair use for commentary and parody." Because the comic is parodying Noah Webster doesn't mean that the comic is therefore fair use! How soon before CP gets sued for their flagrant violations of copyright law, and Andy has to show his prowess of the law in courts? Oh, that will be a fun, fun session to watch. --Irrationalatheist 13:37, 17 December 2008 (EST)

And that was RJJenson, who is one of the more sane (but still crazy) people over there. I would expect better from him, but alas, corruption spreads easily... Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:37, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Yah--RJJ is making a play for JM's role as King of Copyright Violations.--WJThomas 15:04, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Kels pointed this out to me - Andy's really special.-caius (heckuva job!) 14:44, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I like his Expert Legal Opinion over there that Galileo's offense against the church was equivalent to trademark violation, or maybe treason. Apparently in Andy's mind, they're equivalent. --Kels 14:46, 17 December 2008 (EST)

"How on earth can a site run by a lawyer..." Andy is not a real lawyer. He is "legal counsel" for AAPS, which is a "post" which has been conferred to him without peer review. That said, he still exhibits clear lawyer values and nobody seriously denies that he is a secret Buddhist, which is obvious when you realise that he used the Buddhist pronunciation of Tibet. Bondurant 16:39, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Trademark violation and treason were obviously on the same page of his law dictionary, and he couldn't remember what he was looking up. So he spewed a few random drops hoping he'd stain his target (just running with the disgusting image theme lately). ħuman 17:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I would hate to be pedantic but that belongs to the NFL for sure, they were forced to remove every picture like it from Wikipedia after they came down on them. - User $\pi$ 20:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I dropped them a friendly note, just to be helpful. My good deed for the day. --Kels 20:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)

That is kind of you Kel. - User $\pi$ 20:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)

What can I say? I'm a giver. --Kels 21:18, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I'll speak up for Andy. Somewhat. There's obviously a smart man in there, buried somewhere being page upon page of restrictive dogma. What's sad is that CP is reinforcing his perception that he doesn't have to be that smart man; he can be the little dogmatic terrier hiding in his mom's shadow. Sad.-caius (heckuva job!) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Really? What on earth gives you that impression? Gentleman Publius 17:20, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Probably his stellar performance at, what was it? AT&T? --Kels 17:53, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Re the original image, considering that it's a comic whose third panel is about the history of copyright law, and that RJJensen's upload comment claims it's being uploaded to Conservapedia for use as parody, I might surmise that Jensen is getting a little frisky here. :) But then again, Poe's Law... --Marty 01:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Hold on a second!

WHERE'S PHYLLIS? --Kels 19:57, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Don't worry some kiss ass will add it there any second now. - User $\pi$ 20:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)

There it has been added for you. - User $\pi$ 20:10, 17 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) I will, if the kiss-asses let it wait another 24 hours or so... Bastid! ħuman 20:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Good shot of her in her Liberal hat, though. (needs to be bigger than McCain though, the loser) --Kels 20:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Hey I want to be the next Bugler. Now I am going back to putting cat pictures all over RationalWiki. Anyone want my new userbox

This user is worried that the Rusty-spotted Ceiling Cat is watching them masturbate.

? - User $\pi$ 20:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Nice placement. Now can someone alphabetize all the random ones in teh gallery? ħuman 20:16, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I thought they were roughly chronological. - User $\pi$ 20:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)

McCain and Phyllis should be before Washington, then. --Kels 20:31, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, ok, that sort of makes sense. Perhaps their lifeyspanz should be listed in the line after their names, and a comment ("In chronological order...") would help, too. Also centering the text would make the gallery less ugly. ħuman 22:16, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe Andy should be added, too.--WJThomas 20:44, 17 December 2008 (EST)

JM doesn't think Phyllis is an American Hero. That's practically being anti-American! --Kels 20:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)

On a related note, what's JM fussing about here? TeaK sez it's our fault (but especially Ames's), so I'm wondering what we've done.--WJThomas 21:08, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Pshaw, Ken loves it when we visit his little works of art. How ungrateful can JM get? --JeevesMkII 21:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Oh dear, this is classic. Asked to define what a hero is, JM's response? I dunno. Gee, you'd think he'd have a clue before he started a whole damn page about them, huh? --Kels 22:23, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Well, to be fair, his syntax some Spanish has I think: "what is a cp:hero" was his answer, which yields:

"A hero is a literary figure who is a person of virtue, and usually the protagonist of a story. They usually believe in honour and have strong morals. A well-known example of a hero would be Luke Skywalker from the Star Wars films.

It also means:

• A person noted for special achievement in a particular field.
• A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. [1] "

But of course, that would be a Commonwealth ("honour") hero, or a Galactic one. Jes' sayin' is all. ħuman 22:29, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Shall we correct "Leon Sphinx" spelling, or did someone work really hard to get that on CP? ħuman 22:35, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Heh, indeed. --Kels 21:00, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Wern't Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh execruted? - User $\pi$ 22:49, 18 December 2008 (EST)

(After looking it up on WP) Raleigh was beheaded for treason; Drake died of dysentery. weaseLOId~ 23:01, 18 December 2008 (EST)

It would be shameful if it wasn't Andy

Him, we expect shameful, so it's just normal. So here he's crowing about the citizens of Illinois being stuck with a clearly corrupt Governor. He's happy to see them being poorly served. Because Blago's a Dem. Partisanship over people, that's Compassionate Conservatism^tm! --Kels 21:32, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, he's really got his legal knickers twisted into a mobius pretzel over gov. blagojovovichy. ħuman 22:17, 17 December 2008 (EST)

The master now does alliteration! "The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal."[1] Of course, he uses it in the service of stupidity, not... well... "logic". ħuman 22:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I'm pretty sure one good reason non-cons exist is because they caught a whiff of stuff like that and ran for the hills. --Kels 22:40, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, that's just being petty. --Kels 23:40, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Capture bot warning

I am going "home" for the holiday's tonight, will be away for two weeks. Which means no capture bot unless we get it working somewhere else, which is marginally being worked on. It would be a good idea to perhaps manually grab screen shots of anything that really needs to be save for posterity. tmtoulouse 22:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I have sent you a very important email with regards to this. - User $\pi$ 23:13, 17 December 2008 (EST)

There's a Firefox extension that does almost exactly the same thing, and you don't even have to visit the page; all you have to do is right click on the link and select what you want it to do. The drawback, of course, is that it'd have to be done manually. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 01:36, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Jeeves might be able to help? Happy holydaze and all that! ħuman 02:19, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I thought of CP.

http://www.superpoop.com/091808/the-gift-of-speech.jpg --Marty 01:33, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Awesome pictures. Kan we yews them? ħuman 02:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)

The comic is Superpoop, by the creator of Toothpaste For Dinner. I recommend both of them. As for using it, it's copyrighted and all that, so, y'know, probably no. Unless you upload it to Conservapedia for purposes of parody. ;) --Marty 12:44, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Often "smaller" artists are quite happy to grant permission to use their work, if asked nicely. Of course, then there's the question of where we would use it... ħuman 15:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)

TK...

... is still trying to shut the internet out (Range Blocks). But he erased his self-righteous entry My blocking policy from his user page. Really, what's the matter with this guy? While I was at CP, he was banned, and the place was awful enough. With him, it's worse. --LArron 03:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

TK is TK - a thoroughly nasty piece of work, who gets off on destroying online communities (admittedly this is probably easier at CP). He has the scruples and conscience of an incontinent mongrel on a croquet lawn. Ignore all his righteous spouting (and copy/pasting quotes) - he is a vile, lonely man (albeit good at what he does). The only interest he has in CP is bringing it down - and until Andy realises that - it will likely happen. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Proxima Centauri has flared up and is wikistalking teh barstud. I had sockies at Conservpedia and tried to warn them. Then DeanS rangeblocked me. Now I wikistalk him and report results here. I’m not sure I want Conservapedia brought down. Conservapedia does such a good job of showing what’s wrong with right wing Christian fundyism. Proxima Centauri 04:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

One thing that puzzles me about TK is his prior involvement here. Was he actually interested in any RW content or just in starting fights & sowing division? weaseLOId~ 09:12, 18 December 2008 (EST)

The latter. At first it seemed as if he was just getting information to pass along to Andy & Co., but it eventually turned out he was just trying to screw with both sites. --Kels 09:13, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Here's more. TK Aschlafly thinks he's intelligent and lets that character back. Proxima Centauri 13:21, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Liberals and logic

Andy sez:

“”There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.

Is it any wonder PJR hasn't been editing much lately? --Kels 08:48, 18 December 2008 (EST)

And yet, when you show Creationists (and ID proponents) the errors in their arguments, they move on to the next argument. It seems the YEC/Conservapedia crowd love to be misled as long as their beliefs are left intact. --Irrationalatheist 08:50, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Largely defensive weapon of gun.

What drives me nuts, is the argument "banning guns will reduce crime". No, crime won't go away, but I am pretty sure that banning guns will reduce gun-related crime and -deaths. They truly are idiots. On that, I wonder if Aandy has a gun and if Andy jr and Phylis jr had their shots... seeing as Dad is opposed to it. Would be terrible to get mumps or something at their ages. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:03, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I've often wondered about Andy's thing with guns. Is he packin' heat when he's homeschooling kids? weaseLOId~ 09:08, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Nah...Andy doesn't spout his nonsense because he has any sort of personal stake in or attachment to the idea ('cept maybe his opposition to the estate tax--he wants Mommy's money!), he just "believes" in whatever (he thinks) a conservative is supposed to believe in. For him, politics is nothing but a checklist: Guns for all? check!...Abortions for nobody? check!...Prayer in school? check!... Hence his bewilderment that conservatives in other countries might be concerned about a separate set of issues. This, too, is why he's so damn stupid when he tries to argue the issues--there is no intellectual base to his positions.--WJThomas 09:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Well anyway, my imagination ran away with me & I put this picture together. weaseLOId~ 10:36, 18 December 2008 (EST)

That's hilarious. Think we can add it to any page linking to CP and the 2nd Amendment (or guns)? Kudos to you for bringing the funny. --Irrationalatheist 10:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

You talkin' t'me, Rayment?

Damn good idea, Weasel. :) --Robledo 17:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Say hello to my little defensive weapon of gun

I think mine still needs more shadow on his face. - User $\pi$ 18:02, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Andy's homeschooled lulz

The questions Andy provides (and the subsequent suck-up answers) are filled with funny bits. But as Kels pointed out, they aren't brief. Is there another solution for the schadenfreude? Another WIGO like page? Creating a page in RW for the fun? What would people think would work best without singling out students themselves for Andy's lack of educational tutelage? --Irrationalatheist 09:13, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I'm pretty sure by now the students have all figured out that the best way to make "teacher" happy is to suck up like a hoover on overdrive. So I doubt a lot of those answers are the kids' honest opinions, but just parroting Andy's own prejudices back at him. Kids can be pretty sharp on stuff like that. --Kels 09:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Two students both argued that the first two years of Obama's presidency will have a collapsed economy and the US in a full-scale war. Wonder where they got that from in history... --Irrationalatheist 09:19, 18 December 2008 (EST)

We've got to be slightly careful here. There's an unwritten RW policy to lay off the kids. Hey, I'm just as guilty as any and have WIGO'd a couple of homework answers but I guess that if my homework from that age were posted on the internet there would be plenty taking the piss out of my lack of learning. Taking the rip out of Andy's incompetent teaching - hey that's part of the fun. Ripping into teenage kids who don't know any better, that's not nice. Silver Sloth 09:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)

That's my point, though. I'm pretty sure most, if not all, the kids do know better by now, and they know what the teacher wants to hear. Why bother going into detail when they know he's not going to read it and/or give them lower marks for disagreeing with him? So just look at what he wrote, paraphrase a little, and ta-da! Instant A+! --Kels 09:22, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Yep. There are certain students who used to give long, thoughtful answers (relatively speaking), but now just throw down a few sentence fragments and go about their business. And there's a definite attitude change in general since the midterm exam kaflooey. It's a little sad, really.--WJThomas 10:03, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Is it just me, or are there fewer students? I think I was looking at student 12? or something, and their contrib history had them as student 25? or so sometime in the past. Anyone know how many students there actually are anymore? Smyth 11:07, 18 December 2008 (EST)

At the beginning of the course, he was bragging about having 50+ in his class, and even on the original set of homework he was expecting more than he got. --Kels 11:16, 18 December 2008 (EST)

He's now claiming 66 students.--WJThomas 12:24, 18 December 2008 (EST)

What do we think the chances are that quite a few of them simply hand their homework in on paper in person? (perhaps out of some sense of internet privacy...) Maybe the on-line ones are kids who found it easier to do it that way? "The world's largest American History course for teenagers (66 students)..." frickin' idiot... ħuman 15:21, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, a quick FYI, it's generally not good to delete WIGO entries. I'm told it's bad for the voting things, so it's better to just comment them out and move on to the next number. Just so you know for next time. --Kels 09:21, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Sure thing. I didn't think anyone had clicked a vote yet. Probably should have just left a brief note to what was deleted in the commenting bars and went onward. But you were correct, and I was bored earlier. --Irrationalatheist 09:25, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, but I have to get this bad joke out of my system. My new alternate definition of a Dyson Sphere is a classroom where Andy is surrounded by students sucking up to him harder than a certain bag-less vacuum. --~~

Apropos of nothing, I've got one of those (the Animal) and it's awesome. --Kels 09:31, 18 December 2008 (EST)

No, no, we all know, that the Dyson sphere is the ball on which a Dyson vacuum, rolls. Look it up, if you don't believe me. --Marty 12:53, 18 December, 2008 (EST)

(undent)

From the Lecture 13 answers of Student 26:

"H4.What is your view off the government spying on its own citizens, such as authorized by the Patriot Act? I think that the Patriot Act is great! I think that if spying on citizens could help the government catch terrorists, let them spy to their hearts content."

Kels, how are real-estate price in Canada these days? --SpinyNorman 11:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Can't speak for Kels, but don't bet on anywhere (habitable) in BC. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:19, 19 December 2008 (EST)

RodWeathers and evolution

"Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit." Is Rod arguing that dolphins help humans to court with them? For some reason, Rod believes that anything animals do must be for evolutionary gain. And since science can't state how dolphins helping humans will help propagate their genes, evolution is wrong!

What a strange way to think about science. --Irrationalatheist 10:36, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Uh, duh? How do you think mermaids evolved? The Atlantian population was rather... open to Cetaceosexual relations, which inevitably created a number of hybrids. Gentleman Publius 10:42, 18 December 2008 (EST)

But it was Coca-cola and the Atlanta airport that caused the mutations in the population. Since these were products of sentient beings, mermaids are the result of Intelligent Design! --Irrationalatheist 10:44, 18 December 2008 (EST)

RW's dodge about not reading "evolutionist propaganda" to avoid having to deal with evidence is classic, but much better is Ed stomping in and displaying his stunning ignorance of science. You can always count on Ed to just blunder in and make a hash of everything, can't you? --Kels 10:48, 18 December 2008 (EST)

What is this insistence these days of Creationists stating evolution now has a "creative" angle? Who originated this, since it's fairly new in Creationist arguments? --Irrationalatheist 10:51, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Creationism...it's evolving! --Kels 10:53, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Ever had an argument (or happily, a discussion?) with a young creationist? They bring up the oldest arguments, which have been refuted for decades, or even a century (Darwin recanting), and when disproved, find and adopt newer and newer arguments until they reach the present set of nonsense. Creationist ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Gentleman Publius 11:05, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Teh win↑! Smyth 11:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)

One just needs to watch the YouTube fun between VenomFangX and Thuderf00t to see how often YEC rehash old, tired, debunked arguments. And they're undeterred. --Irrationalatheist 11:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Boredom strikes!

In my boredom today, and my want to try to be funny, I created a page for Conservapedia:Conservapiracy. Ridicule away! --Irrationalatheist 15:07, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Hymns wigo

Both links are the same... did someone screw up the copy-pasting? ħuman 15:31, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I've put it back the way it was. Andy hasn't been involved with that essay for over a year. If RodW's comment relates to something Andy said somewhere else recently, then I don't know what it was & we need the proper link. But I think more likely it was just a mistake by the guy who changed the WIGO. weaseLOId~ 16:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

In some fairness, the essay starts off by telling people to get their church to not sing whatever the "liberal hymns" are, or some such silliness. perhaps it was even Andy, but as you say, it was a long time ago. Another boring wigo... ħuman 17:04, 18 December 2008 (EST)

You're right; I didn't notice that. & It was Andy, in the first draft of the essay last September. I guess maybe Rod was hoping to scratch that itch. But I don't think it's really worth changing the WIGO again unless Andy or somebody else responds interestingly. weaseLOId~ 17:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I messed up the copy-paste. I wanted to change it because the way it was before (and now), it makes it sound as if Rob's the one claiming the hymns are liberal, when he's actually asking for examples.--Bayes 18:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Drive-by trolls

Even if you think it's worth watching, it's really not worth making a WiGO out of. There's gotta be some restraint, saving only the really funny WiGO's for the page itself. Other stuff you can bring here, although it's of course bad form to "out" active but undiscovered wandals and parodists. I know a lot of folks have heard this before, but it's worth repeating since we've been seeing a lot of this sort of WiGO lately. --Kels 16:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)

What about ones that are outstanding in execution? Are those WIGO-worthy, or should stick to talk pages? --Irrational Atheist 16:12, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, what is the policy re. posting parody as parody? ie the RodWeathers stuff (is it taken for granted he's a parodist?) above. Gentleman Publius 16:12, 18 December 2008 (EST)

For the most part, unless it's something really spectaular, drive-bys should stick to the talk page. They're generally pretty disposable and they happen all the time, if we kept it up there'd be more of that stuff than Ed stupidity, and that's a LOT!

As to RW and Bungler, they're pretty odd cases, so I doubt you can extrapolate much there. Generally speaking, if it's a fairly new person and they're doing pretty clear parody and they haven't been picked up on, stay quiet until they're found out and laugh to yourself. Besides, the real comedy gold is Andy and the Sysops. --Kels 16:16, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Regarding outing of parody, there's two or three different types of parody we're talking about. There's spoof articles like this and this, which are expected to be deleted when discovered. Sometimes they get taken down straight away, sometimes they go unnoticed for months. If you see something like that which hasn't been deleted yet, don't draw attention to it (but maybe take a screenshot or copy the text to save it for later). If it gets deleted & it's funny enough, it may be worth WIGOing. Then there's more straightforward satirical vandalism, like the Christianity one which is WIGO'd or the MOAR HITLER stuff, which usually gets reverted straight away & is rarely WIGO-worthy. Then there are people like Bugler, RodWeathers, Jpatt, Foxtrot, BHarlan, Saxplayer, etc. who seem to be conservative Christian fundamentalists but a little too ridiculous to be believable. Some or all of them might or might not be parodists, but we've referred to them as parodists loads of times without getting them banned. People like that who seem to be accepted within CP, it's safe to mention as parodists here or at the Conservapedia:parodist article. weaseLOId~ 16:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Heck, us calling some of them, like Jpatt, RW and Bungler, parodists just strengthens their positions at CP, since of course we'd be lying about them. Which, of course, makes it that much funnier. --Kels 16:44, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Unfortunately, Andy's been sticking to the lectures and homework lately. Since the kids appear to have given up on doing any work, and the questions for the homework are single-use only, Andy lulz are too rare these days. --Irrational Atheist 16:21, 18 December 2008 (EST)

He was pretty active last weekend, and since his course is apparently wrapped up he'll have some free time on his hands soon. Ken, Ed, TK and the lot are still around, and for whatever reasons, Bugler and RW seem to be fair game. Basically any of the familiar names doing stupid things, feel free to call 'em on it, or if one of the dive-bys does something really creative, like the acrostic one a while back. --Kels 16:26, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I wonder how the Christmas party is going for the 20-some students who participate online? --Irrational Atheist 16:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I'd just like to add that the lamest wigos have the format of "look what my sock got blocked for" when what the sock did was obviously going to get them blocked. In fact, any wigos mentioning people getting blocked (other than the "real" CP editors) tend to be pointless. But, hey, hard drive space is almost free. The voting is the eventual key, if you see a wigo you entered hitting -10, rethink your posting strategy. ħuman 17:19, 18 December 2008 (EST)

At least, the last one just got a little bit funnier when Karajou reverted the revert. Not that it's really that fun to nitpick about typos and similar accidents, but it's something. Etc 17:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Not only did the Koward block the wrong guy, but then tried to cover his own error by claiming the guy who did the right thing in the first place was in on the vandalism. The man's not got a shred of honour. --Kels 17:58, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, those wacky secret muslim Presidents-Elect

When Andy swims upstream against the flow of reality, he swims his little heart out, don't he? --Kels 17:59, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Dang. Andy as a salmon....that just about nails it. A primal instinct to persist in the face of over five years of online pwnage. --Robledo 18:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Obama could use a book that says "Bible" on the cover, but the text will actually be the Qur'an! Nobody can deny that.--Bayes 18:32, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see you're using the Muslim spelling of Koran. --Kels 18:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Is it too much to hope that he'll be eaten by a bear? Stile4aly 23:53, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Bears are comedy gold! --Kels 00:00, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Obama or Andy?Czolgolz 09:04, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Obsession for Wingnuts, by Calvin Klein

You want obsessed? Ken's obsessed. Holy crap is he obsessed. I wonder how many hits a day the Wikipedia page gets? --Kels 18:02, 18 December 2008 (EST)

& "Likely" thrown into the sentence post at random as usual. weaseLOId~ 18:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I see he's getting faint hearted all of a sudden. Where's all that confidence, Ken? --Kels 18:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Wow he burnt the page just to break Kel's link, talk about paranoid. - User $\pi$ 19:23, 18 December 2008 (EST)

6000-8000 per day, by the looks of: [2]. And it's not in the top 1000 viewed articles. Atheism gets roughly 5000 per day. The main page, #1, gets roughly 6-7 MILLION views daily, compared to CP's 6-10k. Good grinding, Ken. Gentleman Publius 19:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Just Plain Silly

...And Human earns a six-month stay in Andy's doghouse for, among other things, "a silly pattern of edits". Now, I've looked at his contribs--and I didn't see any particular pattern, let alone one that was the least bit humorous. Tough luck, chuck.--WJThomas 19:08, 18 December 2008 (EST)

What the fuck... Let's see, I offered to help on a few things with ideas and offers to do the work, fixed up the errors in 'electrocity', created 'George Foreman', and I get blocked for it? By the Schlaflmeister himself??? Oh well, I bin done made "gone" before... ħuman 19:23, 18 December 2008 (EST)

"11 prior blocks, a silly pattern of editing, lack of use of a real first name, and an overall distraction from learning here" - can he read, even? half my blocks were Henry messing with me, HelpJazz also. For minutes and seconds. Hell, I only got one day for "Inappropriate edit to Obama entry". And he finally noticed I'm allegedly not using my real name? 2 out of 3 letters ain't bad, chump. I guess I can take solace in one thing - he actually took the trouble to write my block reason, rather than cheesing out to one of his pet drop-down choices. Unless... "no silly patterns of editing" is a new Kommandment! </rant> ħuman 19:30, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Wow! Are you gonna dispute it by email, or do you want somebody to take it to the dreaded abuse desk on your behalf? (Or you could just walk away in disgust?) weaseLOId~ 20:00, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Well, Schlafly's email is disabled, as if he'd even read any note I sent... if anyone wants to discuss it on my behalf, I would be amused ;) However, the "best bet", if I give a shit about editing there, is to wait a bit (week or three?) and see if someone sane will unblock me. Bohdan/Henry might not want to stick his neck out, but there are a few with blocking rights who might see "time served" (for no discernable crime) to be sufficient. We'll see. ħuman 20:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I'd be amused if PJR did it to piss off Andy for the "if you believe in gun control you're obviously not very intelligent" thing. --Kels 20:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Me too. Or even if he did it for "no discernable pattern in constructive series of edits". I wonder what I did to get on Schlaffles' radar? ħuman 21:00, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Hard to say. Maybe he looked over here and remembered that you were on both sites and it rubbed him the wrong way. Or maybe he figured he hadn't been capricious enough lately, and wanted to improve his record. --Kels 21:02, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, usually the block reason is understandable (if only in a paranoid, loony way), but I don't have a clue what set Andy off here, unless he was confusing Human with somebody else. Too much eggnog at the party, maybe.--WJThomas 21:07, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Probably got a bit wild and had one too many Shirley Temples... --Kels 21:14, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I felt so sorry for RationalWikians trapped behind static IP Addresses. I was so pleased with my Dynamic IP. Then they did me with teh rangeblockie. I even considered changing my Internet Service Provider. Changing just over that would obviously be silly. Last year I checked in Which Magazine and decided my ISP was the best value for my type of Internet use. It was worth rechecking. I went to a local library where I could access Which. Is my ISP still good value? If it isn’t such good value any more getting back onto Conservapedia with a different ISP will be a bonus, I thought. My ISP is even better value. They’ve improved the service. Was I pleased about the good value for money that I am getting? I just felt trapped behind that rangeblock. Of course I can still edit Conservapedia from Public access computers with teh dreaded static IP. I do a bit. Most of the time I edit here and point out here what’s wrong with Conpedia. That way what I write stays.

Human, if you’ve got a static IP you’re so limited in what you can do. You can change your Internet Service Provider or you can point out what’s wrong with Conpedia here. Proxima Centauri 05:10, 19 December 2008 (EST)

There's always TOR, although it is a complete pain in the ass, + TK is doing all he can to stamp it out. weaseLOId~ 06:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks, PC. Of course, I could always use proxies... but I have no interest in editing as a sockpuppet on CP. Broadband ISPs in the uSA are tightly held monopolies, so there aren't many "change your ISP" options, really, by the way. ħuman 14:19, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Looks like Sideways tried to do the valiant thing, but TK is having none of it. Wonder if he's got something against you personally? --Kels 21:47, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Yah think? Oh well, thanks for trying, M. Sideways, if that is, indeed, your real name... ħuman 22:26, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Suicidal? [3] ħuman 22:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

That IP block by TK was underhanded, even by his standards, and that's saying something. Makes me wonder if he had some more direct involvement in the sudden decision to have you blocked, and he's not planning to allow any dissent. --Kels 22:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I still see no possible reason for a block. You offered to help with our NFL rosters, alphabetize a list of musicians, etc. I know what it might be! You fixed an embarassing typo. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 22:44, 18 December 2008 (EST)

TK thanked me for it in an blank edit comment. RW blocked me for a week for it. Go figure. ħuman 00:04, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I've WIGOed it. It's a lot more interesting than anything else that's happened today. weaseLOId~ 22:45, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I got WIGOed??? SRSLY? Come on people, vote it up up up!!! At least I wasn't some sock being obvious. VOTE FOR HUMAN!!! OK, nevermind, although I see the value in wigoing schlafly's block "reason", which made no fucking sense whatsoever. Oh me, oh my, I am such a martyr to.... what? ħuman 00:11, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Do I have to say it? Come on. Ideology, plain and simple. Of course if anyone calls him on it, they're "liars" and "vandals" who also deserve banning. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Hmm, this looks suspicious to me. Comes right after Sideways managed to avoid TK's "dirty tricks" block, so it looks to me like they're after him for asking uncomfortable questions without actually admitting it. It's disturbing too, as it suggests a trend of range and IP blocks for "vandal IPs" as a way of not actually blocking the actual account and having to admit it's ideological. Sneaky, nasty, dishonest, tailor made for a rat like TK. Can't see why they'd bother though, they've never been afraid of making outright ideological blocks before and just turning around and saying "no it wasn't!" --Kels 23:09, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Sideways was now explicitly blocked. Apparently, by working around the Range Block(s), he used a proxy that has/had been used by others. Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. --Sid 06:25, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Indeed. weaseLOId~ 06:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Looks like FernoKlump has taken a stand for you as well, Human. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 23:11, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Frankly, human, I think it's best that you're blocked. If Andy wants to create a hate filled blog let him do so without help. Stile4aly 23:57, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I never did see the attraction in going over there and trying to make the place look legitimate. --Kels 00:01, 19 December 2008 (EST)

It's fun being a mole. And seriously, as much as I edit "well", they are way ahead of me in making their "encyclopedia" a joke. I hit random ten times earlier today and mostly got garbage. It's a place to practice writing what I know - once I realized they didn't actually give a shit about "references" I had a field day. Please to forgive me? Especially you, StileNUMBERperson? ħuman 00:07, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Say, is this looking a bit like the Night of Blunt Knives, writ small pathetic? Certainly Andy's new trick is "wasting editors' time" as an excuse to simply ban whoever he doesn't like, regardless if they're using anyone's time or not. --Kels 00:07, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Is it just me, or did Andy sound positively ANGRY about the whole thing? That mockery of silly names was the most vituperative he's yet become. I would suggest two theories: (1) either TK's starting to run amok, and has a hard-on for getting at RW bureaucrats who aren't me (about time), or (2) Andy finally looked at his RW article, and lashed out.-caius (heckuva job!) 01:07, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I definitely see TK's hand in all this (especially with the swift defense of Andy's page, and leading him how to respond). Wouldn't surprise me if he directed Andy's attention to the articles about him, and played up with Grima Wormtongue thing a bit. Seeing as he was a big player in the Night of Blunt Knives, there's a familar smell to all this. --Kels 10:26, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I'd like to add my commiserations. That block is grotesquely unwarranted, and if I had block rights, I'd unblock you.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 04:56, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Moar funny

"Want this list alphabetized?"

"Please" [4]

Guess I have to write another email apologizing that I can't do what I offered to do. ħuman 00:14, 19 December 2008 (EST)

But really, does Joaquín need help alphabetizing a list of names? (Wait. Don't answer that.) --Marty 02:00, 19 December 2008 (EST)i before e, except after c

Hehe, well, really, sometimes lists and stuff like that get started willy-nilly, and then later they need clean-up. Like our "see also"s - we don't bother abcing them until they hit 6-8 or so links. It's also a division of labor - someone does one part of the work (getting a list started), someone else makes it prettier, then later editors stick with the format because it's obvious. ħuman 14:23, 19 December 2008 (EST)

TK

Bravo, TK, for heroically attempting to scare off the reasonable editors: "I cannot imagine why you are wasting your time here with such horrible people." Maybe one of them will ask himself, "Well, why am I wasting my time here with such horrible people?" Unfortunately, TK's next few sentences send a mixed message; he should've let it go with that one question. --Marty 01:56, 19 December 2008 (EST)

"We want editors!" And we'll block everyone who walks in the door until we get them! --Kels 08:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)

If anyone wants to check up on TK's latest ravings they're here. Proxima Centauri 02:05, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Most Influential Person in History

It's not who you think it is! Discuss! --Irrational Atheist 19:12, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I love how much trouble Andy has with basic writing skills... "On December 18, 2008, the world's largest American History course for teenagers (66 students) voted as the most influential person in American History to be". Wait, he got home from his Xmas party and the first thing he decided to do was block me? How in the spirit of the season! Sorry, still whining. I'll get over it. ħuman 19:42, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe he was mad that you didn't get him a present...--WJThomas 19:53, 18 December 2008 (EST)

But I did! (I left a bag of doog poop in his mailbox) ħuman 20:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe you shouldn't have signed it? --Kels 20:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't... maybe he recognized the smell? ħuman 21:08, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Wait, are you saying it wasn't dog poop? Smyth 12:29, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I've never been banned from CP. I doubt I ever will. --Irrational Atheist 19:46, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Don't give up hope. It's easily achieved. weaseLOId~ 19:57, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I'm figuring on seeing how long someone can go just under the radar. --Irrational Atheist 20:04, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Keep in mind that I really, truly did nothing wrong. All I was doing was "working on the encyclopedia". Then again, maybe the block was ideological, or for being here. But they don't do that, of course. ħuman 20:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Working on an encyclopedia? At CP? No wonder they blocked you! --Kels 20:44, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Doh! Thanks, Kels, for clarifying that... "sensible editing pattern", indeed... ħuman 20:53, 18 December 2008 (EST)

That was your problem. Conservapedia is really a dictionary. --Irrational Atheist 20:51, 18 December 2008 (EST)

See my new section below on JTwit. ħuman 20:53, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Vulgar Name lulz?

"Liberalmaster" is a vulgar or inappropriate name. Which part is vulgar? Which part is inappropriate? Or can you no longer even mention the "L" word unless using it as a pejorative (which they don't do)? --Irrational Atheist 19:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Actually it's just pulled off this list of standard block reasons which appear on a dropdown menu when they go to block somebody. (We have the same thing but ours are a little sillier). They'll use that reason or the "recreate your username" one for any name they don't like the look of (which is almost anything that's not a straightforward person's name). weaseLOId~ 19:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Y'know, "inappropriate" has not always been a euphemism for "scatological". I think that "Liberalmaster" is a pretty inappropriate name for an editor of an online encyclopedia. (Especially a conservative one. :) --Marty 23:36, 18 December 2008 (EST)

JPatt

I don't know if he does this all the time, but he's on a roll worthy of Special Ed. What were these, wanted links for future borken news items?

cp:keep cp:laidoff cp:domino effect cp:drumbeat cp:wishes cp:born (special treat: cp:talk:born) cp:hundred

PS, "laidoff" isn't even a fucking word! ħuman 20:50, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I have to give him credit on the hundred that would satisfy Ed. The only way to do it properly is with Peano's axioms and we all remember what happened to those. - User $\pi$ 21:15, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I've always taken the word to be 'layoff'. Goat knows my company has seen its fair share as of late. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 22:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Stephen Hawking

How can an evilutionist who was divorced twice be added to the Gallery of British Heroes. I doubt they can let a fellow of such loose moral fiber remain a hero. Patrickr 23:26, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Don't forget cheating on his wife. But hey, if they can put Grampy McCain in the American list, I guess the standards for morals isn't all that high. --Kels 23:29, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Seriously is that Queen Elizabeth the second it looks like Hyacinth Bucket (obscure British comedy reference)? - User $\pi$ 00:37, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Also, I can't say it there so I'll say it here: When did QE2 become a hero? For what, exactly? QE1, maybe, even definitely. ħuman 00:39, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Noted pot-head Paul McCartney? John "We're Bigger than Jesus" Lennon?!?!? Weird. PFoster 01:06, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I see at Conservapedia, heroes are relieved of the huge burden of having to have actually existed. Apparently, the almost entirely fictional King Arthur is one. Shame they missed out Robin Hood, perhaps he was a bit too much of a liberal redistributionalist for their liking? --JeevesMkII 03:54, 19 December 2008 (EST)

(undent) The CP list varies considerably from the BBC 100 Greatest Britons poll - mind you there were some suspicions of vote rigging by the students of Brunell University and, personally, I never subscribed to the cult of Saint Diana Silver Sloth 05:10, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Michael Crawford is a greater Briton than Queen Victoria. Deny this and lose all credibility.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 06:13, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Well at least Joaquín is pleased with the list & its Google ranking. And apparently unaware that he's talking to the dead. Beautiful. weaseLOId~ 08:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)

He's so happy, it's a shame to tell him the only reason it's #1 is because it's the only page with that name. --Kels 09:01, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Say, where's the pic of Eddie Izzard? --Kels 10:44, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Seeds to be nurtured

Okay, how long has cp:Category:Seeds to be nurtured been in existence? I thought it was a wandal's joke until I saw that it was full of articles — it's the category associated with CP's stub template.  BTW, I'll give you three guesses which CP sysop came up with that creepy name... and the first two don't count. --Marty 23:42, 18 December 2008 (EST)dammit Sideways, get yourself blocked already   [edited 04:00, 20 December 2008 (EST)] hooray! good going, Sideways

*le sigh* The biggest surprise is that Ed seems to believe that people find this whole "kindly uncle" routine charming. It just makes me itch. --Kels 23:50, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Whatever you do - DON'T SCRATCH!!! ħuman

Looks like someone had spread their seed around the site. Pun intended. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:09, 19 December 2008 (EST)

That ain't seed(s) all over that site, but it is known to help seeds grow... --Kels 09:00, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Holy moley, 920 of 'em. Smyth 12:26, 19 December 2008 (EST)

That's almost more needlessly extensive than our own stub-list. ArmondikoV^postate 14:37, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I guess it was more poetic for Ed to use that title than the more accurate "Stubs for Other People to Actually Put in Work On" --Kels 14:39, 19 December 2008 (EST)

CP in the news

Posted for posterity!

Added to Conservapedia:In the media ħuman 15:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Here too. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:32, 19 December 2008 (EST)

That's our old pal, user:PalMD. ħuman 15:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Block Entries

To honor human's latest block, a short overview of the Top 28 in the category "Number of entries in the block log at CP" :

rank	name	#entries	#blocks	#unblocks
1	AmesG	50	29	21
2	Fox	38	22	16
3	HelpJazz	31	18	13
4	Kektklik	29	20	9
5	NathanG	27	16	11
6	Iduan	26	15	11
7	TK	25	14	11
	BRichtigen	25	15	10
8	DinsdaleP	24	15	9
9	Palmd001	21	12	9
10	Horace	20	14	6
	AliceBG	20	15	5
11	Barikada	18	14	4
	Sid 3050	18	11	7
12	Order	17	10	7
	TomMoore	17	11	6
	Tmtoulouse	17	9	8
13	Human	16	12	4
	Conservative	16	8	8
14	HangConservatives	15	8	7
	Deborah	15	10	5
	Jareddr	15	12	3
	Bugler	15	10	5
15	FernoKlump	14	10	4
	AlanS	14	10	4
	PF Fox	14	11	3
	Wikinterpreter	14	8	6
	SSchultz	14	12	2

Impressive. But I believe Kektklik & NathanG are the same guy. Which would put him at the top of the board with 56 blocks against his two accounts. weaseLOId~ 09:49, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, but most of those were self-blocks, to test or goof around or whatever. His actual honest-to-goodness blocks are few.--WJThomas 10:02, 19 December 2008 (EST)

FernoKlumps Parthian Save Here Just in Case, don't know how to do images or html stuff.

"Aschlafly" (Another absurd name. I mean YIKES! At least FernoKlump isn't my real name) go fuck yourself, you moron. You are an idiot if you think you can trust TK with Sysop powers over Human with editing powers. Have you forgotten about this already?

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep231.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep232.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep233.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep234.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep235.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep236.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep237.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep238.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep239.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep2310.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep2311.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd110/Hojimachong/Sep2312.jpg

It is clear to everyone but you that TK is out to destroy this website. Yet you continue to keep him and other malicious people, like Bugler, around.

And above all, you really are nothing more than a bully. You were born into a rich family, had endless opportunities, and graduated from Harvard. Yet the best thing you could do with your life is teach homeschooled kids (who either really suck at history or have a crappy teacher; I suspect the latter) and start Conservapedia, which btw I'm sure you know is the biggest laughing stock on the internet. You go back to writing your Obama article, I'm sure its a great outlet for the frustration and jealously you feel for seeing someone who started out with so little become so successful.

Your politics are a joke. I mean, do you actually have an intellectual argument for ANY of your positions? You blindly adhere to any and all conservative positions. I guess its cuz Mommy said so, huh?

And finally, to TK, You are a fucking liar and leave my email the fuck alone.

I'm done helping a wiki that was no appreciation for its editors. Your Truly, FernoKlump^{User:FernoKlump/petition}

[unindent]May I "big up" the actions of AlanM in reposting FerroKlumps edit? Obviously AlanM is a decent, upstanding, cultured, intelligent and handsome person. Can I get anyone to join in the reposting-fest? Ferro would have wanted it. Those socks could not be better burnt than in the cause of facing Assfly with the truth. --Toffeeman 12:15, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Is there a good reason we're spelling his name wrong? Smyth 13:48, 19 December 2008 (EST)

This is possibly my favorite Parthion since the DrCB incident... I mean, the Doctor pwned Schlafly with logic, but Ferno just puts it out there in pure anger. Hard to decide. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 14:35, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I really do have to appreciate how the frustration and screaming incomprehension how these people could be how they are comes right out in simple text. --Kels 16:44, 19 December 2008 (EST)

For some reason I thought that respectfully dealing with those nitwits would help me with my anger problems. Long story short, It didn't. FernoKlump 19:38, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I'm just quietly grateful you don't have murderous rage problems. --Kels 21:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

"Andy makes s*** up"

What part of that news-bite was a lie? ListenerX^TalkerX 11:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)

The part about it being "Obama-inspired"? The breech has nothing to do with Obama, and Obama did nothing even remotely similar to it. --Irrational Atheist 11:23, 19 December 2008 (EST)

So basically, you're talking about the edit summary, not the actual entry on the main page? --Kels 11:25, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Right. Andy made up the "Obama-inspired" and pretty much copied the rest. The people who misused state computers deserved what they got, no one's denying that. But to try to tie it to Obama, like he's doing with Blago... He's off his rocker even farther than before. --Irrational Atheist 11:28, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I put that President-elect Obama inspired the wrongdoing, in the same non-culpable way that Jodie Foster inspired the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. ListenerX^TalkerX 11:33, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Eh, I'd say as Andy-crazy goes, this is pretty mild. Tying the actions of a member of his party to his campaign isn't really unusual blog-level politics (on either side, to be hones), and he didn't actually put it in the news entry itself. I'm kinda underwhelmed on this one. --Kels 11:36, 19 December 2008 (EST)

There is a pattern that Andy is showing. He's so desperate to make sure Obama is not sworn in, he's trying everything (the birth certificate, secret Muslim, Blago, Joe the Plumber privacy, etc.) in hopes that people will stop his swearing in. This was just another example of Andy's delusions (hate, bigotry, lying) invoking Obama in something where the President-elect is not involved in any way. --Irrational Atheist 11:39, 19 December 2008 (EST)

We should only call him a liar when he actually lies... ListenerX^TalkerX 11:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

"Obama-inspired" is the truth? --Irrational Atheist 11:44, 19 December 2008 (EST)

If it is not, answer my argument above that it is. ListenerX^TalkerX 11:45, 19 December 2008 (EST)

But Jodie Foster didn't inspire the assassination attempt on Reagan. That's pretty much blaming an outsider for what someone does to someone else. And even here, the people looking into Joe the Plumber's files didn't do it because of Obama, but because Joe wanted attention, and sought it everywhere he could. Including a stop with Obama. So please explain how it is Obama-inspired? --Irrational Atheist 11:52, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Presumably the investigation into Joe the Plumber was more because he was seeking to attack the candidate in a very public way, rather than being a garden-variety attention seeker. So that part would be definitely tied to the campaign, but the staffer made a mistake in using those computers. So yeah, you could call it a connection. Andy is writing his edit summary like a blogger, so he plays it up into more than it is, but it's incredibly mild compared to the "secret Muslim" and "socialist" stuff. --Kels 11:59, 19 December 2008 (EST)

(1) Even if the background checks on Joe the Plumber had nothing to do with Obama, the illicit fundraising certainly did (in the sense that it was for his campaign), and (2) inspiration in no sense implies culpability. "Jodie Foster inspired John Hinckley" does not mean "The assassination attempt is Jodie Foster's doing."

Another example: Suppose a man is so much in love with a woman that he sculpts an enormous statue of her for his backyard. It would then be said that the woman inspired the creation of the statue, though she had nothing to do with its creation, and could not be blamed if a neighbor complained about it. ListenerX^TalkerX 12:06, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I dunno, the makers of my electric toaster inspired me to use it as a bath toy, so if I get electrocuted, my lawyer can blame them. That's how things work in the United States of Litigation. RoundRobyn 19:09, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Evangelicals and Nazis

Why do Evangelicals keep arguing that Nazis were not Christians (or in Bugler's case, anti-Christian) when history and reality show otherwise? Why not just admit that they were really awful Christians, who didn't follow Christ properly, and move on? --Irrational Atheist 16:03, 19 December 2008 (EST)

One True Scotsman, for a start. Our tribe is the best, so goodness is defined by being one of us. If someone bad is found among us, or causes us embarrassment, we will redefine "us" to exclude them, and we will again be good and best by definition. Nazis were largely Christian and fed on a long-running theme (see Martin Luther) of anti-semetism within the church, but since it makes them look bad to be associated with Nazis, they suddenly don't meet the definition of Christian any more. It's usually evangelicals who say this because i) they're usually making the most virulent attacks against atheists and others they don't like, and ii) there seems to be less compulsion against outright lying among evangelicals so long as you're doing it for "good" (defined as "their interests" as before). --Kels 16:08, 19 December 2008 (EST)

The Christianity of the Nazis tended to vary from member to member, and even from policy to policy. Some WERE virulent atheists (oh noez), but many took Positive Christianity (rather misleadingly named, considering what it actually was) as the party line. Many were deeply steeped in Germanic paganism. Of course (the parodist known as) Bugler is wrong, and "One True Scotsman" is exactly the analogy. But it's a lot more complicated than "They were Christians" or "They weren't Christians". --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 16:37, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Also, you need to keep in mind the important links between Evangelicalism, the Jews, the State of Israel and Biblical prophecies re: the Rapture. The Evangelicals want to protect Christianity's rep, but they also want to portray themselves and their brand of Christianity as having a special relationship with the Jews. PFoster 16:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

(EC with PF, you bounder!) Add that to the pile, then. iii) On average, evangelicals seem to dislike anything more complex than black/white dualities, especially on matters of faith or tribal loyalty. --Kels 16:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Hitler apparently found Odinism too wishy-washy, but thought Islam would have been much better than Christianity for Germany to have. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

The NSDAP was anti-Christian. They just weren't atheist. Hitler fully intended to deal with the "Church question" once the Jewish question was solved.^{— Unsigned, by: Rweatherbie / talk / contribs}

Definitely, re: Kels and black and white. There's no wiggle room for that form of fundamentalism. Anybody Bad must NOT be a Christian. It's less a conscious obfuscation than an unconscious one (though it CAN be conscious). On a slightly unrelated note, the term "Evangelical" is actually broader than it seems. You can be very politically/theologically liberal and be an evangelical. But the crazies have kind of poisoned the well and made the word a synonym for fundamentalism in a lot of people's minds, even though it's historically (and currently, really) not. It just seems like it is because so many evangelicals ARE fundamentalists (which is a misnomer in and of itself, but potayto/potahto). Re: Islam -- Hitler reportedly said: "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness..." --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:12, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I expect a lot of that synonym business has to do with the fact that aside from the loonier aspects of the faith getting more media exposure, a disproportionate number of churches that actually use "evangelical" as part of their name tend to be more of the southern fundamentalist vein. So we end up hearing evangelical and fundamental in the same breath way more often than any other combination. Bad PR for the non-wacky types, I guess. --Kels 17:20, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Just so. And more like bad PR for the human race. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:22, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Just as another angle on this, but am I reading this right - Bugler is trying to say that the Nazis were simultaneously Satanists, basically, and atheists at the same time? If I am reading that right, then how, exactly, can they be inspired by someone that they would firmly believe doesn't exist? Zmidponk 18:41, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Atheists are people who don't believe in the Father of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you see? That means even Jews and Muslims are atheists, let alone Satanists. RoundRobyn 19:06, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think he's saying they were actual Satanists; just that they had been corrupted by evil, & the Devil is always at the root of evil (whether you take that literally or metaphorically). weaseLOId~ 19:14, 19 December 2008 (EST)

That betrays a certain mindset when they say "corrupted by evil" as if evil was an independent Force, like a green mist that comes out of the graveyard into the eyes and ears of our yoots. A more balanced view would say the corruption IS the evil, but that's just me. RoundRobyn 20:54, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Apparently, Bugler hasn't read Hannah Arendt. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:45, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Clear the CP front page!!!

Gossip, or valuable insight into Palin's associates? You decide. Matt 17:21, 19 December 2008 (EST)

"Clearly, this article is the product of liberal rumor-mongering. The fact that this "article" does not mention the bible nor begin with teacher-led prayer clearly indicates that this Sydney Morning Herald (an absurd name) is an atheist organization, or do you deny that 2+2=4 as well? We are not here to waste time on attention-grabbing stunts, we are here to learn. If you wish to continue to be a part of this project, I expect you to raise the quality of your work or lose all credibility. Godspeed. -assfly"

To be honest however, the above is more intelligent than the reaction I'd expect to see should the article receive a mention on CP. In reality, I'd expect a quick-and-nasty revert-ban. I was reading this in the newspaper earlier this morning (indeed, it was the SMH I was reading), and I must admit it didn't surprise me much. Levi (the one who knocked up Ms Palin) is definitely not someone Andybuns would want to associate with the image of conservative...ness. -Redback^G'day 18:17, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I came within a whisker of being bitten by you on Thursday. Please don't set up home under the handle of our dustbin again. Matt 18:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)

If you think that was bad, wait until you see (or rather, feel) where I plan to strike next. -Redback^G'day 19:03, 19 December 2008 (EST)

::Evil stare:: You don't get redbacks in Sydney, why are you reading that paper? - User $\pi$ 20:54, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Pi, if that is your real name, you are clueless when it comes to Sydney-based arachnids. Matt 21:15, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Pi, I notice that 5 of your last 10 edits have been on talk pages. If you do not cease your constant efforts to waste contributor's time, you will be blocked for 90/10. Anyway, nuh-uh, they do too live in Sydney. I'm not a Sydneysider (or Sydneyspider for that matter) myself, but the local paper is too concerned with who won the Tidy Street 2008 award, and who has the prettiest christmas lights. -Redback^G'day 21:53, 19 December 2008 (EST)

"Redback" (isn't it funny how liberals present themselves?), if you won't open your mind and accept that a cause-and-effect is possible, then it is obviously a fool's errand for anyone to debate the issue with you. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and you say you don't believe Jesus is God, so it's painfully obvious that you're a product of the liberal public school system. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that cremating heretics stops research into gravitons. Whatever the mainstream media might say, opposition to chivalry breeds a lack of respect and a disdain for hard work. I just typed in "Saint Valentine's Day," and Wikipedia redirects me to the secular form, "Valentine's Day." Now run along and contribute something substantive.--Andy Schlafly 03:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the whole family aren't people Andy would want to associate with at all. Mind you, that probably applies to most of his own sysops in RL. I'm sure Andy considers them "the help" by how he acts on-wiki. --Kels 18:22, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Looking at the pic in that article, I can only say that Bristol appears to be well-named. Although they appear to be a very strange shape, unless that's just a bad dress. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 00:35, 20 December 2008 (EST)

What the heck is wrong with her breasts? Last time I checked, they weren't supposed to be square. --Kels 14:49, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Keep in mind she is quite pregnant by now, if that's a current picture (probably from the GOP convention tho), what Robin Williams calls the "titty fairy" has visited her. And when presented to the public they have tried to corset her into looking less, um, pregnant. So her body is all squooshed out of shape. That's probably part of her tummy above the dress' "corset". ħuman 14:58, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Away, crappy WIGOs!

Due to a preponderance of WIGOs that were crappy to mine sight, I wrote some javascript to hide the offensively bad ones. You can copy it from here and customise the threshold if you also wish to avoid seeing the stupid ones. --JeevesMkII 22:08, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Is that really going to help? It just means some people won't vote the worst of them down further (because they won't see them), which could get them voted back up above the threshold anyway? ħuman 22:18, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, there's the tragedy of the commons thing going there. My selfish action penalises everyone else, but in my defence.... Wait, I don't have defence. Screw you all! :D Stop submitting crappy wigos, and I'll stop being a prick. :D --JeevesMkII 22:20, 19 December 2008 (EST)

You'd stop being a prick? Where's the fun in that?

Way I see it, we've got a couple of newish folks who really like the WIGO's, but don't seem to have fully clicked into the "house style" yet. They'll probably get it presently. In the meantime, vote stuff down if it's crappy, and it'll eventually vanish. --Kels 22:40, 19 December 2008 (EST)

But not all of the crappy WIGOs are coming from n00bs. weaseLOId~ 10:18, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe we need to revise or expand ther guidelines at the top, although I think they're already being ignored, especially the Brevity thing. A guide or essay on how to write a good WIGO, linked from the WIGO page, could be a good idea. weaseLOId~ 08:00, 20 December 2008 (EST)

You do realise, of course, that in Ed-land you've just volunteered to write that. Although I'm willing to help out - 'bout time I did some work around here. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:12, 20 December 2008 (EST)

And here it is. Please add to it &/or comment on it. weaseLOId~ 17:36, 20 December 2008 (EST)

A brief dream, but it's over

I guess that brief moment of not-crazy was all Andy could handle, because it's right back to contempt for democracy and unthinking hypocricy. It's hilarious that someone who supports "consensus" when it comes to gay marriage, belief in evolution/global warming, and on and on, suddenly can't stand the idea of people voting their conscience when it comes to stuff he disagrees with. Dovetails nicely with the whole "liberals aren't really human" riff he's got going on. --Kels 23:56, 19 December 2008 (EST)

His little dig "whom you haven't criticized" is almost scary in its demands for ideological purity. No way you can consider both sides of an issue, even for a moment. You must frame all issues in terms of Right and Wrong from Square 1, or lose credibility. 24.14.12.222 00:15, 20 December 2008 (EST)

A person against obesity giving their kids ice cream? Uh, nothing wrong with that, unless they fed them nothing but ice cream. My parents were against smoking, but they let me smoke (and I haven't smoked since, see?). As for the broken clock, IT'S 98.333% WRONG WHEN IT TELLS TIME! Twice fail, Andy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:20, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Hah, I just noticed that I put the wrong link in there. The ice cream one should have been this instead, but I guess it doesn't matter much. They're batshit insane in either case. I'm just amazed at the brief, shining moment of lucidity when he said that pharmacists who don't actually want to fulfill the duties of a pharmacist can just quit, but then he went and ruined it. --Kels 00:26, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I kind of liked the ice cream one. Dear Assfly, how about if it's diabetic ice cream? (On a related note: Parents, don't let your kids go to a diabetic's birthday party. They'll be bitterly disappointed.) --JeevesMkII 00:41, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Come to that, I'm pretty sure Andy's criticized obesity in the past (actually, he's supported Ken's article on fat lesbians, hasn't he?), so does his ideological purity extend so far that he'd be a dick and refuse to let his kids have ice cream? Mind you, it's Andy, so maybe. --Kels 00:45, 20 December 2008 (EST)

TK, pastry & Muslims

TK is not rational - First he proposed "donut" for speedy deletion, now it's "Al Fatiha" - the first chapter of the Quran. What's he got against pastry & muslims? 193.200.150.26 02:28, 20 December 2008 (EST)

He doesn't like donuts because before the great purge RationaWikians parodied Conservapedia by debating over donuts. Aschlafly doesn't like Moslems and TK's doing his master's will by trying to get that deleted. TK may later challenge teh Assfly. See TK's showdown. ^{— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs}

You pretty much mailed it. TK is trying to generate a second night of the blunt knives, only not on one night. He's trying to purge CP on any influence due to liberal deceit or parody, ironically, in his own way, to destroy CP from within. He's still an asshole at best, as a "human being", of course. OOhOhhoOhhh see next section. ħuman 03:40, 20 December 2008 (EST)

"nailed" it, surely. ArmondikoV^postate 13:11, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Who's left?

I think we had a mini-Blunt-Knives just now, actually. Human, Sideways, FernoKlump, and AlanS AlanE AlanM, all within 24 hours (or something, I'm too lazy to check). Who else is left over there who's not either a parodist or Andy/Ed/Kara/Ken/PJR/JM/Hsmom/Kotomi? (And is PJR even still around, or did he huff off too? How about RJJensen?) --Marty 04:06, 20 December 2008 (EST)

RJJensen is under some pressure. Proxima Centauri 04:42, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think he's feeling much pressure; he's doing the same "copy my own articles from Citizendium" shtick he's always done. You see any "pressure" more recent than when Andy(?) accused him of inserting false dates in the Grover Cleveland(?) article several months ago? --Marty 16:58, 20 December 2008 (EST)

To partly answer my own question: BRichtigen is still trying to be helpful. PJR is probably not dead yet, although he's still flirting with disaster in highly amusing ways. (While I wouldn't say I admire PJR, he's certainly the only CP sysop who regularly evinces a sense of humor.) JY23 is sticking to his sports project. And I should have put Hsmom and JessicaT separate from the other bunch, because those two are also good folks whom TK needs to banninate. --Marty 17:06, 20 December 2008 (EST) hurry up

Fair play to Kotomi, at least she's trying to stand up to TK, which she can only do cos she too wields teh banhammer (I won't mention the red hotpants or leather corset, otherwise Norseman might implode *grin*). I dunno if HSMom has,but she's also been quieter lately. I have a sneaky suspicion that our friend is going to have the wires humming between wherever he stays and New Jersey and Kotomi will probably return from holiday to find she's been demoted for "inactivity". Which might be a good thing - she's too good for that mob. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 20:03, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Wait...HSmom has a leather corset? --Kels 20:08, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Only in my fantasies. weaseLOId~ 20:26, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Yup, that's definitely how I picture her, too. ħuman 22:27, 20 December 2008 (EST)

*re-reads what I wrote* Oh, things that make you go ooohhh. Serves me right for coming home from a party and trying to edit RW at 3am.--PsyGremlin_Whut? 20:29, 20 December 2008 (EST)

One of those parties, apparently. --Kels 20:40, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Posting emails

I have a nice little three emails each correspondence with our delightful, disgusting little man in Reno I am thinking of posting for all and sundry. They are fairly simple and short, and my claim to make them public is "I recorded this conversation that I was part of" (Is that how it works, Ames?). But they also do a wonderful job of displaying just how fucked up TK's perspective on the world in general, and our little corner of it specifically, is. Comments before I screenshoot and post? ħuman 03:40, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Looks cool. You know the content of those emails better than we do. You must decide. Proxima Centauri 05:20, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Publish and be damned I say. TK deserves the respect and consideration he gives others, i.e. nothing. Show the basement-dwelling maggot's true colours. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:28, 20 December 2008 (EST)

They're emails to you. If I were to have them then I couldn't post them because they're your emails and you get to decide if they are publicised or not. You do not have to "justify" making them public: they're your emails and you get to decide if they are publicised or not. The argument for privacy depends on accepting your right to make them public. --Toffeeman 06:34, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Do it. TK's done as much & more before so it will be richly deserved. As far as privacy issues go, leave out any personal details which should not be made public if there any, but Toffeeman is right: they are yours to share if you wish. I would be interested to see what he has to say. weaseLOId~ 08:11, 20 December 2008 (EST)

So,I've got a short email from his first taste of power where he offers to buy me some IP proxie services for the purpose of making socks over at CP. Is that interesting or does everyone have that? I believe TK emailed a bunch of you as well. Does this deserve a page of its own --TK's mutinous cross talk ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 09:33, 20 December 2008 (EST)

TK’s so self righteous about how horrible those proxies are at Conservapedia. Let’s see his hypocrisy naked and exposed. Proxima Centauri 09:58, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Posting them will not affect anything over at CP. We've said it openly that Bugler is a parodist, TK is out for round 2 doing what he does best, Ed's an idiot (idiots don't learn, so...), and other stuff they simply ignore. Post 'em! (OR EMAIL ME IF NOT, DANGIT I MISS EVERYTHING!) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:24, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Human, I railed against Fox for this and now it's your turn. Don't be an asshole. Don't sink to TK's level. Don't try to justify it with legal interpretations about who "owns" the correspondence. Don't break the fourth wall between the Internets and real life. People--and yes, TK is a people--don't like having their correspondence published w/out their consent. It's a wiki, it's really not that important. Get over yourself and stop being so-self-important. Put the effort into attacking someone who matters, like an incompetent auto exec or elected official. PFoster 10:55, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I disagree. Post them. DickTurpis 11:04, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Such e-mails are personal correspondence between individuals. Do you compose each of yours with consideration that the recipient may one day post it online for all to see? As PFoster said, don't sink to their level. If "TK deserves the respect and consideration he gives others, i.e. nothing", then by showing none yourself, you- that's all of you- won't deserve any either. It works both ways. Take the high road- and by that I mean the ethical one- and keep them to yourself (however amusing they might be). Kallium^talk 11:06, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I disagree with Kallium and PFoster, mostly because TK is a special case. He'll disavow that he wrote any of them anyway, and there's no faith that can be kept with the little monster.-caius (heckuva job!) 11:11, 20 December 2008 (EST)

As above I don't think Human has to justify it, quasi-legal or not. Sometimes you should keep communications secret, but there is no general rule. If you sidle up to me by the water-cooler, saying that you really enjoyed the new bar in town I'm perfectly entitled to tell people thinking of going "well, PK told me it was great". If you tell me something personal, or you tell me in confidence (and only if) then I am usually constrained to keep quiet. I say usually because there are certain things you could say where I would almost be obliged to tell:

1. "I've planted a virus on the company's server which, if not dealt with by Thursday, will crash everthing"
2. "I blocked Human's promotion because he's black/white/hispanic/asian/gay/whatever"
3. "I killed the cheerleader"

If TK confesses in these emails to being gay, or having doubts about his Christianity, or suffering from a mental disorder then Human shouldn't break the confidence. But then I would be confident enough that Human wouldn't even think of publishing these details. --Toffeeman 11:20, 20 December 2008 (EST)

You forgot "I Shot the Sheriff"... ħuman 22:39, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I, personally, am in favor of Human (and Fox) releasing their emails into the wild, but that's purely for my own voyeuristic masochism rather than any belief that exposing their hypocrisies will serve any particular purpose, or do any "good". That said, there may be a middle ground that hasn't been explored: Instead of posting the actual text of the emails, post a summary of the content.("12/1/08--TK explains his plan to overthrow Andy."; "9/22/08--Ed confesses that he knows nothing about anything, and hopes that nobody has caught on."). Seems to me this may satisfy the desire for posting without crossing the lines of privacy and so forth. They'd be informative without being overly personal, maybe.--WJThomas 11:45, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Redaction's an option, but here's an important point: TK can have no legitimate expectation of privacy in e-mails that constitute threats, outright lies, or related behavior. -caius (heckuva job!) 11:49, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Come off it Ames. If TK is threatening to blow something up or have someone shot, Human should turn the e-mails over to the proper authorities. If he's threatening to make an online community destroy itself through snark and paranoia, that's not real life and not worth exposing living, breathing human beings to the embarrassment of having their private correspondence aired in public. All "threats" are not equal. Grow up. PFoster 11:55, 20 December 2008 (EST)

The "threat" of TK is of a different level to that of murder. But then so is the level of breach of privacy. Whilst it may be palid "threat" (ie that he may damage a wiki) it's a pretty limited bit of "gossip" Human holds on kin (ie that he may damage a wiki).--Toffeeman 12:04, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I'm fairly neutral on this. But I seem to recall that TK has in the past both threatened to, and later carried out, threats to release confidential info about RW. Remember rationalwiki.info. On the other hand, does that make it right for us?--Bob^{bing up} 12:22, 20 December 2008 (EST)

"there's no faith that can be kept with the little monster"- as I said before, that works both ways. If you don't show it, you don't deserve it either. Calling him a "little monster" and ignoring privacy because "he's a special case" means that you've become your own enemy. Blatant disregard for and a complete lack of integrity toward those with whom you disagree is the fundamental problem with Conservapedia. Making fun is one thing but discarding basic respect as human beings in another. Kallium^talk 14:43, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Uh...you seem to be misunderstanding something. TK declared war on us a long while before those comments were made, and he has long since proven them accurate. "If you don't show it, you don't deserve it either", has already been broken from his side ages before anything like the Hoji IMs were made public, and the SDG stuff is still under wraps. So I suspect your sermonizing here is a bit misplaced. --Kels 14:47, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, well, as long as he threw the first punch, that makes everything alright. So when one side crosses the line, everything's free game? It's not like that attitude has never caused problems before. And if the sermonizing in misplaced, I'll stop with that and be more direct. You would seriously feel justified violating another person's privacy (again...) because you've got some petty little score to settle? If so, as PFoster said, grow up. Kallium^talk 15:06, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Careful on that slippery slope there, dude. --Kels 15:46, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Some responses (and thank you all for the feedback!)

PFoster: "Don't break the fourth wall between the Internets and real life." - These emails are only about the internet, there's nothing personal in them except tone and attitude.

Kallium: "Do you compose each of yours with consideration that the recipient may one day post it online for all to see?" - Usually I try to, yes. Ironically, the worst things I write are usually on here and hitting "save" is my big mistake. Most emails I send fall under the heading of "someone might quote this". What do you think are the chances of TK emailing me and not thinking "he might share this"?

WJThomas: "Instead of posting the actual text of the emails, post a summary of the content." - well, it's the language and tone (and assumptions) that are so classic.

Essentially, my "plan", if I go forward, is to screenshot my email program on each of the six emails (I think it's six), and assemble the images into one, with as much screen junk removed as I can for simplicity. I'll spray paint out his email address, and probably mine.

Again, there are no personal details, what I believe is in the (mildly) public interest is how he responds to fairly neutral, brief questions. I think it might be good to have it available at his "sysop" article for the use of TK-noobs who have ony seen his "friendly" side.

Now, I fully realize the "Linda Trippish" aspect of releasing a conversation to the public - she is horrifying because the nature of the conversations (with Lewinski) were of the sort most people would "expect" to be, and stay, private. However, while TK is not threatening to bomb the Post Office, he is a very threatening character, even to the point of having RL stalked a couple of us (not me). His writing to me contains no implied or explicit expectation of secrecy, and he knows full well that I hang with a crowd who I would be likely to - even certain to in his "world" - share them with.

I still haven't decided whether to bother yet, so any more input is still welcome.

I may "compromise" and create the image, but post it elsewhere, unlinked, and pmail those who are curious with the link - on a blood oath not to share the url or image, of course ;) ħuman 15:16, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Kallium: No, the "first punch" does not make everything alright. The nature of the emails (and only Human can judge this) may make some things (including publication alright).

You haven't just got a generalised right to privacy, you have a right to privacy regarding things that you are within your rights to do and things you can reasonably expect to be secret. In general, failing any indication by you that it should be kept secret or the email is, by its nature, obviously meant to be private then I would say that the default is that can be sent on.

Even if it is pretty bloody obvious that you want it kept private this is not necessarily enough to put an obligation on others to keep it private. You have no right to privately burgle a house, you have no right to privately cheat at a game or privately insult someone: you have no right to burgle, cheat or insult. Let's say "X" sent an anti-semitic email to Fox, does X have a right to privacy or does Fox have a right to publish the email saying "look what this asshole said"? I would be with Fox and would hold that a claim from X to privacy has no weight whatsoever. Its not the case that “everything's free game”, Fox probably shouldn't beat the guy to a pulp, or send malware to his computer but Fox is surely entitled to reveal what has been said to him.

Back to TK. Should TK be trying to destroy a wiki by means of deception? No. Would Human be justified in revealing that that was what he was trying to do if he had evidence? Yes. Should TK send abusive emails? No. Would Human be within his right to reveal an abusive email? Yes. In general, if it reveals TK to be a **** then TK has no right to be a **** in private.--Toffeeman 15:45, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I disagree slightly about the right to insult people. We do have that right to say whatever we like about people in private. However, the person we say it to does have the right to repeat it to other people should they wish to. Keep this in context: these aren't emails about TK's personal life; they're about his activities on Conservapedia, something that we already have an interest in observing. We know that TK tried to drive lines of communication off the wiki into private channels, so it will be interesting to have some of this brought to light, and nothing he shouldn't've expected. weaseLOId~ 16:02, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I'd like to see those e-mails. But now, because Human posted his original request for comment first, if he releases the e-mails he'll look like a dick for ignoring PFoster's and others' complaints. Reluctantly I'd put not-having-Human-look-like-a-dick above reading-TK's-emails on the pleasure scale (because Human seems like a nice guy, even if he did revert my wandalism on CP sometimes), so I can't really encourage Human to do it now. The moral of this story is: Don't ask next time. Just do it, and then you can apologize and save face with anyone who's offended while still satisfying our curiosity. --Marty 17:12, 20 December 2008 (EST)

"better to ask forgiveness than permission" - Eragon.

Anyway, Human won't be ignoring the complaints since he's already responded to them (see above). On balance, more people have spoken in favour of sharing the emails than not. weaseLOId~ 17:44, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Me again :)

More info, since of course you are all having to discuss this in the dark.

1. As I said, no private issues in the mails.

2. They also don't "reveal" any plans or threats of TKs against any website.

3. What they show is how twisted his responses can be in relation to what he is responding to and in relation to "reality" (well, wikiality?).

I had an idea after plowing and driving off to stock provisions. If I bother to make the image (or not, I could just send text) what I will do it send it only to PFoster and Kallium (with their permission, of course). If they both judge it to be worth releasing, I'd do so. Any dissent after they see the content would be enough for me to keep it private.

I think that approach makes sense here on the wiki - only in the absence of any dissent should things like this be published.

Re: Marty's 17:12 comment, thanks, and that's humorous advice. But factoring in my informal "power" or "influence" (mostly due to hyperactivity) here would make unilaterally releasing something like this a poor precedent (like I haven't made hundreds of others, but still...) ħuman 17:53, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Hilarity

"I always “BCC” Andy, Ed, most of the others, when sent, Huw, because of the many, many “enhanced” emails of mine that make the rounds." ħuman 18:17, 20 December 2008 (EST)

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Remember this. MarcusCicero 18:28, 20 December 2008 (EST)

So if TK does nothing, I might suck seed? Not sure exactly where you're coming from ;) ħuman 22:25, 20 December 2008 (EST)

My two cents / pence worth: TK uses private correspondance as a weapon in his little war. It is one of his primary methods for dividing and conquering. He has used it to good effect at CP, and he has tried it here also. To the extent that we are engaged in some way in his war, why would we let him have that advantage? I don't see it as betraying any legitimate right (legal or moral) of his, since the emails were most likely sent for nefarious reasons and disclosing them is the best way to undo their work. There's a chance it would undermine his power base (if only a little) so my only reluctance stems not from TK's rights, but the question of whether we want his power base undermined? Is our preference to see TK bring down CP, as he undoubtedly would like to, or to see TK himself undone? On balance, I'm in the latter camp. Matt 07:45, 21 December 2008 (EST)

It's certainly a dilemma, rather like the Bugger. They're certainly working to undermine CP but their methods are most unpleasant and cause a lot collateral damage to innocent editors. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 08:13, 21 December 2008 (EST)

While I might be a little late in this, I reckon it can be boiled down to a few pros and cons. Legality is clearly not an issue, that's been shown already, as is privacy because that's a separate issue and you're not revealling personal infomation about anyone, including yourself.

Pros

• You reveal whatever infomation you have.
• If said info and content is useful to people, it is useful. Basically, if it's worth it, it's worth it.

Cons (although these are mostly based around two "ifs", and you probably won't know what the answers are until you open Pandora/Schrodinger's box and find out!)

• You reveal whatever infomation you have.
• If you've developed a rapport of some kind tat allows you to get more out of the guy in private than in public, then making the contents public changes the nature of that relationship and you may not be able to continue it in it's current form.
• If the info isn't worth it, you've just bored a lot of people, made a fuss and destroyed the present form of whatever correspondance relationship you have.

I think that's pretty simple. You don't really need to prove that TK is fucked up, the stuff he already posts publicly seems to imply it. I doubt the contents is anything like "I KNOW WHO REALLY KILLED JFK!" or something like that. ArmondikoV^postate 13:32, 21 December 2008 (EST)

History & projected future of Conservapedia.

Unemployed lawyer worries about income ("What happens to my money when mommy shuffles off this mortal coil?");

Decides to become a teacher of kids with misguided parents.

Gathers a few pupils & begins indoctrination teaching;

Realises that by using the internet, he can charge as much but reach more children of idiots like-minded people (and moreover he won't actually need to see them all that often);

Teacher schools using the internet;

Teacher thinks: "If I open the knowledge base to all comers then I'll have a truly great resource (and I'll get it all for free.";

Contributors begin to contribute;

Some contributors have the wrong ideas about some things;

Appoint officers;

Officers kick out wrong headed contributors;

Things go great (but ex contributors picket school);

The picket attracts unwanted attention;

Things get on top of teacher, so he instructs officers to clean up;

Officers kick out wrong headed contributors;

By now he realises that he's in over his head, so he embarks on the final solution;

Instructs officers to really clean up;

--(now)--

Officers do such a good job that soon they're the only ones contributing;

Teacher rubs hands with glee. His plan is working;

Teacher closes contributory aspect ("The world isn't ready for me!") and reverts to private internet school with one or two chosen assistants.

Fortinbrass 09:54, 20 December 2008 (EST)

What you wrote is so good that I've copied it here. Proxima Centauri 11:27, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I can't help myself. "You wrote it so well... ħuman 22:38, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Debbie Harry was the first RWian. Fact.

Proof here. For those who are time-poor, the subtle reference that proves her credentials is at 3.20.

And just quietly, those of us "of a certain generation" will no doubt be appalled at how bad the music videos of our childhood were! Matt 15:58, 20 December 2008 (EST)

There were still a few that stood the test of time, Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" was actually pretty decent. --Kels 16:06, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I dare anybody to watch Depeche Mode's "Just Can't Get It up Enough", looking like extras from the Wild Bunch without cringing. 80s = good music, crappy fashion (if you don't believe me, go watch the Lost Boys again). --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:35, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, pretty much anything with Molly Ringwald causes me pain these days. --Kels 16:41, 20 December 2008 (EST)

My working theory is that the 80s actually never happened, but the timeline went directly from 1979 to 1990 and that satan directly inserted memories of an extra decade in to our brains. I have no proof for this theory, but it makes me feel better to believe it. --JeevesMkII 17:52, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Hold on...so you're choosing to ditch the 80's, with all its wacky goodness, in favour of the 70's? --Kels 17:53, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Time ended when the original Clash! broke up. I'll put London Calling alone up against anything not by Tom Waits from the 80s. ħuman 17:56, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Brian Blessed says: Your taste in music is wrong. Very wrong.

London Calling is, indeed, big guns. But the 80's produced a few high calibre weapons as well. --Kels 19:05, 20 December 2008 (EST)

At Brothers in Arms (for example). Yeah, great record. One I haven't listened to since like 1994. It's pretty. It even has two or three emotions, and some nice guitar work. London Calling? Desert Island Disc. Talking Heads? Better in the 70s, really they count as a 70s band. Bowie? A 60s act who successfully evolved and followed/led trends. I don't know these "hounds" you speak of, though... so you may be right (^(c) Billy Joel). ħuman 21:40, 20 December 2008 (EST)

"Hounds" was Kate Bush, a woman with an utterly stunning vocal range, and apparently good friend of David Gilmour (he lent her sound effects from The Wall for a couple of her albums). The 80's, pop-wise, was a good experience I think, since it allowed for enjoyable, fun music without the incredible narcissism that marked pop in the 70's. But a lot of performers who'd started earlier kept going, like the Pink Floyd guys, Peter Gabriel, and so forth, so you can't really classify them by decade particularly. Personally, I think the Stones of the 80's kinda sucked, but meh. It was also the rise of music video, so there was a lot of pretty interesting and innovative, and honestly some downright silly stuff being made at that time. Go take a look for Herbie Hancock's "Rock It" for probably one of the best videos made during that whole decade. --Kels 22:16, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Kate Bush also sang the backgrounds to Peter Gabriel's "Games without Frontiers" (the part that everyone thinks is "she's so popular" it's really "jeux sans frontiers") oh, and she's totally my girlfriend...PFoster 22:50, 20 December 2008 (EST)

My confused friends thought the lyric was "She's - so - funky". ħuman 00:05, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Gedoff, I saw her first, I'm gonna have a lesbian affair with her voice. And I never thought it was anything but the actual words, but maybe that's the Canadian in me. --Kels 22:56, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I yield to the Lady of Kelsmere ;) All decades sucked, all decades were awesome. Long live the awesome! ħuman 22:22, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, I just downloaded a copy of Stop Making Sense. It's hard to believe David Byrne was ever that young. Used to be a little rep cinema where I used to live on the east coast, way up on the third floor of this old wooden building about a hundred years old or so, and they'd pull SMS out of storage every now and then and play it on Sunday afternoon. They'd have kids from the universities packing the place, every time. --Kels 22:31, 20 December 2008 (EST)

It's hard to believe I am that old. I saw some tour (I'll remember later when I dig out the sleeveless t-shirt?) at the Cape Cod Colosseum in about '82. Also saw the Clash and Costello there. TH keyboards failed mid-concert for a forty minute boredom break. Preferred the Clash live, Costello was good but programmed a crappy show - two fast numbers, one "ballad" (fuck "Alisson" ruined him, he never could do ballads well). How about a slow build of tempo then a break, you prick? I have photos to prove ;) Never saw SMS, although I think I own some weird package that relates to it. Music was so interestingly physical before the CD/mp3 era... <old fart signing off> ħuman 22:37, 20 December 2008 (EST)

(undent) From what I'm told, Costello didn't really care that much for his fans, and would have been happy if they'd shut the hell up during his shows. But I dunno if that's too accurate. Never got that much into Costello, I was much deeper into Rush and The Police at about that point. --Kels 22:56, 20 December 2008 (EST)

It is the repeatedly shocked goat who baas the loudest.

I only wish I was witty enough to come up with something Kennish with which to wrap this YouTube link. Oh well, you can imagine something, right? --Marty 17:30, 20 December 2008 (EST)

This one is pretty funny. & Odd. weaseLOId~ 20:29, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Those "fainting" goats were actually atheists, what we just witnessed was what happens when god smites a goat. -Redback^G'day 11:01, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Clickbot?

I noticed something strange, about this time last year we had the clickbot bump up all CP's Homosexuality articles and saw a big spike in traffic. Yesterday CP's traffic was double its normal levels. Any major news item or event? - User $\pi$ 17:55, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I switched it to "page views" and it looks fairly normal. Keep in mind holiday periods create weird 'net use. Check us out on Thanksgiving - we have a one-day spike right off our normal graph. ħuman 17:59, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Page views are number of pages per editor. I wouldn't expect the sudden influx of people to look at anymore tripe then normal, although that would rule out a clickbot. It isn't Ken's marketing stratergy his pets have gone up about the same, but compare his record to the current,

• Atheism (4,509,852)
• Main Page (4,080,154)
• Homosexuality (3,233,818)

The mainpage is up 3,000 in about a day. So I think it must be a news story. - User $\pi$ 18:07, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Actually scratch that it goes up that much a day anyway. - User $\pi$ 18:08, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of clickbots, "Law terms D," my favouritest of all CP articles, is in immanent danger of slipping out of the top 20. Can anyone do anything about that? PFoster 18:10, 20 December 2008 (EST)

It is currently 36. - User $\pi$ 18:26, 20 December 2008 (EST)

You might be on to something, especially since Reach went up. Google News shows that this article (see also "CP in the news" section on this talkpage) was posted right before the big increase. Might be an explanation? I dunno. --Sid 18:13, 20 December 2008 (EST)

"Page views are number of pages per editor" They are? I thought they were the total number of http requests? One need not edit to be on the Alexa thing, btw. ħuman 18:20, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry per unique viewer then. If you like picking on my poor writing so much do you want to proof read my paper for me? It is not really how I want to spend my Sunday morning. - User $\pi$ 18:23, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I thought "reach" was unique viewers. Is "page views" an average per viewer or a total? Anyway, sure, load it up to a sandbox and send an intercom. We proofread some thing or other of Trent's a few weeks ago ;)

Actually I did once suggest to my supervisor we could write the paper on the school wiki and he could rewrite to his hearts content instead of the current method; I send him ps files, he prints them, makes me sit there for two hours while he changes everything on 2 of 34 pages, then send me away to tex it up. - User $\pi$ 18:46, 20 December 2008 (EST)

I once helped a friend proofread some thing for college, we just sent each other word docs with "track changes" turned on back and forth. Very efficient. Paper is nice, but a horrible way to improve documents. ħuman 21:36, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Article histories

I just noticed these two lines in an article history on CP

• (cur) (last) 04:49, 26 August 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected "Sexual intercourse" [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
• (cur) (last) 23:27, 10 August 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) m (Unprotected "Sexual intercourse")

They made me laugh.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:26, 20 December 2008 (EST)

<snicker> Kallium^talk 21:12, 20 December 2008 (EST)

That is funny... (and creepy) ħuman 21:30, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Naughty naughty, bad catholic. --JeevesMkII 22:30, 20 December 2008 (EST)

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH = ROTFLMAO ħuman 22:32, 20 December 2008 (EST)

So long as we're talking funny edit summaries, this gave me a smile. Why do parodists need examples? --Kels 10:17, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Start the Banwatch

Poor old NeilTyson wanders in and proclaims that he knows quite a bit about science. And probably maths. Not to mention statistics too. You can almost hear the hammer-wielding horde gathering at his door. 10/1 says he's gone after his first edit. (5/1 TK blocks; 3/1 RodWeathers) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:29, 21 December 2008 (EST)

And a Harvard guy too, no less. Not that those credentials will mean anything on CP. weaseLOId~ 09:33, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Looks to be this guy, or at least someone claiming to be him. alt 09:58, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Looks Photoshopped to me. Yep, definitely Photoshopped. (The real Tyson is a frequent guest of the Colbert Report, is unlikely to start his Conservapedia career by contributing to articles on Star Trek, and is unlikely to misspell "forty" as "fourty".) --Marty 16:44, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I'm pretty sure anyone including a brain dead monkey can tell it's not the real Neil deGrasse Tyson. no comment 20:11, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ken's New Toy

In his unending quest to make sure the entire internet gets a chance to make fun of his articles, he's put a link to this on his page. What's funny about that? Well, take a look in the advice section on how to lower your score, and the advice given is "Avoid excessive reciprocal links". Given that, and repetitive content, have been the foundation for a lot of his strategy so far, it's very amusing that in order to follow this he's got to do a total about-face. Even funnier, RW does quite a bit better on that page than CP does, probably because we're not out there every day, trying to game the system. --Kels 10:16, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Hey we are doing better than CP there. Only 61% of our website is in the supplemental index the rest is in the main index; compared to 79% of CP is in the supplemental index. We might be smaller but more of our content is relevant to what it is on than CP. - User $\pi$ 19:01, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Actually I find the difference in en.wikipedia.org and wikipedia as a whole interesting seems like most of the stuff in the English version is far more padding than the other combined. - User $\pi$ 19:04, 21 December 2008 (EST)