Forum:2010 Conservapedia Day Awards

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The 2010 Conservapedia Day Awards will be awarded on Conservapedia Day, November 21, 2010. Please restrict this page for nominating and voting. Arguing about nominations, the process and any suggestions can go on the talkpage.

Nominations[edit]

Nominations will close on 12th of November, with all sysops active in 2010 being automatically nominated.


Nominees[edit]

Sysops active in the last year[edit]

  • AddisonDM
  • Aschlafly
  • BenjaminS
  • BethanyS
  • CPWebmaster/PhilipB
  • Chippeterson
  • DeanS
  • DouglasA
  • DuncanB
  • Ed Poor
  • Geo.plrd
  • Joaquín Martínez
  • Jpatt
  • Karajou
  • PhyllisS
  • RJJensen
  • RSchlafly
  • RobSmith
  • TK
  • TerryH

Place your nominations here[edit]


Categories[edit]

Categories from previous years can be removed, and new ones suggested. Last year's awards are here.

Category Description Name
Arrogance A person whose behaviour show disdain for other and a sense of superiority. The "A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack'" award for arrogance.
Bigotry A person who has an irrational dislike for people different from themseleves. Jesse Helms Memorial Award for Bigotry
Delusions of grandeur A person who believes they have achieved a great many things despite evidence to the contrary. PRESIDENT OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW'S PARTICIPATION AWARD FOR DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR
Homophobia A person whose hatred and loathing for homosexuals seems to indicate only one thing... FRED WOULD BE PROUD OF YOU AWARD FOR HOMOPHOBIA
Idiocy A person who demonstrates a lack of intelligence in their edits. The Ed Poor Idiot of the Year Award
Inaesthetic A person who has no sense of arranging things in a visually pleasurable manner. WILLIAM DEMBSKI INTELLIGENT DESIGN AWARD FOR AESTHETICALLY UNPLEASANT DESIGN
Liability A person whose actions are detrimental to the project as a whole. Sarah Palin Award for being a liability to the cause
Liar A person who says something they know to be false. The "I don't recall ever being at a meeting where that subject came up" Award for Lying
Misogyny A person who just seems to hate women, or is against equality for women. PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY MARITAL RAPE AWARD FOR MISOGYNY
Paranoid A person who believes everyone's out to get them. JOSEPH McCARTHY "I HAVE A LIST" AWARD FOR PARANOIA
Power-crazed A person who tries to acquire, or refuse to relinquish, any authority they can gain. DICK CHENEY EXTENSION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS AWARD
Puerility A person who acts in a childish manner, particularly in their humour. GLENN BECK CRY-BABY AWARD FOR PUERILITY

Other Suggestions[edit]

Who cares, Cp is dead, there's no-one left but the regulars who already got these awards, so it's pointless -- Nx / talk 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Nx, I don't see why the winners would be any different from last year. Why not make this the all-time CP awards since presumably there won't be anything new next year either? We can give Top Five Biggest Idiots Ever, Top Five Greatest Parodists, whatever, including long-gone users. --Benod (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically, this is true. It seems we're likely to have a reply of last years awards. However, I believe Jpatt has really given a strong showing for the biggest idiot award of late. I'd like to see him win, or at least be very competitive in that race. DickTurpis (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's cancel Christmas too - it's only going to be giving presents to the same people as last year. Totally pointless. If you liked people then, you'll like them this year too so why bother re-affirming it?
One award I'd suggest is the "Scott Rasmussen Award for Accurate Polling".  K e n  D o l l  is a shoo-in, but who cares? This is supposed to be fun. — Unsigned, by: SuspectedReplicant / talk / contribs 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's not. It's just a few loons on some worthless website no-one really cares about any more. Don't feed the idiots. -- Nx / talk 06:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Scrap[edit]

I'd rather scrap the idea altogether. It only boosts their egos to know that Liberals are taking notice of them. I'm sure they carry the awards as badges of honour. — Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, scrap this or make it an all-time, last-time award and then close the book. CP is down to the same few people doing the same old things, and I can't see the situation changing unless Andy gets a grip (yeah, right). Totnesmartin (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
People enjoy it and its fun, as long as someone wants to organize it and people want to participate I think there is no problem with it. If no one votes its time to scrap it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The only thing is, is if we go over there to post the awards, it just gives them another chance to bitch about "vandals" etc, etc. Let's face it, CP is nowhere near what it was 2 years ago, or even last year for that matter. It's become a circle jerk of fundie nut jobs, not taken seriously by anybody. If we have it, post the awards on their pages here, but I'm still in favour of awarding them a lifetime achievement award for stupidity / bigotry / misogyny and leave it at that. --PsyGremlin講話 10:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Once the thugs start wearing ASBOs as a badge of honour it is time reappraise the situation. Things have changed at CP; now they've locked themselves into a dark closet the only things of note are the body odour and the farts. Let them suffocate.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Participation Prizes[edit]

I wouldn't object to scrapping or making all-time awards, but Human's suggestion for Ken raises another possibility: make a list of the regulars, and then vote on the name of one award specially created for each of them. This avoids rehashing the "stupidest" debate again, and has the extra benefit of being a participation prize, surely a liberal invention. --MarkGall (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How about something completely different[edit]

A while ago I wrote the page for Andy's greatest insights (originally as a "vote for the best" kinda thing). I think a similar thing can be done for each of CP's main players - Ed's creepiest moments, Rob's unlikeliest conspiracies, TK's dickest moves, etc. People could nominate the events they remember and then others could do the digging to bring up the choice quotes. The comedy potential would be a lot higher than these awards doohickeys. ONE / TALK 13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Hi, I'm Psy, and I endorse this message. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well stop wasting your time posting here and get on with it One! (Great idea BTW) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Best idea of the bunch; we can choose from Best of CP and the Timeline. Whatever. --JJ4etalk 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not just Conservapedia[edit]

My suggestion is to keep the basic format of these awards, but rather than just making them for Conservapedia Day, throw them open to any mission-related people or organisations. So nominees could include editors at CP, aSK, CZ, RW, etc. but also bloggers, YouTubers, & public figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Glenn Beck, Pope Benedict, etc. The awards could still be in the kind of categories they are now, with a few changes. Of course there'd be no need to tie it to Conservapedia Day, so they could just be crank awards (or something) at the end of each calendar year. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. - π 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually after thinking about it, that is a fucking great idea. CP is nearly dead, CPers can be nominated still, but I say lets drop this pseudo-tradition and start a new one. - π 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Despite setting up this forum, I agree. Firstly, the awards are likely to be given to largely the same candidates as last year. Secondly, some of them seem to take it as a badge of honour. Instead, I propose we begin to work on a quarterly or bi-annual set of awards which are given by nomination and then a vote. There would be a series of positive awards, given to politicians, scientists or bloggers who make steps towards combatting fundamentalism, refuting nonsense 'science' and helping public understanding of science. Then the series of negative awards for exceptional stupidity, pseudo-science and the like. We could even have separate categories for awards for bloggers, etc. We could also have 'ad hoc' awards which aren't on a regular timing, but when someone does something great; a user may nominate them and we vote. What do people think? Dalek (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I had this idea a YEAR ago. You all IGNORED me. Stupid harmonic Phantom! 22:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I created a forum about this very idea MONTHS AGO and all you fuckers ignored it. Aceword up 22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I had THIS FUCKING IDEA in 1983 AND you ALL hated ME for HAVING it! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well ground support seems to be increasing for the idea. I say we start nominations again in December and make the final decision just before new years. In the mean time we can start determining categories and a voting system. - π 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Though there is little doubt that the Melchior Inchofer Award for the Advancement of Science will go to Andy this year, I like the idea of widening the field of contestants. The only problem I can see: the nominations have to be much more elaborate, as we leave common ground: most of us are somewhat aware of the latest shenanigans of our friends at Conservapedia... larronsicut fur in nocte 22:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think nominations need to be elaborate. Once we've roughed out some categories, people can start making nominations along with what categories they're nominating the person for. We don't have to limit how many people are nominated. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
How about we drift over to the RW annual awards for these various achievements? It's a great idea, btw. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Schlafly has been brought up by numerous sources for his relativity thing, I'd have no problem giving him an award for it. I've taken the liberty of editing the RW Awards forum page to bump it onto recent changes. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deadline[edit]

If we care, we are up against a week or so now to get 'er done. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are moving on to Awards 2.0 and merging any awards to CP into that. - π 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But do we award on CP Day, or is the move to award at end of year? Just curious, I agree with Awards 2.0 of course! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

header[edit]

I nominate the cp:Obama administration for the Advancement of Junk Science Award this year. nobsdon't bother me 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that anybody who thinks that Conservapedia is a credible resource could throw around accusations of "Junk Science" is frankly laughable. DalekEXTERMINATE 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that you copyedit the second fricking sentence of that O A article to make it first, English, and second, make sense? "President Obama had a bad summer of 2009, as his popularity slumped, his party weakened and opportunities for celebrating achievements happened." is brilliant, but only as parody. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that I've read the rest of the paragraph, please turn some of the fragments into sentences, and fix the rest to make them make sense, even they are still partisan attacks. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I read your source (did you?), and it says "The inspector general does not assert wrongdoing, however, and the administration (which later apologized) makes a plausible case that it was exercising its right to issue policy after consulting the science. A simple reading of the final report offers some evidence for this. After all, one set of recommendations is clearly attributed to the report ("The report recommends...") and a second set of recommendations - including the moratorium - is clearly attributed to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (The Secretary recommends..."). The moratorium is described as a temporary pause that would allow for "implementation of the measures proposed in this report", and the word "moratorium" doesn't appear in those detailed recommendations." Whatever. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep I read it and used it here to give the godless-commie-libs-who-worship-at-the-alter-of-science perspective. Other reports are so redeeming. [1][2] Thanks for the headsup on the Obama administration article, I think Prof. Jensen wrote that so I'll delight in correcting the Yale alumni's grammar. nobsdon't bother me 18:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the history it's fairly clear you can look closer to home for the grammatical fuck-ups than maligning the now-come-to-his-senses prof. See, when you keep branding people you disagree with 'liberals' they eventually leave, taking the last shred of credibility CP had wth them.
Oh yes, just think - without science, you'd have to use a quill and ink to eply to this. Unless, of course, you'd died from - oh - polio, smallpox, or something penicillin can cure. Guess those godless commie scientists can do something useful now and again. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 18:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention Childbed Fever. [3] (See: cp:Germ theory of disease). nobsdon't bother me 19:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Whose turn is it to call Rob an incomprehensible fucker who doesn't know what he's talking about and to point out that not only doesn't his link work, most of the links on the CP article don't work either? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A book from 1910? Struggling a bit there aren't we Rob? And your point being? People didn't wash their hands? Until scientists proved otherwise? Don't forget it was the church that decreed washing off God's dirt was a sin in the first place. Hell, Andy even believes Jesus said washing hands before meals is a no-no. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
S'not what happened. Medical science invented a disease (childbed fever) to diagnos a disease the practice of medical science caused (childbed fever). Here's another example: Homosexuality was considered by our enlightened medical scientists to be a mental illness until our enlightened scientists became enlightened that it was not. But here's an other idea: by making homosexuality a psychiatric disorder again, like bipolar disease or drug addiction, persons diagnosed with the disorder could qualify for Social Security disability payments ("loony checks" in street parlance) and we could create a whole new dependent class of voters helping to fuel the deficit agasin. Sounds like a winner, huh? nobsdon't bother me 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? Show me where homosexuality is being reclassified Rob? Or is that just wild - and off-topic - speculation on your part again? I await your reply - which will be all about Obama - in anticipation. (By the way, you also fail in understanding science - the very fact that they moved on from childbed fever is called "scientific process". That's why science evolves and Christianity remains a Bronze-age zombie cult. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 21:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Did science at one time consider homosexulaity a disorder? Yes or No? nobsdon't bother me 21:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
They also believed once upon a time that diseases were caused by humors. Totally immaterial Rob. Show me where it's going to be reclassified so people can claim benefits, like you said. --Ψ GremlinTal! 21:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The key is that science is self-correcting. When it finds it is wrong, it undoes the wrong. And thus improves, incrementally, and sometimes hugely, our understanding of the biniverse in which we live and die. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
That is only a theory. Here's what Robert Oppenheimer says,
In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.
Just what the hell does a moral reference like that mean, coming from so great and much admired scientist? nobsdon't bother me 21:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It means you still can't concoct a cohesive argument, and lack the mental ability to engage in a rational discussion. That's what it means. DickTurpis (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
He is saying once invented, you can't uninvent the atomic bomb. I thought someone with even a basic understanding of the history of that time could see that. - π 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh I gitit. The invention of the atomic bomb was a great boon to humanity; spending 50% of the GDP of the planet for x number of decades on the insane nuclear arms race was these brilliant genius contribution to posterity. Praise Jesus for our blind faith in science, scientific progress, and scientific achievement. And just think, any punk-ass terrorist with a fdew bucks can now assemble a dirty bomb! O joy! O wonder! Halleluja! nobsdon't bother me 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't scientists who started the arms race, it was politicians. Science is just a tool - utterly neutral to morality. It is the person who wields the tool that gives it meaning. In the case of nuclear power, we had the choice of using it to produce cheap and ready power or produce a terrifying weapon. The latter came first. That's what Oppenheimer was talking about. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药,和那个不是医药。 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? The Scientists didn't have a clue about the can of worms they were opening up; thier only moral argument was, "if we don't, Hitler will." Well, guess what? Hitler was not any closer to WMD than Saddam was. nobsdon't bother me 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on your anti-war stance with respect to Iraq, then, you massive hypocrite. DalekEXTERMINATE 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
RobSmith - π 12:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How Active is Active?[edit]

  • AddisonDM - Last active 8/JAN/2010
  • BenjaminS - Last active 22/MAY/2010
  • BethanyS - Last active 24/JUN/2009
  • DeanS - "Retired" on 08/AUG/2010 by Andy. Last edit before this was 09/SEP/2009
  • DuncanB - Last active 30/MAY/2010
  • Geo.plrd - Last active 26/JUL/2010
  • RJJensen - Last active 17/APR/2010

Fair enough we are looking for nominations over the course of the whole year, so any edits within that period could be said to be valid, but DeanS and BethanyS definitely don't fall into that category, and AddisonDM cannot seriously be included either. He made two edits in 2010 (7th and 8th of Jan), one of which was a revert.

I think if there are to be any new awards, there should be a certain activity criteria for nominees. I'd go with them having at least one edit actually adding content (i.e. not revert/page blanking/blocking) within the last 90 days. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 11:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen should get some award, as he was able to complete a full circle of editing: wp:Special:Contributions/Rjensen -> cz:Special:Contributions/Richard_Jensen -> wp:Special:Contributions/RJJensen -> wp:Special:Contributions/Rjensen
(Runner up: the omnipresent Ed Poor Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor, cz:Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor, wp:Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor, cp:Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor, ask:Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor!)
BTW, for the Conservapedia:Active_users#Notably absent users, I looked at those whose current period of inactivity is longer than any of their previous ones.
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?[edit]

I should've addressed this earlier, since I started the Forum page. Apologies for letting it slip. Given the response, I'd say there's a loose consensus to just not bother with the awards. I've been convinced by the arguments. There's no convincing reason to think the awards would go to anybody other than who they did last year, and some of the sysops at CP do wear them as a badge of pride. I think we should just go ahead with RW awards which're more general that CP, and maybe look into a final, "All time Conservapedia Awards" as has been discussed? Am I judging the consensus correctly, or is there still a core of people in favour of annual awards? DalekEXTERMINATE 18:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of putting them out of their misery, and not further inflating TKs warm feeling of power. I vote to exterminate them. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 00:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Turded. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing to contribute to this forum except to agree with the above. Seme Blue 05:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's start a new thread about the Gray Matters Awards (see, it's a pun, and also my suggestion for the name). --ADtalkModerator 06:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we could make it a project page of it. - π 07:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)