RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 April 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, (new)(back)

Let's use this page to lighten the load at talk:wigo cp. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:12, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

New Wiki started by Philip J. Rayment[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?.

PJR's new wiki can be found here. --CPAdmin1 22:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

  • AddisonDM ‎(Member)
  • Admin ‎(Bureaucrat, Administrator)
  • Augustine ‎(Member)
  • Geo.plrd
  • LowKey ‎(Member, Senior_member)
  • Philip J. Rayment ‎(Member, Bureaucrat, Oversight, Administrator)
  • Ruylopez ‎(Member)
  • Ruylopeztemp
  • Since33AD
  • Theresa Wilson
  • TimS ‎(Member, Senior_member, Bureaucrat, Administrator)
  • Π

ToastToastand marmite 22:16, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Hrm. Yet Another General Purpose Encyclopaedia. Countdown to stagnation, in 5.. 4.. 3.. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:21, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
That Geo Plrd's a TK friend : he'll warrant watching! ToastToastand marmite 22:32, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
All material on A Storehouse of Knowledge is copyright, and may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the site, except as shown below. here ToastToastand marmite 22:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
The acronym (aSK) is a bit dodgy ToastToastand marmite 22:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, look. Another person who doesn't understand copyright law. If the material is not explicitly licensed, it means PEOPLE CAN'T COLLABORATE. To alter one person's work would be to create a derivative work, which is a breach of copyright. We have the GFDL and Creative Commons for a reason, Phil. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:44, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I thought the "ASK" was cute, but it should be all caps. Anyway, right now recent changes is pretty much all you lot signing up and creating user pages saying you won't bork the wiki. Shall we bring over all our userboxes en masse? Anyway, best of luck, Philip! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I think he needs to rewrite his introductory blurb, I would suggest:

This is an encyclopædia about the fantasy universe I live in. We will have articles about a broad range of topics, just like other encyclopædias. What makes this encyclopædia different from encyclopædias such as Britannica and Encarta is that we will occasionally veer dangerously from the broad highway of knowledge on to the unpaved, single track roads without passing places that are creationism, baraminology and Biblical inerrancy

--JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

So I was right; PJR, we don't need another creationwiki! Z3rotalk 22:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't care what the content is. I love that he spelt encyclopaedia that way, and that that will cement Andy's view of him as an ebil liburl. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 23:45, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, he did declare "Australian English" to be the language used on meta-pages... pretty funny, if you ask me. Do we outnumber them yet? Jeeves, plz to sign up ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 00:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Maybe I will, he's set up all these silly democratic committees. We could end up owning his wiki :D --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
An Australian evangelical Christian who has edited at Wikipedia, CreationWiki, and Conservapedia, he felt the need for an encyclopædia with a biblical worldview. Most other encyclopædias do not have this basis. The ones that do are mostly specialist encyclopædias, such as CreationWiki. The one other English-language one he knew of, Conservapedia, was a failure at what it intended to be.

Nice! 03:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT) What does Andy say? Are there any Conservapedians in that wiki?--EvilFlyingMonkey 04:41, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It's obviously a very liberal wiki. It doesn't even have anything on gun control! Besides that, the wiki does truly reflect PJR so far. Normal articles like the one on homeschooling are pretty okay (compared to CP) and he behaves normally to new users, but anything that touches creationism is the oft-debunked dribble. --GTac 05:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
63 articles of which one is Buttocks. A good start I'd say. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 06:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I joined. While I don't think that general encyclopedia will work out without critical mass, I'll at least give it a chance. It states right on the main page what the bias is (as opposed to CP's "We are biased - we support The Truth, which just happens to be everything Andy believes in!" bullshit), which is a good start. I may not agree with the bias, but I still find it pretty interesting, and with Philip as the boss, one might actually get to *gasp* discuss things without a hailstorm of ban threats. --Sid 06:49, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Your collective affections for Philip aside, this wiki is just a typical impotent swipe at CP by a disgruntled former editor-- an elaborate "parthian[sic]" shot. For readers in the know, there are jabs at Andy et al and CP (like the direct one quoted above) all over the place in the organizational pages. I predict stagnation in three months. PJR effectively took the ball and went home with it.

I will say the PJR's wiki looks more credible coming out of the gate and I'm betting his restrained use of language will keep it that way. e.g. less "all liberals are evil and going to hell" more "according to some verse I've pulled out of my ass as interpreted by a marginalized biblical scholar many souls who fail to follows god plan (like so called atheists) will not achieve god's love on earth and will fail to achieve salvation."

On a related note I wonder if PJR's relatively civil brand of batshit nuttery will make application of Poe's law more interesting. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 07:44, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I have a very good feeling about this. For example, the article on RationalWiki actually contains a proper description and just a fair bit of criticism. The only thing that feels a bit alarming so far is the anti-evolution rant on the main page, but it's still far from Ken proportions. Etc 08:30, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Holy cats! The RW blurb is pretty much flatly descriptive. More than fair actually, given there is no mention of wandalism. I might go over and include a few measured words about our perhaps unfortunate history of on-CP mockery. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 09:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Is there a RW "policy" about PJR-wiki like with CP? E.g. should people on here join and make constructive edits or "less than constructive" ones? D-Notice 10:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm of the opinion that there can't be much of a RW policy on PJRW. My plan, and I think some others here are doing the same, is to not make messes over there. The charter seems reasonable and civil. To the extent that ASK editors follow the charter, the wiki will make a rather poor target for entertaining applications of Poe's law, and thus rather boring. Beyond that, you can troll anywhere you simp( <-- merely an example) why waste it on something as seemingly benign (and doomed) as ASK Me!Sheesh!Mine! 10:25, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Ed Poor has just signed up there.--EvilFlyingMonkey 10:32, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
TK has also signed up.--EvilFlyingMonkey 11:00, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
TK signing up is EXACTLY what PJR wanted to avoid, no? DogP 12:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The blow to CP[edit]

So, how long before we can get a feel for what kind of impact aSK is having on contributions to CP? --Edgerunner76, B.A.H. 09:23, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

First one to bring it up on CP gets an award.-Diadochus 09:36, 25 March 2009 (EDT)


This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

Ed should start his own wiki: SimpleWiki. Qualification: being under 10 years old. & then Ken: SEO-HitlerWiki. Dean: MormonWiki. Karajou: BoatWiki. The possibilities are endless. ToastToastand marmite 07:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(wanders off to start TeaWiki) Totnesmartin 08:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Ed acts like he's 10 years old, but is sexually creepy in ways that suggest a much older man. His would be a wiki of contradictions. TK: MyselfWiki. seventhrib 08:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Good grief. Please let it be one of you guys/gurlz socked up. Fox 10:33, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
/sigh of relief. Nope, that's not the real Ed Moon. Fox 10:41, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
if he asks for admin rights off the bat, it's Ed. I will love Philip forever if he just blocks all the CP sysops that come trolling his way. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
It's more likely to be Teacake, tbh. In fact, you can probably chalk up a couple of trolling users to Teacake so far. Funny how he's so quiet over on CP... 10:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)Fox
Looks like the real Ed to me. The wikilinks in edit summaries are a keenly observed detail if it's an impostor, and the user page also has the ring of truth.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 11:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Pointless stubs galore! We're either dealing with the real Ed or an impostor of super human ability. JoeDuffy 12:40, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree. Either the real deal, or a superb mimic. It just feels so Ed. Taytopacket 12:43, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, it's Ol' Stubby. Asking everyone else to do his work for him.--WJThomas 13:09, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed's inane edit summaries are about as big a give-away as TK's "*". Unfortunately, I think Ed is over there and causing mayhem already. Philip - block the smeg-ed! If it is TK (it says not, but we know he's a lying skunk) then there's even less incentive to cross over. Even if I was to take all my sock's articles with me. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It's Ed: Wikipedia edit; aSK edit ToastToastand marmite 14:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Does Ed even have any life whatsoever? He goes gangbusters on Wiki, Conservapedia, and now he is editing for this new thing. Do people with so little power in RL relish any power, no matter how trivial? I feel sorry for the guy just by looking at his photo but just looking at how much time he spends on wiki's is just that much more sad. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 17:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(UI) One reason I joined ASK was to avoid having one of you creeps doppelgang me there. OK, it's time to create RationalWiki:What is going on at ASK? and move all these tlaky things to its talk page, m'kay? 17:09, 25 March 2009 (EDT)ħumanUser talk:Human

For the record, if you see my name over there, it's a fake. I didn't join CP, and don't see any point in joining ASK, although I don't find it as reprehensible. I doubt I'd be much help there (heck, I'm not much help here), so why get underfoot? --Kels 22:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Kels, you might want to simply register and walk away. Just to avoid doppelganging (that's why I joined). ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

WIGO aSK[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

Worthy or unworthy?

A continued level of unintendend hilarity such as this, and we will need an aSK WIGO. But for now, it's not CP, so I say no. Z3rotalk 11:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Plus, PJR will be in charge of aSK, so there will be less accidental lulz, unlike Andy, Ed,  K e n  D o l l  and others at CP offer up. I think there will be mostly wandalism WIGOs available from aSK. --Irrational Atheist 12:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
But it seems that  K e n  D o l l  is already a member, KenDem, bragging about his Hitler/Darwin pic. --Konstanty 12:55, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh MY![edit]

But will  K e n  D o l l  last long enough with PJR answering to neither Andy or TK? His insanity probably won't last too long if he makes everything about Homosexuality, Evilution or Hitler. --Irrational Atheist 13:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Evolution and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany? --Konstanty 13:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)--Konstanty 13:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Homosexual Nazi Evolutionists =  K e n  D o l l  catatonic in the corner, drenched in his own semen. The Foxhole Atheist 13:16, 25 March 2009 (EDT) I just threw up in my mouth a little...
Let's hope that it was your throw up and not something that erupted from  K e n  D o l l . --Irrational Atheist 13:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

RuyLopez = Ken?[edit]

[1] ToastToastand marmite 19:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It only took him about ten edits. & was completely removed & replaced with refs to RW removed. ToastToastand marmite 19:40, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
And his contributions (apart from talk) are to Atheism, Homosexuality and Evolution. The plot thickens. Silver Sloth 19:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Philip locks his talk page to stop Ken's serial posting & unposting, + sort out the "formatting issue" (missing </ref> tag). WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:50, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Fifty pi to the first person to copy the Andy quote generator over there (j/k). Eh, Ken's too easy to impersonate, we'll probably see a dozen of him over there. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I get the feeling that one is Ken. There's no way he could resist pimping out the CP Homosexuality article, which he did (can't be bothered to find the diff, but it's right near the start if you look). Also, who but Kenny could be responsible for this? --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 21:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it's just a (not very good) parodist. See the "house divided" comment at talk:PJR, no way the real Ken is even that literate. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The way he's refused to deny it (see his CP talk page) convinces me it's him. And the multiple edits to get a chunk in - not to mention the sentence used as a header. admittedly a good parodist would be able to imitate ... ToastToastand marmite 21:56, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
A bad parodist could copy that style. But could they keep it up? I'll go check the CP talk thing, but seriously, the parodist used grammar that Ken never did. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:24, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
He was pretty evasive on his CP talk page. He then burned it, but also he does that about every other day. CorryBaby, you got a stew going. 00:29, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
I think the real  K e n  D o l l  has turned up, using a much more likely username. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Kendoll is fast[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

I see our good buddy  K e n  D o l l  is already besieging PJR wiki, or at least a close facsimile of him is. How long 'til operation fuck up another wiki goes live? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:31, 25 March 2009 (EDT) :Haven't really looked. Who do you suspect? ToastToastand marmite 07:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT) I see ToastToastand marmite

KenDeM, though given his edit to Scotland, he may well be a Poe. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:45, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
My bet is on Poe because by now, Ken never uses his real name in public. --Sid 07:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC) rather too obviously a Poe. Ken hasn't surfaced on CP yet. I'd bet on it being a Brit. ToastToastand marmite 07:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
 K e n  D o l l  keeps odder hours than me. - User \pi 08:30, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
As long as Ken believes CP is an important media outlet, he will not abandon it. Etc 08:14, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
There's no way it's the real Ken - he's aSK's first parodist, and may get aSK's first block.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Someone's asked him. Totnesmartin 09:28, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
So, who's going to join PJR-wiki then? D-Notice 09:02, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Looking at the user creation(ism) log we already maintain a strong presence. Taytopacket 09:12, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I joined. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 11:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I put this on WIGOCP[edit]

Andy appropriates aSK as an addendum to CP "I value your expression of true American spirit and innovation by starting this website, which I trust may be a valuable addendum to Conservapedia. I will watch over your progress here and hope to provide some valuable insight when I see the need for it." Probably should have gone here? ToastToastand marmite 20:14, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

"I value your expression of true American spirit". The real Andy would never say that to PJR. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
It's just a lame vandal, nothing to WIGO anywhere in that - yet, anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:49, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I know - see below - Gullible? Moi? ToastToastand marmite 21:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)


The parody is starting. I can't see the real thing bothering with the opposition. Silver Sloth 20:29, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, you're right. My trouble is GULLIBILITY. 'damnit. ToastToastand marmite 20:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I must say the parodists are shitting me off. It is bad enough that  K e n  D o l l  proper is there trying to SEO his pets, but the parodist are wreaking the project before it has a chance to develop. - User \pi 20:58, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Hear Hear! ToastToastand marmite 21:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
Agree! None of us should touch it (negatively) till we've let it grow. So far, it hasn't been nasty (Assfly), block-happy (TK) or overly delusional ( K e n  D o l l ). If this was the new conservapedia, I'd be happy. Taytopacket 21:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
That's not even the "real" Ken, just another lame parodist/wandal. Or even the same one? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:56, 25 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't see the point in waldalising PJR's wiki. He is actually intelligent enough to engage in reasonal debate. Therefore if you disagree with any of the points on the site you can discuss them on the talk page without having your changes reverted and your account blocked. Crundy 08:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm guessing that the parodists' intent was more to lampoon andy and ken than damage ASK. Totnesmartin 09:42, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

TimS and his biblical worldview[edit]

Just see Talk Why are you pushing a creationist worldview and Talk:Archaeopteryx. Seems like aSK is on its way to be Cp2.--EvilFlyingMonkey 00:09, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Was there any doubt it was going to be CP2? Unfortunately, they're in waters that are just too dilute. Lacking the hilarity and politics of CP, they're just going to dabble in the shadow of the much bigger and longer-established creation wikis. I'd start taking bets, but this kind of thing can eke along with four contributors indefinitely.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:40, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Let the hypocrisy begin. The wiki must follow a Biblical view? What does that mean? Whatever the administration wants. So the bible rejects evolution and homosexuality, but is not continually self-contradictory and is not geocentric, etc. PubliusTalk 03:08, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
I think the most interesting thing will be how they handle versions of Christianity which differ the standard YEC one. Christianity is by no means one coherent mass. The wiki can either present them all impartially - or it can present one, and only one, as "correct". My bet is on the second option.--Bobbing up 04:53, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
That's actually been PJR's contention for some time, and he's been pretty transparent about it. So no surprise he'd base his wiki on that. --Kels 10:31, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
The palm of science will inevitably meet the face of stupidity. They are eventually going to have to censor something if he wants to remain a creationist. That means censoring many valid Christian viewpoints. Neveruse513 10:44, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
The banhammer hath fallen, at least on this Evilutionist. I'm going to have some choice words when it wears off. --Gulik 15:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

For a site full of so intelligent, savvy, observant, intelligent, Poe-proof, cognoscenti[edit]

You people are incredibly gullible. I am sorry to be so rude, but some of you thought that was Ken? And that was Andy? Seriously, the "rational" response would be to say "who will the first parodists present themselves as, and what will they do?" Doh. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

RW is proof that "rational" doesn't necessarily mean "savvy." Thus libertarians, for that matter.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:41, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
(Ouch dreaming Hail Eris! 10:54, 26 March 2009 (EDT))
On the other hand, kudos to whomever first spotted that Ruy Lopez is Conservative. I missed it, but there's no doubt about it.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 06:16, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

A missed opportunity?[edit]

I can't help but feeling that PJR chose the wrong domain name. Why not arepositoryofknowledge.com Surely aRK would appeal to a creationist more? Bondurant 08:32, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR is very nice and respectable, but..[edit]

Then you suddenly run into a line like this:

"To answer TheoryOrPractice, creationists do accept science, and what it has shown. What we don't accept is that evolution really counts as science. Telling creation scientists that they don't accept science is nonsense."

I don't agree that creationism is science at all, but I understand that you want to believe it is. Also I would understand if you said you believed evolution to be false, but you actually claim evolution is not science? Guess you aren't even going to call it the theory of evolution then, seeing how that would imply it's a scientific theory? Guess evolution never went through the rigorous scientific process like creationism did, eh? I know, it ain't as badshit insane as Andy, but shit like this is why I don't support PJR at all. --GTac 08:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

That's sort of what I've been saying all along, he's quite pleased to be taking the non-science (one could even say anti-science in some cases) over at creationwiki and AiG as scientific fact, but then trying to dodge criticism with the meaningless "The Bible is a history text, not a science text" nonsense. Basing an encyclopedia on that is very much like building a castle in a swamp.
Oh, and a bit of advice for PJR all the same. Don't make an essay space. In fact, don't encourage the writing of essays at all. It'll only hurt you. --Kels 09:07, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Will the real TK please stand up[edit]

TK's been quite at Conservapedia. I wonder which of the aSK users is/are him.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 10:01, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

He's just doing his (perceived) job. I'm positive he rated as "Vault 101 Loyalty Inspector" when he took the G.O.A.T.. --The Foxhole Atheist 10:08, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
My guess is the one being nice to everybody and making friends, so they'll back him up when he takes off the mask. he won't be able to resist the "*" when he posts either. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:11, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
"It's me, Three Dog, your friendly neighborhood disc jockey. What's a disc? Hell if I know, but I'm gonna keep talking anyway." --Three DogBOW-WOW-WOW 10:43, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
MOST. AWESOME. GAME SERIES. TO DATE. (I can hardly wait for the Broken Steel DLC coming out.) (Or for this semester to end, so I can play again...) The Foxhole Atheist 11:33, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Speaking of: surely he wouldn't use E.Wig again, would he? --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:54, 26 March 2009 (EDT)
Highly doubtful, unless he wanted to send a message that he's there. Which doesn't really seem in character. --Kels 15:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT)


When one of the words I get is "Discordia" you know all is well in the world. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:46, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

It'a almost Friday. Nice day for a hotdog. CorryBaby, you got a stew going. 16:15, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

To answer RedDog[edit]

...since I don't have an account over there, the answer to your question is, more or less, yes. It was started as a project for the homskollarz, which I think actually is a noble goal. But he decided to be ambitious, and opened it to the public, and even then it wasn't too bad. It was quite a while before he really started banning people much, and for Andy he was fairly respectful of his editors. He was still a crank, of course, and would defend his crazy ideas about evolution and Noah's Flood to the death, but he wasn't yet calling anyone who wasn't him a dirty Liberal and the like. None of the essays existed, and the debates were fairly active. Then the real crazies started coming on board, like Ken, Koward and TK, and they all fed off each others' insanity. Of course TK ramped things up a lot, and it's pretty well accepted he was largely behind the Night of Blunt Knives. Things were already going to hell, and it only accelerated from there. --Kels 17:40, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. I'm RedDog on PJRwiki and I missed the early days of CP. I know it's very early days yet for aSK but I can see it going the same way. I kind of get the idea the love-in will be short lived. Since Fox apparently claimed the existence of God is not disputed (in a comment reverting one of my edits on the God page) I don't see how I can go on editing it. Of course the existence of God is disputed! aSK may regard it as a fact but others don't - that's a dispute! Gah! StarFish 07:05, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
The existence of God is disputed, and ASK will not deny that. Due to the biblical worldview of the site, we will consider God's existence to be a fact, but will not pretend that it is universally accepted or anything like that. --CPAdmin1 07:11, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
That's what I thought too CPAdmin1. Look at the edit history of the God article. A Fox seems to be denying it with this comment 'Existence from stated view of aSK is not disputed' Does not that go against what you just said? StarFish 07:28, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Look who I found![edit]

Hi Jinx! Totnesmartin 18:47, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

And the anti-science begins![edit]

I knew it was coming sooner or later, and I was expecting it a bit more on the Archeoptyrex page to be honest. But the Great Flood talk page seems to be where it starts to get obvious, especially once PJR jumps in. Mmmmmaybe pleiosaurs didn't die in the flood. Mmmmmaybe the fish somehow adapted to differing salinity, as did the plants, even though they can't do it now apparently. Mmmmmaybe the water's all still there. Mmmmmmaybe everything known about Chinese and Egyptian civilizations and all the evidence for both is just an opinion. But hey, he's got a reference! I took a look at the chapter on where all the water went, and it doesn't even contain any science, it's almost totally Bible verses and speculation. No evidence otherwise. The water came from under the ground! The water was hanging in the atmosphere even though we admit no model has ever been able to justify it, even by creation "scientists"! The whole earth's surface did a dance and flattened out long enough for the flood, then got all bumpy again! Hooray for pulling it all out of our asses! Sorry, dude, but I'd rather go with the evidence and things that make logical sense. --Kels 12:18, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, for extra laffs, check out chapter 14 of PJR's reference, which he feels explains the survival of fish in the conditions of the mythical flood. Not much science there, of course, much as they try to look like there is. I especially like the idea that since aquariums have managed to acclimatize some species of fish to less salinity if done slowly enough, then it stands to reason that all species can do the same in the course of a few days. Of course that says nothing about the radical shifts in the sea floor they speculated on in an earlier chapter which would totally screw up the whole oceanic ecosystem, and the turbulence of that much water being shifted in only a few weeks. But nevermind, goddidit. And it's not anti-science, you hear? Not at all! --Kels 12:54, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Precisely why I quit. It getteth my mad up! ToastToastand marmite 13:04, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
" ... but it would appear there is plenty of water to have covered a 1000 foot peak if the earth's surface was more smooth and we didn't have the deep valleys that hold water that we do today." There must have been a Hell of a disturbance with all the mountain building & continental drift charging about to give us the present conformation. In 6000 years? Surely someone would have noticed? ToastToastand marmite 13:32, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Aaarghhh. (sorry) ToastToastand marmite 13:35, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
6000 nothing, if there were enough changes to make all the waters recede to their present location, it would have to be WITHIN A FEW WEEKS. So the ocean beds going from flat to more than a mile deep, corresponding mountain uplifting, it must have been hELL on earth. I can just imagine what the waves would have been like on that overcrowded boat. --Kels 13:43, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Woah! Even better, the source PJR gave seems to think that the continents shifted from one big supercontinent to their present locations during the flood, and superheated steam condensed, then fell as rain over the earth. Holy shit, it's amazing ANYTHING lived through that, even bacteria. --Kels 13:50, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Don't forget: Goddidit. So that's alright then. ToastToastand marmite 13:55, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Perhaps Noah put all the long-eared animals along the side. --Kels 13:59, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
And this is precisely why I won't contribute at aSK either. Anti-science is still antithesis to the promotion of knowledge, whether or not it has Andy-delusions attached. --Irrational Atheist 15:38, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
This is why I laugh about people who talk about how all-fired reasonable PJR is. Sure, he's reasonable and sane when he's standing next to Andy. Hell, the Time Cube guy doesn't look so bad next to Andy. At least he's not so aggressive about it. But once you get him on his own, the "one true religion" and "science is bad if it disagrees with the Bible", "a government run by the Bible would be a good idea" and so forth start to become a lot more noticeable. --Kels 16:47, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
PJR isn't reasonable. He's a nutter. He only seems reasonable because he doesn't stamp his feet and cry when someone disagrees with him but just keeps on stating his loony pov. ToastToastand marmite 17:12, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

I've gotta hand it to them...[edit]

..I've been pretty much an obnoxious a-hole over there and they seem to be turning the other cheek. Impressive. TheoryOfPractice 14:22, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

So maybe you could try being a bit nicer over there? --CPAdmin1 00:19, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Maybe he could, but it's intersting to see a range of "interactions". Like when I catted the "shepherd" article as "bad analogies" or some such - the cat was removed, only leaving the evidence. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:43, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

FALL DOWN!!![edit]

...has joined aSK. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 16:37, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

How do you know it's the real thing? --Kels 16:48, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed Poor[edit]

I can't believe that dumbass joined up. I hope Andy makes it a bannable offense to join aSK, just like RW. Let's see how the fat swine likes choosing between the good and the bad/ugly. DSFARGEG 17:30, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

"Philip, you have let your doom in through the front door. But it will not leave that way!" --Kels 18:23, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Wow, he's being a right anti-feminist to go along with being anti-science and anti-intelligence. Makes you wonder if there's anything redeeming about the guy at all. --Kels 18:52, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
Surely CP will not allow people to hold positions of authority at ASK and also at CP? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:45, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
"If a women was to be pregnant, then yeah, flying an F-16 would be a bad idea, but that is just an exception to the rule." (Jirby) This is a point, actually, if a woman were unknowingly pregnant (in the first three/six weeks say) damage could be done to the foetus from many causes including altitude radiation exposure ([2]). The risk is small, but it's there. There's also the G forces which I can't find any info on. ToastToastand marmite 03:27, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Several months ago I ranted about Colorado requiring AIDS tests for pregnant women, saying that in effect, life is dangerous for pregnancy, so we have to restrict women to their homes and beds with 24/7 on demand (state paid for) massages, chocolate, etc., to keep baby health or risk, you know, the almightyfetus being terminated. That said, these kinds of risks are a very real reason the right likes to say women can't do things... firefighting, piloting jets, etc. cause we might get preggers and harm our poor babies. Guess that's the risk women take if they want to go down that path. It's not for men or the big bad gvt to interfere.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 19:09, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
How many times has he slammed his head on this particular wall? I seem to remember something about women wearing pants or something on CP, and Fox shot that to hell, too. We get it, Ed. You don't have to keep reminding us that you're a sexist dick. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:00, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Just noticed[edit]

Hsmom's (allegedly) there (writes like her too in her only edit apart from her U Page) CP: 1 edit today, 4 yesterday ToastToastand marmite 19:00, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Good. As nutty as PJR is, and as downright rude *coughAugustinecough* some of his "senior members" are, it's still a better place for her than CP. --Kels 19:15, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Parodists etc.[edit]

I know we don't out parodists & the like on CP, what about aSK? Any thoughts? ToastToastand marmite 01:30, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Please do. --CPAdmin1 01:34, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Sorry Tim, gotta wait for some genuine RW input ;-) ToastToastand marmite 01:50, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Sure, why not? I'd rather see the wiki say what it means and mean what it says, than be polluted with a bunch of evil parodists bent on clanging it up. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:51, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
The Scots Thristles is a punk band from Tay-Na-Ryse, Scotland. They were active in the early 1970s and have released some tracks on an EP Nivver Mind the Trossachs. The tracks were those that were fit to play which were found on an old recording, known as the bothy tapes, in the small cottage where they used to reherse<ref>http://www.archive.org/details/ScotsThristles</ref>.
Nothing untrue about it but about as notable as "my cat's got a flea in her ear" Just a load of drivel by a pretend Ken ToastToastand marmite 02:02, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Does wikipedia have an article on them? ;) I've noticed the aggregation of music articles... I especially liked Social Distortion", which is completely factual and notable... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
They're almost a Googlewhack: less than 6 entries. (No WP) ToastToastand marmite 02:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
It appears to be factual; if the only site about them is for real & not a parody itself. ToastToastand marmite 02:14, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
The "Influences" are a giggle though: Andy Stewart, Kenneth McKellar, Sheena Easton ToastToastand marmite 02:17, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
In fact, I'd look at al his edits: see for instance ToastToastand marmite 02:30, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
The Scots Thristles is a punk band ... active in the early 1970s... - wow - they were ahead of the game! Silver Sloth 05:19, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
That, I missed. ToastToastand marmite 05:28, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
That is believable (it would make them pioneers, but punk was developing in the early 70s). It's the EP "title" that I love most though. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:38, 30 March 2009 (EDT)


"Cut the nonsense. Creationists are not "anti-scientific". It was creationists who started modern science! Philip J. Rayment 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)" link Ye Gods it was alchemists who started chemistry, but alchemists aren't chemists. Teh man's demented. ToastToastand marmite 05:11, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Not to mention astrologers starting astronomy. The more I read PJR,the more I want to SCREAM! ToastToastand marmite 05:27, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
But...but he's so...reasonable! If you don't count the pre-medieval view of science he thinks we should go back to. --Kels 06:25, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
More on the serious side, does anyone want to bang their head against the wall when he pulls out that "cannot add information" bullshit? Why not? Why is one change acceptable (so-called "microevolution") when another is not, on the grounds of this information stupidity, when they use the exact same mechanism? Philip, you're full of shit. --Kels 06:46, 30 March 2009 (EDT)


I can just see him, fretting over when he'll get upload rights and he can upload his next compound image—Darwin-Hitler-Stalin-Mao-Lenin-Judas. Word word Phantom Hoover! 07:42, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

I wish he'd start adding Dawkins and Hitchens to the mosaic. They're my favs. Nutty Roux 10:24, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Found TK's sock![edit]

He's posing as Uncle Ed. Word word Phantom Hoover! 11:29, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

On a more serious note[edit]

Can we put into writing our policy on aSK, such as vandalism and parody are frowned upon etc.? Word word Phantom Hoover! 11:31, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

We already did, both here and over there. Didn't you sign it? DogP 12:55, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Then a link to both would be welcome. Word word Phantom Hoover! 12:59, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
What does "policy" even mean in this regard? I thought the pledge was a voluntary thing and applied only to individuals who signed it not the all RWers. Mobocracies don't need no stinking policies. I'm not advocating vandalism but why set up a special relationship with ASK? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 13:23, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Um, I have to agree that RW does not or should not have "A Policy", because it is not a group of people who vote, nor is it a oligarchy. We are a bunch of people who edit a wiki that we like to edit. I though this was a "suggestion" or an "encouragement" to not vandalize, not an actual "policy" of any formal kind. I don't sock up, but I'm not big on other people telling us what to do.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 13:34, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I mean openly voicing an opinion on the behalf of the community that vandalism is frowned upon. Word word Phantom Hoover! 13:37, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Here's the link to the declaration at ASK Mr.Hoover. DogP 14:10, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
And here's the closest thing to a "policy" on ASK that RW has. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:18, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Adding information[edit]

Okay, does anyone know who the asshole who came up with this whole "evolution cannot add information" bullshit PJR's picked up on so strongly? Because they've really earned a punch in the face. Possibly more than one. Philip, for the love of the God you've been told is real, READ A REAL SCIENCE BOOK! Not the Big Book of Creation Science, but something where they've done experiments and gone through peer review. What you call "adding information" (what a friggin' meaningless term) happens all the time. Or what do you think is happening when viruses adapt to antibiotics? Perhaps they're degenerating in a way that makes them more effective? Does that even make sense? --Kels 13:26, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

That's bacteria, not viruses. Antibiotics don't affect viruses - what they mostly are is fungi that eat bacteria. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:17, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Fine, then insert the proper term and the point stands. How do "superbugs" become "super" without this so-called "adding information" that PJR claims is impossible, based on no clear evidence? --Kels 18:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Just wanted to make sure you had it right if you ever needed to be exactingly so... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:55, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
It shows the real truth behind "a little learning is a dangerous thing" when applied to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's the biggest pseudoscientific con perpetrated by creationists the world over. ToastToastand marmite 13:32, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
The sad part is, I can think of at least a half-dozen (probably there are a lot more) cases where people have tried to explain to him, at length, why it makes no sense. Sure, it sounds plausible to someone who really wants evolution to be wrong, but it's got no substance. It's nothing but bafflegab for Creationists to toss around and hopefully smear real science with. --Kels 13:35, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
er, Information only comes from a human or Godlike mind, it just doesnt appear as a result of random events , didn't you listen ? 20:02, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
In that case, since neither have anything to do with genetics or evolution, what's the point? --Kels 20:18, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Traffic Monitoring[edit]

It's an obvious call out to Magic LArron & His Amazing Interpotato Chart Machine, but can we keep an eye on their traffic in some way? It's completely non-scientific, but this morning I note that Recent Changes on both ASK and RW are FAR busier than CP's. Andy and TK - do you hear that bell tolling? It's tolling for you! (he said, rather dramatically). DogP 14:08, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Maybe it's time for an aSK boycott, to see how much of their traffic we drive? Z3rotalk 14:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
What is this impulse that says "people seem to be enjoying themselves, let's stop and see what happens"? Cripes, the place has been open for one week, and already you're talking boycott? --Kels 14:49, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Damn, burned by the internets lack of sarcasm again! Z3rotalk 15:00, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Don't forget your helmet. I should have known it wasn't serious when it wasn't human suggesting it. --Kels 15:03, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
The Interpotat-O-Mat will start in a couple of days - there should be a little bit more of data. I hope that PJR get his problems with the api.php file sorted out - that makes everything easier --larronsicut fur in nocte 16:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)


Information! See also Image:ASK logo showing 23P.jpg.

re: this exchange I am having with PJR currently. What do creationists actually mean when they say "information". I have never quite followed that one even after having it explained to me by the likes of Hovind and AronRa. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:05, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Information is never defined; if you come up with a definition that evolution can meet, that's not it. This way they don't have to worry about being wrong. Z3rotalk 17:06, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
It's generally defined as "non randomness" i.e. lower entropy, which is what they use to deny it. ToastToastand marmite 17:16, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeah I kinda figured it a weasel word to support a bullshit argument which can never be refuted. Like almost all creationism arguments. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:19, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
You've got to admit, it takes some talent to create a concept of information that contains no information at all. In fact, it tries to reduce information in the form of knowledge, so it counts as negative. --Kels 17:43, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

I just took a look at the TalkOrigins article on it, and the way PJR seems to use the term doesn't really match any of the sorts they discuss. I'm not really good at stats, so the Dumbski version was a bit of gibberish, but I got enough out of it to see he was talking about different sorts of things entirely. I don't know where he gets this bizarre concept (presumably from other YEC debaters), but it seems to be just what Ace describes. An argument stopper with no real definition, so you can't refute it. --Kels 18:23, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Its just gibberish. With no real meaning which means theres no real argument. Ace McWickedRevolt 18:27, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
And with no real argument, Phil wins! This belief system is growing rapidly!!1!!!111! The EmperorKneel before Zod! 18:38, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
What gets me here is that he seems to confuse the analogy between genetic information and the information you'd find in a book, assuming that genes must therefore work exactly like books. Which is of course ridiculous. --Kels 19:47, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
This is why, outside of school systems who might want to go "ID", I don't debate this too much anymore. when you literally define your terms so that you can never lose, you never lose. Just like redefining religion in such a way that everyone is religious, then claiming 100% adherance to Religion, therefore Xianity which is the most religious it right.... it's so circular you want to beat someone.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 20:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
As I understand it, information (in the context of entropy & the second law of T) exists in anything where the existing state of something is less likely than another less ordered state and enables information regarding its history or future to be ascertained. This means that even such things as the energy levels of atoms are information as they contain some order which, at maximum entropy, would not be there (there'd be a sea of neutrons, I suppose - leaving the dark matter/energy out of it). Phil & crew are quite right in saying that in a closed system information, i.e. order, cannot increase. However they insist on ignoring the fact that the earth is not a closed system, indeed the Solar System isn't a closed system nor even is the Milky Way Galaxy a closed system nor even to take it to extremes, is the observable universe a closed system. The presence and formation of genes is information in the strictest sense, but, if anyone hadn't noticed, there's a big yellow ball about 93.000,000 miles away just pumping energy into our little old Earth. That yellow ball is losing "information" at the rate of tons/second so Earth's OK to carry on increasing it for a while. Every time a new life is created, or even a cell splits, information is created in that the atoms and molecules making up that life or cell become more ordered. THEY MAKE ME TIRED! </rant> ToastToastand marmite 22:53, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Hear, hear, Toast. You nicely explained the painfully obvious to people who won't accept it, hence the "TIRED"! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Heh, irony again. The same people who wave off abiogenesis experiments because they occur in laboratory conditions are quick to accept an information model that can only occur in laboratory conditions. --Kels 23:25, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
PJR- "Something less specific has less information. The virus was specific to birds, but it is now less specific, and can affect humans also. " I wonder if he realizes that he is saying that an organism with just enough of a genome to barely function is also the organism most suited for all environments. I guess you can just put this up there with the rest of the non-sense. --ScottA 18:13, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

More entertaining than CP[edit]

You know, it's interesting. I don't even look at CP at all since aSK went up, except to follow the occasional WiGO CP link. Thinking about it makes sense, CP has descended into the absurd and hateful, and with only Andy, TK and a handful of similar sorts around, it's nothing but a bad clown show. These days, it seems like aSK is filling some of what got me interested in following CP in the first place. Nutty, often anti-science ideas, being refuted with well-presented actual science. Fighting CP is necessary, of course, but this is good entertainment. --Kels 20:15, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, and I can provide additional fun on the feasibility of the flood talk page. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:20, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Actually, you just seem to be getting in the way. --Kels 20:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
You may want to check out my dialouge with The Real Fall Down. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:23, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

You mean the bit where you ran around, screaming and flailing your arms at the very sight of his name ("Ban him! Ban him!"), or where he pwnd you for misspelling the name of your favourite animal? --Kels 20:26, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Which is why I've stopped Operation Vile Beetle, and am now on Operation Information. I will add as much logic and reason to aSK as possible. If they move into CP like stages, then I'll pull out the vandal-cannon. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:28, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

CUR, you just make it too easy for me...Ace McWickedRevolt 20:31, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Your edits on that thread aren't funny or helpful and this weird furry thing is just tired already. The lulz aren't going to happen on aSK like they do at CP. Move on. Nutty Roux 20:30, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
(EC)You over-estimate yourself, by a huge amount. Every attempt of yours to pull out a vandal-cannon has turned into a low-pressure water pistol. Maybe it's better to stop trying so hard, start learning more, and quit trying to aggrandize yourself when you can't back it up. --Kels 20:31, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I agree. CP about a year ago, was everyone's eccentric friend. Had a bit too much to drink, spouted something crazy, and ran off down the road naked. But recently, it's like you've seen your old friend in an alleyway covered in vomit and urine. They went too far, and it's not funny any more. I think aSK might be our new eccentric friend. Taytopacket 20:25, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Going back to Tayopacket's response, maybe that's a good indicator of how we should treat aSK WiGOs. Not so much "here's what the bastards did now" like at CP, but more "look at the great refutation of flood/information/creation/ID/whatever" or "that user's fighting the good fight" like A.Fox's comment to Ed Moon. I'm thinking it'd be a better fit. --Kels 20:34, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah I remember thinking when the idea of a WIGO aSK was floated that it'd be more "crazy claim/rational response" sort of deal. Ace McWickedRevolt 20:37, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Kels is right. And, shut up, Cur. Cur, you really do need to shut up and listen/read/learn. Yes, we're your "friends" and community, but when was the last time someone thanked you for a contribution? (OK, yeah, Kels and a recent WIGO ASK...) Also, what's our policy on pre-high school students getting exposed to our gutter mouths and sexual innuendo? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:35, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I'd say CUR and Theory of Practice are really the biggest hinderances from the rational side. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter for the high level of unnecessary confrontation. --Kels 23:05, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I dunno, they both seem to me to a part of the puzzle. ToP and his admirable complete lack of acceptance of the dogma of the site, and cur for, well, hell, you wigoed him, not me. ASK deserves to have a cur in their side, and also has to try to figure out how to deal with ToP types. Well, both are doing them a favor as they sort out their policies. Perhaps more so than the rest of us middle-streamers. PS, if you join (which I doubt you will) will you at least email a few of us so we know who you are there? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:17, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Note that I pointed out just how unusual it is for CUR to score a point when I did that. I agree that CUR needs to stop trying so hard. --Kels 23:23, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, you did. And it wasn't that strong of a point, but he did deserve the kudos, in a special olympics sort of way. Don't worry, when he turns 15 it will be a whole new world. Does it scare any on you that we are part of this kid's formative years? (Well, not as scary as Schlafly, but you get my point, I hope) ħumanUser talk:Human 23:28, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm innocent, I tell you! I did not have sexual relations with that restaurant! --Kels 23:49, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
As, equally am I - I categorically deny having congruent cork soakers with that cork soaker! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:22, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Redefining Science[edit]

Does aSK take a stance on the need to redefine science, per the wedge document?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 20:24, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

No, they simply redefine science. As far as I can tell... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:39, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Chissakes, CUR, are you simple?[edit]

Stop WIGO-ing yourself. TheoryOfPractice 20:51, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Fine, fine. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 20:55, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

Hsmom has showed up[edit]

I notice she's arrived. She's still editing at CP - for now. $20 says we'll be getting a resignation letter from her soon? DogP 21:42, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

I dunno. She doesn't seem the dramatic sort, she may just "softly and silently vanish away" at some point. --Kels 21:48, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

The mote in your eye[edit]

Woah, the irony of PJR calling "anti-creationists" ignorant for their arguments against a Global Flood, after his fellow "pro-creationists" float (sorry) this sorry nonsense as evidence is remarkable. Can't wait to see what rules-lawyering and fudging of science he accepts as valid arguments, should be interesting. --Kels 22:27, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

I copied what the great eraser deleted to the talk page so people can understand what the hell is being discussed. "Anti-creationists"? I guess I also whined about that phrase. I should have linked it, we might have our new Andy? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:42, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
But...what about the reasonableness? Oh, and I dunno if this helps, but it seems a decent breakdown. --Kels 22:46, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I don't know which sphincter PJR pulled the "100 billion" out of (did one of the anti-creationist trolls claim it?), but yeah, that's good info. 10^8 as a rough estimate. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:19, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
I finally saw where one of the anti-Cs claimed 50 billion species. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:15, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

ASK's first parthian shot?[edit]

Theresa Wilson says adios --Simple 16:19, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Not really, I didn't. ToastToastand marmite 16:46, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed Poor, round the second[edit]

This gives me a much more revealing view of Ed poor than anything he ever did at CP. He's one of those people who likes to pretend "DeepThoughts" without really having any. He asks a lot of questions, filled in with some 'trade words', tosses in his "name dropping" of authors and "experts" then steps back, thinking himself done. He does not answer anything, yet you get the feeling he thinks the hard work is in asking these rather childish, first level philo questions as if they were something he and he alone has thought up. Then says "let's expand, shall we?" He, like andy, is at the core quite lazy about his own work, isn't he?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 16:32, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes. My impression was cemented at talk:feminism, where he basically says "I know nothing of this subject" and "I need references" - IOW, he wants to "run" the writing of the article about something he knows nothing about. He's an ass. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:05, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
I also despise "redlinkers" and "stubbers". If you are going to make an article (especially at a site where virtually everything is new) then try to make something somewhat "indepth", and DO NOT ADD REDLINKS IF YOU DON'T INTEND TO WRITE THEM. It's like, yes, i too can bracket every other word. so? I love his line "I write about *deep and complex* topics (this, on his user page) which require I have lots of links". What is he writing so "deeply" about? GOD THE MAN IS LAZY AND EGO DRIVEN. (ok, sorry). grins.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 19:13, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, to be honest "reasonable" red links are fair game on what is supposed to be a full-fledged encyclopedia. Oh, and stubs are a cheap way to be able to claim in a year "I started 350 of the first 1000 articles!) - very cheap and lazy. Ed has "deep and complex" thoughts? Like keeping track of whether he tied his shoes this morning? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:56, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Fair enough on "reasonable" links, but his just seem like... i mean... ARRUGH. he's in talk pages and just [[this]]and [[that]]. without real thought or objective. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 21:01, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, that habit of his grinds my pepper too. Whereas most people link to things to "explain more" what they mean - even nuts like Andy and Ken - Ed links to non-existent things all the time on every damn wiki he's on. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:54, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Removed WIGO[edit]

Hey, Hoover--don't be a jerk. Discuss first, drop me a message, something. It's something going on at ASK. You don't like it, vote it down. TheoryOfPractice 16:50, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

It's lame because there's not much to say. It's been up all of what, a week? --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:51, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

The basic idea of a Parthian shot is that it damages those it's aimed at. Epic Phail! ToastToastand marmite 16:55, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
The other basic idea is that you leave after saying it. You can't rehearse your break-up speech in front of the girl and then maybe break up with her a little while later. TheoryOfPractice 16:57, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

CUR-bashing via WIGO ASK[edit]

What is up with this? Looks to me like he actually trying to argue/discuss points with the YEC folks, and he's doing OK if not brilliant (hell, he's a kid, what do you expect?). I know I can't "tell people how to vote" (that would be frickin' lame), but can you look at the stuff involving him dispassionately for what it is? I know that here he acts as our pet twerp - but he's our pet twerp. Over there he's one of the good guys, isn't he? Fer crying out loud... </rant> ħumanUser talk:Human 19:10, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I for one havent voted but I know what you mean. I think one of them was actually put there by CUR himself, which caused a little outrage and may have led to low votes however I am not sure. Ace McWickedRevolt 19:16, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Be careful when you say "He's just a kid". I once tried to play this kid is chess and he totally, totally pwned me. He's 14 for god's sake. I'm sure there are debate prodigies as well as chess prodigies. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 14:58, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I disagree that there would be very many debate prodigies. Chess, as a skill, is largely pattern recognition, which is inborn to every person, and as a result could be more overly devloped in one versus another. Debating is understanding other people, which only comes with experience. Z3rotalk 16:55, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I can certainly pwn PJR. --<choose>

<option>Input The ResistorOutput</option> <option>CoyoteOver 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 16:27, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Keep telling yourself that. Z3rotalk 16:55, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Depends what kind of debating you're talkin' bout, Z. A real intellectual exchange is one thing, debate-team-style debating with the debating clubs is another: that's more about learned skills and knowing how the rules of the game work than an exchange of ideas. TheoryOfPractice 17:04, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I agree that the two are different; that's why you don't see kids arguing in front of university audiences. However, an effective exchange of ideas requires that you be able to both understand the idea and articulate it. While child prodigies can do number one well, few have the ability to do number two (I'm not talking everyone, I am just generalizing). Z3rotalk 17:15, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

He's on a roll[edit]

Look at the anti-science fly!

Fun stuff. He may not rant and rave like Andy, but there's still entertainment a-plenty. --Kels 20:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

But he's so reasonable ;-) ToastToastand marmite 20:44, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
It's exactly why I don't agree with a truce. I'll repost for my own edification what Teh Terrible Asp would have posted on aSK, were he not waiting to see how things turn out, formatting omitted.
The above adherence to bronze age fantasy in the place of science, this nonsense that what is scientific somehow depends on a worldview, the speed with which fundamentalists resort to the absolutely weakest logic to justify unsupportable positions. This is why I have absolutely no intention of abiding by any truce. Unless pages treating what the rest of the world considers real science are free of YEC and related anti-science nonsense, I see this website going the way of CP - lonesome, completely nutters, and unreliable. It scares me to the core of my being that even one parent would resign his children to joining yet another generation of unthinking fundamentalist sheep because he forced them to be homeschooled by religious nuts with no particular expertise in anything, as opposed to teachers with real training and substantial enough academic backgrounds to teach the subjects at hand. In my not-so-humble opinion, certain people have no business teaching the history of their last roll of toilet paper, let alone world history. It horrifies me almost as much that anyone, and in particular someone whose parents dealt him the crippling blow of raising him in a world in which ID counts as science, would rely on something like CP or aSK as a reliable reference for anything scientific. If this site is going to present YEC, ID, creationism, an irrational hostility to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Special Theory of Relatively, Schlafly's bizarre and unsupportable insistence that Newtonian physics can predict gravitation lensing of light AT ALL (I don't think PJR will do this, it's just an example of CP's wickedness), it owes its readers the duty of candor to note that each of these things is based on the heroic efforts of some fundamentalist Christians to put together explanations for their worldview at the expense of whatever gets in their way and that this "science" is a faith-based perspective that has nothing to do with real science in any true sense and is contradicted by years and years of real scientific evidence. I predict that won't happen. Where a scientist ought to be happy to move from point to point as the evidence changes, a fundamentalist arguing against science is forever stuck pounding a square peg into a round hole.

It's all good and well that PJR conducts himself mostly with tact (except for that LDS cult remark - sure, LDS is a cult, but then so is whatever church/shul/temple/mosque you go to - now I'm tactless too), that he's a smart guy, and that he's not a CP toadie, but none of these is a reason to give PJR your blessing to stand out in the town square and preach faith as science and fact. I am very disappointed that the rationalists at RW would call an open truce based on nothing more than PJR's charm and his being maybe less than 1% of the douchebag upper level CP admin are. Fine, fine - part of the sport of baiting CP is interacting with the cartoon personalities over there and there's no shortage of paranoid, disfunctional, meanspirited hatefulness ready to be unleashed at a microsecond's notice. So what you're really saying is you don't anticipate being able to have fun here like you have on CP frottering yourselves against certain weirdo's arrogance, ignorance, and fear. Super. I agree. If PJR manages to have his way, the tone's going to be different. Pleasant even. But the main project of rationalism to stand up for science and truth should always remain.

Without any ill will to PJR, I regret that I don't wish aSK well.

Nutty Roux 20:50, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Th hug.gifI think I love you.Th hug.gif ToastToastand marmite 20:54, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
That's because the nutter butter said "bronze age" ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 21:05, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Clapping.gif ToastToastand marmite 21:10, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Do I bow for that? Nutty Roux 21:29, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
It's either that or bend over. I'd choose "bow" given that choice if I were you. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:59, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Quick side note re: PJR and Lenski: That's not a new side by Philip. Back when the Lenski Affair was in its very first phase (people bringing this up on CP and Andy making the first posts about the statistics involved), Philip claimed that Lenski's experiment proved nothing (complete with link to one of his trusty Creationist sites). The reason why Philip opposed Andy in the Lenski Affair was that Andy completely ignored that argument about the meaningless result and instead tried to attack the solid foundation. --Sid 07:26, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
That's one of the reasons I'm not going to bother signing up for PJRiki - he's allowed everybody into his little hissy-fit for the time being, but at the end of the day, no matter how you try and reason with him, if it's not the YEC POV, it's not right and sooner or later he will go the CP route to enforce that. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:52, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
For the time being, ASK is actually moar anti-science than CP. PJR is already censoring and it can only get worse. I'm interested to see when the first round of bannings for insistence on science occurs. Neveruse513 09:57, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Psy, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have no intention of signing up at ASK for one reason: It's bias is already spelled out. As of right now, PJR is allowing dissent, but he's already showing signs of censorship, which is going to lead to blocking to enforce that censorship, which is gonna end with another CP with less enjoyable lulz... No thanks. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 12:12, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I forgot why I hate "reasoning" with Right Wing Fundies[edit]

Not to wgoi myself, but the discussion on Human's page about the "validity" of the bible because we "found some parts that are teh same" reminds me way too much of why you cannot have a real discussion. I have nothing vested in Plato, or in the Bible, or in Shakespere. If you come along and say "we are doubting this part of Shakespeare" i say "oh cool", "oh shucks", "oh, that's my favorite part". For xians, you are messing with the entire world view and they cannot have it. grrr.... I want to ask things like "What bible that we currently have is exact?" "which translation?" "what about the Vulgate and teh church's admittance they changed things 1500 years ago." "how does 1000 jars of broken, fragmented pieces of a text *most of which has not been reconstructed yet, much less translated* = "proves the bible is correct". -- sorry to vent. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 21:21, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

It maketh one to spit, don't it? ToastToastand marmite 21:23, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Yeah my "information" chat with Philip is getting pretty silly and annoying. Ace McWickedRevolt 21:25, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Why are you doing it? Nutty Roux 21:29, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Well it is kinda fun watching PJR box himself into a tiny little illogical corner. And its onteresting to see what he comes up with each time. Ace McWickedRevolt 21:36, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Wait, what did I do??? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:38, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
There's a megalot on your talk page after your hypothetical on your user page. ToastToastand marmite 21:43, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh... that. [didn't we add a shitload of smilies to our magic edit tools? Guess not] :) :) :) Thanks! I thought that up last night. I'm rather proud of the (rough draft so far) analogy, actually. I guess I need to go check my orange box? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:53, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I like my slightly simpler version: "Imagine a nuclear winter reducing the world to the stone age. I think that H was saying that Science could be reconstructed (eventually) from the world around us, The Bible etc relies on historicity(?)." ToastToastand marmite 21:56, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm only askin' because there's no real sport in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who denies real science and logic. I'm re-reading Dawkins and getting inspired. The focus of my bait isn't going to be getting clowns to admit they're wearing white facepaint, but to admit that nobody's laughing. If that makes any sense. Nutty Roux 22:14, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
What I like about aSK, and the way CP used to be, way back, is how much I learn from the refutation of their pseudoscience, and things like Ed's rather bizarre takes on things like feminism and homosexuality. CP these days is a cheap laugh and a bit of tawdry gossip, which is fun in its way, but I get more lasting enjoyment out of reading those refutations. Especially when they're done with wit and style. --Kels 22:25, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
I never thought of it that way Kels--that's interesting. I always forget what CP was like back in the day until I look around. Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:35, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Additional comment: Considering this comment, I can't see staying over at ASK for long: "Christians believe that the biblical account reflects reality, and therefore we should expect to find evidence that the biblical account is correct. The corollary of that is that evidence that contradicts the biblical account shows that the Bible is not correct. To put it another way, and to contradict Gulik, Christianity is a reasonable faith, so we've no reason to be afraid of the evidence. And we are not."" Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:54, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Hence my question: "devoid of written stories to believe in, how would you deduce your worldview [from available evidence]". Please to keep making this thread about ME and MY idea!!!!! :( heheheheehehehe ħumanUser talk:Human 23:03, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Totally ignoring Human (you should try it, it's liberating), did you notice the lovely source BradleyF provided in response to that? Essentially, "you can be a Christian in name only if you're not a literalist, but you're a really crappy one and we're sort of ashamed of you". --Kels 23:11, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
Don't ignore meeeeee...... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:25, 31 March 2009 (EDT) (how do I make my sig/time fade out?)
I just hear a faint buzzing sound... --Kels 23:28, 31 March 2009 (EDT)
That's me! That's ME!!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ħumanUser talk:Human 23:35, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Fun Hypotheticals[edit]

These "discussions" really are amusing. I've always enjoyed debating with religious friends with entrenched beliefs, because you can learn a lot about what fundies and the general public just don't understand or comprehend. Now, for one I've just thought of and really like: what if the Theory of Evolution had been developed and popularized by deeply convicted Christians (like Newton) rather than Darwin? Fundies would have no atheistic straw-man arguments to fall back on? PubliusTalk 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Bu..bu..bu..but Darwin started out as a creationist... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:34, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I think I am going to have some fun at aSK 00:07, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Philip Henry Gosse, the man who made the Omphalos hypothesis, was roundly shouted down for calling God a liar. This removed the possibility of using metaphysical means to reconcile the Genesis creation with reality, and creationists had to adopt the approach we see today: bash Darwin and jump on any dodginess in the fossil-record.
BoN, I suggest that you leave aSK alone; what actual sincere creationists say is far better parody than anything anyone in the reality-based community could cook up. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:25, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Actually, I've always found it odd that creationists are so focused on Darwin. It's not like biology hasn't change since the 1800s. If they were really serious, they would be debunking every third paper in journals like Biochemistry and Genetics and Molecular Biology. The person of Darwin is only interesting in that he proposed the concept. The concept has been refined and verified since. Sterilewalkie-talkie 08:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I find this happens a lot.... People seem to think that if they can discredit Darwin, evolution falls flat. It's a strange idea for sure. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 12:15, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
It's because they're religious, not scientific. We know that the facts are separate from the scientist and, even if Darwin had directly proposed National Socialism then the facts would still stand. On the other hand religious cults derive much of their strength from their leaders. Imagine the damage to Roman Catholicism if the pope were found in some sort of gay BDSM session. Silver Sloth 12:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
(ec) It's not so much strange as it is a projection and emblematic of the creationist thought process. Science doesn't work that way, but religion does. Discredit/disprove any section of the Bible and suddenly it can't all be taken literally. One chink in the armor destroys the entire creationist viewpoint. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 12:31, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
This is sort of what my little user page thought experiment over there is based on - real science can be re-discovered as many times as one wants, but "revealed" religion can't be. Also, re the Pope and the RCC, your example is only a few dart tip widths away from what actually happened with the priest child molestation scandal. And it did hurt their revenues, if nothing else. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:18, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Yah, but it doesn't get us very far. The method of rediscovery would be goddidit, probably through insight garnered through the careful study of campbell soup labels. I think we're done here but I'm sure PJR would like to expand on my answer . . . Me!Sheesh!Mine! 23:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

The big question/answer to me would be - if all records were lost of the "first" Son, would God then send another to spread the Good News once more??? Please to forgive the user:Tolerance and ASK-stylee caps. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:42, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
That is interesting in a beery grad school confab sort of way. My follow up question would be if the "record" of Jesus was lost would the transaction by which he died to remove my sin be void? Would God have to murder a second son or could the second son tell us about his big brother, the war hero martyr? Finally, and this is a tough one, could God make a knot so complex that he himself could not untie it? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 07:34, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I give up[edit]

Right, I am giving up on arguing about virus with Philip. He states (as seen in the lastest WIGO:aSK) that maybe it hasnt evolved and maybe it just changed to be able to infect humans. THATS FUCKING EVOLUTION YOU DUMB SHIT! Philip: "no it isnt". ARGH! Ace McWickedRevolt 15:54, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

You must admit it's fun watching them squirm. Like poking an ants' nest with a stick. ToastToastand marmite 16:15, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
giving up means letting the terrorists win. TheoryOfPractice 16:17, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Well it is fun watching them squirm but Philip himself has stated the virus changed (ie EVOLVED!) yet says its not evolution. I mean, how stupid can you be. God, someone show me the way to the next whisky bar please. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes, they redefine terms as it suits them. You have just demonstrated "micro" evolution, which they do not deny. They deny that a "kind" can become another "kind". your virus is still a virus. a cheeta is still a cat. The trouble with poking ants with sticks is that some of them are fire ants, and while you can squish them, its not usually till you have several welts you have to now nurse. I think they are so thick headed that you end up harming yourself (via your sanity) more then them.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 16:25, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Just BTW, I would never poke an ants' nest actually. It being rather cruel. ToastToastand marmite 16:31, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, it's sort of like a lobotomy. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:50, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I know I've done nothing and said nothing and contributed nothing to RationalWiki, just a lurker, but I know what you mean. I wanted ASK to succeed over Conservapedia, but I don't believe in evolution, anymore than I believe in my chair or my table. It just IS. Grrrr annoying -- 16:33, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

The problem, as I've seen it is that science is not something to "believe in." Whether or not you want to admit it to yourself, the science will point to something... Not that doesn't mean that it's perfect, it's not. But the main advantage with science over religion is that it changes. Science: What's that? the sun does not revolve around the earth? oh well, goodbye terracentric universe. Religion: What's that? the sun does not revolve around the earth? Well the bible clearly says it does so we're going to kill you now, you filthy heretic. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 16:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
But fundies of the PJR sort are told for ages that 1) there is no evidence for evolution, 2) evolution is thus a belief, 3) there is evidence for recent creation, and 4) this is censored by indoctrinated secularists under the guise of "logic and scientific method." Any evidence you provide they can ignore as being false, any challenges you raise to their "science" can be ignored as being "deceitful censorship." Science is democratic when it suits them (see ASK's front page), and non-democratic when it suits them (see ASK's front page!) As has been pointed out so many times, you can't reason someone out of beliefs that they didn't reason themselves into. Giving up is probably the most reasonable thing to do in terms of your own sanity. PubliusTalk 17:20, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
To refer to the "mud wrestling a pig" anecdote, yeah, editing/arguing at ASK is only worthwhile if one gains some form of pleasure from rolling in the mud. Personally, I enjoy increasing my knowledge (and showing off what little I have) of the Bible, and writing about fictional characters and events as if they were true. It's more fun than, say, participating in a Star Trek fan-fiction wiki. For now, anyway. Anyone want to go looking for UnicornWiki for when this gets old? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:08, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. --Kels 20:46, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I must say, Mister Reasonable is on quite the tear over there tonight. We've got conspiracy theories, utter misunderstandings of the scientific method, bizarre redefining of evolutionary terminology and creationist rhetoric, flat-out anti-science and more. I'm really interested in this gem, where he talks about this woman who converted after hearing "the evidence" for creationism. But what exactly was this evidence? He certainly hasn't posted a single compelling fact yet, so where's the details? So far, it's just "evolution is wrong, mm'kay?" and unadulterated BS about so-called "information". --Kels 22:17, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, well, you know, the "evidence" is simply assumed to be so compelling there's no need to present it. ASK operates in a post-evidentiary world. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:15, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Mister Reasonable indeed. I always liked him because he wasn't a power-tripping psychopath like Ken, KJ, TK, or Ed. But after entering into some friendly debate, my opinion has really soured. There's no evidence; only assertions and straw-man false definitions. But worst of all, he reverts my factual edit on Darwin's losing faith on the beagle. "Revert; Darwin was opposed to God before the Beagle voyage." It's in Darwin's auto-freaking-biography and every bit of Darwin scholarship I've read! Reverting and asserting is an Andy move. PubliusTalk 02:23, 2 April 2009 (EDT)


I'm having problems resisting writing an article about stoning and how it's condoned by the Bible. Help! Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:11, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Include it as part of an article on capital punishment? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:18, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Is it parody? I can't decide. "[According to the biblical worldview] stoning is an acceptable form of punishment..." Ack! Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Just write it "straight", and list it under "methods"... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:52, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Include methodologies. "The Overhand." "The Sidearm." "The Jerk and Drop." "The Double Toss." Etc. Make sure to play up the pros and cons of each method. --Irrational Atheist 22:36, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
No, really. It's freaking me out. It's a biblical worldview, (sorry, THE Biblical worldview), but is so wrong. I'm not even sure what my intentions would be. Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
And don't forget to mention unethical stone sellers and their short sacks. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:02, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
<shows interest>What is the double toss</interest> Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Argh... Must... resist... innuendo...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 23:56, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
For larger rocks, two people get on each side and lift, then swing back and forth to generate momentum, then send the rock flying. It's in the Stoning ... for Dummies chapter on Large Rock Techniques. --Irrational Atheist 23:57, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I lolled at IA. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:36, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
"Two flats, two points and a packet of gravel." --PsyGremlinWhut? 03:33, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Don't forget to mention what crimes bashing someone to death with rocks is OK for. Adultery, saying "Jehovah", di-OW! Stop that! --Gulik 04:27, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Life of Brian? Sterilewalkie-talkie 12:02, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Afraid so. --Gulik 13:53, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
make clear you have to throw the rock, your not allowed to just walk up and hit the person with it , must observe the niceties 16:42, 2 April 2009 (EDT) oh, ps. what about all the people God ordered killed , like hundreds or thousands of them , was that before the 10 commandments . "thou shall not kill ! , er, cept THEM , and oh I suppose THOSE,, and well, lots of infants ... and some sheep, goats, ....

I suck at WIGOs[edit]

Will someone else be brilliang about this:

(Protection log); 23:59 . . Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) protected "Bullshit" [create=sysop] (indefinite) (Unsuitable title)

(Deletion log); 23:58 . . Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bullshit" (Vandalism: content was: 'This website is!' (and the only contributor was 'I love proxies'))


ħumanUser talk:Human 01:46, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I have a joke for it but I can't figure out how to link to that bit. Who stole my golden eye ball?!? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 10:35, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Am I missing something?[edit]

Ok, so here I am watching PJR and CP and RW all holding hands and putting together the Wiki that Phil Built. Then I start seeing comments like "2000-year-old anthology of mythology", "filtered through a fundamentally silly, stupid and irrational worldview" and "There's no "God" to "reject."" and I start wondering just what exactly are the RWians doing over there. PJR has stated explicitly that what he's doing has a certain POV, which, let's face it, flies in the face of what many here believe.

Yet that doesn't seem to stop us going over there and imposing our own (to PJR & co, anyway) " silly, stupid and irrational worldview". I honestly don't see the point. PJR is never going to have a Damascus moment, no matter how much evidence you throw at him. Is the point of all this simply to drive him to distraction and give up the project? I'm sure there's those who will say "It's anti-science! Blah! Blah!' and you know what - so what? The disclaimer on the front page, should give any rational person ample warning that what lies within is 99% hookum and conversely any YEC worth his salt is going to lap that stuff up. The chances of PJR's wiki converting a non-believer are zero, but the chances of us converting one of PJR's mob is even less.

So, besides trolling, what exactly is our involvement in that project? --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:49, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I would imagine most of the folks over there would give you different answers, but I remember someone asked the same question a while back about people involving themselves at CP, and one answer I think probably hit the nail on the head. Making 'pedias is fun. Especially at such an early stage, before it gets hidebound and full of stuff like WP. Aside from which, I'm sure a lot of people know that it's not just PJR reading these rebuttals and debates, but others as well. A wiki like that will have its lurkers, and I think they'd get more of the benefit, as I mentioned above. As for PJR, he did say earlier he welcomed skeptics to "keep them honest", and I guess some folks took him seriously. --Kels 08:57, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
I think primarily for RWians it's just a distraction from CP which has gotten so absurd and locked down that it's IMPOSSIBLE to do this there, as mentioned above, it's just comical and for gossip now. Some people just like the conflict, even if it's pointless. Additionally, some people do feel that it's almost their duty to refute because Freedom of Speech rules. You're never going to change PJR's mind, you may as well try changing the mind of Assfly himself for that's worth, but when you put the refutations up there you know that anyone going there and reading it will know that these are just opinions and there's lots going against it. ArmondikoVnarchist 09:14, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
That reminds me of something else I was thinking, actually. It's pretty rare for Creationists to expose themselves to open debate in a free forum like this, usually they lock themselves down in places like CreationWiki or Denise O'Leary's link farm dozen or so blogs, which don't allow open comments. So this is a rare opportunity to lift up the stones and let a little light in. --Kels 09:19, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that wikiwriting is "fun" exactly, but it's a great time-waster, and beats watching daytime television when there's actual responsibilities to avoid. And--while I don't know if this is anyone's actual motive (it's not mine)--I suspect that a successful aSK will contribute to the fade of CP.--WJThomas 09:32, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm at the site because I still have teh faith (though I question it constantly), and, though I'm certainly no YEC, I agree with the site's premise. It seems to me that some are using it as a place to discuss things with PJR that he wouldn't come on our turf for, which isn't a bad thing, because discussions have progressed in a respectable manner. I must agree with WJThomas above, though, in that I'm no great writer by any means, but it does kill much time. Aboriginal Noise Theist, barely hanging by a nail 11:18, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
I was at the site (extremely little) out of interest. I say was, because as of two minutes ago, I can't believe the utter horseshit he's spewing in response to my objections, and give up. In the PJR world, falsification means a biologist once claimed something that ended up being false, and can be linked with evolution in some tangential way. PubliusTalk 11:35, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Does PJR not read what he writes? If he looked at his own arguments the way he looks at everyone else's, surely he would, at the least, feel a sense of acute embarrassment. His latest response to Publius is one of the lamest things I've ever seen him write. Naive I may be, but I find it hard to believe that when argued so effectively into a corner, a little bit of reality doesn't start to seep through - especially when he's forced to write things like "of course creation science makes predictions! What about this area of astronomy?"
In answer to PsyGremlin, I think this old chestnut is explanation enough. seventhrib 12:50, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
I was kinda wondering about that whole "a creationist came up with this, therefore Creationism is true", and it looks like he was talking about this business, apparently inspired by God creating the world and the heavens out of water (?) and somehow shoehorning all this into his wacky ideas of a 6000 year old earth and billions of year old universe, which totally goes against PJR's idea that the whole thing came about at once. Although why the introduction to the paper pits him against evolutionists instead of, say, astronomers or physicists, is a mystery for the ages. --Kels 13:03, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Wow. Just wow. Evolutionists make predictions about magnetic fields in space? This is why I give up. I like debating to find new challenges and improve my (very limited) knowledge of science and theology. But when you have to spend all of your time explaining what Darwin's religious views actually were, what falsification is, how the scientific method works, and how Uranus has nothing to do with evolution, only to be ignored at every turn, it's a waste of everyone's time. That article is the silliest thing I've read in a while; but it's enlightening how they have to refer to everyone else as evolutionists. They could get little traction if any among their scientifically illiterate acolytes if they started attacking "physics" and "chemistry" and "astronomy." PubliusTalk 13:34, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I know why I am there, I enjoy watching creationist twist and squirm under the weight of evidence followed by them making some kind of absurd claim to back up their untenable positions. Also I hate my job, I am trying anything to put off the masses of study I have to do (for example - I have to read all the political writings of Plato, Karl Marx and everyone inbetween and its rough going) and I am also avoiding having to ghost write a book for someone which, although interesting, is still a mission. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:30, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

What Kels said is pretty accurate as one motive. Also, think about it - two years ago "people like us" (some of whom are still here) went on CP to discuss some of their stranger articles with the editors there, and within 2-3 months all were banned. The reason, perhaps, that PJR has seemed "reasonable" is that no one has ever been able to discuss some of his pet mythology with him at length - one could only last for a week or two at best on CP doing that. Now, we have a fresh location, where disagreeing, so far, does not result in being kicked out. Now, I don't know how much of what I write on here PJR reads - probably little to none, and he doesn't care, either - but my contributions at ASK, fixin' teh typos and grammar a bit, starting a few articles, and mostly arguing with him and his friends, has not result in bannination but in him conferring the honor of "member"ship on me. Which is pretty much like "editor plus banhammer", what I wanted it for was upload rights. At suspect he is still operating on "our" principle of "mostly harmless". If he can stick with that - allowing endless dissent on talk pages at the very least, that will be good. Also, we finally get to have all these debates with him and his friends without them being ended summarily by a Karajou. That is fun for many people. It's illuminating, in a way, to see the "full range" of what he (they) thinks and how he (they) justifies it. Longer term, if the project survives or even thrives, the articles are going to be very amusing/interesting, as all the clear scientific facts proving YEC and ID etc. get laid out in well-referenced (meaning primary sources, not CW or AIF etc.) articles. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:35, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
There is, I'm finding, a substantial difference between ASK/PJR and CP/Assfly: PJR WILL back down when he knows he can't win: he gave up, for instance, on the ID page when cornered on the question of why people opposed ID. He's also shied away from reverting when people have removed superfluous/irrelevant mentions of a person's atheism. Interesteing. TheoryOfPractice 18:41, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
In the beginning, there was a moral imperative to edit cp. They were getting press, and promulgating lots of dangerously false info (abortion causes breast ca (sic) etc). With PJR, I'm not sure that his simply being an irrational fool beholden to superstition creates a moral imperative to interfere.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Broccoli 18:49, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm confident some moral imperative will become apparent once they start filling in some red links. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 20:29, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

It's also kind of fun to be one. The Sterile here is the Sterile there, not a sock, not a change of identity, as it should be. (Sterile was a joke on CP, in reality. Why would anyone call himself Sterile?I'm amazed I never changed my name at RW. It just kind of stuck.) And to not worry about being banned as long as I control my temper. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:49, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

A lot of us kept our CP handles here. I used my real name on RW1 and no one knew who I was, so for RW2 (and perhaps before) I went back to human. It will be interesting to see if a good squad ever develops at ASK. One thing I like is being able to argue with a YEC nutter without it going on for hours and wasting a chunk of my life. At ASK one can be as involved or not as desired, whether 1 or 50 comments a day, skip a day, take it in Tolerable doses. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:05, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Sterile hit a point there: "as long as I control my temper". They just get me so MAD! I have to close the aSK (silly capitalisation) tab and come back here to cool down at least 5 times/day. ToastToastand marmite 23:46, 2 April 2009 (EDT)


I'm not at all surprised that the powers that be are all anti-choice over at Phil's House Of Creationism, it goes with the territory. I just get bothered by comments like this one of Addison's. Not realizing the irony of denying a woman's right to control her body while claiming if the fetus' rights are taken away then rights are meaningless is par for the course, but it's the stuff about what a miracle pregnancy is that kinda bothers me. It's no miracle. It's wonderful, yes. But it's hardly a miracle. It's common. Common as dirt. A straightforward biological adaption, far back in the past where we decided to move out of the reptiles' place. And you know, that's part of what makes it wonderful, is just how commonplace it is in this world. Dripping sloppy sentimentality like that all over it, to me, seems out of place. I dunno, maybe I'm weird. --Kels 23:40, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

You're not weird at all, my dear--imbuing biological functions, ESPECIALLY the ones having to do with reproduction, with particular "emotional meanings" like that is an important part of what goes into shaping a society a particular way, and that's something that ALWAYS happens in the context of power relationships. TheoryOfPractice 23:44, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
My feeling on abortion are so ruthlessley pragmatic that I doubt they will be well recieved even here. Have any of you ever read the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt? He basically lays out the case that abortion reduces crime. With the majorityof pregnancies being aborted amongst poorer families, the vast majorities of these fetuses would be candidates for crime in their later years. With them nonexistant, the crime rate is severely curtailed. If you have not read it, do. He also covers other topics, like gun control. Facinating book. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 00:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
I was compelled to point out some stupidity on that page (before reading this here). I am pro-abortion up to the age of seven. After seven, the parents must go before a magistrate, gambling that the child will be killed and not them. That is all. Oh yeah, also, the abortion "issue" is a race war, in case no on noticed. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:29, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
PS, I like Kels' new name for ASK, "Phil's House Of Creationism" - PHC anyone? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:32, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Wonder what they'd think if we were egg layers? ToastToastand marmite 00:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
That they have a ready source for dinner each night, so they don't have to do all that hard labor of hunting and gathering?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 09:44, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
(Imagine the omelettes) ToastToastand marmite 00:42, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
It's mainly that some MAN in Rome or Canterbury or wherever should have any say in what I do with my body. If I don't want an alien growth, then I decide to get rid. End of. ToastToastand marmite 00:41, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh, come on "Toast", if that is your real name, which I doubt (T Oast? Toas T.? Seems improbable), tell us how you really feel! Remember, 2+2=4 and you can deny logic! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:07, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
PS, if you don't want an "alien growth", please to use a pessary after having sex with aliens. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Of course, there's also the point <unverifiable generalisation> that many of these "pro-lifers are the same as the hang 'em high, death penalty advocates.</unverifiable generalisation> Puke! ToastToastand marmite 03:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
A race war? How do you figure? (Or did I just fail my Detect Sarcasm roll?) --Gulik 04:32, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Race war: simplest terms: darkies have all their babies, well-off white women (chattel) abort theirs. Darkies take over America. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT) (NO OFFENSE MEANT TO ANY "DARKIES" ON THIS SITE HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'M NOT A RACIST!)
Okay, I'm confused. I thought abortion was a conspiracy to exterminate blacks by killing all their children because their founder was such a screaming racist, you know. Isn't that the official story? --Kels 06:03, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
It's a white male thing. They have to have a bible full of explanations against every abortion situation - and one of the more compelling arguments *for* abortion is that poor women don't want more kids for *the us govt* to support. so, the right says "ah, racism will be the key". To this day I get incensed that men simply cannot look around and see who is having this argument. Women know better, but then again, it's women who will have to push the fricking bowling ball out of themselves. Was it Robbin Williams who said "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a God Given Right (tm)"
Kels, do you want the "official story" or the Truth I make up as I go along? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:09, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Can't I have both? --Kels 17:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Of course you can. Do you want them labeled correctly? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:00, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Why edit ASK?[edit]

Because it's friggin' fun! I, here and at my own webshite, write essays, poems, songs, etc. But I have little outlet for the part of me that wants to write fiction. What a lovely little fanfic site PJR has created, where I can follow my little trail of redlinks until I am sated. Thank you Philip, thank you Lord, for I do enjoy filling empty edit boxes. And I think I did a fairly creditable job, at least four pointzes better than Uncle Ed, with my short Croatians. This is like the same kick I got from writing Fourth of July and Pledge of Allegiance at CP. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:55, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

In that case, maybe I will sign up for aSK if only to include some hardcore slash fiction. Not just Hitler/Darwin on a bear rug fiction for the CP crowd, but full-on Ed/Andy/TK sandwich & train combo fiction! Oh yeah, it'll be bigger than those Harry-comes-out sites. --Irrational Atheist 01:57, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Er, that might not fly over there. The fiction I was writing (check my contribs - or hell, recent changes there for now!) was mostly the whole bronze age (love me again please Toast) mythology stuff. I just love to wraps me my pen around a rich mythology, it really just writes itself. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
All fiction online is slash fiction now. Didn't you get the memo? --Irrational Atheist 02:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
Aw, fuck, shit, crap, killzors, Yeah, I missed the fucking memo. Fuck, shit, poop, etc., etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)


This article should be archived- it fails my length test, ie takes over 20 sec to scroll on an itouch. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 01:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Don't let me stop you. TheoryOfPractice 01:03, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
Done. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:57, 4 April 2009 (EDT)