Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election has begun. Ask questions, read slogans, and (un)endorse candidates!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/0001

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, (new)(back)

Fermat[edit]

  • Some people? Why hide? Why not just name me, Ames, et.al? Attacks and making fun of other users is what this place is about, no? The article I edited still says: Fermat's most famous equation is Fermat's Last Theorem, which was not proven until American mathematician Andrew Wiles published his proof in 1993. Wiles was born an Englishman, but was awarded US citzenship for solving Fermat's equation. Is that truly tantamount to saying something different?--TK/MyTalk 23:32, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I also noticed the change to "some people". What gives? --Horace 23:34, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
It is clear to me now, just tonight, that there isn't any contribution I can give, no action I can take, to get a fair shake from some Liberals here, even if I agree with many of their ideas, simply because some have decided brand me an idiot, moron, YEC, conservative, etc. They don't want to be unblocked, as some did, simply because it cuts the ground out from under the ideas about me and other other places they want perpetuated. I will never have that promised "clean slate" because many of the Bureaucrats and Sysops here will not have it. --TK/MyTalk 23:40, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Not all the items are about CP any more (cf the "fear death" item); the change is to reflect that. And TK, the fact that the article says that is the point. I can find no evidence for that; I can't even find anyone else making the claim. There's been a request for confirmation on the talk page since March 12th, and nobody has responded. Ferret tried to fix it, but you reverted it. --jtltalk 23:42, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

What claim? That he wasn't a citizen? What I removed also said he was a citizen. What remains says they same. I cannot understand the request left there. Perhaps instead of getting confrontational, you could just explain. Here or anywhere else is fine, since it doesn't actually involve this wiki. --TK/MyTalk 23:45, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

The claim that he got his US citizenship as an award for proving Fermat's last theorem. --jtltalk 23:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
  • But that wasn't my change. Nor had it anything to do with why I changed it. Is one so short of logic they deduce such things out of thin air? Or are you saying that entry was a swipe at CP not at me? Because I have seen posts as well, blaming me, when I didn't endorse or even look at the item. Just another rush to judgement to attack me. I'm used to it. But it simply isn't accurate. --TK/MyTalk 23:51, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, first, I didn't mention you. But second, even though you didn't put it in initially, you did return it after someone else tried to fix it. But mainly, it's on CP and it's wrong (so far as I can tell), and I didn't mention you in the item. I linked to you editing in your role as CP sysop, not as you individually. --jtltalk 23:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
  • It simply makes no difference. Your idea was to tar me subtly, and since I was never on the discussion page before tonight, it is hardly something logically I could be faulted for. It is simply another incident of "gotcha". Anyone intellectually honest, and not just out to attack for sake of attacking, would have been fair about it, and merely linked to the article, rather than my edit, as other Sysops, including DanH and Andy had edited that piece before me, with that information in it. I have removed the unverified, and quite possibly inaccurate information. --TK/MyTalk 00:05, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, what a load of nonsense TK. As Jtl said, it was wrong and it was on CP. End of story. The link is quite properly to a particular edit as these articles can change at any time (as you are well aware, you cheeky monkey). --Horace 00:11, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Moreover, by linking to a particular edit by a CP sysop, I demonstrated that a CP sysop was aware it was there. I don't think it's fair to criticize CP for errors by vandals unless I can show that a 'real' CP user was aware of it, and the only way I know to do that is to show that a CP sysop (or a respected non-sysop, but so far I've done sysops only) edited the article in close proximity to the error. And in this case, you didn't just edit close to it, you re-introduced it. The criticism is entirely fair. --jtltalk 00:16, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Yes, indeed "moreover", Jtl. One in some Ivory Tower would most certainly believe just because some Sysop touched the page, they should have been aware of advanced mathematics, and seen the mistake! LMAO. I repeat, it was a gotcha. Without intellectual merit, and just another attempt to smear. There are better inaccuracies there to present, at CP, and your dislike for me is why you did it. But that is mere speculation, so I won't say that. You most likely didn't notice the other Sysops touching that article. Just as I didn't notice the error, nor should have, as I wasn't there to edit for that. Oh well, in any event, thank you Jtl for calling the error to my attention. I appreciate that, most sincerely. --TK/MyTalk 00:33, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, for pete's sake. There was no 'advanced mathematics' involved in this edit; there was no mathematics involved at all. And if you didn't understand understand what it was saying, why did you make the edit? I did notice other sysops edit the article, but none edited that paragraph. And as you keep glossing over, you put the error back. In an edit that did nothing but. If you weren't 'there to edit for that', then there was no reason to make that edit! If it was a gotcha, you got yourself. If you're aware of better inaccuracies on CP, either fix them or list them here. As for this, I'm through talking about it. Feel free to have the last word. --jtltalk 01:45, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
"It is clear to me now, just tonight, that there isn't any contribution I can give, no action I can take, to get a fair shake from some Liberals here, even if I agree with many of their ideas, simply because some have decided brand me an idiot, moron, YEC, conservative, etc" quoted from TK above. Seems like the exact same thing that almost everyone on this site has said to themselves about CP. No matter what we say, what kind of facts, arguments, or reasoning we bring to an article, according to some "Lib'ruls are deceitful, so you can't trust what they say" Or "Lib'ruls like to lie". Don't whine and piss because the medicine you guys have been handing to us is too bitter for your own throat.Prof0705 08:05, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Just a place to say hi to TK[edit]

TK, I'm glad to see you back. I realize a lot of us have been unfair to you, and I hope I have not. Again, I appreciate your earlier apology and I hope you are back to stay: we need you to bring balance to the Force.-AmesG 00:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

  • Balance in The Force is achieved by responding to emails, and if only in private, communicating ones candid thoughts. I think you would have to agree, not trying to put words in your mouth, I am a pretty up-front kind of guy. I am not known in reality for joining movements, participating in plots, of running people down in secret. I can do a fairly good job of that balls-out face to face, lol. I haven't changed, but many of you, forced to really examine, now realize many things about me you didn't before. I don't know if I am "back". I am still waiting for the end of the weekend, and Colin's response. If there isn't unanimity among your Bureaucrats, there cannot be anything that approaches fairness for users. Which is why Bohdan didn't stay, among others. I am quite willing to help. Just is depending on what your definition of the word "is" is. ;-) --TK/MyTalk 01:32, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Heliocentrism/Brownback[edit]

Honestly. Someone please admit to writing this. It's too ridiculous (and funny) to even appear in cp (though, no doubt someone has snuck it in). As for the name "brownback", well, it wouldn't do to say what I'm thinking. αιρδισΗταλκ 05:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

And you expected somehow more from that lunatic? Lie down, Airdish, and apply a cold towel to your head, lol. I am sure from his airplane, he can also see where the keel of the Ark scraped the earth near the Grand Canyon. --TK/MyTalk 07:44, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Gay Disease[edit]

It's subtle enough but this is insane. αιρδισΗταλκ 08:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I've tried a modification. Don't know if it will last. --TK/MyTalk 23:21, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Over 3,000 Blocks Sold[edit]

Oh, the sockanity! --Kels 12:52, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

I see a few more brewing ... and can't wait for them to get pwn3d by some people who are blantant parodists (or very scary individuals) that seem to fit in. Jrssr5 13:00, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Paula Jones[edit]

That Paula Jones one is so stupid and non-controversial, I can't believe they haven't fixed it yet. It's not a matter of opinion, ideology or worldview; it's just wrong. They just really don't give a shit about accuracy, I guess. --jtltalk 23:41, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Baseball[edit]

If you like baseball, or you're from Detroit, you might want to check out the new baseball article on CP. It's actually well-written and informative.DocSock 13:11, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Imaginary Numbers[edit]

With all due respect, the person who added that comment, skeptic, is on our side. He just suddenly bursts into spontaneous parody, but also does this. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

What about that Sisyphus fellah who says that they're pure evil? Of course, I think that that blog is some sort of parody, just like the Colbert Report, but assuming for a second that it's not... --Sid 12:20, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
OK Sid, you win. He is a parody, or deluded, or maybe he knows something we don't ...

ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

Wasn't there some weirdness at CP about imaginary numbers, back in mid/late February? I'm not finding it now, though. --jtltalk 14:05, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I recall the same thing, in the April/May timeframe. But I can't find it either. Something about how imaginary numbers aren't real (duh) and have nothing to contribute to mathematics, or whatever. SJIHAS 12:27, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Mocking Jesus[edit]

Say, since we have a Jesus Christ article already, you think someone with a bit of biblical knowledge could add something about how the conservatives of the day were only too happy to abandon him to his fate? Then we could add that link to the line about liberals mocking Jesus. --Kels 13:58, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

It's Jesus if you want facts. Will do --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
Whups! Okay, there then. --Kels 14:07, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
I've put it in, and it's fairly blunt, but then again, the Pharisees, were conservative, at least in the true sense of the word. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

ShinyShiny.tv[edit]

It's kinda sad that shinyshiny.tv is more popular than CP on average. Just noting since it seems to be relatively agreed on that that blog is a fairly obscure site. --Sid 14:24, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I was shocked too. It sorta undermined my argument, so I didn't mention it. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

Sysop Abuse[edit]

Apparently there is no such thing, TK wiped the page. What's the deal? --67.70.18.43 20:50, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Oh, wait. It's the discussion page he nuked, not the main page. --Kels 20:59, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

pasted in from old correctly spelled talk page[edit]

Template talk:RationalWiki MainPage/AccordingTo From RationalWiki Jump to: navigation, search

Sorry guys, but I'm retarded when it comes to wiki format. can someone put this up? Apparently there is no evidence that animals can think. Forget the chimps that can learn and use sign language and solve complex problems.

Deletion log); 13:43 . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (deleted "Intelligence": confuses animals and people - note that there is no evidence animals can "think")

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Recentchanges

Prof0705 12:51, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

That comes back to the "pride" argument I keep coming back to. There's some sort of psychological block in these people that balks at anything that suggests they may be a type of animal, as if animals are somehow "lesser". I call that pride, and a desperate clinging to an ideology based on humans being at the top of any hierarchy of life. I see it in the evolution discussions where they keep trying to say that evolution "improves" a creature, rather than adapts it. That said, I see no evidence that Conservapedians, as a rule, think all that well either. --Kels 12:58, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Added. If you don't like the wording I used, feel free to modify it or, if you're not comfortable doing that, let me know and I can change it. --jtltalk 14:05, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Should new items be added to the top or the bottom of the list? I've been doing top, on the theory that people are more likely to see them there.

Also, links that might be useful if CP ever bothers to fix any of these other items:

   * Andy saying getting credit would be fair
   * Andy insisting on credit 

--jtltalk 22:12, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Do we have a central spot where we can drop potential items, to decide if they're worth putting on the front page? I found this gem, but I'm not sure it's really front page material. Pretty thin argument, but worth a couple of lulz at the "logic". --Kels 22:26, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think we're that well-organized! So far, I've just been putting things as the mood's hit me, and so far nobody's complained. If you really want comments first, this seems like a reasonable place. FWIW, I like that link. --jtltalk 22:47, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
It's a weird little site. I found it linked off of DanH's user page, where he warns that it contains Old Earth stuff. Couldn't help but take a look, anything these guys link to has got to be pretty rich. --Kels 23:01, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

From CP: Here's a fun one for anyone who's got a grasp on economics. Or logic. --Kels 23:16, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

So add it to the "right side" template? And then maybe write a rebuttal article? We are all free to edit the whole damn site here. Nice link, btw, I have to go read... humanbe in 23:20, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Wait, did they really spell it "minninum wage"?????????????????? They did! lulz! humanbe in 23:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

end paste[edit]

Edwards Contributions[edit]

I started to write up something about this, but I think it's bigger than I can fit into a single line. The story altogether attributes about $50,000 to the cited industries, across two presidential runs and at least one Senate run. In the first quarter of this year, Edwards raised $14million. It's hard to see how that can honestly be described as "the big money donors". But more importantly, it doesn't seem reasonable to look at one candidate's funding sources without looking at others'. --jtltalk 02:51, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

  • Well of course not, blackmailer. You have dirt on Edwards, or those contributors? Here, in the United States, we have limits on contribs. That is considered a big donation, by anyone's standards. Especially when the candidate has talked out of both sides of his mouth, claiming to be going after such people, and taking money from them at the very same time. --TK/MyTalk 03:17, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
What's risible about the entry on CP has nothing to do with Edwards but RobS's descriptions of the these bastions of free-market capitalism. He sounds like a liberal. Could it be irony? Possibly, but in RobS's case I very much doubt it. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 06:25, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

relativity - write a book![edit]

following the link embedded here: "Ashlafly's educational advice to a student - "don't read a book to learn, but write a book to learn". Note: A shortened version of this advice recently became a CP motto."

leads not only to the "motto" being formed, but Ashfly is telling a person who claims to have "never passed high-school physics" to "Start with our entry here on the Theory of Relativity and improve it"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This should go in Best of CP. humanbe in 15:11, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Chuck Norris[edit]

Ok, the man's officially on my list of people who i find disturbing.--PalMD-yada yada 22:37, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

adulteress parable[edit]

just brilliant. cp demand a biblical literalism unless it suits. wonder what karajou thinks of it. δαιισρΗταλκ 08:19, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Jesus's death was a model of capitalist efficiency[edit]

I really don't think that item should be here. The cited article, stupid though it may be, doesn't say anything about capitalism or efficiency. OK, it talks about efficacy, but in a totally different context, and it isn't the same. Someone in authority: please remove this. SJIHAS 12:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Anyone has "authority" here... if in doubt about an edit, move it to the talk page and give your reasons. Which I suppose is what you did here, but you could have removed it, as well. That way we look stoopid for less time ;) humanbe in 12:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
OK, advice taken. Thanks. SJIHAS 12:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Let me check it out...thanks.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 12:34, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
  • Jesus's death was a model of capitalist efficiency. [1]
Here is the cite...doesn't seem supported.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 12:36, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Parthian Shot[edit]

Oh look, the article now gives examples. liessmokemirrors 12:42, 27 June 2007 (CDT)


Best CP quote ever?[edit]

I blew it on the Jesus thing, I admit. Maybe someone else can decide if this is worthy of going up somewhere...From the discussion page of the front page at CP. "...For example, most liberals do support creating chimerae." --Aschlafly 19:12, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Terrorism[edit]

This one is really disgusting. Joking about the car bomb, and assfly defending it. I think i just threw up in my mouth.69.216.103.213 23:35, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Sin is Addictive[edit]

I love the logic in this one. Can someone put this up in the According to...? --Kamuy8 09:14, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

That is a great article ... I'm gonna take the first step now and accept that I am addicted to fornication in all of it's illicitness. Jrssr5 14:46, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Non-CP quotes[edit]

Time to start digging up non-cp quotes for this column. I"ve started hunting, but it's bed time.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:31, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

really bad choice[edit]

"No continents are underwater today for the simple reason that continental crust is composed of lighter minerals than oceanic crust."[1] All this time, I thought continents were not underwater because then they would be called "ocean floor"."

This is actually true, folks. Silicate rich minerals are lighter than iron rich ones... our continents are scum that has floated to the top. I'm going to move it out of view before we look too stoopid. That's not to say they don;t all move around, get crumpled, drowned, resurfaced, due to tectonics. But maybe there is a better boo boo in the source? humanbe in 22:41, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for saving face. I think i was trying to point out the somewhat circular thing whereby they say that stuff that is above water isn't underwater because its a continent...kind of like saying, all the oceans are filled with water because they are oceans.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:44, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
No prob. I see your point, too. The article is, of course, mostly full of shit, and doesn't go into why the continents are lighter (and they ride on heavier material...). I liked the argument from ignorance - "who could imagine walking hundreds of miles into the ocean and only being waist deep...". Well, call me imaginative, but I can. I couldn't read much more or my brain would start to shrink. And then explode. humanbe in 22:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Wish I could find a better way to present that one. I noted the "imagination" thing too...funny.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:55, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
This one is cute, too.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:48, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
This one is just so poorly written that i don't get it.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:55, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
Please never let our site ever be that illiterate... humanbe in 01:20, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Further lulz, I scrolled up to see what the article was. Basically, "Galaxy" by Wikipedia ported over, with that section tacked onto the end to refute the whole idea of an "old universe". Awestupiditysome! humanbe in 01:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Holy Crap!!! "astronomers... used a 158 inch telescope in Chile to peer at the distant edge of the universe" The universe has an edge?? And it's visible through a telescope!?!? I guess that makes space exploration rather pointless. Garble 18:05, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Objective Ministries[edit]

Isnt that a parody? Do we care? Tmtoulouse 12:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I think it's fair game. While Wikipedia says it is a parody, pointing out that it refers to some organizations that don't exist, it's an extraordinarily good parody. And Bill O'Reilly has cited the nonexistent Paris Business Review. It comes down to what the person was thinking while they wrote what they wrote, and we can't know that. Any straightforwardly presented material that is outrageously fundamentalist and anti-science should be fair game. SJIHAS 17:04, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

"format"[edit]

People aren't deleting old ones, making the section a little long - it pushes "featured content" off the "first screen", which I think isn't so good. I added "more" to the "edit" link, btw, so people know they can check out the whole archive any time. humanbe in 13:50, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm guilty of having done that just today, with the "women carrying laundry baskets" thing. I initially wanted to put it "below the line", but it seems the policy is that such things are brought above the line only sporadically, to keep the page fresh, and hence something initially placed below the line has no guarantee of ever seeing the light of day. I should probably have pushed something else down, but didn't want to step on anyone's toes.

Could we have a more detailed statement of the policy? Something like:

  • The above-the-line part should contain 8 (or whatever) items.
  • New items should go above the line, at the bottom of that section, while taking the topmost item away and moving it to the very bottom.
  • People may periodically recycle below-the-line items up, in order to keep the page fresh and interesting. To do so, put it at the bottom of the above-the-line section, and demote the topmost item to the bottom of the lower section. When recycling items, give preference to items near the top of the below-the-line section.

Or does this kind of overly regimented thinking belong in Schlafly-land? SJIHAS 18:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

That sounds sane, and more or less what I've been trying to do when I update it, with one big difference -- I've been putting new things at the top and moving things at the bottom below the line. The theory there is that people are more likely to stop reading when they see something they've already seen. --jtltalk 18:43, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Of course. But, as a newbie, I didn't feel right putting my thing at the TOP of the RW FRONT PAGE!!!. You know, dipping one's toe in the water. In the future, splash. SJIHAS 19:13, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Hahaha, where it of course should have gone! Move it up! Also, I added "More" to the "edit" link, so people will hopefully realize there is a whole file full of them, and they all are visible there. Also, at the top of the page you might have seen, it says to try to keep the number to five or six (I forget which) humanbe in 19:59, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

According to...[edit]

How about replacing "According to ahem... (etc)" with simply: "According to..." it might look cleaner and implies/allows using sources from all over the idiotnet? ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 01:58, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, the "some people" could be anybody, of course. I always meant it that way. Does it wrap too wide? If it would be better, sure, shorten it. The "ahem" is sort of a conversational tone, kind of like laughing with the reader. See if anyone esle chimes in... humanbe in 17:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Andy and FBI[edit]

I know I called Andy out on this a long time ago, why does he actually think the FBI cares or will do anything? Andy's misinterperting whatever law he thinks he knows. I wish the FBI would counter-charge him with wasting government time and money. And if being retarded was a crime Andy would have been sentenced to death years ago. Jrssr5 10:08, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I saved the current thread here because it's so damn cool. I thought we were done with this already, after KooKoo went all Federal on us.162.82.215.199 13:30, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this has turned hilarious this morning. Not only was Wumps wading in both feet first (brave, braave, esp. on Andy's Talk page), but of course s/he was soon banned. Of course. Actually, can anyone find a reference for Andy on this one? I've searched, but an 'authoritative' source that says that vandalising a wiki isn't a crime is hard to come by.... Doggedpersistance 13:36, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

That's probably Ames department, but the last time we went through this we came up empty. Andy used to post some statutes at the top of the page that weren't relevant, and the last time they tried to get someone in trouble for editing an open wiki, they made that silly report to the spam police.162.82.215.199 13:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
AND all of Wumps' and BritCon's comments have been thrown in the Memory Hole. I swear, the similarities between CP's mods and the Politboro are so gapingly obvious, you pretty much have to be a Creationist not to notice them. --Gulik 19:33, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Christian Coalition deceit[edit]

I've added a blurb about how Christian Coalition members are allowed to lie and deceive, to uphold the noble truths of the Bible Constitution and and defend against common sense secular-progressive liberal scumbags. --Hojimachong 19:57, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Just remember the mantra: It's Okay If A Republican Does It."  :-P --Gulik 02:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
(Closing bold tag) Actually, it should be "It's Okay If A Conservative Does It." :-P --Sid 07:49, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Conservative songs[edit]

The link on the talk page ([2]) includes "Bodies" by The Sex Pistols as a conservative anti-abortion song. I find it hard to believe that a song with the following lines could be considered conservative:

  Fuck this and fuck that fuck it all and
  Fuck the fucking brat
  She don't wanna baby that looks like that
  I don't wanna baby that looks like that
  Body I'm not an animal
  Body I'm not an abortion

too bad conservapedia doesn't agree! ollïegrïnd 13:30, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

It was also pointed out to me that Stand By Your Man was protested due to a message of standing by your man even if he beats you. Real conservative. Jrssr5 14:02, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

For the Yanks in the house[edit]

John Thomas is a British English euphemism for penis. ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 11:20, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

ok, but where did that come up? Jrssr5 11:24, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
johnthomas was the author of the comment that andy deleted and who was then blocked. ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 11:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
ahh, gotcha. that's kinda funny. why is that used as a euphemism? was there some John Thomas in the past who was a real dick? Jrssr5 11:30, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
I have no idea. and yeh, it would have been great (and juvenile, and brilliant) if andy had actually said john thomas. oh well. i'm sure there'll be more. ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 11:45, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Far as I can tell, it comes from the name the lead character of Lady Chatterly's Lover gave to his penis, but since I've never read the book, I'm not sure what possessed him to do that. --Kels 07:12, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Violence in Schools[edit]

Andy put yet another headline about someone getting hurt in a public school as an example why homeschooling is better. Don't most kidnappings and violence in the home come as a result of family members or close friends? how are these sheltered kids any different?? And I would suspect that a parent teaching their obnoxious kid would be much more likely to fly off the handle than a teacher who's paid for it and gets nights off from their students. Jrssr5 11:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Public schools teach kids that violence, kidnapping, murder, lying, cheating, stealing, and sex are all good things. Since homeschoolers are only taught what's in the Bible, which teaches that violence is bad, nothing bad will ever happen to them. Your refusal to admit this is a classic example of liberal deceit. I shall now review the rest of your edits, because I'm 97.8666% sure you violate the newly created 100/0 rule which requires 100% copy-and-paste and 0% talking. --Brian 12:08, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
We totally need an automated "Andy Speech" generator. --Sid 12:16, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
I was going to say "why, when it's so easy to do oneself", but then I realized that's why it would be so easy to write. Perhaps in a CP: article, with a series of "choose/option" sections... humanbe in 15:40, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Masterpiece getting axed by Conservative[edit]

Wow... Conservative keeps surprising me. And here I thought his argumentation on his talk page was the lowest point. --Sid 12:44, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Incorrect musical taste[edit]

I have some problems with the item about users being banned for incorrect musical taste, and that many songs were removed. Perhaps the cited diff entry was incorrect, but it points to the addition of a song. Looking through the history of that pathetic excuse for a web page, I see no evidence of removal of significant numbers of songs. Also, there's no evidence that anyone was banned. Would the author please look into this? Goatspeed. SJIHAS 15:05, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I didn't write that, but a few clicks show:
So it's not the mass removal/banning one might expect, but stuff happened, and that one guy only contributed in the music article and is now banned. --Sid 15:31, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Red Dawn clarification?[edit]

Red Dawn came out when I was 8, so I don't remember much about it. I know many right-wingers use the movie as a masturbatory aid, but could someone clarify some of the more amusing bits from the CP article? Garble 18:15, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

"The movie....suggested the American public had become too comfortable with their lives resulting in a lack of patriotism; several characters are even seen collaborating. It also argues against gun control and defense cuts. A minor them [sic] is about the question of where on draws the line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. This is visualized by the Cuban commander who compares the Wolverines' struggle to his own experiences during the Cuban revolution....

The movie was a box-office success on opening in 1984, and continues to receive both critical acclaim and new viewers to the present day. "PFoster 19:16, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Aschlafly, movie critic?[edit]

For all Andy's shoutiness that "Liberals can't understand soldiers!!!!", his page on CP doesn't even hint at his time in the military. I guess he's just being modest, since no REAL Conservative would fail to do their duty, like that Liberal coward Rush Limbaugh, right? --Gulik 23:46, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Exactly. No conservative would ever have a higher priority than serving his country.--MountainTiger 13:02, 22 July 2007 (CDT)


Seriously though, the look into Foxpuppet's thinking in the discussion about 12 Angry Men (one of my favourite movies, I even did fanart) is chilling. The idea that he seems to impart all positive traits to Conservatives and none at all to Liberals, a sentiment clearly shared by the others, says far more than I suspect he meant to. --Kels 15:19, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

In the Forrest Gump section, I notice that Andy did not respond to Eddiec who ended by asking Andy about his military service--Franklin 15:30, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Heck, I'm surprised Andy didn't block him for mocking Jesus him. --Kels 15:40, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
I have a feeling Andy wasn't really reading his responses, he just kept repeating the same liberal lies line, so he missed the question. Jrssr5 15:51, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

mammary[edit]

ok so it's funny, but it was written on cp by a "parodist". should we have stuff here that's obvious parody that has since been removed? a i r d i s h 05:46, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I think we actually have a category for that, and a number of articles in the "Conservapedia:" namespace that are just that. Of course, the "claim to fame" is how long they last - instantly reverted vandalism is not very interesting, but parody pages that survive multiple edits by sysops and last for weeks or months are. IMHO. humanbe in 14:01, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
[I'm the guilty party] Interesting point. I'm not sure how to deal with it, and it comes up occasionally. The same thing was raised regarding Objective Ministries, which is the subject of Template_talk:RationalWiki_MainPage/AccordingTo#Objective_Ministries. I used that website in my item about laundry baskets.
Normally, when I cite something from CP, I refer to the specific version from the history, to get around the possibility that they will "fix" the problem. (Though they never do; They are totally clueless.) Is it unfair to do this? Should we criticize only the current version of CP? Is it unfair to criticize a snapshot from an awkward moment? We clearly shouldn't cite short-lived instants of vandalism, but things that stay around for any period of time should be OK. Remember, the entire CP web site is, IMHO, a parody. Andy & Co. are responsible for what appears there, however stupid it is. They are responsible for the atmosphere that attracts that kind of garbage. They are directly responsible for putting most of it in. They are responsible for reverting and blocking stuff that they think would embarrass them. They watch over things very closely, blocking people for the slightest infraction, and only allowing edits at times of day when they can watch. So I don't have any sympathy for them regarding anything that they don't revert immediately.
The line about "she has been blessed" was present from 13:10, 6 April to 03:46 on 10 April. No sysop edited during that time. So it doesn't fully meet User:human's criterion above, but it comes close. What do people think regarding this issue? (Other than that I'm long-winded.) SJIHAS 16:38, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Liberal hypocrisy[edit]

"CP considers actors portraying characters who indulge in activities which, in real life, the actor personally disagrees with, a form of Liberal hypocrisy. Presumably, Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite for not REALLY being a serial-killing cannibal. Karajou makes a fool of himself trying to justify this ignorance."

I tryed to help by getting rid of the statement on the CP page, but alas Karajou reverted, locked the page, and banned me. So much for trying to help. Tesfan 12:41, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Number of items[edit]

I know it's difficult, being that there are so many examples in any given day... But are we sticking to the whole five items on the according to page... Personally, I think it could stand some more items.....

Personally, I think it could a lot less CP. Too much CP. Use "best of CP" for most of them. Too much CP. humanbe in 01:29, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Also, we need to start archiving the page, as it's getting rather large. No rush though, ideas? humanbe in 20:16, 28 July 2007 (CDT)


More RobS paranoia--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:15, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Saw this... http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:SumsUp&oldid=255892


More from Liberal Hypocrisy[edit]

Apparantly appearing in Supersize Me and eating fast food to demonstrate its harmful effects prevents you from suing McDonalds to stop it spreading childhood obesity [3]

Supposed Parody[edit]

This was added, it didn't seem to fit, so I moved it here: (This is a parody, see http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/daylight.asp) — Unsigned, by: Pinto's5150 / talk / contribs

We probably edit conflicted while I rewrote the Snopes link part. It's ok, even though not really what someone "thinks". Hopefully it will roll off the "current" ticker soon enough anyway. Feel free to demote the whole item if you want, of course. humanbe in 13:42, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

TK and Talk pages[edit]

Shouldn't that be in Best of CP or What's Going on at CP? It doesn't strike me as something we can really refute, it's just TK being a hypocrite again. Same goes for Karajou and the FBI investigation stuff. I was under the impression the "According to" section was more for anti-science and bizarrities, rather than internal CP politics. --Kels 12:16, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I did tole sjhihas (?) about Conservapedia:FBI so, hopefully, his rich data will be incorporated there soon. And, yeah, pointing out that TK is a dick doesn't belong here, but at Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia. humanbe in 12:22, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
TK removing stuff from user/user talk/talk pages could almost become its own article by now - he certainly did it often enough. --Sid 15:15, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Repackaging the Conservapedia material[edit]

The discussion just above this (TK and talk pages) brings up a very general issue that has had me perplexed for a while. What is the "charter" of RW, and how big a role does CP play in it? The main page gives a very general, and very admirable, charter: We are here to refute the anti-science movement. As such, we should be going after AiG, CreationWiki, and all that kind of stuff. Secondarily, we should be going after authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and crank ideas.

So why are we obsessed with CP?

  • Many of us are refugees from CP.
  • Andy's and his friends' faults are out there in the open, much more in our faces than what's in AiG or Bill O'Reilly.
  • Most importantly, in my opinion: Conservapedia is a living, breathing thing! (The comparison to a schlock horror movie is unmistakable.) The difference between CP and AiG is the difference between watching a live debate on television and reading a weekly newsmagazine. Furthermore, there is two-way immediacy. They watch us, and we can provoke them and watch them respond (and vice-versa). We can welcome new refugees, and try to recruit them.

I, for one, plead massively guilty to this, and I like to see the latest CP goings-on on the front page. I think others do, too, and that means the "according to (ahem) some people" section. That's probably why that section has so many references to CP.

Here's what I would suggest: Try to segregate the CP material, but give it its own prominent area of the front page. We have pages about "What's going on at CP" and "Best of CP" and the "CP portal", but they require additional clicks to get to. So people just put the latest FBI news in the "Ahem" section. Suppose we had a "CP News" section sort of like the "Ahem" section, with a guideline that people don't put CP things into "Ahem". This would replace the "CP / CP portal" part of the "Featured Content" section. It would have a few news bullets, just as the "Ahem" section does, and some pointers to good stuff, such as the Conservapedia:Best_of_Conservapedia and maybe something like a stripped-down Conservapedia Portal. We could also take out the "Boycott of CP" section. SJIHAS 20:47, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I understand and appreciate what you are saying - very well. How about a "sticky" link to "best of CP" at the top or bottom of "according to"? So instead of cluttering up "according" to with CP crap, there'd always be a link to the latest silliness there? To me, this sounds perfect, but then, I think I am so smaht sometimes it blinds me. humanbe in 20:54, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've done it. As they say at Wikipedia: Be Bold. Even if you're a newbie. I hope you all like it and will let it continue this way. The point of all this is to make all the really good essays, from Category:Conservapedia concentrated in one place and accessible in one click. I've brought over some of the better essays from that category to Category:Conservapedia Craziness -- more need to be recategorized. SJIHAS 13:41, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

It's just been suggested to me, by User:Thunderkatz, on my talk page, that the "wisdom of the sages" material be moved from the right side to the left side to help balance things out after my change. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about wiki formatting to do this. Would someone who knows their way around please do this? Thanks. SJIHAS 13:47, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Bush 4 Prez-4-Life![edit]

Just think--the fascist dingbat who wrote that insane screed probably gets paid more money in a month that most Americans will make all year. --Gulik 16:03, 18 August 2007 (CDT) (And it is worth reading--just to understand a bit better how these people 'think'.)

My G** -are theyfor real? Imagine Maggie Thatcher Premier for life! Keep garlic for vampires 16:17, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

They for real, as pointed out on the according to page FSM is a front group for Center for Security Policy which has membership of all the whose who in DC right wing politics including Iraq war advisers and the vice president himself. tmtoulouse harass 16:26, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
I believe this is what's known in the business as a "trial balloon". --Kels 11:48, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Slime-Snake-Monkey-People?[edit]

Namecalling as a method of archeological debate. Whacky. He says Greek art retells the story of Genesis, only with the snake as the good guy. Wouldn't that make them Satanists? (And if the Greeks got THAT right, why'd they skip the part about worshipping JHVH-1, and kowtow to Zeus & co. instead?) However, the article gets one thing right: it suggests calling Darwinists "Mutants". As a paid-up member of the Church of the SubGenius, I have ZERO objection to making my status as a Superior Mutant public knowledge to the Merehumes.  :D --67.102.192.7 16:40, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Redefining terms is also a standard practice in persuasion, especially if you can put your desired connotation on things. Creationists seem to like it, too--hence why the connotation-neutral scientist becomes "evolutionist" or "evolution scientist" or "Darwinist" or "atheist." I don't think "slime-snake-monkey people" will stick--not pithy enough. Sterileblah, blah, blah 16:49, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
We could call Creationists "Mudmen", since that'show they think God made Adam...or we could just keep curbstomping them with FACTS, which is more fun. --67.102.192.7 17:25, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
If anyone can find a legal X-Men picture, I want to make a "this user is a mutant" userbox.--MountainTiger 17:30, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
Just use rashfly's ugly mugshot. Better yet, make a triple-helix image... which reminds me, we should rename "ACD:" to "ACTG:"... humanbe in 19:18, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
How about this handsome specimen? Metaluna-mutant.jpg
(I like him better'n Andy, anyway....) --Gulik 20:29, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

The title[edit]

For the current use of this template the header "according to" doesn't make much sense. If there are no objections I will change it to something like "On the right end of the world..." ɧєɭıסş-get sunburn! 00:22, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Change = OK if you must (I guess some entries aren't "according to" anyone?). But, let's come up with something good to change it to, first? We are not here to attack the right wing except when they endorse bad science etc., so how about... (strikeout bad ones, add more ideas):
  • From the Looney Bin
  • Tales From the Cryptic
  • The World Is Not Sane Yet!
  • No Asylum for Stupidity
  • According to (ahem) Some People (yes, I still like it...) humanbe in 00:37, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
  • News from Planet Conservative? --Gulik 01:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
  • We don't agree, so it must be false!
or
  • These people disagree with us, they must be idiots Bohdan10 01:22, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
I like the looking glass one. Or,
  • Through a Glass, Darkly.
Planet C., no go, there are left wing bad science people too.
  • Under Milk Woodpiles
  • Bohdan feels sorry for These People
  • Bad Science Roll Call
  • Bohdan's Bagatelles of Boffiness humanbe in 01:41, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
I will be honest, the best one for your purposes is probably "bad science roll call". But that last one, whatever it means, sounds good too. Bohdan11
Thanks, at least it avoids namecalling. You can have the bagatelles one. Boffin is british slang for scientist. I think bagatelles are jewelly things, but you might want to ask teh intertubes. Perhaps B's Bs of Bness are the Bohdan Clone Mob? humanbe in 01:51, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Problem is we often through in crazy political or cultural stuff as well. tmtoulouse harass 01:47, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Ohhh, you mean throw? Or are you once again intentionally perverting the English language? Bohdan 01:49, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Get in the box. Now. tmtoulouse harass 01:50, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
I utterly refuse. Make Human go in there. he'd probably like it. Bohdan12
Hmmm, bagatelle is a table game or something. Bohdan13
  • Crazy Stuff Roll Call humanbe in 01:56, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

"Through the looking glass", or, similarly, Wonderland! Keep æ not e 05:28, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Or even: "(Adventures in) Wonderland" Keep æ not e 05:34, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Vaccination = witchcraft[edit]

If ever there was a reason for abrogation of the right of freedom of speech, that madman with the anti-vaccination site would be at its head. (Bad english but they make me so mad.) Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 20:48, 29 August 2007 (CDT) ps. could someone archive some of this page please?