Talk:Main Page/Archive10

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)(back)

409 more days?

Wasn't this US Presidential Elections? Editor at CP 09:00, 8 December 2007 (EST)

No I think it's 'til January 21st, 2009--the day a new President takes office. --Gulik 12:57, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Ok, makes sense. I vaguely remembered that (s)he takes office in January, but my mathematical skills put 409 days into February 2009. Maybe I should take a mathematics course at CP. Editor at CP 13:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)

It is possible I screwed up the formula... Sterile^{minichatroomthingy} 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

According to this page, I've carried the ones correctly. Sterile^{minichatroomthingy} 15:43, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Fuckabee

Actually, the odd thing is, they don't much like him over at CP (at least Andy doesn't, and it's his blog). Andy has made several anti-Huckabee posts. I don't think there's a single candidate batshit crazy enough for Andy, and any questions addressing who the preferred candidate over there are met with reversions and blocks (Ed even said the question was "offensive"). I'm trying to imagine who could get their approval, other than the crusty old bitch herself. Bauer? Alan Keyes (if he were slightly more melatonin-deficient)? Brownback (if B4B were a real thing and not a parody perhaps)? Helms? The reanimated corpse of Joe McCarthy? Torquemada? DickTurpis 14:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure I agree - CP's entry on Huck is pretty hagiographic, and he and the Moron...errrrrr. Mormon seem to get an equal amount of favourable coverage on the front page.PFoster 15:33, 8 December 2007 (EST

In endorsing Huckabee, Andy (of Trenton, NJ) has gone against his mom who thinks Huckabee single-handedly destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas. Of course I can't say how I know this or even if it is true. So it may be pure conjecture from reading between the lines. :( Genghis ^Marauding 16:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Back in May I tried to start discussion of the candidates across the field, pro and con, etc., but everyone started messing with the "other side's" pages and they all got deleted from my user space due to some whiner complaining that I had "threatened to delete [his] comments". Ah, doze were duh daze... human 18:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Liberapedia

That place is so sexy! 77.99.57.229 15:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hell YA! --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 11:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)

we have a problem.

Look at all the trolls...

Only 8/50ths of our new users give a crap and/or arent here to spew global warming denialsim / white supremecy / general riff-raff. I feel we need a better system or something, but have no ideas what to do. However, I know we are against permanent bans, but I really don't see the big deal with permabanning people like this and this. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 21:33, 8 December 2007 (EST)

THE GLOBAL WARMING DENALISTS ARE KNIGHTS OF TRUTH! 12.75.66.228 21:43, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I don't see why this is a problem. If we permaban them, they'll just come back in some other guise through some other proxy. Short bans are good policy, 'cos it makes it easy to spot abuse of power. Permabans stick out like a sore thumb on the recent changes list, and they get scrutinised. Compare conservapedia where perma- or five year bans are the norm. No one notices if the user was really a vandal, or just someone with a different point of view. Also, permabans haven't had any noticeable impact on the rate of vandalism and trolling at conservapedia. I say let the silly user names accumulate, they have short attention spans, and it's just a few extra bytes in the database. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 21:42, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I see ur point. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 21:49, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Although I think some RULES might be in order: Limit names to (say) 20 chars, block names beginning "my password", block names all caps. Just 'cause they get on my nerves. Otherwise let 'em all come. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:18, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I got a two-month ban at CP with my first ID and moved on. Quite frankly, is any troll/vandal going to say "Ah shucks, I've been banned for 5 years. I guess I'll have to go away mend, change my ways and come back then". Even a month is probably quite enough to put most people off I would have thought, unless they are vain enough to insist on the same user name wherever they go. However, some user names really get on my tits and I would support Susan on that. Genghis ^Marauding 05:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

IF NEO-NAZI VIEWPOINTS ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED WRONG AND UNPOPULAR, DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED EQUAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH?! ^{— Unsigned, by: 12.75.66.228 / talk / contribs}

Seeing as we're not the US Congress and we're not making any laws, I guess it doesn't apply here. --Kels 22:02, 8 December 2007 (EST)

So is that what your saying? Neo-nazis are denied the right to freedom of speech? ^{— Unsigned, by: 12.75.66.228 / talk / contribs}

Eat UDHR Article 29.2, dude. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

SIGN for pete's sake, it's not hard to do. And to your question, ask the owner of the site. His rules. Norseman^Wassail! 22:15, 8 December 2007 (EST)

My opinion---indeed, neo-nazi's are allowed freedom of speech in public fora. This is not one of those so we may censor you as much as we wish. Fuck off.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 22:21, 8 December 2007 (EST)

May I come into your house and SHOUT "ALL RIGHT WING WAZZOCKS SHOULD BE SENT TO GUANTANAMO" ? No? How strange! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:23, 8 December 2007 (EST)

You have freedom of speech, yes, but you don't have the freedom to put it into the mainspace, and represent it as our speech. Feel free to write teh essays, but mainspace is unabashedly mission-specific, unless I'm very wrong...-αmεσ (spy)

I'm not supportive of putting it there either, honestly. If he wants to set up his own site, then by all means. Have fun. But why should we be his hosting service? --Kels 22:33, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I think the essay template, and possibly a new "whackjob alert" template, would be enough to make me feel close to okay about it.-αmεσ (spy) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I'm with Ames. If the things they say can be refuted, why not give them the opportunity to say them so that we can refute them? If we censor this point of view then they could quite reasonably claim that we have have no rational answer. We have allowed the essay namespace to be used to present and debate the weird religious and social viewpoints of Heart of Gold; Elassint's New World Order considerations; and childish stuff on global Warming denialism. Indeed, the essay namespace was created, in part, to allow non-community beliefs a an opportunity to be heard and presumably refuted. Furthermore it should be a check against Groupthink. In truth, I have not seen a single post here by any neo-nazi which is even equal to the three poor examples above so it should make for pretty simple refuting anyway.--Bob^{bing up} 08:29, 9 December 2007 (EST)

You know what annoys me more then red links?

PURPLE LINKS. How do i get rid of them? --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 15:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Which browser do you use? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:54, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Firefox. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi!

Hahahahaha. Purple links are blue links you have visited. You might be able to alter that in your browser prefs. Not sure if there is a way in your wiki user prefs. human 16:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Nah, I think it has to be done in the browser. It you go to Tools > Options > Content tab and click the Colours button, you can change the colour for Visited Links. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:27, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I tried that and it did not work. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 16:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)

In that case, you probably also have to uncheck "Allow pages to choose their own colours", but that'll probably get rid of more than just the links colours. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Yeesh, no needs to mess up your browser settings. Just poke your Monobook.css file here on-wiki to change the link color... give me a moment to experiment, then I'll give you details... --Sid 16:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)

...are user styles actually enabled here? Could somebody with power check if they're enabled? Not sure if I'm just doing something wrong or not... --Sid 16:58, 9 December 2007 (EST)

In the meantime, my personal solution is to use Stylish - it's very handy because it also allows you to manipulate CSS on any site. I use it to remove the silly "supreme court" and "american government" boxes on CP, for example. To change the link color, just use

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain("www.rationalwiki.com") {
a:visited { color: #xxyyzz !important; }
}

With any color code in the place of the #xxyyzz. Should do the trick. --Sid 17:21, 9 December 2007 (EST)

>_> _Nerd. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:19, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The proper term is "desperate". :P I only started using Stylish back when CP's new default theme kicked in and combined nice overall design with really weird color choices (IMHO) for diffs. --Sid 18:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

That got old

I got tired of posting on everyone's talk pages, so hi to evergyone I missed! ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 01:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

General Request for Comments

Does anyone who's neither TK nor a neonazi have a problem with the way this place is run, mobocracy-wise? If so, I'd like to hear and I and others will try to fix it up. Warning: exceedingly insightful commentary may result in bannination (jk!) -αmεσ (spy) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm. On the whole I would answer "no, but...." The arbitrary boycott decision last week kind of put me off - and so I ignored it and had a lot of fun trolling about dead dinosaurs and dead Indians and got Andy and PJR to say some stupid things. Yay for me. But I didn't appreciate a boycott being imposed from above like that.

On another, not-entirely-related-to-mobocracy-but-still-sort-of-related issue. I had a chat with TK last night, and we agreed on one thing. Some people here, as much as some people at CP, are guilty of forgetting that there is a human being at the other end of the internet. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else - and I want to retract comments I've made about "alleged human beings" and stuff like that. It does little good - and ultimately stifles debate - to call someone a "moron," even if they are saying some stupid shit.

So maybe think of this as a call for a new civility. Just throwing it out there. PFoster 10:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I take issue with the over-abundance of goats and the shortage of Long-eared jerboas. I realise this a minority view, and fully expect to be banned for expressing it. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 10:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I have no problems. I think what we do and how we do it are very necessary. I don't quite agree with PFoster. These people are destructive to humanity. I wish that we could debate, show them the error of their ways, and be done with it. Unfortunately, it'll never be that simple. I have found time and again that ridicule is a very effective way of getting through to someone. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 10:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)

A problem here is that there are too many Edgerunners and not enough PFosters (metaphorically speaking). You take yourself much too seriously to believe that you are "getting through to someone" or making any difference, period. The ridicule is fun and usually deserved but whenever opportunities for dialog happen some people won't dial back their mockery for a while.

Second complaint is that whenever some debate does get going, it takes about 10 minutes for someone to come along and shout "Troll!" to shut discussion down. There should be a ban on using that word. You don't want some CPer or whoever to keep you from the important work of the site? Puleese!!

Otherwise, no complaints!! 204.187.154.49 11:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, i agree with 204.187.154.49. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 11:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Once I opened a debate here, Debate:Who consults Conservapedia?. To be honest, I can't see many people coming to RW either, apart from some of us CP emigrèes and possibly from a couple of other friendly wikis. RW doesn't attract the hordes of curious people CP does. Editor at CP 12:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)

EDIT: it is redlinked, I don't anymore remember its location... Editor at CP 12:12, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Fixed it. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! - Thanks! Editor at CP 12:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I'm with Edge, I don't think these 'people' are worthy of rational argument. They do troll, inserting opinion on their own pet subject & expecting it to be accepted without comment. If they are prepared to engage in discussion, fair enough, but expecting assertion to be taken as fact is not on. I believe that the American Religious right is one of the worst things on the planet and their beliefs (anti -birth control, anti -abortion, anti -man made global warming etc. Ad nauseam) will would, if allowed to go unchecked, will bring about the end of humanity. Of course that won't bother those waiting for the Rapture. They should be ridiculed and put down at every oppportunity without any thought for their feelings.

As to the site: It's very much an in crowd place with little to attract new editors - the percentage of jokes & references to things only known to long term editors must put visitors off. There are very few serious articles being started - most seem to be relegated to Fun within hours. We need to re-examine and enforce the mission. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 12:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)

When you single out the American Religious Right it makes me think you just have a particular axe to grind. Unfortunately, there are a hell of a lot of people who aren't ARR but are still anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-man made global warming, anti-women and a whole lot of other terrible things. 204.187.154.49 12:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Don't worry - when Shariapedia or the like comes along, we'll be there. PFoster 12:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I gather that there is a definite mission for RW? Is it to just be a counterpoint to Conservapedia, or to be a general site for 'rational' information, or both? I'd say let's decide this once and for all. I much prefer the first, with rational, scientific point-to-point articles as direct answers to CP articles. For generic rational information, it is difficult to beat Wikipedia, even with its conservative, fundamentalist christian, anti-scientific bias. But I'll leave it to the Inner Circle of the Goat Cabal - I am just an Editor at CP 12:34, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The mission is on the front page: Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes the following: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. The thing is that we want to be more than a counterpoint to CP. As far as our difference to WP is concerned we do have a point of view where they try not to. We try a skeptical rational point of view.--Bob^{bing up} 12:49, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Who reas Wiki Main pages anyway? I jump directly to Main page talk, WIGO or Recent changes. ;-) I stand by my point, that there is no point (pun intended) in trying to be so much. Is anybody realistically reading, consulting RW for information, even RW editors? A factual article gets read in opposition to a CP article. Is it not so? Editor at CP 13:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Resorting to ridicule instead of rational arguments just contributes to the problem. We need to encourage rational thought and discourse no matter the situation if we expect to do any good anywhere. If we don't do that and instead continue with unrestrained ridicule, all we do is further isolate the two sides of whatever argument, which simply entrench themselves deeper in their position. If we're truly rational, egalitarian-minded people here, we have to respect -all- people. GrandSoviet 12:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

First of all, I'm sure no one "consults" RW the way Andy insists they do for CP. We're not an encyclopedia, we're really a forum, so the comparison is moot. As for whether the opposition deserves to be treated like humans, I say yes, they do. We are rational people and should treat people rationally. However, when someone proves that they have no interest in discussion or trying to be civil, and would decides they would rather insult and put down large groups of people and individuals as stupid and evil, then we no longer need to treat them with civility either. I'm basiclly talking about Andy and Rob here. There's a bit of hope for the others but not for them. Both have made it perfectly let that anyone who disagrees with them on any matter is close-minded, stupid, evil, a liar, or probably all of them. They are useless people who are a waste of solid matter. I have no problem treating them as such. DickTurpis 12:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I will have you know that RationalWiki is consulted by casual internet users for several important topics. We are one of the top clicked through sites for searches on donair sauce recipes and the top click through for questions regarding colonics and goats. 75.161.38.244 12:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Dick - up to a certain point I would've agreed with you - but last night I had a conversation with someone I have repeatedly slagged in this forum and I realised that yeah, he's said some things I find really objectionable, but he's still a human being and therefore as such is entitled to a bottom line of respect. As are Andy and Rob. I guess we can debate where that line falls, but if they don't act like they are meritorious of such a thing, that does not oblige me to sink to their level. PFoster 12:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

• While I know that not everyone does this, I think that the whole going to CP and vandalizing it should stop or at least be cut back on, because 1.)it doesn't last and 2.)it makes people take legitimate points brought up here less seriously. I have no problem with reporting on when they lie/make up facts/misinterpret things/etc, or with going and trying to engage in debate with them (even though they make it nearly impossible), but I think that the vandalism should be cut down. --BillOhannity 12:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, I can't respect anyone who puts forward ideas like creationism or treats global warming as a matter for making political capital. Belief in the verbatim of the writings of bronze age also inspires nothing but contempt. I do not believe that they are any more likely to be impressed with any argument we can put forward than I am by theirs. The irrationality of these science deniers is beyond all argument. I don't know how to counter them but ridicule has been a useful tactic for years - used by them as much as by us (monkey trials!). The more their ideas can be laughed at, the less they are likely to be taken seriously. Sorry I do tend to ramble. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 12:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)

• First, I'm glad that people are taking this seriously. Yay! And, I agree with Bill OHannity that the vandalism should end ~ it ended for me and a lot of others earlier, but what remains should probably cease as well. And, while I agree with PFoster that it's important to remember the humanity in our relationship with our ideological opposites, I think we should remember that politeness and decency are not a suicide pact. This is to say that I'm all in favor of treating the other side with respect (as insane as their "ideas" may be), to the extent that, and slightly more than, they treat us with respect. In fact, I've been speaking with some Conservapedia sysops about trying to restore or build mutual respect between our Wikis.
• However, I don't think that that golden rule extends to people like TK. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. Myself and a lot of others on this site have had extensive experience with him, and politeness and decency simply don't work with him. Strictly speaking, he's a lacuna in the moral fabric of our society. He's the 2/3 of the reason for our acrimonious relationship with Conservapedia. He spawns drama and antagonism for his personal pleasure, and to the extent that some of us have nice relationships with him now (good for you), I can personally guarantee you that, from experience, he's merely using temporary politeness to attract allies for his next explosion of drama. Honestly, he's best ignored, rather than confronted, so the moral dilemma of how to treat someone like that just doesn't come up.-αmεσ (spy) 12:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Spoken like someone who truly has something to hide! 204.187.154.49 13:17, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. Lurker 12:57, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with Ames, and with his agreeing with me. I don't "apostrophesize" Ohannity, though, get your facts straight. I DO, however, make up words like "apostrophesize". --BillOhannity 13:05, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Corrected, and I agree with Bill agreeing with me agreeing with him.-αmεσ (spy) 13:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I accept that everyone is "wired" in their own unique way. But, despite being unique, they can come together in broad categories. My worry is that the category that is not me(shameless plug/joke) will bring about the destruction of myself and the things I care about. What's worse is that when I look at the conservative religious nuts, I see people who look forward to that destruction with a glee of inevitability. That scares me. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 12:58, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I agree that, as a community, we should neither encourage or endorse vandalism.--Bob^{bing up} 13:02, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I believe that I might not have gotten my idea of ridicule across very well. Vandalism should stop and I don't think of it as ridicule. I do consider WIGO to be ridicule of CP. I'm not advocating ridicule simply to be hurtful. I advocate ridicule for things that are worthy of ridicule. I see us as witnesses to CP's craziness. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I agree about wandalism, and I think most of us refrain from it. I make the exception for the occasional piece of well-done parody, however. If they notice it and decide it's worthy of inclusion, can it really be vandalism? And I don't mean joke articles like cp:Sir Farnaby Widdecombe (do they fact check anything over there?), I mean adding slightly more batshit crazy stuff to articles than what they already have, as sort of a litmus test to see how far they are willing to go. It might be counterproductive to our efforts to make the world a more sane and rational place, but it is fun and telling to add Stephen Hawking to a list on non-intellectuals (clearly he's no Reagan) and watch the pitiful reasons for his inclusion be endorsed by the least intellectual people on the planet. The stupid puerile stuff (replacing pages with swears ad the like) we should refrain from, and I'm pretty sure that'snot us who's doing it. We shouldn;t and don't endorse it at least. DickTurpis 13:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)

CP does rigorous fact-checking! Every article is scrutinized for any trace of facts, which will be removed upon detection. :-P --Gulik 15:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

On this I agree with Edge - I just posted a WIGO, and will continue to do so in the future. If someone makes a bizarre claim, it's okay to point it out. What I'd like to see is WIGO as a starting point for a debate on these bizarre claims, as opposed to the endpoint of "Andy's dumb" that it represents now. PFoster 13:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

How anyone can contemplate any agreement with A Schlafly on any subject I don't know. The man, and his blog, are beyond any possible rapprochement (is that the word?). We have to remember that that's what CP is - it's his blog, for promulgating his ideas. Vaccinaion, Dawkins, Bible literalism etc. are his ideas and they are being inserted into the "encyclopædia" under the blanket of other factual items (which are generally either cut & pastes or less than dictionary definitions) in the hope that they'll be accepted. His constant political rants as in the school shootings, without regard for the victims, is sickening. He allows his minions a free hand as long as they are following the party line (Conservative & homosexuality!). Even his vaunted articles on the US Supreme Court are totally laced with his right wing ideology. He pronounces on subjects of which he has no evidence (abortion -> breast cancer). The list of ridiculous positions taken goes on and on, I tire of (re)iterating them. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 13:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I think WIGO is important part of RW. I would never argue for its removal.--Bob^{bing up} 13:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Since the writer's strike started, WIGO has become a primary source of amusement, and I would weep for its loss.-αmεσ (spy) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I do support one type of vandalism. What I call Progressive offensiveness. I like to see offensive (or at least what should be offensive to a reasonable person) material inserted into CP articles. Then see it ramped up until it become offensive even to CP sysops. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

That's sort of what I'm talking about. When it gets so bad that they can't tell what's parody and what's real on their own site, then they have truly lost. DickTurpis 13:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I would just add the following for people's contemplation:

• Follow the white rabbit
• Faux News
• Darkmatter
• RWW
• Koch
• Haggard
• Hitchens
• Validity
• Penis
• HRC
• Specificity
• Regression
• Gaia
• Reason
• AFA
• FSM
• Taslima Nasrin
• Signature
• Jersey
• Weiner

We do focus on CP, no matter what we say our mission is. Whenever it drifts away, it usually ends up drifting back in a week or two. I'd love us to get away from CP, but I don't think it'll happen. But that does tie the future of this wiki to CP, which I think is bad, and I am bored of the constant probing of their site. Just ignore the damn thing. We probably do more to promote it than you think. Sterile^{minichatroomthingy} 13:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I somewhat like that we promote them. I think that neocons, religious righters, or whatever term you want to use have controlled their message so that most people don't see the craziness that truly defines them. My hope is that more people who become aware of CP will be turned off by it rather than agreeing with it. I hope. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I do hope it's alright that we troll ...other sites? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

GRfC Part 2

Splitting for ease of editing...

I would present for your interest as another window into RW:

1. Conservapedia ‎(350 revisions)
2. Global flood ‎(323 revisions)
3. Main Page ‎(320 revisions)
4. Evidence against a recent creation ‎(250 revisions)
5. Intelligent design and academic freedom ‎(202 revisions)
6. Metapedia ‎(187 revisions)
7. Global warming ‎(159 revisions)
8. Blogs 4 Brownback ‎(154 revisions)
9. Andrew Schlafly ‎(153 revisions)
10. Goat ‎(152 revisions)
11. Greatest liberal songs ‎(116 revisions)
12. Lists of pseudosciences ‎(106 revisions)
13. Behe:The Edge of Evolution, Interview ‎(106 revisions)
14. Bible ‎(105 revisions)
15. Non-materialist neuroscience ‎(105 revisions)
16. List of Conspiracy Theories ‎(105 revisions)
17. Richard Dawkins ‎(100 revisions)
18. Vaccine hysteria ‎(100 revisions)
19. Tower of Babel ‎(99 revisions)
20. HIV denial ‎(93 revisions)

I suspect these might be mainspace-only, since WIGO CP surely has a zillion revs.

Anyway, one reason WIGO gets so many hits is it a news ticker type article - it gets added to several times a day, and also, I suspect every time someone "votes" on the poll arrows, it gets "hit" again.

On another topic, I noticed a complaint about the last boycott, which was promulgated with virtually no discussion. However, the only "real" effect was that someone locked WIGO and it wasn't updated for a week. The boycott itself was fully voluntary and no one was belittled for breaking it or even ignoring it. It was well known that some people were still going there, and suggestions were made as to how to preserve their pet WIGO items.

Still, a few days discussion about it would have made more sense, since there are times when things are really cooking over there. I guess. Mostly I see more, more, more of the same old shit I've been seeing since I was sent there in March. With a the occasional new twists from ashfly - his sign off slowly changes, and he adds new pet phrases and essays to use in his "rebuttals".

As far as how RW is run? The only observation I really have is that the "mob" thing seems to work - most "changes" in policy get discussed ad infinitum, and if a consensus really is reached, we tend to follow it. If not, we just go about things our own way. EG, there have been several suggestions to try to reduce vandalism, all involving making editing harder for noobs/IPs. None ever fly. We do seem to have agreed on how much we limit neo-nazi propaganda and hate speech, though.

Oh, and would the IPs above please identify themselves as "not TK or nazis" per the original question? human 14:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Human, could I ask you to also echo my skepticism of TK? I want to make sure the point about his evil is made & clear to new editors.-αmεσ (spy) 15:01, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Ames, your skepticism of me is self-induced because of your own treachery, and I assume guilt over having given your word many times, and always betrayed that trust through some "misunderstanding". Pity you don't ever live up to the standards you set for others, eh? New editors, those with a brain, actually contact me, and perhaps you, and judge who is actually for real. Perhaps they find both of us "real" and don't see the need for your endless attacks. Attacks you make for your own actions and words, publicly made with your own, real name attached to them, yet somehow angry someone would dare to state the obvious, that they could sometime, in someway, come back to haunt you. Grow up. --TK_/MyTalk 15:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Duly echoed. Sorry, I thought it went without saying. What's a "TK"? human 15:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Thirded, for what it's worth. Evil's way too strong, but I could expound at length on what I see as firm evidence of a personality disorder. Potted version: craves attention and influence; manipulative and disruptive; no sign of guilt or remorse re. such behaviour. --Robledo 16:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I normally try to stay out of these sorts of discussions (well, excepting to promote long-eared jerboas) but I'd like to say two things:

1) Is it a big deal that nobody but a small group of people read this site? We have no ego invested in "this site is going rapidly" type mental masturbation. Yes, it's important to get people to understand that science and reason are the way in which our society has and will progress, and that superstition and voluntary ignorance are the enemies of reason. But lets not fool ourselves, this site isn't ever going to be a big and important part of that fight. Have fun with it, write what makes you feel happy. Take the piss out of Conservapedia and don't feel bad about it, because that's one of the things a site like this can use to differentiate itself.

2) I find some of the things said above a bit disturbing. In my opinion, one of the worst thing that has happened to politics is that both electorate and politicians have lost the faith that almost everyone wants the best for their fellow man. The bitterness of attack politics really depresses me. Yes, Conservatives have misguided ideas about how to change the world for the better, but most Conservatives really do want the best for people. Lets not get in to the situation where we're using "Conservative" as a byword for evil. There are arseholes who happen to be Conservatives, most of the population of Conservapedia would be an example. Never forget these people are the exception and not the rule. People who think like these arseholes are in power at the moment too in the US, but hold on to the idea that in democracies power tends to be cyclical. They'll be gone soon, and in the mean time the best we can do is to continue to point out how stupid, misguided and dangerous their ideas are, and try to keep the damage they do to a minimum.

I guess my main message is have fun, and don't let the bastards grind you down. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 15:17, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I agree. Usually when someone starts a "hate on the cons" article I mirror it with a "hate on the libs" version. We have several great editors who are far from the con-hating lib position, and I'd hate to lose them. human 15:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I have to disagree with Jeeves. I feel that conservatives want the best for themselves and if that makes things better for someone else, they're happy about that too. If someone gets fucked, they figure that they must of diserved it, so fuck'em. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 16:52, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The conservatives feel the same way about us liberals. "Blah blah blah liberals blah blah entitlement programs, they're so greedy, those libs just want a bunch of government handouts." Know what I mean? I think you should read this article. It's highly relevant. GrandSoviet 18:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)

random news story i found

Social Security: Five Myths and a Slur

The above link kept giving me errors when I opened it in a new window so I changed it to this Genghis ^Marauding 15:34, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Colorado church shootings

I see that they ID'd him and that he had worked at one of the places. Am I no better than Andy when I hope that he had been homeschooled? I feel dirty, but I can't help myself. 20.137.52.231 15:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

An asshole with a grudge and a gun, is just that. No matter where he was educated. No different than someone randomly doing drive-by postings insulting others or spreading gossip or downright false information. One won't kill you, but insofar as it diminishes all of civilization and civil discourse, perhaps the later is more damaging than the former. --TK_/MyTalk 15:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I dunno about you, but I'd rather be insulted than shot. By a fairly wide margin. human 15:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Am I being old fashioned in recalling the saying:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"

Unfortunately people feel insulted very easily nowadays and tend to respond in a disproportionate fashion (Danish Mohammed cartoons for example). Genghis ^Marauding 15:42, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. A biccie to dunk n their tea to anyone who can source that. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 15:49, 10 December 2007 (EST)

It's that guy from Asimov's Foundation books - the first one, I believe. I couldn't tell you any more without googling/wping it though :(. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Hari Seldon, isn't it? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:53, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Prayer, the last refuge of a villain. - Lisa Simpson. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 16:57, 10 December 2007 (EST)

That's it. 1/2 a biccie each! As a lifelong coward and small wimpy female I've always tried to live by it. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 16:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for that, that name evokes something to me, after... n years! (I don't want to disclose my age). Strange that of my youth readings, I have returned to Sherlock Holmes often but never to Asimov. By chance, at the moment I'm living at my parents house, that is my childhood home. Tonight I'll go look to my old Asimovs. SORRY FOR THE OT! Editor at CP 15:58, 10 December 2007 (EST)

But Goat forbid we get guns off the street.... That would open us all up to be killed. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:07, 10 December 2007 (EST) (Anybody can pull a trigger accross the room, but it takes a real man to get up close and stab somebody - Dr. Christopher Rock, PHD)

Lots of new information tonight, guys. First, I should introduce myself - I'm Stryker over at CP, but I haven't been able to edit and defend against Ed Poor's ridiculously uniformed "education" on climatology and meteorology since I started the semester at Cornell University. Apparently, TK blocked ip's for all the Ivy League schools. Anyways, I thought you all my be interested in some of the new developments with this story, per this article. Apparently, an unnamed law enforcement official says that he "hated Christians," which is an interesting tidbit when you account for the shooters background. He had been thrown out of the same missionary school that he attacked, and has a brother who attends Oral Roberts University; the shooter had thought about attending the university but decided the high cost of the school wasn't worth it; he came from a "very, very religious" background back in Oklahoma. However, here's the coup de grace: "A neighbor, Cody Askeland, 19, said the brothers were home-schooled, describing the whole family as “very, very religious.”" Personally, I can't wait to see Andy's reaction to this; a home-schooled person from a religious background turned vehemently anti-religion, so much that he was willing to murder other religious people? I swear, I can hear Andy's head exploding from here in New York! Stryker 18:33, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Andy's response: "He couldn't have been homeschooled, he's too old!" GrandSoviet 19:14, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Christ on a fucking Easter stick! Andy was homskulled!!! And prowd of itt, two! human 21:01, 10 December 2007 (EST)

New path needed

I've been a lurker here for months, following what you have been doing in the 'whats going on at CP' page. I was so curious about the place that I gave it a shot when I heard what they were saying about the Nebraska killer. What I have discovered about that place is that it is run by a man with a very cold heart, and very little intellectual honesty.

On the other hand, the current tactic is simply not playing fair. I propose a new forum be set up where CP can give its major contributors a platform to discuss and debate what we find fundamentally despicable. In return, vandalism organised from RW (And please, don't even try to say you don't officially organise vandalism) will stop. Call it a truce if you will.

Instead of tactics making 'goat' one of their most viewed articles, we should send 'common-sense bots' over to their site, when they do something particularly dispicable, such as the raping of tragic murder incidents to score political bots. What do you think? MarcusCicero 08:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Maybe you are not the duplicate I thought (see your Talk page). That truce idea is nice. But it won't work. Does "for months" mean from April or later? I'd say the vast majority of contributors here started as CP editors. Some perhaps vandals, but many, "Conservative" or "Liberal", genuinely wanted to improve the project. Call it maternal instinct, call it pity for a project so openly (and rightly) laughed at. They swallowed their own political point of view and acted as "Conservatives", understanding the purpose of the wiki. It worked for a while, even Andy seemed reasonable, with some self-admitted Liberals promoted to Sysop. But it changed. Each one of them was booted from there for ridicule reasons. Their edits, even to talk pages, deleted forever. No explanations, just lies and hate. The vast conspiration that determined the Night of Blunt Knives was not so widespread. Sure, there were some vandals, but even RW has them. And even now, how much vandalism you see in CP? Editor at CP 08:32, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Marcus, I've been trying to work something like that out with a sysop at Conservapedia for the past couple of weeks; as I understand, they're still mulling it over, but the ball is officially in their court. As for the vandalism, I am certain we (as a site) don't coordinate vandalism, but we don't stop others from doing the same on our servers, if they so please. But I wholly agree with you on this new path.-αmεσ (spy) 11:30, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Nice theory, Marcus, but it won't work, and here's why: a "forum be set up where CP can give its major contributors a platform to discuss and debate" is clearly something they have no interest in participating in. If they wanted to debate us they would have banned each and every one of us from their site for doing just that over there. They are welcome to come here and defend any position for which we ridicule them or any comment we make on any relevant page, so that "forum" already exists; this is the forum. But they don't, because they are not interested in debate or rational discussion. Oh occasionally Rob or Conservative has come over here, but with Kenny it's to brag about things for which he should be embarrassed or ask rhetorical questions he's already decided the answer, nd with Rob it's just to bring his non-sequitur insult discourse to a new place. We get a few genuine comments and arguments from the fringe editors there every once in a while (Iduan was here recently, and thre are a few others) but they're the exception, and we give them the place for debate that is denied over at CP. I'd be al for "common-sense bots" (I have a suspicion that a fair number of the people who challenge him on issues ver there are RW socks) but that's a great way to get banned. I'd be over there arguing against his positions, but I've been banned for doing just that, and I'm out of IPs.

As for vandalism, well, this is an open site, so if we sanction vandalism please show me where. Yeah, some members of this site probably do vandalize over there, we can't control people's individual actions (nor would we want to). I'm sure most of the daily vandalism isn't us. You realize that CP does get a pretty fair number of hits every day, and you don't have to be a Rationawikian to find the entire site despicable? Besides, most of us suffer from outrage fatigue by now, it's got to be the newer viewers who are so disgusted by Andy's antics that they feel they need to attack the site with vandalism. So there you have it; we've doe what we can. But godspeed and welcome to th site. DickTurpis 11:36, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I concur with what many others have said. I doubt that "we" are currently responsible for the majority (or any) of the vandalism that presently afflicts CP. Equally I would not doubt that some people, especially newer contributors, who post here may be responsible for some of it - but that does not make "us" responsible as a community. As far as an open forum - I've got no objection to the idea. Ames was trying to organize such a thing as he says, but I don't hold out high hopes for it. Given our difference of opinion on sexuality, the age of the earth, evolution etc, there would be so little common ground that I'm not sure where it would start off. Still, if it works out, good idea.--Bob^{bing up} 11:56, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, Bob, it's not going well. I haven't heard back from them in a while. They refer to the remaining key Sysops (Andy, Karajou, Rob, TerryH, Ymmotrojam, Ed Poor, Geo.plrd, and a few others, but NOT Conservative, interestingly) as "The Ten," and while some of the "Ten" seem happy to make amends and have a forum like what Marcus proposed, apparently the majority is either stalling or openly hostile. So I don't expect much to come of it, unfortunately, but I'm very glad that I tried to make amends. It means that I can have, at least, a clear conscience in the matter. I think if we did get an offer like that from them, we'd maybe host the Forum, but obviously users wouldn't be compelled to participate!-αmεσ (spy) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (EST)

What I like about the forum idea is it's looking forward, and it's real discussion, which is hard on a wiki, and you can't be blocked for any 90/10 rule arbitrarily enforced (or at least I wouldn't contribute to a forum that had one). I'm tired of the blaming-thing. I do think, however, that a lot of new vandals are probably from the blog attention that has arisen in the last few weeks. I know there are some people here who do subtle vandalism over there and it should stop, but how would RW enforce that? To be honest, I think CP does a pretty good job with vandalism as it is; I don't know for sure, but I suspect they get less vandalism per edit than WP. (That does not mean I condone it...) Sterile^{minichatroomthingy} 12:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

• The forum idea has just been rejected by "The TEN" (bum bum BUM!). I think this leaves us with no choice but to claim the moral high ground, unless some other negotiated option remains. See, Tully (Marcus Cicero), I think the whole mediation, scaled-down antagonism thing would be a good idea, but we're not being met halfway, except by a few users, whose forward-thinkingness I appreciate.-αmεσ (spy) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (EST)

While I welcome(d) the idea, I have to say that their decision doesn't really surprise me. After all, if they wanted open discussion of their ideas they wouldn't block people who attempt to have them on their own site. I guess another option is to keep inviting those who are interested (a coalition of the willing, if you will) to have discussions here, where they wouldn't face the threat of being blocked? --BillOhannity 22:19, 11 December 2007 (EST)

The powerful Sysops are not willing, and those who are will soon get deletedpaged as RW vandals. Editor at CP 02:37, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Besides, they won't understand why to have a separate forum, CP is the place for such discussions. CP is open to all and doesn't block for ideological reasons. We are not talking Wikipedia here. There is that 90/10 rule, but what is an edit once in a while, and it is a flexible rule anyway. Editor at CP 02:40, 12 December 2007 (EST)

The whole reason CP exists is because these guys know that on the Internet, they'll lose a fair argument every single time. For example, in live debate, Creationists often win by superior showmanship and appeals to 'common sense', but on the Internet, where one argument can last months and all the facts in the world are a hyperlink away, they get curbstomped consistently if they don't control the forum. --Gulik 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Tully? Marcus Tullius Cicero is my name young man, and you shall call me by nothing else! (Just joking, Tully's fine :-) ) MarcusCicero 15:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Chanukah?

Isn't the more accurate name Hanukkah? Bohdan 16:46, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Actually I was wondering about that.--Bob^{bing up} 16:48, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Just different translitterations, is all. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:51, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you, Kjeldsen. But I am not a moron. Which is more accurate? Surely there is a way to tell. Bohdan 16:53, 11 December 2007 (EST)

That depends on which dialect of Hebrew you want, but I imagine the most correct would be something like Schannuckach. I don't speak Hebrew, though, so you might want to ask Wikinterpreter - he's even more of a nerd than I am. ~--AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:57, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Gee, no need to yell. Bohdan 16:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think either is more accurate than the other, but I'm pretty sure that the Ch one has two k's and not one.--BillOhannity 17:01, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I think as long as you don't spit on anyone, almost anything is valid. here's WP's take on it human 17:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Can we really trust them? They're bia... oh right, not on CP anymore. Carry on.--BillOhannity 17:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, I'd go with ḥanuka :). Note the subscript. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

SCOTUS Item has no links?

Where's the link? DogP 18:23, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Goats for a good cause - Only 58 bucks.

Just do it. Buy a goat, save a life.

Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann - Worst Persons in the World

I would assume that Keith and the Countdown staff must be at least a little aware of Conservapedia. However, you'd think that he might have mentioned it due to its utter insanity. When I think about things that people say that get them Worst Persons honors, I think about what Andy writes in the stretch of an hour (let alone a whole day). I figure that he could potentially get Worse, Worser, and Worst honors each and every night.

I'd love to see Olbermann make fun of CP and, of course, mention us in the process. Oh well. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 08:24, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It might be one of those "I'm not going to give you the satisfaction" type things. If he mentions them on the news, even criticizing them, they'll get a bunch more page hits for a few days. And on planet schlafly, that will mean that his site is growing in popularity instead of the more obvious thing, which is people wanting to see the madness with their own eyes. --BillOhannity 12:29, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Uncyclopedia

Um, guys, that ICU expires TOMORROW. By which point, if our article is not articlesque enough, it will be most likely be promptly VFD 'd. And I'm not sure what we have there right now could objectively be considered an "article". Come on people! I thought we were supposed to be masters of comedy/liberal deceit?? Well... make it funny, then!2007 (EST)

^And that was well appreciated. Anyway, it turns out the article gets an extension, so I plan to procrastinate making any improvements and than freak out again when the deadline arrives.

And on a somewhat-related... HOLY MONKEY JEEBUS WE'RE NOW #5 ON A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR "CONSERVAPEDIA"!!!111 but this time I had no hand in it...

Look, I can't pull off a Conservative-style Google-rank boost if all our links get pulled for being cruddy content. Or do I have to start sending out... important emails??? Uchiha^KATON! 19:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, I did my part and added the section on "management". human 19:33, 12 December Uchiha^KATON! 17:12, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I made some "content" on our article :-D-αmεσ (spy) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Errr, I think I broke Uncyclopedia. It's apparently down right now. Anyways, I added some more stuff and I think it's right purty now.-αmεσ (spy) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

You rock Ames. Fantastic work on the Uncyclopedia article.--Bob^{bing up} 12:52, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Indubitably! The additions to the article are great, and the template really caps it off nicely! Uchiha^KATON! 14:13, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Why does everyone here think i am a vandal?!

I AM NOT A VANDAL 67.159.50.131 15:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

That's nice to know. Why not pick a name, take out an account, pull up a goat and get to know us.PFoster 15:29, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Hi. Please answer me EndGhost 15:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I don't know. What makes you think everyone here thinks you're a vandal? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Because they reject the truth.I dunno, i was asking you! EndGhost 15:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think you are a vandal. I do, however, think every editor on here besides you is a vandal. So you might want to rethink your self-identification and become one with the group! human 15:48, 13 December 2007 (EST)

response to 12 Days Post...

I find it funny how they blame teh libruls for $4:00 a gallon gas...♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 15:53, 14 December 2007 (EST)

No no, what's better is, not only is half the group offkey, but thier attempt at "humor" Completely runined the melodic scheme of the song.... For example, the last phrase should have been "a tax hike for every fami-i-ly." Oh well, that's what happens when you cross a music major, they don't write for you SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:22, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I couldn't bring myself to listen, but the most recent alternative version of the words was pretty good (posted by Blake at 9:06 AM) human 16:25, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Don't listen to it. The worst part is the woman who sings the "five gold rings"-esque line really thinks she can sing, but in reality she can't. Makes me wince on every repetition. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 08:03, 15 December 2007 (EST)

OK, so I finally tried to listen to it. I made it through the sixth day, then I really had to rest. Man. Almost anyone can manage to sing the first day while staying in the neighborhood of a "key". Anyone except these people, I guess. Wow. All I can think is, what are the odds it is actually lieberal psrodt? No one in their right mind could seriously have thought this crap was the ruling pwnzor... human 16:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)

The Great Contradiction of You So-Called "Rationalists"

You do not have access to Top Secret government information or to Top Secret government facilities. Nor are you a member of any of Earth's secret societies. In addition, you were not born 5,000 years ago; you were born only within the last 100 years, so you were not able to see history unfold with your own eyes.

Yet, despite all of these undeniable facts, you claim that you already know what the truth is. That is, just like how you know for a fact that 1+1=2, you also claim that you know for a fact what the truth is. So, um, how the hell is that possible???

Well, via compartmentalization, you are able to acknowledge the fact that government secrets exist and that secret societies exist, while simultaneously claiming that you, somehow, already know for a fact what the truth is. Wow, talk about being irrational!

In reality, you simply base the truth upon what the media tells you and what Earth's authority figures tell you. And, you are foolish enough to equate reading about an event in a history book to actually seeing that event with your own eyes. You don't believe religious texts, yet you still believe government texts such as history books and government belief systems such as science. As a practitioner of selective reasoning, how dare you call yourself a "rationalist"?

You trust Earth's authority figures because they are powerful and you think they are trustworthy. Obviously, however, these authority figures would never willingly incriminate themselves to you. If they did incriminate themselves to you, then you would no longer consider them to be legitimate authority figures. Truthist 22:13, 14 December 2007 (EST)

You poor, naïve, fool. I bet you actually think all this was created by people. Fnord. --Gulik 22:30, 14 December 2007 (EST)

This guy's got the mad cow...-αmεσ (spy) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (EST)

I think he's a disciple of David Icke. (Oddly, he showed up right after I made that article. If his presence is my fault, sorry.) --Gulik 00:50, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Excuse me, exactly how do you know that I was not born 5,000 years ago? That's right, you have absolutely no proof at all! Sure, you might expect me to present proof that I was born 5,000 years ago. But let me turn the tables on you: What you should be asking yourself is, do I have proof that this guy was not born 5,000 years ago? As you can see, you cannot just posit that I'm not 5,000 years old. Where's the proof??? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 22:32, 14 December 2007 (EST)

common sense Truthist

If common sense tells you he is 5,000 years old, then common sense should tell you there are no reptile-men. But apparently, it doesn't. Researcher 22:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Truthist, 1+1 doesn't = 2. 1+1=Window. --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 22:35, 14 December 2007 (EST)

common sense tells me you are wrong.^{— Unsigned, by: Truthist / talk / contribs}

Common sense tells me I am wrong. And I am wrong. It's just an old 1990's schoolyard joke to frustrate the little kids. I remember those days. --Cheers, ♦ Ryan ♦ ^{ǂ wuz here ǂ} 03:41, 15 December 2007 (EST)

What makes you think i am a little kid? Truthist 21:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Experience tells me you're going to earn a block soon. CЯacke®

For what? --Truthist 22:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

So tell me, "not an authority figure", how does one get the REAL information? What does one do with "the real information"? CЯacke®

I was born 80,000,000 years ago, and then encrypted and saved to be unleashed in this, our 20/21st century since Our Lord walked the earth, in order to make a mess of innertube discussions. Waht, me, worry? human 01:23, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Actually the author makes at least 12 unverified assumptions - presumably based on "common sense" rather than evidence.--Bob^{bing up} 03:08, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I don't trust Earth's authority figures at all. For me, authority figures are from Mars or further away. --BillOhannity 21:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Allow me to share a quote with you by Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher who lived from 1788-1860

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Right now you are at the first stage {First, it is ridiculed} Truthist 00:43, 16 December 2007 (EST)

"They laughed at Edison! They laughed at Einstein-"

"They also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Gulik 00:47, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Which truth exactly are you saying is being ridiculed? --BillOhannity 00:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

this Truthist 00:59, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Ok, if all this info is being hidden from the public eye, then how do you KNOW that they are reptilian overlords, and not, say, bird overlords? Seems to me like all this is bollocks. You're not going to have very much luck convincing anyone who doesn't already believe it that what you've been talking about is true..._{what is it with the people with extremist views coming here and thinking they can change a bunch of minds, first the white supremecists and now what, the extremely far-out conspiracy theorists???}♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 01:11, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I guess that, since they know that their position is entirely rational, they assume that upon its presentation to a site of self-professed rationalists, we'll all quickly see the verity in what they preach. Uchiha^KATON! 02:44, 16 December 2007 (EST)

First off truthist, let me congratulate you on expressing your own opinion in the form of copying and pasting giant blocks of text from a different site. Second, above you criticize (or at least, the author of the site you linked us to criticized) people on this site for being irrational by trusting scientists and claiming to actually know how things happened thousands and millions of years ago. Yet it seems to me that, if you are actually serious about this, that you and the people who made that site are doing exactly the same thing. Your site, so far as I can tell, provides no citations and comes to many of its "conclusions" via the statement "obviously" which is usually a telltale sign that there is not much backing to them. I have actually heard of this story before (on discovery channel of all places) and all that it amounts to is a bunch of wild speculation, coincidence, and trying to maneuver history around to it will fit into the story.

Third and finally, how strange is it that above I said I only trust people that are further away than Mars? I had no idea that's the answer you were actually looking for. --BillOhannity 09:35, 16 December 2007 (EST)

That's a good quote. Allow me to share another: "Philosophy... is a science, and as such has no articles of faith; accordingly, in it nothing can be assumed as existing except what is either positively given empirically, or demonstrated through indubitable conclusions." --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:41, 16 December 2007 (EST)

But what if the supa seekrit conspiracy has got to the philosophers as well as the scientists and historians? Perhaps the stages are first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you lose? ZOMG, the cabal is giving you false hope! --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 10:21, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Truthist, you state: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed." I'm not at all sure that all truth passes through these stages. Many new discoveries are simply accepted as such - although others have a harder journey. Secondly, a lot of ideas are ridiculed because they are, in fact, ridiculous. Finally some ideas are accepted as self-evident truth from the beginning, and are only ridiculed when scientific evidence is obtained. So I'm not convinced by your three stages.--Bob^{bing up} 10:25, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I for one would very much like to know in which context that quote appears. Schopenhauer is usually pretty complex, so my guess is that the meaning is not quite as obvious as one would think. Wikisource has it simply as "unsourced", but perhaps our truthist friend could take it upon himself to find out, now that he brought it up in the first place? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:54, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I was blocked for being a conservative

I was blocked last night for being a conservative. I am shocked and outraged by this. At first i thought it might have been some sort of mistake, but after looking around your pathetic website i found that most of the pages are filled with liberal propaganda, so it must have been because i am a conservative. When i tried to remove vandalism from a page on conservapedia:conservative values one of your sysops reverted me and blocked me for 8 hours just because i disagreed with her. Συντηρητικός27 13:55, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I have reviewed youredits, Συντηρητικός27. Deleting huge blocks of snark and inserting "Conservative values represents the morel values of Conservatives." (Your edits in green.)

Well, gee. I didn't know Conservatives had a stand on fungus, much less a set of values attached to it.

Apart from that I would suggest that you suggest on the article's talk page that maybe the article should be moved to the Conservapedia namespace as the topic involved deals with the attitudes of a certain website this wiki is known to have enmity with.

Your only other edit was the above, bitching about how unfair one of our sysops seemed (in your eyes) to be.

Thanks for pointing out this glaring instance of abuse of power, I will let the sysop in question know what I think of her action! CЯacke® 14:30, 16 December 2007 (EST)

You were blocked for delting/amending/reverting without consulting (and for bad spelling) (and for being a right wing wazzock) Susan^{purrrrr ...} 14:18, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Sure, you weren't blocked because your first edits were to start an edit war (Two words: Talk Page. One more word: Discuss.), but because we hatez0r you for being conservative. Right, right. Should we order SusanG's execution right away, your Highness?

(I'll assume good faith and assume that you're not just a sock-troll from CP.) Seriously speaking, you joined and immediately accused editors of writing "nonsense" and then of "vandalism" and "trolling". That's not gonna end pretty in ANY community. Especially if those edits come without any sort of talk page action. If you think something isn't right in your opinion, you can start a talk page discussion. If you had done so, you would have been told that the base of said article is (IIRC) CP's happyfun propaganda piece about why it's so great to be conservative and that your edits effectively whitewashed the article back to CP's propaganda version. --Sid 14:30, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I propose solving this conflict through a judicial duel between the people involved. :nods: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:34, 16 December 2007 (EST)

As the author of said "vandalism", I volunteer to be Susan's second. DickTurpis 14:55, 16 December 2007 (EST)

"No answer", came the swift reply.

Bet it was the spelling crit that shut him up - not his conservatism being ridiculed on our loverly site. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 15:37, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Actually the correct forum for such a complaint would be RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse--Bob^{bing up} 13:34, 17 December 2007 (EST)

THE TRUTH

Deleted 80k of spam. human 22:22, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Excuse me, I'm one of your lizard overlords and I told you to keep this on the down low. You're blowing our cover man! --BillOhannity 21:43, 16 December 2007 (EST)

DO NOT TRY TO MOCK THE TRUTH!!!

!

Oh do fuck off you total twat! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Read the bottom of the page, i think it would interest you the most. 98.17.57.143 22:01, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Read it! Ignored it! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:10, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, lets all ignore the truth and continue being loyal to the reptilians.

Do fuck off. I hate to stereotype people but have you had an IQ test lately , and if so how far below 50 was it? Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:20, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Anyone object to the removal of the above section? You know, since it's copy-pasted (including copyright notice), and I wouldn't have to break my page down button, and that whole rant can be viewed by following a link?--Bayes^update 22:39, 16 December 2007 (EST)

I removed it as spam. In other words, "asking" us to host their crap. Yup, a link would have done jes' fine. Hilarious, too. Almost up there with cubic zirconium timings, the absolute measure by which all web-insanity can be gauged. human 00:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

If a nation used the same political system that RW uses

Then what year would that nation most likely be in? 98.17.57.143 22:30, 16 December 2007 (EST)

5150, of course. human 22:34, 16 December 2007 (EST)

RW has a political system? --BillOhannity 22:36, 16 December 2007 (EST)

What's a political System?Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:40, 16 December 2007 (EST)

The passage of time is affected by "political systems"?--Bayes^update 22:40, 16 December 2007 (EST)

A buck, two-eighty! CЯacke® 22:44, 16 December 2007 (EST)

2007 I think, though it's nice that you think it's possible that RW's political system, whatever it is, would be so positive to technology as to give a nation the ability to manipulate time. NightFlare 22:48, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Soon to be 2008 !!!@!2#@!!opneoneelveteen!@!12@!!! wE RULZORZ1 i edited someones sig for fun. im soo evil!!1111 00:56, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, I think I get it... like, which period of history is RationalWiki's political system most appropriate to?

Ah, who am I kidding, I have no idea what anony here is asking... Uchiha^KATON! 01:15, 17 December 2007 (EST)

I think he is trying to subtly imply that we are all a bunch of cavemen here. Although I always figured we were sort of a benevolent anarchy. --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA ^{harass stalk} 17:21, 17 December 2007 (EST)