Talk:Main Page/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, (new)(back)

Policy on vandalism[edit]

I used a sock on Conservapedia to promulgate the good name of this fine website, just a few minutes ago. Then some jackass came by and started tossing around ethnic slurs & stuff. I would like to make it a policy, for RationalWiki's professional vandal mercenaries, that we not use ethnic slurs while vandalizing CP. If not a formal policy, then I'll at least sign onto this rule.-αmεσG 21:52, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we should discuss this at the guidelines page, but anyway, is it really vandalizing to add a link to another website? I thin it is just informative. I think, also, that RW people are slowly weaning themselves off the CP obsession, and especially off the "vandalizing". The trouble with making it a "rule" here is, how do we enforce it? Socks at CP are unknown to us unless self-outed. humanbe in 22:57, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
I think I'm done with CP. Just decided. RW's funner.-αmεσG 22:59, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah! Glad you figured that out :) humanbe in 01:25, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
I think this is a good idea in theory, but like all rules of this sort, it's unenforceable. But I would actually broaden it -- "don't use inflammatory language". It does no good, and why give them ammunition when the stuff they come up with from their own paranoia is much funnier? I still look at cp now and then, more as a fascinating exercise in anthropological observation than anything. I feel no need to ever actually do anything over there, though. (And I never vandalized cp, although didn't revert some vandalism that I saw, mostly because it was funny.) MyaR 10:44, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

PF Fox[edit]

Is PF Fox someone who's already here under a different name? Perhaps my Mad Cow has obliterated any knowledge I have of him over here, but just in case it didn't, I'm e-mailing him to tell him to join. Then I'm going away to eat lunch.

On an unrelated note, Doc, could you help treat my Mad Cow?-αmεσG 12:53, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

She's a journalist/blogger who somehow hasn't gotten banned. I don't think she ever edits here. I can only diagnose your mad cow via autopsy. Let me know when you are ready.!--PalMD-Goatspeed! 12:56, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Proposal[edit]

Proposed: Major overhaul of MainPage, based on suggestion of TMT. Would clear up all references to CP so that there are no "inside jokes", make all refs to CP on par with refs to any other bullshit sites. More clearly state debunking purpose. Rearrange the furniture. New blinds.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:58, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I was going to suggest ridding it of CP links myself, except down in the contents page - one link there to the portal. IE, seconded. Let's get it done tonight in time for the RW weekend boycott of CP. humanbe in 20:17, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
PS, there is some mainspace clutter, as well. I see no reason for anything other than the CP article itself, and Andrew Schlafly and the two clean redirects to it. humanbe in 20:19, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

It's dead?[edit]

[AAAAAAAAAAA!] What's happened? What do you get here? It's ... dead? Tell me I'm the only one, but I get this - CP1.png and, when I click the link, this- CP2.png.

Have they fubared it? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

Seems they did, but it's back up now, with a slightly different front page. Now no more looking at CP!! -- Stevo (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, just enjoying the UP article ... are we boycotting it then? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
Yep, boycott for the weekend. See if their page view stats dip -- Stevo (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Protection of Main Page[edit]

Helios protected the Main Page the other day, to stop vandals. I just unprotected it, as it's been vandalized only once in the past month. And that may or may not have been me. GHammer and Sickle text gold.svgdlessLiberal 11:10, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Science portal?[edit]

We need a Science portal listed here on the contents link, Evolution should not be under religion! Someone want to do it? Tmtoulouse 10:20, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I've been whining about that for a bit now, yeah. I reworded the Evo. link a bit to make it less stoopid to be under religion, but that is a weird heading for it to be under. Do we even have a Science cat yet? We could sure put a lot of stuff in it... humanbe in 12:30, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Revamp the top banner[edit]

The links on the far right are redundant with the links in the ToC I think they can disappear. We then should revamp our "motto" as lair of the cabal, while cute, is getting old. We need a new motto and probably "this site is growing rapidly" has warn thin too. What say you RationalWiki? Tmtoulouse 10:20, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I like "Hot. Science. Rationalwiki." for now. Maybe the community standards/page links could go on the far right? They're somewhat relevant to the different nature of this place compared to "regular" wikis. Anywho, that, say I. ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 10:51, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
If we are replacing the motto, perhaps it should have a tagline that hints at the purpose of the site. "Rationalwiki. The pseudoscience debunking wiki."? ŠтΈṜȳŁЁand...? 11:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
It may also be a bit of an "in" joke, but I vote for "Hot. Science. RationalWiki." in italics below the bog welcome line. And, yes, those 3 "useful" links should replace the ones on the right. IMHO. I would have done some of this myself, but the formatting looks a bit too easy to break for someone with clumy fingers... humanbe in 12:25, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
"Science is the best way of understanding the world around us", or "Science is superior to guessing" or some such...--PalMD-Goatspeed! 12:31, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
"You call that science?" ; "The truth is reasonable." humanbe in 12:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
"Your Daily Ration of Sanity" apols to someone; "Swimming Against Stupidity"; dada dada... I still like "Hot. Science. RationalWiki!" humanbe in 18:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Bible quote heading[edit]

I still would like to see La Biblioteque renamed to something that isn't so...wrong.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:56, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I thought of something scurrilous before, but not sure I can recall it fully. It did relate to urine and Godspeed though. Oh, yes, it was "urinary tracts". Probably not a group favorite. How about "Goatspeed"? Or even, for now, a simple "Holy Writs" or "Occasionally Updated Bible Verses" or "Verse Versus Verse" or "Sodomize us here". Wait, ok, getting carried away again. Another comment - shouldn;t we try to include other well known religious texts? A few zen koans would be nice. "Holy Bits" "Thus Spake..." "NIV v. KJV, Match of the Century" "Comments From Another Universe" "Chapter & Verse" "Naughty Bits of the Bible" ... I runneth uselessly over... humanbe in 18:13, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
My vote was "Wisdom of the Ages"--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
I like it. And can we get a dialogue going over at the template source about using other sources? humanbe in 18:17, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, that's where i originally posted, but i think it was too deep into the wiki to attract attention. We're all a little adhd i guess.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:18, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
Haha. I added it, with an extra "S". See you over at the template... maybe... humanbe in 18:20, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
I like the S. And now we can be equal opportunity offenders. Perhaps we can post a little blurb somewhere about the column, however. Im just playing with the idea, but, you know, there's the golden rule, too, not that im saying the good things need equal time, just that some explanation of why we focus on the silly might someday be helpful.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 18:22, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
"According to some books..."? --jtltalk 18:23, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
I sorta half thought of that... couldn't make up my mind how I felt about it. How about "According to some old books..."? Argh, I have another: "Adages from the Ages" humanbe in 18:29, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

CP Contest[edit]

Should we start a page dedicated to following the CP contest? I think we could find some funny things there, like useless articles like this created by the assfly himself that are gaining points, but doing no good for their encycolpedic value. Also, in my opinion, the lack of wiki-links should make them lose points. Jrssr5 09:24, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll get right on that.. how 'bout this: Conservapedia:Team Contest - just whipped it up in a hurry. PSYCH! ollïegrïnd 09:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Seriously though, maybe we should link from the mainpage. ollïegrïnd 09:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Ok, so ï was lazy and dïdn't bother looking for ït, but ï agree, we should lïnk to ït from the front page. Jrssr5 10:16, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
OK, but down low - under the "CP" heading on the TOC file. Has it been done yet? humanbe in 12:28, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

"ACD"[edit]

What does it mean?? Dyskolos 16:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Article creation drive - weird 'n' random stuff, as parody of Andy's more surreal moments. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

"According to Some People" tidbit[edit]

Following the links regarding the Hindu prayer that was shouted down in the Senate today (July 12th), one ends up at the American Family Association. In their article on the event is the following: "How could anyone complain about military chaplains not being able to prey in the name of Jesus and condone the actions of this man [emphasis added]."

At least he's honest. Aziraphale 17:04, 12 July 2007 (CDT) <- preys on hot dogs...

link pls?--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:05, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Sorry for the delay, here you go: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/hindu_shouted_down_while_offer.php I should've paid more attention to my surfing, that AFA website was linking to this OneNewsNow site. Still amusing to me, and I don't know the pecking order of these sites so I don't know if it's more or less eye-roll worthy. Aziraphale 09:28, 13 July 2007 (CDT) <- rolls snake eyes...
Minor revision - apparently the two sites are related, so it's essentially the same people. w00t, or something. Aziraphale 10:01, 13 July 2007 (CDT) <-nothing clever to add...
I think more interesting than the actual happening (we can't blame the world on one (or two) idiot(s) - look at the dancing irish priest that fucked up the olympic marathon) are the comments below it. Which still makes me scared and angry. Which is probably a good thing. ДιЯɖі$ɧ ɥοםЄʟβЯƏакĐΩωΝ 11:20, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Blogroll?[edit]

Anyone think we can add to the mainpage somewhere yet, like the nav tab? Also, don't forget to add stuff you think is helpful.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:53, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, it's at the top of the noticeboard right now, right? Is it "ready for prime time" yet? If so, how about adding it at the top of the "Amusement" section, but calling the link "interesting links"? Since it contains more than blogs. And also edit the noticeboard so it's not all about blogs. humanbe in 14:08, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
Oops, didn't look there.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:17, 13 July 2007 (CDT)


Buckshot?[edit]

I don't have the heart to tell him, but TK might do well to take advantage of the facts when defending Cheney's hunting, ah, mishaps. Like the fact that he shot a guy with birdshot, not buckshot. Buckshot would have caused slightly more damage.--MountainTiger 15:01, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Lol. "Received buckshot." A perfect example of using the passive voice to avoid responsibility. "On February 11, 2006, mistakes were made and the honorable Mr. Cheney's hunting partner received buckshot to the anterior proximal region." GrandSoviet 17:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

No no, you're both mistaken.... This actually comes from a valid social point.... you see, Liberals Shoot people, but this blue-collar, lower middle class act is far to crass for the high-minded Conservative. They don't shoot anybody, their firearms discharge and the person in front just happens to recieve the effects of it. If Jesus wanted to do it, he would block the shot and redirect it to a gay bystander SirChuckB 02:03, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Liberals hate abstinence[edit]

I love that most recent Schlafly allegation. Apparently to him, the secret that liberals are hiding, the deep, dark secret that Heart has been looking for is....

SEX IS FUN.

OH NOES!-αmεσ (!) 21:33, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Duh, we all knew that.... That's why I'm starting sexualwiki.com... All articles must contain statements about the subject's relation to sex and why it is fun SirChuckB 22:43, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Conservative songs[edit]

Hah! Jerusalem a conservative song. Yeah, William Blake sure was a textbook Conservative, what with being a Dissenter and supporting sexual and racial equality and all that. Unless, of course, Conservapedia has started subscribing to the post-modern idea that the text exists independently of its author... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 04:23, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Of course he was a conservative. Just like those right-wing stalwarts, the Beatles. --Kels 07:14, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
How did Ted Nugent and Alice Cooper not make this list?! ollïegrïnd 07:41, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

favicon[edit]

Nice work, whichever one of you hakzorz did it. humanbe in 22:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia's hidden agendas[edit]

Apparently, WP DOES have secret agendas... [1] ŠтΈṜȳŁЁand...? 11:13, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Public school educated liberals aren't smart enough to keep a conspiracy secret. They obviously know we're on to them now, since they are trying to delete that page in order to hide their deceit. Godspeed in your efforts to discredit the evil mobocracts! --Parrot 12:02, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

umm....it says and I quote:

"This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose."

Please read more carefully.....

*takes away your broken sarcasm/humor/parody detector and gives you a new one* --Sid 15:23, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
it says not to be used for "any remotely serious purpose". So does that mean using it for a direct serious purpose is ok? Jrssr5 15:32, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Andy and IQ[edit]

The whole Andy/movies/IQ thing in the According to... is hilarious and not to be missed.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:01, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Why? Resident vandal
Sorry, I'm too busy laughing at the Foxpuppet's justifications for Twelve Angry Men being a Conservative movie. --Kels 13:10, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
Its "Fox", not 'Foxpuppet". Resident vandal
Suuuuure it is... --Kels 13:12, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
Could anyone possibly be that insane? Oh wait… --Linus(plot evil tech) 13:13, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
The humor is the obvious unintended implication that Andy makes about religious people being of lower IQ (conversely)--although likely untrue, and likely not his intended meaning. That is what makes humor. Also, his riff on Band of Bros, which he did not see, is silly. He is truly the worst spokesman his movement has. PJR, EdPoor, Bohdan, and almost everyone else seems smarter than him.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:14, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
Actually that's one of the few things where Andy has been right, there actually are quite many studyes about the subject, and you can find around 40 of them from here And the conclusion indeed is that religious people tend to have lower IQ:s. TimoT 15:09, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
PJR? Resident vandal
Philip J. Rayment. Y'know, I think Fox accused me of having released the IP addys of all of the RW 1.0 people… and maybe even CP people… when I was telling "Gaines-Crockett" to take down an IP address from B4B2008. --Linus(plot evil tech) 13:22, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
I knew that one :) humanbe in 13:26, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
You know what was really strange about Andy's take on movies? He thinks Saving Private Ryan is a liberal movie, simply because Tom Hanks is in it. When SPR is considered liberal, you know you are dealing with the lunatic fringe.--Franklin 14:41, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
Don't forget, that a film which accurately portrays war wouldn't contain any profanity or material unsuitable for children if it was made by a conservative[2]. I guess soldiers would just throw water balloons at each other. I also love the non-sequitur about alcohol being bad for your body. Maybe they should have told Jesus that before he turned water into wine. --Brian 15:33, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
It must be really sad to be Andy. The poor sap'll probably go and see the Simpsons movie and feel compelled to walk out halfway through. I mean, the lewd acts Homer performs with a pig! What a liberal message. Those Hollywood types are promoting bestiality now!
But the list of Conservative movies... ah, all of them master works! And such Conservative messages! Spiderman, the epic about how you should always get revenge on the man who tries to kill your dad, er wait no, I mean uncle. And Star Wars, the film about how the white man keeps the brother man down even in a galaxy far, far away. Those confederates sure knew best! Oh, and the passion! That two hour long homoerotic BDSM masterpiece that has any gay bashing conservative christian wanting to nail the buff, strapping young jesus to some wood of his own.
"My name is Batman. You killed my father. Prepare to die." --Kels 20:00, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
Fetch the popcorn, Barb! It's film night at the young Republicans club! → [liberal mocker without an account]

Liberal Boogeymen[edit]

Have there been any recent sightings? I know Schafly found some in the whole Hindu Chaplain incident, but have there been any others since then? SirChuckB 18:14, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Israel[edit]

The point was not whether or not They allow Same Sex Marriage, it was pointing out that whereas unlike other countries, where Same Sex marriage is proof of their liberalness, in Isreal, it's simply the work of Activist Judges.... and please show some courtesy and don't just delete other people's work with no explanation..... SirChuckB 22:41, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Here is the problem: you say "Israel supports Same Sex Marriage? followed by the sarcastic remark "Nope, just the work of Liberal Activist Judges" as if to imply that Israel in some way does support same sex marriage. The fact is you are indeed cleverly lying, whether you meant to or not. Did you even read the article linked to? The explanation was in the edit summary. Resident vandal
Well, if gay marriages are legal there, instead of an excuse to stone the homosexuals to death two at a time, it would see to indicate Israel does support them. --Gulik 00:55, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Taken from the actual article, since apparently none of you bothered to read it:
In precedent-setting ruling court says state must recognize gay marriage
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
In a precedent-setting ruling, the High Court of Justice on Tuesday ruled that five gay couples wedded outside of Israel can be registered as married couples.
A sweeping majority of six justices to one ruled that the civil marriages of five gay couples obtained in Toronto, Canada, can appear as married on the population registry.
The gay petitioners sought to force the state to give equal recognition to common law marriages of heterosexual couples to those of gay marriages, which can be performed in certain countries.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel that filed the petition on the behalf of the couples, argued before the court that the Interior Ministry's refusal to register them as married compromises their right to equality and to hold family life, and is based on "homophobe social perceptions."
The court rejected the position of the State Attorney, that states recognizing single-sex marriages cannot expect Israel to recognize such nuptial agreements drawn in these countries.
The state told the High Court that "Israel lacks the appropriate legal framework for such marriages," and therefore it cannot register them.
That is not the same as supporting it. Resident vandal 20:17, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, Yahweh hasn't Smote them yet, so I guess it's OK with Him. It's not like He has a habit of going easy on Israel when they offend Him... --Gulik 21:07, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

A History of Disbelief[edit]

While watching that bastion of liberalism PBS, I was treated to see a program from another bastion of liberalism BBC titled A Rough History of Disbelief. For those interested in watching it themselves, check your local PBS station to see if you can find it... or http://www.veoh.com/series/briefhistoryofdisbelief (need to sign up for an account). From what I have seen so far, it is well produced and very informative. --Shagie 20:10, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

CP is Big Brother?[edit]

The "according to . . . " section of the main page says that CP keeps keeps dossiers on its real and suspected enemies and includes some details about what these dossiers might contain. But it isn't cited. so my question is how do we know this is true? Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 07:18, 22 July 2007 (CDT)


I do not doubt that they would try. I assume all they really have are usernames and IP addresses, but I would like to see a cite to this.--Franklin 09:42, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, I can think of a couple that are paranoid enough to go searching through Google or whatever, compiling whatever bits of information they can find. So usernames, IP addresses, if it's someone who's got some sort of connections elsewhere, then whatever they can dig up there. It's probably a bucket of scraps at best, but if true it's really revealing about what we're dealing with here. --Kels 09:44, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
And no one at RW would ever do that kind of thing, right? — Unsigned, by: 69.158.122.66 / talk / contribs
I guess that would be depend on what you count as a dossier. Right after that LA Times article was published there was speculation on the identites of various so-and-so's. And I've seen Crazy Andy's email somewhere. . . but nothing beyond that. I was really simply curious where the factiod came from. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 12:50, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Far as I know, nobody has. Idle speculation here and there, but nothing terribly dossier-esque. I guess if you're seriously in the smear business I guess you could point to efforts to back up people's claims, such as TK's claims to be buddy-buddy with Ed Meese, but that would be reaching a bit. --Kels 11:36, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Right. And as far as you know - until someone backs up this claim - no one at CW has either. Let's be offended by the things we KNOW they do and say, rather than the things we imagine they might. There's plenty of real stuff to keep us happy. — Unsigned, by: 69.158.122.66 / talk / contribs
Hey, I don't disagree on that score. I want to see it either referenced or moved somewhere else. I figure since it seems to be Ames' deal, he should be the one to address that side. I'm just speculating that it's not exactly unreasonable given their past behaviour. --Kels 12:49, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
What we are dealing with, in summary, is a pack of arrogant, low-brow, lying, hypocritical, quasi-white-supremicists with feelings of entitlement buoyed by their ability to bully folk that disagree with them within the musty borders of that silly microcosm called Conservervapedia. Or maybe that's just me . . . Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 10:27, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, it looks like you skipped the trial and went straight to the hanging. — Unsigned, by: 69.158.122.66 / talk / contribs
Nah, that was just the opening statement for the persecution. I'm against capital punishment in practice . . . Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 12:45, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
I'd be disinclined to believe that they hold any more information on their "problem users" than said users have freely made available on the web in the first place (assuming some of them are sad enough to go look for it). That said, given their liberal use of nebulous "legal threats", TK's ranting about "destroying lives" and all of their other so called threatening twaddle, it doesn't surprise me that they would want to hold this info. Shame they don't realise that having it is pretty useless other than to fuel their McCarthy fantasies. prettydilettantelies 11:05, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
For my part, I haven't exactly made a secret of who I am, so I guess they must have a big fat binder on me. And if they miss anything, they're welcome to ask. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:09, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Me too, in a roundabout way. I had a link to an image on one of "my" websites (that are all linked together) on my cp user page; I was on RW1 under my real name, and have emailed several CP sysops, which again gives them one of my domain names. I've never seen or heard any activity that would indicate any further research, other than HG looking up some of my stuff after I pmailed him last night. But those links in my sig file are, of course, an open invitation to "look me up". Also, I see no reason why as a wiki grows, it wouldn't try to keep some central data about consistent problem "users" so vandals can be detected more quickly. WP does it, I believe. humanbe in 14:00, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, they've known who I am since my first edit war with andy, and they've only used it to threaten me 4or 5 times.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:23, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Dunno that they'd care that much about me, other than inconveniencing TK (not even all that badly) a couple of times. But it's not like I use a fake name here or anything. --Kels 14:27, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
I'd be surprised (and a little amused) if they'd bothered to "create a file" (oooh, sounds all cold war!) on me, not that they'd get anything more than name, rank and serial number, I'm hardly prolific on the internets. Pretty easy to figure out I'm from God's Own County, The Glorious People's Republic of Yorkshire though. prettydilettantelies

Oh, it's AmesG, who included the dossier bit? That's a bit different. I myself was banned for being AmesG by the obnoxious TK (I tag him with the obnoxious label from personal experience). And a couple of weeks ago I saw someone else who was banned for the same offense, "being" AmesG. It seems they've singled him out (and everyone that "seems" like him) for intsa-blocks. That said, it seems reasonable (hehehe . . .well reasonable in CP's core's own special way) someone over there has got something like a dossier on him and perhaps others, icewedge, various metropolitan areas, er . . even Keyser Soise one might suppose. They could lock them behind CP's sysop pages. It would be pretty easy to maintain with a wiki . . .

Seriously though, I'd be careful about letting them know who you really are. Unless you'd want to open the possibility of some of them over at your house or calling you on the phone and what not. I'd not want that from some of the real whackos. A number of exchanges over there actually scare me a bit when I they don't make me want to bash them with a baseball bat . . . they activate my fight-flight reflex. Think of the violence they advocate and their easy grace with identifying enemies. Tomorrow Andy or TK or Karkau could wake up, don their combat fatigues and Christ nails and decide anyone "here" they "know" is the "enemy" (all terms in quotes braodly defined) They might imagine the whole world filled with AmesGs. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 17:18, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Aah! Too many AmesGs! Somebody hide the Iceland Spar! Or maybe I've been reading too much Pynchon. Anyway, if there is a dossier, it will probably be on their 'Special Discussion Group'.--ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

Dangerous? Pish... Andy's a lawyer - he wouldn't dream of hitting anyone first for fear of being sued. TK's just a lonely old man with a personality disorder. I suppose Kajagoogoo must have at least completed basic training, but he seems mostly the upright, do-it-by-the-book type to me. And he likes Casablanca, so he can't be all bad. --Robledo 17:51, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Little late to this one, but I have to ask...TK claims to be friends with Ed Meese? That's odd, because when I had my chat with him, he claimed to be good friends with Arianna Huffington.... Man, he is a mover and a shaker..... SirChuckB 21:45, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

He hangs out with Newt Gingrich all the time, too. GHammer and Sickle text gold.svgdlessLiberal 00:18, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
And Elvis . . . Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 08:22, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
And Jimbo Wales. GrandSoviet 18:40, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Recent Changes[edit]

I saw that this was removed from the bottom of the main page. I actually liked this feature a lot and ended up checking out a lot of new pages because of this. I realize I can click on the recent changes link on the sidebar but I think it was an asset on the main page and should be brought back. Anyone agree? ollïegrïnd 07:43, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm not a fan of your style there Ollïe, but I liked that feature too. Jrssr5 08:08, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
My only issue with it is it shows the edit comment, and sometimes our edit comments are a little, shall we say, "blue". But I'm neutral on it generally, or I would have whined a long time ago. As you point out, also, "recent changes" is a goldmine. humanbe in 14:03, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Goat, goat, goat![edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6912807.stm

MiddleMan 10:48, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I knew it!--PalMD-Goatspeed! 11:43, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
I don't really even like goats, but here we go... http://goatconnection.com/articles/publish/index.shtml TimoT 14:08, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Law professors[edit]

Andy's actually right: nearly all law professors are liberal. It's worse at top schools. Haven't met a conservative one at NYU yet. The few that are conservative get the spotlight: aka, Scalia and Thomas. However, note that Thomas' record before his nomination was... less than sterling. I don't know why most professors are liberal. I have my ideas: I think it's hard to know that you can make a difference, by using the law as a powerful tool for social change, without wanting to do so. Thoughts?-αmεσ (!) 19:29, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

It's pretty simple really - the two professions that are supposed to be so overrun by liberals (journalism, teaching) are ones that require learning about the real world, and communicating about it. If they don't start off "liberal", they end up there, at least by today's US standards of what a liberal is. The cons, in the end, can't do the work competently because of what current con. ideology in the US means. Except for a very few, for whom there is room teaching con. law or classic DWM lit.
Ironically, in spite of the fact that he almost exploded (literally) in his dissent to Lawrence v. TX, Scalia was the only one laughing at Colbert's press club thingie. humanbe in 19:57, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
It's the tenure system, it takes the realness out of you. If you're not "real" what have you? A person thriving on deceit aka a Liberal. CЯacke® 09:06, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand[edit]

In "Boycott of Consevapedia" it says "Make sure that your life exists outside the Internet." - Sorry, what does that mean? Totnesmartin 06:03, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I believe it is a typo. It should read, "Make sure that your life exists outside teh Internets." It's a common mistake, kinda like thinking the internet is a truck. In reality it is not a truck, but a series of tubes. ollïegrïnd 07:17, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Double Irony[edit]

This is too funny, I posted my link about the irony of the daily quote for yesterdays.... But The one for today is just as, if not more ironic than the original SirChuckB 17:51, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

The great CP FBI vandalism investigation[edit]

Recent activity on CP seems to show that Aschlafly doesn't want to divulge any information about the outcome of his reporting of the vandal Steve "we have all the digits" Carson to the FBI for vandalism. When ever the question has been raised on his talk page it has been deleted [3], [4], [5] an excuse being used for blocking those who dare ask is disrespect for one's user talk page. Asking about the investigation elsewhere meets the same fate. It did come up here but deletions only occured when inquiries as to the state of the investigation were made. RobS managed to offer an irrelevant link to the FBI's counterintelligence information exchange. Perhaps he thinks Conservapedia is part of the nation's infrastructure. I assume the FBI probably told Aschlafly to stop wasting their time. Does any one know the truth? The trustworthy encyclopedia can't be trusted to deliver on that. WhatIsG0ing0n 09:42, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

I assume thw whole thing is just Andy lying some more. He does it a lot. I guess it is the lawyer in him combined with his conviction that there are ideologicaly relative versions of reality.

Q: How do you know when Andy is lying?

A: When he presses the "save page" button. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 09:53, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

The last time the goon squad went after folks, Andy disavowed them, but this time he seemed rather Gung Ho. But all the mysterious deleting of questions would seem to indicate a level of embarssment. User:PalMD
Earlier this year Andy had posted a warning on the main page saying that vandalism was agaist the law and would be prosecuted. I have the impression he took it down due to ridicule. He doesn't like to be teased and as far as I can tell has never admitted to making a mistake Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 10:25, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Must add to front page[edit]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22136550-5002700,00.html
The pope says that evolution might exist.
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW, ANDY?
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOOOOW?!
Tanktunker 12:51, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

About bloody time, too, although it's difficult to tell whether he's supporting evolution or intelligent design. The transcript of his speech is here, but not translated yet. I guess this calls for a tough decision on whether I really want to sit down and plow through 13 pages of Benedict in Italian. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:27, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Andy doesn't have much use for Papists.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:31, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
True, which is quite ironic, considering his background. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:40, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, the Pope is a Catholic--as far as the lunatic fringe American Fundamentalist Baptists are concerned, those guys might as well just worship Beelzebub directly, and cut out the middleman, so of COURSE they'd endorse Evolution. --Gulik 14:25, 30 July 2007 (CDT) fnord
(Also, is there a single picture of Pope Benny where he DOESN'T look like Darth Sidious? That's one scary looking primate.) --Gulik 14:26, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
If there is, I've yet to see it. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:31, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Babelfish runs to the rescue. It's every bit as boring as I expected, but it would appear that he's talking about something similar to non-overlapping magisteria. He says the division between creationism and evolution is absurd, "because on the one side, there is so much scientific evidence in favour of evolution that it appears like a truth that we must recognize, and which enriches our acquaintance of life and of existence as such. But the doctrine of evolution does not answer all the questions, and above all, it does not answer the great philosophical question: Where does it all come from? And how did we finally end up with the human being?" (Or with the human existence or something like that.) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:30, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Well that's the point and difference of religion and science then, isn't it?
Religion says, "We got the answers a long time ago before the questions even developed to the point that we had to kill people to stop them from asking them. (Okay maybe that wasn't such a good idea.) So later we let them keep asking the questions and learning more and more about the material universe, 'What harm could it do?' we said. It hasn't harmed anything that we (of the church) deal with, (ours is a spiritual [non-material] universe), so we don't really care.
Science says: "What? Huh?"
CЯacke® 15:12, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Because scientists have all been lobotomized to remove the part of the brain that contains a sense of wonder and majesty at the world. GrandSoviet 10:23, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Um, Is that why they chose to colourise Hubble images with colours reminiscent of American landscape art? [6] Totnesmartin 09:49, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

FBI and CP[edit]

I'm thinking we might need an actual effort to track this kind of narishkeit. Perhaps we can start a sandbox to create an article investigating his claims, and if someone is smart enough to check on fbi cases, maybe we can do that. Socks all get banned for even mentioning it. Just playing with ideas here. User:PalMD

Am I the only one having Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Security Flash Backs here...... This must be the new conservative trick to confuse us filthy liberals... The irony being that Liberals generally don't fear the man the same way Conservatives do. SirChuckB 23:57, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I'm all for this. I think it's a simply hilarious event on a basic level, but on a higher level it reflects the Arrogance of Ignorance, and I would dearly love those who claim to hold such high standards to have their noses rubbed - no, smeared - deep in it. The idea that this simpleton's personal, unlocked blog is worthy of Federal criminal investigation is not only laughable it also reflects his ludicrous sense of entitlement. I'm also curious to know if we can ask the FBI if they are handling such a case? Would a complaint filed become part of the public record? If so, when? Doggedpersistance 10:05, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

As far as I'm aware, the FBI has a very serious issue with "CP".... hehehe. GrandSoviet 22:17, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Let's start a separate section on the main page to track just this story? Doggedpersistance 11:57, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Hey, commie, you gonna share? User:PalMD
How about Conservapedia:Legal threats or Conservapedia:FBI Investigations? Unlink whichever doesn't get used... humanbe in 12:13, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
We have Conservapedia:FBI--PalMD-Goatspeed! 12:31, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Well there ya go, then! I unlinked my suggestions. humanbe in 12:51, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Hmm, and it needs a lot of work. I think what's there is all a dump from a CP talk page, but that isn't even clear. Can someone header and footnote it to diffs, etc., and make it a cool page? humanbe in 13:01, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

TK's archives on CP[edit]

It was just pointed out to me that TK deleted his archives back on July 1. Anyone know what he means by preparing for inevitable? Jrssr5 10:50, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I dunno, but it's creepy as hell. :D GrandSoviet 11:38, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

The Rapture? Doggedpersistance 11:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Can I have his car? humanbe in 12:14, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
He was throwing a tantrum that day. He regained his composure but never unthrew the tanstrum partt. Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 12:24, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
oh and he obviously drives an SUV, not a car. It's upholstered with the skins of the children of illegal aliens and runs on their pagan blood (hey, it's cheaper than gas). . . Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 12:32, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
And there's a neverending supply of their pagan/liberal blood. All you have to do it say someone's liberal and you've increased your gas stockpile. Jrssr5 13:03, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

It's not deleted, it's just blanked. The pages are still in the edit history. And if he's reading this (may the Great Horned One bless you if you are, TK!) and deletes them properly out of paranoia, I've saved them to my computer. Just in case.Hmm, "the inevitable"? Hmmm... (ponder, ponder.) Totnesmartin 14:05, 1 August 2007 (CDT)