User:Kels/Schlaflyisms

REQUEST: If anyone wants to add material to this page, please cite it. I'll be going through presently to add cites to what I've put up, but that's hard to do on material I haven't put there. Thanks!

My current intent for this page is mainly documenting Andy's delusions regarding the success and quality of the site. Perhaps later I can add some more breadth to the topic, as he's delusional in just so many ways...

From Main Page

"This site is growing rapidly."

From Main Page talk archive

(working backwards through archive)

"In general, the quality of entries here is much higher than on Wikipedia"
"By now people should realize that mockery doesn't bother us. In fact, present company aside, I'm amused by how liberals over-rely on mockery, see Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. All great projects and people were mocked, and it doesn't mean anything more than the childish behavior by those impressed by it."
"I'm not sure charity is a particularly theological concept."
"Conservapedia was founded in part to counter the anti-American bias that exists on Wikipedia, and is getting worse there."
"I consider Jerry Falwell to have been one of the greatest men of our times."
"What's next - denying gun permits based on the color of one's skin?"	(rational argument or wishful thinking?)
"We do a precise count of entries here for our totals. We value the quality of each entry, not the quantity of words in it. A study of the "Random page" on our site versus Wikipedia's revealed that we have a higher percentage of quality, useful entries."
"What will replace [''the NYT''] as informational sources? Wikis like Conservapedia."
With an open mind you can learn things on this site. If you've ever needed a blood transfusion, or anyone among your family or friends did, that blood likely came from an evangelical Christian. Think about it."	(a venture into the surreal)
"Ames, no one gets special treatment on Conservapedia, not even M.D.s who talk outside their area of expertise."	(or ones who talk inside it, apparently)
"Liberal over-reliance on mockery is an interesting phenomenon in itself. Liberals attempt to mock conservatives far more than vice-versa. I don't mind, as it just gives Conservapedia more publicity."
"There is no gossip on the front page or anywhere else here. Nor are any "opinions" of journalists portrayed as facts here."	(the guys on AiG aren't legitimate journalists)
"Over 3000 contributors and over 4 million page views, and growing quickly. Our contributors are from all across the ideological spectrum, as are our readers. How about enlightening us by adding some factual information that you think we lack here? We're an open-minded group, and I trust you will be also."	(Not anymore, unless you're a YEC or rabid fundie, you'll be banned as a sock)
"Also, please keep in mind that this is an alternative to Wikipedia, and attempts to make our entries look like Wikipedia's are pointless."	(you can say that again)

From Andy's Talk Page

(working backwards through the archives here)

"Ferret, your reaction is understandable, but perhaps you do not appreciate the full nature and extent of liberal deceit. Some liberals delight both in deception and in wasting conservatives time. What you and I grew out of after age six is pursued in great self-amusement by liberals on the verge of adulthood, and beyond. We've seen worse examples, believe it or not. Stick around and you'll be amazed at what occurs here"	(Liberals now apparently have the mental capacity of 6 year olds. Real mature there Andy.)
"I do know, with 95% certainty, what your positions are on classroom prayer and evolution. The 95% confidence level is all that science requires. I know your positions with greater certainty than I know what the weather will be like tomorrow."
"Lord willing this just grows and grows!"	(wow, can you imagine taking this out of context?)
"Conservatives in the U.S. don't dilute our message, and perhaps we're stronger for it."
"We're hear to learn and I welcome educational edits."
"Wikipedia is apparently not liberal and anti-American enough, and wants to shift even more to the left, per systemic bias. Note how Wikipedia decries that its average editor is "from a predominantly Christian country," without adding that often that editor is atheistic and/or anti-Christian himself. So Wikipedia, which is quite anti-Christian, is accused of being pro-Christian based merely on the geographic location of its average editor rather than his views."
"But regardless of what I think of your edits, we don't allow name-calling."
"However, it is only a small percentage [''of so-called "liberals"''] that ever does anything meaningful."
"I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Many have taken advantage of that generosity. But I'm not going to change just because of that."	(he later claimed that Zero's ban was justified based solely on the name and one edit)
"We expect some open-mindedness from our editors and a one-sided determination to "rearrange the furniture" can result in the violation of numerous rules."
"Please realize that this project is in its infancy, and the weak entries will improve over time ... with your help!"
"We're not trying to embarrass anyone."
"That entry is family-friendly."	(referring to Homosexuality, in a conversation about deleting the short, concise, non-prurient Bisexuality entry)
"You're just the type of editor who makes this project so worthwhile."	(regarding JLindon, who was permanently banned a week later by TK, who else?)
"It's a variety of factors here: quality, quantity, insight, overall improvement, etc."	(regarding who gets sysop status)
"Not here, where most of our traffic is from people who visited the site and returned here first, liked it, and returned without using search engines"
"But conservatives believe in meritocracy, and the best man or woman will be selected."	I stopped believing that when George W. Bush became President in 2000.
"That said, the name "MontyZuma" continues to bother me. I think it is racially offensive, and I'm not one to enforce political correctness. It took me a while to see that, but that's my conclusion and I would block the user on that basis alone."	(see quote above regarding giving everyone the benefit of a doubt)
"Sounds like another important and provocative work!"	(regarding Conservative's "Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution" page)
"This is an educational site."
"Homeschooling is virtually free."	(it's a little off topic, but cripes, I couldn't just leave this one. I'm not made of stone, you know!!)
"...we shouldn't link to websites that promote witchcraft."
"No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our rules do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology."	(O RLY?)
"So Conservapedia has make sure that it remedies the Wikipedia censorship."
"Pages are only protected out of necessity, typically to prevent repeated vandalism."	(or, you know, science)
"Generally, a person's user talk page here is his castle. You can politely disagree with us all you want there, as long as you don't break our rules against obscenity or don't encourage vandalism or any unlawful acts, etc."
"That's fine, Linus, such as classical science topics like chemistry or physics. We welcome as much math as you can do. Thanks and God bless."	(actually, maybe not so much on the physics, and make sure your chemistry includes random variations in carbon degredation, mm'kay?)
"It's a great idea, Conservative!"	(about the article improvement drive, although it could be applied to literally everything Conservative suggests)
"A parody? Please, not on my talk page."	(too ironic to pass up)
"My only reservation, and it is a minor one, is that I want our resource to remain concise like a real encyclopedia."
"The only people I've seen ridicule Conservapedia are liberals, who of course also ridiculed Ronald Reagan and many other conservatives who did a great deal of good. I have never heard a single conservative ridicule Conservapedia."	(didn't Andrew Sullivan mock them, or am I mistaken? He makes the "not a real conservative" dodge regarding Tom Flanagan)
"I think we do have many repeat customers who come to us first. Our foundation is built on rock; Wikipedia's is built on sand."
"Ask for Wikipedia's repeat traffic, I bet a substantial percentage of that is kids hurting themselves by becoming obsessed with obscenity. On our site, we have none of that."	(except in the homosexuality-related articles, of course - these guys think more about asses than most gays I know)
"Hiding information is part of the liberal game. Play it on Wikipedia, not here."
"We value honesty here. We really do."
"By definition, the moderates add nothing to either side. They are sheep."
"Ames, this is not Wikipedia and we do not permit bullying on one's own talk page."	(But if you're a sysop feel free to bully someone on their page)
"Encyclopedias do not repeat opinions as though they are facts."	(guess that pretty much closes the casket on CP, eh?)
"We are a labor of love here."	(I think you got your emotions mixed up there, bud)
"Note, by the way, that Conservapedia is run by rules, not by democracy or mobocracy."
"Users who come here with strongly predetermined views without any signs of openness to (conservative) alternatives are usually not good candidates. Users who talk more than contribute can forget about it."	(How, exactly, does this qualify TK for the position, anyhow?)
"Conservapedia is biased towards the truth, and the facts. Conservapedia does not repeat liberal lies simply because someone has, or pretends to have, such "point of view."
"Colin, there is no incentive for "conservative lies." There is no money to be made (in contrast with abortion and evolution), there is no power to be gained (in contrast with political power), and there are no other rewards. For many conservatives, standing up for the truth ends up getting them ridiculed (e.g., Anita Bryant, Rick Santorum) or crucified (e.g., Jesus). Why would someone lie for such fate? What examples of conservative lies do you have in mind, and what possible incentive could there be for it?"	(wow...just...wow...)
"Halliburton and the Iraq War are not "conservative". Neoconservative, perhaps, and arguably there is some money in that. But there is no money in conservative principles, and no reason to lie."	(more of the same conversation)
"As I've repeatedly said, Conservapedia is a meritocracy."
"In this case, User:Conservative protected [''the Pseudoscience entry''] apparently because someone was trying to insert ideological material into the entry."	(or, you know, taking it out)
"Racism would be a better example than terrorism above. We would not include a racist's point of view."
"Let me also add this: we don't selectively enforce rules the way that Wikipedia does."	(Unless you're a sysop then anything goes. Rules? they're for mortals)
"We have a DMCA Agent posting, and editors are sternly warned "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"	(unless it's about Eleanor of Aquitaine, then it's fair game)
"We are blessed with an extremely good collection of SYSOPs. Man for man and woman for woman, the best of any Wiki, I'd say!"
"People are free to drinks as much Kool-Aid as they like, but many end up wanting something better. Welcome to Conservapedia."	(seriously, you can't make this stuff up)
"We want simple, concise rules, shorter than the Ten Commandments themselves."	(not counting the guidelines, suggestions and assorted unwritten rules)
"A person's user page is his castle here, so the boxes are fine with me as long as they remain confined to a person's own "turf", and as long as they are clean."	(again, not counting the Cabal UBX which TK later defaced, nor the several that got arbitrarily deleted later on)
"As to your midterms, maybe in a few months Conservapedia will have enough information to help college students prepare here. However, even then most students may be not be learning what we have here! Ha ha ha. Lord willing we may grow into a full school ourselves one day."	(comedy GOLD, baby!!)
"I don't want to go down the road of censoring comments. We block users who we observe cross the line, rather than try to read and filter everything that is said."
"He should have been warned for the "nazi" comment, which is used often even in polite discourse in the United States (e.g., Rush Limbaugh), rather than blocked."	(since when is Limbaugh considered polite discourse?)
"All my arguments now go in the direction opposite to my conclusion!!!!"	(way out of context, but funny as hell)
"So far we have three: Hitler, Carter and Carl Sagan. I hope that grouping is not too inflammatory!"
"I'm now convinced that at least half of what I learned in school was false. I question everything that I use to think."	(which is very obvious based on Andy's grasp of the US legal system. Harvard should be ashamed.)
"Also, blocks based on heated ideological disputes should only be long enough to cool off, such as one day. It doesn't make sense to block a serious contributor 2 months for getting into a heated argument."	(unless, of course, they're liberal)
"We're not here to make you feel better about your predetermined views. That's not our goal. Expect to learn things on this site that will challenge your views. Please be more open-minded in the future."	(unless, of course, you're conservative)
"This site is to challenge all of us, you and Ames also, about what we were taught and what we think. Try it. You'll thank others here if you do."
"knew it was satire and expected the worst. But any time there is publicity, there is always a good chance of exposing someone to conservative ideas they have never heard before. Conservative ideas are censored in schools, mainstream media and Wikipedia."
"Our loss is Wikipedia's gain! :-)"
"I suspect that our growth has been greater than Wikipedia's at a comparable time. I'm confident the quality in our entries has been better also."
"Wikipedia is really an anti-intellectual movement, akin to the Cultural Revolution, and I think the smart editors have or will leave it."	(this is especially funny after so many editors leaving or being purged recently)
"This project has always been a more intellectual and educational effort than Wikipedia."
"I've explained to all that this is not Wikipedia. We have open minds here and go where the facts take us."
"The student panel has been working on the Theory of Evolution. They plan some limited changes, I think. Keep in mind that this is a very popular page by visitors who expect something different from Wikipedia. There is no reason to have a Theory of Evolution page like Wikipedia's, which censors criticism of the theory. Folks can go there if they want that. About 250 words in our current entry does introduce and explain the theory in a concise manner, which is part of our rules. Then the reader should see material that cannot be found on Wikipedia."
"User:Conservative has contributed some very, very popular entries. We are a meritocracy here. We don't allow a heckler's veto and we are not one man, one vote. Someone who has contribute four of our top eight or so entries is doing something right (no pun intended! :-) )."	(ahh, finally the praise for Conservative section)
"We are a meritocracy and Karajou is at the top."
"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)"	(I may be mistaken, but I think this was the birth of the 90/10 rule)
"Look, we don't hold grudges here. I hope he doesn't either, and I hope he can return in a productive manner. In the meantime, we are building an encyclopedia here."
"Quote mining is something an attorney does every day. Trials depend on it. There's nothing wrong with it."
"We don't want thousands of words to explain a concept to a student."
"Thanks and please continue as you were, although of course it is usually better to improve an edit rather than simply deleting it."
"No one is being blocked for intelligent or isolated sarcasm."	(that was in April, times change)
"Conservapedia, from its inception, is an educational and informative free resource for students and adults alike. I encourage everyone here to explain and teach for the benefit of others. I have personally taught more than 120 students at virtually every level. Perhaps ironically, I've found that the benefits of teaching are almost as great for the teacher as for the students. Those who have improved the entries here can attest to that, I'm sure. And the benefits to those who learn from your insights are immeasurable."
"One day a decade from now there will be people who thank you for explaining something to them on Conservapedia. It may be a struggling student who has no access to other resources, or it may be an adult who was confused by school. I thank you for them, but some of them will thank you also."
"Karajou is a Sysop for a good reason, and I do support him."
"It's factual and highly informative. Do think anything there is wrong? This is the type of relevant, useful, enlightening information that Conservapedia is here to provide."	(regarding information in a page on the 2008 US election)
"You are taking the position that is selectively enforced at Wikipedia, where anything unsourced, even if it is completely logical and compelling, can be deleted for ideological reasons."	(totally clueless, I know)
"A key difference between Conservapedia and Wikipedia is that Conservapedia strives to be more educational."
"A status quo [''of the ToE article''] for when the student panel began looking at it a few days ago makes sense, so that it is not considering a moving target."	(aaaaand of course Conservative ignored that, and Andy let him get away with it)
""Quote mining" is not a legitimate term, but seems to be a phrase invented by and for promoters of evolution."	(but...later on you said lawyers use it as a routine matter!!)
"An encyclopedia should not use made-up, unclear terms."
"We don't censor material here for political reasons, and I'm not changing the main page based on your comment."
"This is no hoax. Welcome to Conservapedia, where everyone's eyes (including my own) are opened about what is really going on the world."
"Conservapedia has more page views by orders of magnitudes higher than its liberal critics. The liberal blogs are tiny in popularity compared to the page views we see here. Just a small fraction of our page views are coming from those blogs and news items, and many of those are people who really do want to hear the conservative side. The fact that "Bias in Wikipedia" is rank #2 tells you a lot about why people are coming here."	(a laff riot! A riot, I tells ya!)
"Accuracy is our raison d'etre. It's the sum and substance of what we do here."
"We have over 4000 high-quality editors now. We can now focus on developing new entries and having intelligent discussions without any distractions. The King James Bible was the work of only 80 scholars, and more than 4000 should be enough here."	(that was back in March, wonder how many editors they have now, excluding socks?)
"I'm not always right, I admit. But my error rare is probably only about 1% on this."	(it's good that he's humble)
"It seems to me that Sysops should be like the royal guards or Secret Service. Promotion should be based on competence, commitment, shrewd and fair blocking, and a good work ethic. The rules set the policy, and the students set the rules. Lots of good entries by an editor are the best indicator of who would make a good Sysop. Several of the best Sysops probably disagree with me about ideology. So do some of my students. Conservapedia is really based on confidence that good rules will result in a superior product, and I do think our rules are much better than Wikipedia's."
"The beauty of the wiki software is that everyone can how each person edited an entry, and things can be undone when appropriate."
"No, we're not an exclusively Christian site, and never have been. We are not just the choir."
"I might add that "Conservative" has put a great deal of effort into the "dinosaur" entry and it ranks #6 on our most-viewed statistics. It ranks high because it is not like Wikipedia's entry. There is no point to trying to import Wikipedia-type material into the entry. People can go to Wikipedia for that. That said, Conservapedia is responsive to factual, evidentiary suggestions made on the talk page. We are neutral to facts."
"I have found nearly a 100% correlation between belief in evolution and opposition to classroom prayer, for example. But I'm open to any evidence you might have."
"The people who develop good and popular entries, as Conservative has, deserve deference about their work. Agree or not, Conservative is giving visitors what they seek here and cannot get on Wikipedia."
"We don't generally block for ideological reasons. But if the pollution of one's talk page with never-ending rants rises to an intolerable level, then temporary blocking is appropriate."	(wait, wait, what's with the "generally" there?)
"Misuse of one's talk page is a legitimate reason to block. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)"	(he was for it before he was against it)
"Conservapedia is based on a few conservative principles, not people. It gives credit to Christianity and America; it's clean; it's gossip-free; and it's factual. Wikipedia is run by people; we're run by rules. We don't have to exclude anyone who abides by the rules. We're here to learn from each other and educate those who might not have heard conservative arguments yet. We don't want to simply preach to a choir."
"I'm fine with inviting editors from Wikipedia to come on over to a real encyclopedia project!"	(and what project would that be, again?)
"Some entries about "conservative songs" would also be most welcome. I've been planning to do that but am looking for way to do it so it isn't just pure opinion."	(this one disturbs me, it smacks of subverting art in the service of ideology)
"We generally don't delete facts here, and certainly not scientific facts."	(suuuuure...tell me another one)
"The page "liberal" is factual and the result of quite a bit of thought. I don't think it should offend anyone. Some of the edits -- I'm not sure if this includes yours -- were inappropriate. For example, an entry says that liberals supporter taxpayer funding of abortion. But then someone added to that same line "funding of drug abuse." That has nothing to do with abortion and simply degraded the quality of the entry. We strive hard to maintain high quality here."
"One of my complaints about Wikipedia is how it deletes work so quickly and apparently arbitrarily. Also, remember this is "Conservapedia", not "Wikipedia."	(pot, kettle...)

From Conservative's talk page

"By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!"

From Elsewhere on CP

"James, liberals crave attention and don't mind being deceitful. See Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. Whether you are a liberal or not, I observe that you are not willing to be forthright about your views here, so my time is better spent discussing issues with others. Please leave my talk page, which is respected as one's castle here on Conservapedia. See Differences with Wikipedia. Thank you and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)" [1]

(from a discussion on Benjamin Franklin's deism, after digressing into irrelevancies about evolution and school prayer in a desperate attempt to change the subject, and being asked to answer the damn question)