From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
I love trolling at Conservapedia!
BrainMop.png As a confirmed mustard jar for taking on this job as a Sysop on RationalWiki: I, Stile4aly, pledge to only block users if they ask for it, or insert unfunny vandalism.
I furthermore pledge that if I indulge in secret private conversations about you, we will make a formal report to the mob. Is that all?
If you impugn my motives without warrant, or challenge my "AUTHORITY", er, there is nothing I can or will do.
Enjoy my Ed Poor-esque liveblog of Andy's Colbert Report appearance

Well, I was flattered to receive an invitation to Rationalwiki. I'm going to have to work on my sockpuppetry because every sock I've used to date has been banned. It's just so hard not to disagree with the insanity. At least they have a hard time detecting socks over there. It's my first sock at CP that generated some interest from the cabal, and ended up getting me invited over. Poor JohnSmith was banned for "picking fights with ASchlafly." I predicted that his ego would be too great to allow anyone that disagrees with him vocally to remain on the site. I was banned while at home, but there's still work (hundreds of computers, at my disposal) and of course all those anonymous proxies out there. Worst case, I'll jump on my wife's laptop and steal some bandwidth from one of the unsecured wifi nets around here.

Not all conservatives are xenophobic YEC dominionists who hate gays almost as much as they hate liberals.
Now I are sysop. Make your peace with whatever gods you believe in.
Kool-AidMan.jpg This user did not drink the Kool-Aid™ at Conservapedia
No talking.gif
This user caused the Main Talk Page to be blocked on Conservapedia.
So far, this user's subversive wikiediting has evaded FBI detection!
Andy.gif This user was banned from Conservapedia.
This user is happily married
This user went to a public school, and was never homeschooled.
All your base are belong to this user.
This user has Levinson's Constitutional Faith.
Karikatur 7.jpg Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but must be upheld by every one of us.
Gay flag.svg
This user believes in equal rights for gay men & women: let's hear it for Lawrence v. Texas!
This user is a Muslim
This user thinks that evolution explains the origin of species.
Universe expansion.png
This user thinks that the Big Bang explains the origin of the Universe.
Blue Marble.jpg
This user is concerned about the environment.
This user lives for
This user has a Myers-Briggs result of INTP.
This user survived the Great Exodus of '09.

Users that have been banned for being sockpuppets of me[edit]

Of course, none of these people were actually my socks. I have several socks still sitting out there, just waiting.

14:03, 8 June 2007, Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked #8858 (expires 14:03, 9 June 2007, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Colbyjack". The reason given for Colbyjack's block is: "sock of Franklin; sock of Stile4aly")

13:40, 8 June 2007, Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked Colbyjack (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (sock of Franklin; sock of Stile4aly)

16:18, 3 June 2007, SharonS (Talk | contribs) blocked Nerd31415 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (JohnSmith sock)

17:46, 29 May 2007, Bohdan (Talk | contribs) blocked BornAgain (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (sock of JohnSmith)

Bad luck, guys.

Actual Sockpuppets of mine[edit]

Stile4aly - Short lived original account. Banned for suggesting that US law isn't solely derived from the Bible.
JohnSmith - Among other things, shut down the main talk page. See below.
IWonder - Writer of the Smallpox article, banhammered immediately thereafter.
SSchultz - Took the controversial stance that shaking babies to death is wrong. Also earned edit rights and won Contest 3.
QWest - Of hitlist fame.
A sock who's name I can't remember, but was something like MuslimConservative - Name used to test Andy's assertion that non-Christian conservatives were welcome at CP after the LA Times article. Banned.
BWebb - A clean sock I never used whose password I've forgotten.
HisAnusWithAButtPlug - Instaban user created solely for the pleasure of reading "DeanS blocked HisAnusWithAButtPlug with a duration of infinite."

I think that's it.




Since TK deleted the main page history, here's is the discussion that shut down CP's main talk page:

"Talking Points"

I've been gone for two days, so I'll post a few "talking points";

  • Regarding the HPV vaccine (two girls died): how many people have died from Cervical cancer? And compared to other vaccines, how effective is this one?
  • Evolutionist museum: Nice populist argument, though I doubt the 99.84% populist statistic would be allowed.
  • Tell me, all: does anybody condone this?

--Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:01, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I like this. Does anyone condone these attacks on innocent Jews?Богдан Talk 13:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I know that this article is old, but does anyone condone it?Богдан Talk 13:27, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Does anybody condone the Israeli Apartheid of Palestinians? Or the indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese cities during the 2006 conflict? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, yes, Jimmy. That "Apartheid" of the peace-loving Palestinians.Богдан Talk 13:31, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Great points by Bohdan.
In response to Hoji's (other) first point, there is no proof that the HPV vaccine will prevent a single death from cervical cancer. Moreover, its promoters did not disclose the deaths from the vaccine itself. Don't patients have a right to informed consent, and shouldn't politicians have checked that out before trying to make the vaccine mandatory?
As to Hoji's 99.84% statistic, I don't know where that came from. What does that number represent?
But Lord bless you Hoji, because I just learned that you are #3 in our ranking of the overall top editors in terms of volume of edits here. We'll be posting the top ten soon.--Aschlafly 13:32, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
In response to condoning your 3rd point, no violence is not good.Богдан Talk 13:34, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Bohdan, that is very true.
And as for #3, Andy, that is certainly something for me to be proud of! The 99.84% statistic is the most commonly used statistic when referring to the number of biologists who support the theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Oops, I just learned that you (Hoji) are in the top ten, but a few others nose you out for #3. Still tremendous, Hoji, so thank you!
I bet the 99.84% number is another example of liberal deceit. Can you give me a source and I'll track it down? Remember, some liberals don't mind being deceitful, and all of us end up relying on things that are not true because of it. :-) --Aschlafly 13:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, can you provide some statistics that demonstrate that liberals are more deceitful that the general population? Otherwise, a statement like "some liberals don't mind being deceitful" has as much value as "some days, the sky is cloudy." JohnSmith 14:15, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Re the HPV vaccine: One not even ask what the corresponding mortality/morbidity would be from Cervical cancer, just compare the HPV vaccine to other vaccines. Take a look at Contraindications for smallpox vaccination. As many as 1 in 1000 may suffer severe reactions up to and including death, and vaccinia is considered the most successful vaccination in history. []
Your statement is false. The death rate from the smallpox vaccine is not 1 in 1000, but is only 1 in 1 million, based on your own citation. I'm going to bother reading anything else you said unless you apologize for that misleading statement and demonstrate a willingness to be objective and competent in discussing this. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
My statement is not false, I said that the rate of severe complications is 1 in 1000, up to and including death. You're reading that as "1 in 1000 people will die." which is incorrect. Of course the death rate is going to be necessarily lower, but keep in mind that the last time that smallpox was present on the earth, AIDS was not widespread. If smallpox were to reemerge (though this would only be possible through bioterrorism at this point) then the death rate from vaccination would be considerably higher since the vaccine causes the most severe reactions in the immune compromised. Keep in mind, that the 1 in 1 million number is deaths that are known to be caused by the vaccine, not deaths that are coincidental to vaccination.
Compare this to Gardasil's numbers [1] from page 12. "Across the clinical studies, 17 deaths were reported in 21,464 male and female subjects. The events reported were consistent with events expected in healthy adolescent and adult populations. The most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident (4 subjects who received GARDASIL and 3 placebo subjects), followed by overdose/suicide (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 2 subjects who received placebo), and pulmonary embolus/deep vein thrombosis (1 subject who received GARDASIL and 1 placebo subject). In addition, there were 2 cases of sepsis, 1 case of pancreatic cancer, and 1 case of arrhythmia in the group that received GARDASIL, and 1 case of asphyxia in the placebo group." In other words, deaths in the Gardasil group were not statistically higher than deaths in the placebo group. Certainly, HPV vaccine may contribute to a rare death, but probably on the same scale as Smallpox vaccination, and again, though it sounds cold, this is an acceptable rate when compared to the benefit. JohnSmith 14:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
John, you said about the smallpox vaccine, "As many as 1 in 1000 may suffer severe reactions up to and including death." That statement is false. The "1 in 1000" figure is NOT up to and including death. 1 million subjects are needed for that in the case of the smallpox vaccine.
I'm not going to spend my afternoon debating falsehoods. If you won't admit that your statement was false or misleading, then my time is better spent discussing issues with other people who would admit that. Many liberals don't mind being deceitful and I don't waste time debating them. When I make a false or misleading statement, then I apologize and correct it. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:24, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away away. I love that statistics are now "liberal falsehoods." Andy, the fact is that if you did a trial of 1000 people and one person died, this would not mean that the death rate was 1 per 1000, you would have to do larger scale trials to see if the rate held. It is possible for a single person in a 1000 person trial to die, but the statistic is that this will happen on average 1 time per million. The term "severe reaction" includes "death" as a possible reaction, so although 1 in 1000 will not necessarily die, 1 in 1000 will suffer a severe reaction. This severe reaction could include death. Stick to law and economics, Andy. Statistics are complex things. JohnSmith 14:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
John, you're not fooling anyone here. Your statement was false, but you won't correct it. I doubt anyone else here would be foolish enough to waste time with you. Thanks, but I'll be debating others here who don't embrace falsehoods. Godspeed in your efforts to find someone else to debate you.--Aschlafly 14:40, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, for someone who runs a wiki site, you need to learn some basic formatting. When I put in 1 colon mark, then you follow with 2. When I put in 3, you follow with 4. It makes the conversation difficult to follow when your responses jump back an indent or two. But on to the matter at hand. You've failed to address any of the points I've actually made. You've latched onto what you consider to be a falsehood and then refuse to consider any other part of my argument until I satisfy your claim. This is called the fallacy of many questions. It's as if I've asked you "do you still beat your wife" which assumes that you have a wife and you beat her, though neither fact is in evidence, and then I refuse to debate until you answer the question. Now, you've asserted that I falsely stated the death rate of the smallpox vaccine as 1 per 1000. I pointed out that this was the rate of severe reaction, and that severe reactions can include death, although death is statistically less likely, on the order of 1 per million. Even though I pointed out that your initial accusation of falsehood was unfounded, you move the goalposts and continue to ask when I plan to stop beating my wife. You continue to demand I admit lying when in fact it's your own trouble with statistics that is at issue here. You don't want to debate and that's fine. I know it's tough when someone presents those pesky facts that put a dent in your ideology. JohnSmith 14:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
While I certainly agree that it would be best if noone ever had a severe reaction to a vaccine, we need to accept it as a fact of life. We have two girls who have died, but consider the number that will not suffer from cervical cancer and die as a result. If my statement seems cold-hearted, consider the number of construction workers that died on the job building the highway that takes you from your home to your work. We accept that some construction workers may die or be severely injured every time we commission a highway construction project, yet noone suggests that we have to halt highway construction until it can be made perfectly safe.
Also, Andy, to say that there's no proof that HPV vaccine will prevent any cases of cervical cancer is to call into question the validity of vaccination in general. The practice of vaccination has been proven in theory and in practice. Here we have a disease that is known to be caused by a virus against which a vaccine can and has been produced. The vaccine has been effective in human models, and although there haven't been challenge trials in humans (which would be unethical), antibody resistance to HPV has gone up post-vaccination which is a marker of efficacy. There's some sort of twisted logic coming out of the far right that suggests that if young girls are protected from getting cervical cancer that they will turn into amoral sex machines, and it's just the threat of cervical cancer and other diseases that keeps them as pure as the driven snow. What garbage! JohnSmith 13:39, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I, for one, love this talking point system!Богдан Talk 13:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I think I should make Conservapedia;Talking Points, where the 90/10 rule wouldn't apply, and people could argue all day long!
Andy, as reported by a Newsweek poll of some 480,000 scientists involved in earth/life sciences, "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly". --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you're asserting the number, so it is really your burden to give a citation to support your claim, which you have not done. Nevertheless, I did some internet searching and it appears that your figure is based on a response to 700 credentialed biologists identifying themselves as creationists.[2] The evolutionists simply claimed that everyone not on the particular list must be a Darwinist!
Remember, liberals don't mind being deceitful. We all get fooled by that, and that is why it is essential to track down the basis for a liberal claim before repeating it. God help all of us.  :-) --Aschlafly 14:07, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is what you're teaching your students, Ashlafley? To assume that every liberal is a liar? --PF Fox 14:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
How many Steves[3] are on that list, Andy? JohnSmith 14:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Why don't you count them for us, John, and make your point regarding the "steves" Karajou 15:26, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
You must have never heard of "Project Steve." Essentially, it's a list of scientists whose names are or stem from "Steve" such as Stephan or Stephanie. Currently, there are 807 Steves with proper academic credentials that endorse evolution, which JohnSmith is hinting is more than the number of scientists with proper academic credentials who support creationism. Bascially, There are more scientists named Steve who support evolution than there are scientists who support creationism. Stereophile 15:49, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Your statement is a series of non-sequiturs, and have no connection with the liberal falsehood that 99.84% of biologists embrace evolution. Unless someone supports that claim as made above, that liberal falsehood is going to be added to the growing list of liberal deceit.--Aschlafly 15:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
And added to that statement I suppose there are more trombone players named Frank who support the notion that Napoleon was a girl; whatever the majority chooses to believe still doesn't make it a fact. If they want the rest of us to believe and promote evolution here, then they need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist first. Karajou 15:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
There are two problems with what you just said Karajou. First, the metaphor is incomplete as trombone players, in deciding Napoleon's gender, do not compare in terms of authority to scientists who decide whether or not evolution occurs. (EDIT) Aside from that, while a majority doesn't necessarailly indicate fact, it does typically go to show what the best theories are at the time in relation to the qualities of the theory we have observed both directly and indirectly. That said, evolution isn't really a complete theory yet. Imagine it as so: the atom. The atom, while it has gone through many revisions throughout history, was from the beginning viable as a general concept. Evolution, while not complete, is stil the best most people have come up with regarding how it is that organisms seem to have changed over time. (<-- I'm not really sure where I was going with that)(EDIT). Secondly, to say that in order to make you believe in evolution that we would first need to prove that God doesn't exist would fairly well remove most of its scientific creedence. God, after all, is not a being hypothesized by scientists, who's concept is over and over revamped to fit our observations, but rather a theological being who's existence isn't dependent upon evidence as much as faith. Scientifically, there is no way to falsify his existence so without a scientific way to do that, nobody could logically and scientifically falsify creationism either. Either way, creationism shouldn't have to rely on the existence of a higher power, as there is no concensus as to who's god is real, or whether one even exist's, no matter what your personal belief may be. I guess, in short, God cannot be evidence for a scientific theory because he's not something you can observe; he's only something people can have faith in.--Stereophile 16:33, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Oh, no, Andy! Not the dreaded list of liberal falsehoods! Come off it, man. Again, it's simple statistics. The Discovery Institute, and a number of their predecessor creationist organizations have trotted out the list of scientists that "dissent from Darwinism" as if it had some factual importance. The point of the Steve's list is two-fold: First, it points out the absurdity of suggesting that such a list (such as the dissent from Darwinism) has any effect on the actual validity of the Theory of Evolution. Secondly, if one still believes that such a list does have validity, then one must likewise accept the Steve's list as valid, meaning that since the name Steve (and it's derivations) comprise about 1% of the names in the US, then the 807 Steves on the list must correspond to 100 times as many scientists that support the ToE, or around 807,000, which really puts those ridiculous creationist lists into perspective.
Also, Karajou, one need not prove that God doesn't exist in order to say that the ToE is valid. As I'm sure you're aware, there are a great many theistic evolutionists, and acceptance of the ToE is not incompatible with belief in God. JohnSmith 16:37, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
519 words in response above, not one of which supports the liberal claim that 99.84% of biologists embrace evolution. It's another liberal falsehood. I don't expect that falsehood to bother liberals, but it will matter to everyone else. It's going into the growing list of liberal deceit.--Aschlafly 16:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I see the source of this falsehood is Wikipedia. No surprise there. I'll put this in Bias in Wikipedia instead.--Aschlafly 16:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Andy? My response had nothing to do with the 99.84% number, instead I was addressing the question of the "Steves" list. And the number doesn't come from Wikipedia, it comes from a 1987 Newsweek article. Perhaps you should start a new article: Bias in Newsweek.
But I'm afraid that this time you are hoisted by your own petard. The link you posted above: [4] shows an actual poll conducted of scientists in 1997 showing that 5% held to some form of young earth creationism, whereas 95% held to either theistic or naturalistic evolution. Now, this is a general poll of scientists, and one would imagine that if the field were restricted to biologists only, the numbers would probably go up since "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Now, that being said, I'll stick to the 95% figure so that I'm not accused of being some sort of lying liberal. JohnSmith 17:08, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
"John", which I don't think is even your real name, I'm not interesting in debating people who won't admit to and correct falsehoods. We saw an example earlier today concerning the smallpox vaccine above. Now we see it here: you won't admit the 99.84% claim is a liberal falsehood. Instead, you blame Newsweek, which is another falsehood because Newsweek didn't make the 99.84% claim. The claim does come from Wikipedia. See Bias in Wikipedia.
Don't post to my talk page and don't try to engage me in debate unless you abide by simple rules that avoid falsehoods, and that correct them promptly when made. Thank you.--Aschlafly 17:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Andy, as I've explained above, you're failure to understand statistics does not equate to me lying. I resent the implication, and it's clear you're going to continue to call me a liar to avoid having to address any of my points. How cowardly!
Now, as far as the source of the 99.84% number, you do cite a Wikipedia article which repeats the number, but the Wiki article cites a Newsweek article from 1987 where the original statement can be found. Wiki didn't just make up the number out of whole cloth, they repeat the statement from Newsweek.
Lastly, I've admitted that the 99.84% number is at best an estimate, and not an actual valid statistic. The valid statistic comes from the poll conducted in 1997 which shows that 95% of scientists accept the evidence for evolution. I speculated that if one were to restrict the poll to biologists only, then the number might rise and approach the 99.84% number, but absent an actual poll that demonstrates this, I will stick with the 95% number.
And I see you're on the "not your real name" wagon again. I guess you had better chastise "Conservative" and "Wikiinterpreter" and "Ferret" and "TK" for not using their real names either. What a limp accusation, Andy. Why don't you accuse me of violating the 90/10 rule next, then I'll really feel like a real CP editor. JohnSmith 17:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Two things, John: 1. you're not going to push liberal beliefs here, and that includes a ToE belief; and 2. you're getting pretty close to starting a fight with your blatent statements of "cowardice" directed at Aschlafly. It stops now. Karajou 17:51, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Funny, how the panel mentions "not censoring legitimate criticism" of the ToE, yet stands by silently when editors purge every factual iota of information about ToE, in favor of half-truths and lies. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:56, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, there, Internet Tough Guy. First of all, the ToE isn't a liberal belief, it's science. Your particular theology doesn't allow it, that's fine. You want to present your theology for what it is, that's fine. My frustration comes up when people try to push their theology as a legitimate scientific alternative to the ToE, or they misrepresent the ToE for the purpose of denigrating it. Incidentally, I'm not actually pushing the ToE in any of the above repartee. Andy is upset that Hoji used the 99.84% number, and decided it was a liberal falsehood. I've been pointing out that although the methodology used to arrive at that number is not valid, that the fundamental concept that Hoji is presenting (that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the ToE) is correct. And 2) Andy and I are engaged in an argument. I've made a number of points which Andy refuses to address. Instead he calls me a liar or a liberal and pretends that this allows his to dismiss my criticism in toto. If he wants to surround himself with sycophants and suppress all discourse that doesn't agree with him, that's his prerogative, but that is cowardice and I will continue to call it like I see it. If you can't stand the heat... JohnSmith 18:04, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
No John, the point is that you are going to respect this website one way or the other. This site was founded on Judeo-Christian, conservative values, and it is you who is pushing otherwise. If you don't like it, you will leave. Karajou 18:07, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • THIS PAGE HAS BEEN TEMP. LOCKED. John Smith, Karajou, other Sysops, take this argument to TOE!. Now. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Ego Stroking[edit]

TK's thought's on Stile4aly[edit]

I missed the SDG opening up by about a day so I ended up requesting membership in it, hearing that people were being approved. Here's TK's response to that request:

(5:53:37 PM) Exculpatory1: Stile is requesting membership
(5:53:48 PM) Exculpatory1: like i would do that scum any favors, lol


(8:04:45 PM) Exculpatory1: anyone can request membership
(8:05:15 PM) jazzman831: are you letting anyone in who requests it?
(8:05:30 PM) Exculpatory1: mostly ;-)
(8:06:06 PM) jazzman831: heheh
(8:06:25 PM) Exculpatory1: I approved Hoji and Wiki
(8:06:37 PM) Exculpatory1: Stile whoever he is, is a dick
(8:06:41 PM) Exculpatory1: fuck him

Aww, TK, I didn't know you cared. Thanks for the transcript, Jazzman!

PS: Am I really that big a dick?