Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Young Phyllis's romantic intrigues)
m (seriously, you made me come back for this... 21-3 = 18)
Line 414: Line 414:
:::::Abuse of power becomes an addiction. TK isn't getting enough kicks any more from CP. He was away from there for almost a year without a peep so he must have another playground, which he has returned to now that the fuss over his last shit-stirring scheme has died down. {{User:Genghis Khant/sig}} 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Abuse of power becomes an addiction. TK isn't getting enough kicks any more from CP. He was away from there for almost a year without a peep so he must have another playground, which he has returned to now that the fuss over his last shit-stirring scheme has died down. {{User:Genghis Khant/sig}} 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
== Young Phyllis's romantic intrigues ==
(section removed by a friend)
Young PhyllisS is engaging in some sort of "chance meeting on the street" session on Conservapedia with [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:JacobI#Reference an ex-boyfriend,] who looks to be a cradle-robber of some description. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:errrrr think harder LX, and closer to home. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>Model 500</sup>]] 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::Can we at some level let the young 'uns be young 'uns?  And leave them to their "privacy"? (as if there were such a thing) {{User:Human/sig|}} 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:::No privacy on an open wiki I'm afraid. But yes, we'll try our best. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>Model 500</sup>]] 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Since when did Conservapedia become an open wiki? {{User:Genghis Khant/sig}} 06:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Inasmuchas the young lady is probably a legal minor, I move that this section be stricken from the page. {{User:Toast/Zig}} 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel one way or the other about whatever's going on here, but I'm ignorant of any relevant laws - what does her being or not being a minor have to do with the matter? [[User:Megaten|Megaten]] 07:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:More of a moral issue than a legal one really. But I'm pretty sure she's in college, and assuming she didn't "graduate" early she's not under 18.--{{User:PitchBlackMind/sig|}} 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::It's one of the unwritten RW laws - leave the kids alone. Come on, we're supposed to be the good guys. [[User:Bob Soles|Bob Soles]] 08:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh, and that goes as well for taking the piss out of their homework. Sure some of it is risible but I'm not sure I would have done much better when I was that age, especially if taught by that clown. [[User:Bob Soles|Bob Soles]] 08:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:38, 11 September 2009

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Altered perceptions

This isn't so much "WIGOCP" but a general thing that a few of us have mentioned or noticed. There are certain words or phrases which have acquired a new connotation for us, a meme if you will, that is so strong it almost overrides "real world" usage of the terms. Here's my short and obvious list, are there others that have come up? Surely there are. Let us all drink to them...

  • Godspeed - I fall off my chair when it's in a movie or something
  • Trustworthy - will never mean the same thing to me
  • Gentlemen

Human 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know it's more to do with American political antics than CP, but I've learnt to see the word liberal in a different light. For instance, here in Aus when we refer to Liberals, we refer to the Liberal Party (centre-right). So everytime I hear on the news about "The Liberals are doing...", or "The Liberals want to...", I expect to hear one of Andy's insane, Godwin-centric, daft, paranoid, misleading, asinine, childish, sophomoric rants on how Obama is going to, oh I dunno, introduce a drug into the water supply that turns everyone into goats communists. Rebback 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (Been lurking a while, but CBF registering until now, need to hide my brand new IP from Kennybuns)
The same applies in Britain. Phantom Hoover 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
How Andy's ruined my life...
  • Mystery - Do liberal teachings cause mental illness?
  • Abortion - Breast cancer (and vice versa)
SuperJosh 11:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
"The same applies in Britain." Not entirely. The Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour and the Tories in terms of political allegiance, but since the election of Nick Clegg espouse economic policies that are to the right of Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy and Paddy Pantsdown (who is actually a former member of the SBS and not somebody you want to piss off, so I'll take that back). Technically that makes the Lib Dems the Right of Left of Centre party in the UK, unlike the Tories which are the Slightly Left of Right of Centre Party, Labour which is the Just to the Right of Centre Right party, UKIP which is the party of the Right, and the BNP which is the party of the Far Right and natural Daily Heil Mail readers. See, nice and clear, and no wonder Andy doesn't understand it.--AndyPandy - 'cause Zues decided you can never have too much stupid in the world (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Insight--Matt 09:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dumb Christians

(this is in response to Andy's latest essay/list covered by WIGO)

Okay, okay. So being a former Christian, I decided to take a look and see how I "score" on Andy's "test". After reading over the questions, I realize, that probably only 5 or 6 of the high school and college students in my church (have over 50 of them) would be able to answer more than half of the questions... Those 5 or 6 students are ones who are seeking to work in some field of pastoral or ministry.

Further, of those 5 or 6, maybe -- And I stress MAYBE -- 1 could answer all of those questions correctly.

I answered less than half correctly, but at least I know how to challenge other Christians when it comes to beliefs about the Old Testament and junk. (What are some of the oldest books in the Bible? All of them!!!1) Kektklik 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you were a biblical scholar I doubt you could answers those question and these days Andy is an amateur biblical scholar because he nothing better to do. I could compile lists all day long that most educated people would not be able to answer just by asking a few technical questions from a highly specialised field. Pi 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Those are random facts, at best, about the Bible. I'd say 1 or 2 of those questions would actually be useful, like the one about who wrote most of the books in the New Testament. Paul did.. It helps you see his transformation from Corinthians and onward (he goes from greatly disliking marriage into being indifferent about the whole thing). Kektklik 03:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
When I scanned the list I think I could probably answer slightly over half. Paul, John, 37, Aramaic/Greek, etc. (not in order, just random memories of being quizzed by Teh Andy. Human 03:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Jew isn't a language?! Kektklik 04:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a Floridian. Human 04:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't you mean a New Yorker-ian? SuperJosh 11:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This is just such a wonderful fail yet again by Andypants. "Just to prove atheists are dumb, I'm going to set a quiz on a book they have little or no interest in." Now, that's like me setting Andy a quiz on the complete works of Jasper Fforde and calling him illiterate when he can't answer most of the questions. -- PsyWhut? 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's see...

1. About 25 million copies per year

2.There are four Gospels included in the bible, but around 20 were excluded

3.Three are attributed to eyewitnesses??

4.Hebrew/Greek (even though they lack the expression of powerful conservative concepts)

5.Probably "thee", "thou", "and", or something like that.


7.Slightly longer


9.I have not the faintest idea

10.Latin, of course

11.66 I believe

12.Deuteronomy, IIRC


So I probably scored about a "C". Ah well. Theemperor 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Psy summed it up as far as I'm concerned - I don't give a tinker's cuss for any of it. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't get this quiz. So Atheists are stupid because we arn't experts in the bible? Does that mean Scientologists should consider Andy a moron because he doesn't know the ins and outs of dianetics? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Andy is just bored. WIth TK preventing any of those dreaded liberals from storming the castle, Andy has nobody to "defeat" in debate (we all know he just spouts his drivel, bans them, and masterbates over it, but he considers it debate). This is a pretty sad attempt at getting people to challenge him. SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Right wing webshites

I've copied that list from CP's main page. Where to put it? I am eating Toast& honeychat 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. Can Ken read? If he can, does he read his own stuff? I am pretty shit at writing but even I shake my head at that. And Alexa now has conservapedia at more than 64,000, they would not be on that list anymore. Ken just annoys me so much. - π 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


You know, I love being able to click the little voting button thingies again *happy sigh*... but there was something special about the "come up with an original number" thingie on TeflonP (which sounds like a planet in THHGTTG). --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 18:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The number thing was like an entertaining CAPTCHA in my eyes: "To prove that your Lulz is epic enough to be listed, think of an original number or something related that hasn't been taken yet" :D --Sid (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wigouparrow.gif Wigodownarrow.gif 42 I'm glad you guys liked it. The fake votes are still buried in there as comments, by the way. Oh, I see someone overwrote my pretty arrows with some ugly ones... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Legs WIGO

Love it - it's either a sign that RJJ has finally flipped, or he's given up and is taking the piss over there. --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 18:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Wigs LEGO

Sorry, I'm getting dyslexic in my old age. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Apparently Andy has a Blackberry. Now is that a liberal or a conservative trait? Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 19:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another thing he has in common with Obama. We should list these: Harvard Law School, Blackberry, ... (please add; this list is growing rapidly!)--Simple (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Believes in God. Opposed to gay marriage because of that. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a little late for this, but

TK's Muslim WIGO. First off, most Muslim scholars agree that Honor Killings are considered evil in Islam. Radicals use Islam to justify them, but in fact they are based off of pre-Islamic tribal codes. In fact, there was a famous case of a girl being murdered for converting to Islam. And death by stoning and amputation of hands doesn't occur in all Muslim countries. Malaysia doesn't have it I'm pretty sure. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Much like the radical Christians in the states, anything can be justified with religion..... It has nothing to do with the religion, it just adds some juice to your smoothie. SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Not all Christian countries/states have the death penalty, nor laws against blasphemy nor working on a Sunday (though how priests managed to get round that one I'll never know). Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 20:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Pat Robertson's imaginary state does. He wants to stone everyone who believes in aliens. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Absolutely brilliant. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't brought up Hell yet... he's more subtle than usual (which leads to the idiocy being more visible)... --Sid (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That is the beauty of teh Assfly which the mere pig-headedness of PJR cannot match. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any topic of discussion one can have with Andy which does not eventually become a discussion on either classroom prayer or gun control? --Johann (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That entire exchange was fantastic. I'm happy, but very surprised, that Andy didn't attempt to spin it as an atheists scamming the system or being dishonest or something like that, but I figure there's still time to go down that route. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama was homeschooled - Someone let Andy know!

I was reading the raw data of Obama's planned address to school kids and this immediatly leapt out at me -
"When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday - at 4:30 in the morning."
This needs to be brought to Andy's attention so he can add it to the list of famous homeschoolers. Ace McWickedModel 500 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a link for it anywhere? Broccoli (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
linky linky. Ace McWickedModel 500 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the best things about Andy's definition of "homeschooled" is that he's made it incredibly elastic so that he can count all these Great Historical Figures as among the homeschooled--even if, like me, your mom taught you some ABC's and basic reading (I could read before I got to kindergarten...) you count as homeschooled to him. Except, obviously, in this case. It would be nice to watch him pull out the "only liberals blindly insist on consistency" rule when confronted with this. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I remember someone trying to add a Nazi to the home-schooled list but it being removed for some reason. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
*Gasp* If what TOP is saying is true, I'm going to have to take {{User public school}} off my user page. My mother wouldn't let me go to school until I knew how to write my name and phone number. You know, in case some stranger wanted to give me a call sometime... or if I got lost I could tell them how to call my parents, I dunno. -RedbackG'day 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And another thing which makes Andy's definition of "homeschooled" even better, is that he can just as easily state that Obama's socialism/fascism/communism/muslimism/terrorism/racism/liberalism OBVIOUSLY comes from the brainwashing he received in the public schools, NOT from his homeschooling™. --GTac 09:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy. Nail. Head.

"It's axiomatic that once someone accepts a logical contradiction, then he can justify anything. Perhaps that's the real appeal of the [Christian] belief system. But the end result is not pretty for those who subscribe to it. " - Andy Schlafly — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Andy rejects proof by contradiction. Coarb (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Gee, that link is over a year old. As is that whole thread. Come on, folks, get yourselves up to GodSpeed! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that Andy has changed his mind? Coarb (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying it ain't exactly "news". No offense, but it's bit stale. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The stuff Neveruse is quoting is on WIGO today. Coarb was contrasting it against his beliefs on proof by contradiction. - π 05:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thank you. Sorry, kthxbai ;) I fail at merging wigo and talk wigo in my tiny brain :) ħumanUser talk:Human 05:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I have the problem of not even reading WIGO and then reading this page, trying to follow what is going on. Thankfully most of the main players are so predictable you can guess most of what has happened. - π 05:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, which WIGO is it? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

adulteress Story

I love the debate (the section header alone, wow!) of Aschlafly and Conservative. Ken criticizing the self-declared biblical scholar Andy, that's really something to behold. Though Ken, you should try to stay up-to-date: the Bible Retranslation Project has been abandoned, it's now project Conservative Bible - and it may evolve further... larronsicut fur in nocte 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That must be the first time I've managed to read anything substantial from Ken without my eyes subsequently having to book two weeks at the Priory. Ajkgordon 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe Ken wrote that. Maybe the Dr Jekyll side of Ken is at work here; Mr Hyde-Ken would have sprinkled in some "in regards to"s and much more repetition of key phrases.--Simple 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrow buttons

They seem to have changed from the simple gifs we had to something else, without any comment or input from anyone. Personally, I liked the simple up and down green and red arrows. The orange thing in the middle does not move me. But whether all agree or disagree with me, let us not change the look and feel of the site at whim, just because "we" (and you know who you are) can. Bounce your ideas off the mob, first, please. Discussion please? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Noone would care if I just suggested it somewhere. This way I get better feedback, even if it's negative like yours. The hover and press effects are not just for show, they are there to improve usability. -- Nx / talk 06:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, so why not "suggest it somewhere"? The hover and press I don't care about, they're probably an improvement, but the new crappy blurry images bug me. So, let me ask: "Why" did you not suggest it somewhere first? Is this how you plan to operate in future? Implement whatever you want first, then tell complainers no one would have cared if you asked first? This is very poor wiki-form in my opinion. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, I see the buttons are all back and like the old days (expect with improved hover/press things?). Please ignore above rant. WIGO pretty again? Now, if you think the "new" buttons were better, anyone, let the discussion begin? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I preferred the newer ones. SuspectedReplicant 08:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Human. StarFish 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TK, why haven't I been blocked yet? I didn't see any change, I guess this happened whilst I was sleeping. Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 09:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It has been reverted back so you can only see the old ones. I'll post them both for comparison. - π 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Boring old gifs -Wigouparrow.gifWigoresetvote.gifWigodownarrow.gif
Sexy new pngs - Wigovoteup.pngWigovoteneutral.pngWigovotedown.png
I think I like the boring old ones better. Less blocky, more smooth. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the new ones, but I agree that the orange block isn't as intuitive as the old 0. Not sure of a resolution though :) Worm (t | c) 10:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The new ones are fucking sexy, they should "light up" when you pass you cursor over them though. - π 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually we can make that happen if we want. - π 11:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I kinda like the new ones, but can we make a sexier version of "0"? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ no fate but what we make 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Brown and round, perhaps? Or a black circle/gray center with similar gradient work? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What has happened to the vote neutral option?. I like the block for the neutral, less intrusive on the more important up/down-ness. - π 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess I meant a black circle/gray gradient center roughly the size of orange blob - less intrusive as you say, and also intuitively a "zero" vote. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've always thought '0' a bit counterintuitive, how about 'Meh!' or similar?

If anyone's still interested: [1] -- Nx / talk 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you get Human's permission to set that site up or do I have to report you to ICANN? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (I like the images)
The arrows are hands down better. The orange thing is confusing, but I don't know what else to do...maybe a goat? Goatsmiley2.gif— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That's for april fools' day. The colors are based on this, in case it wasn't obvious. As for the shape, well, I don't know the visual metaphor for meh. 0 only makes sense if a) the other two are +1 and -1 or b) you know how the software works -- Nx / talk 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Oh! I vote for smiley face, neutral face, frowny face.....make 'em goat faces! tmtoulouse 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I do like the final implementation at RationalBeta, but I am now sold on the smiley face idea. - π 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going on at CP, but related.

Richard Dawkins' new book ("The Greatest Show on Earth") references (on page 131) Conservapedia, Andy Schafly and their triumph in defeating the evil Prof. Lenski and his "scientific" minions.Toffeeman 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who reads books these days? Millions of people buy Dawkin's books, but less than 1% will ever read them. [2]
This is actually above or in the archives somewhere. - π 11:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's wigo2430. SuspectedReplicant 11:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ken was informed of this during RW's downtime. His response consisted of "Aha! So I see Richard Dawkins could not find any factual errors to refute in the Conservapedia atheism or evolution articles! :)", and when RW came back online he burned and restored his talk page, minus that section. --Johann 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Imagine his hard-on if Dawkins decided to devote a book to those articles...That's classic delusions of grandeur, the Lenski affair is notable because of the importance of the experiment's actual results as well as creationist reactions to them in general (CP just happens to be the most embarrassing reaction), Conservapedia is, despite what they think, not notable. Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of Curiousity...

Anyone got the stats yet on how RW being down for a few weeks impacted CP's page hits? - Tygrehart

According to Alexa the last few weeks have been pretty dire for CP with it regularly dropping out of the top 100,000. In fact this is the worst I've ever seen CP achieve. It's hard to say if this can be attributed to RW though as CP's ratings have been falling consistently for the past few months and the trend is just going on. There has been a bit of a spike up in the last couple of days but is it just a spike (Alexa's figures are usually very spikey for some reason)? Is it because RW is back on the air and everyone is linking through? Or is it because they got a mention in the new Dawkins book? It's probably a bit of all three. Nice to know we might have had an effect though. StarFish 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't surprise me if a quick check of a list of thier refering sites had RW, if not number one, then at least in the top three. Course Andy & Co would probably spin that to say that those hits are evil liberals finding "the truth" at Conservapedia and being converted as a result.- Tygrehart
At one point the active user (people who have preformed one action in a week) fell to about 51. They are back up to 80 (in two or three days we have had 99 users). 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Just note that for every user here, there are at least 2 active socks on there. I'm actually encouraging my block. Never thought I would have to beg for one. Sometimes, I think those people forget how to block people who have usernames based on their naming conventions. Fuzzy =^_^= 04:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, going by Alexa, the pageviews/user certainly nosedived during the RW crash (high pageviews/user I assume, therefore, are due to people reading WIGO and clicking on a high proportion of them) and similar significant drops with Time-on-site and Search % (which is odd). The rest of the figures seem steadily in decline and look too noisy to tell. Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporter seeking contacts

I'm researching for an article on Christian conservatism on the web and investigating conservapedia.com. I'd like to speak with people on both sides but have been ignored by mr. Schlafly and his websit does not appear to have a place like this to ask general questions. Does anyone have better contact info for admins at that site? — Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs

Just go to Whois and type in Conservapedia.com, it has all the information to contact CP there. - π 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's for a friend from the tribune who has been blocked and ignored several times. I believe Andy is on he Whois but does respond to email. Sorry about the crummy formatting. I'm on my phone browser. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If your friend emails me I can give them his fax number, but seriously you only get this if it is legit. We only use it when we want to communicate in the most formal way, usually when Andy sends us legal threats. - π 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Andrew would be glad to grant your friend an interview, as long as Andrew retains complete control over the article that results. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Has Mr. Schlafly sent any legal threats to RationalWiki? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia:Andy's Copyright Threats. - π 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Andy's "work"/fax number is listed on one of those "yellow pages" sites. If not, then just guess all the numbers in a certain range (I actually just checked my phone and noticed that I deleted the numbers).
As far as email goes... from what it seems, he rarely checks his AOL account anymore. I think he has a yahoo under the same name. Silly Mr. Cat 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You might try the contact listed at http://www.conservapedia.com/DMCA_Agent --Shagie 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got his fax number and home phone number but if Andy doesn't respond to emails my friend will just move on to email other admin. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have both home phone numbers? o.O Candlewick 05:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz likes to have his name in the newspapers, they should contact him. - π 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Nutty Roux, how the hell did you get his home phone number? SJ Debaser 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It's mentioned above that some members of RW have for extremely formal communication, such as legal threats that occurred some time ago. But if he's purposefully shying away and avoiding contact, then just take it as "refusal to comment" and proceed with an article. You can possibly send an almost complete version of your article (this also shows you're serious rather than just trying to grab contact info or troll the crap out of him, remember you're dealing with the most paranoid man on the internet, perhaps with the exception of David Icke) to grab his attention but then you'll just be stuck with mostly offering "right-of-reply" rather than an interview, unless you want to then rewrite it... Scarlet A.pngmoral 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Better Wigos

Recently, I'd found WIGO CP to be getting quite boring, but now there's a couple of classic Andy WIGOs up there. It makes me happy. SJ Debaser 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the case that TK poisons everything, even when it's only being mentioned by WIGO. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 11:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup - I would never WIGO TK. Once you cotton on to what he's about it's just boring. Andy on the other hand continues to surprise and delight with his mad obsessions - he is the soul of Conservapedia.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 11:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob is still my favorite (ab)user of the english language

Compulsory insurance will be mandatory! 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Niiiiice! I am eating Toast& honeychat 17:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It almost sounds like a Yakov Smifnoff(sp?) bit: "In Soviet Russia, mandatory insurance is compulsory!" (Oh, and sorry for posting the WIGO before I saw this under "Talk"). MDB 17:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems redundant, unnecessary, pointless and without any need to point this out. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What about non-compulsory insurance? Will that be mandatory too? I bet so, Obama is always pulling crazy stuff like that. --Interiot 18:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
He catcheth the crafty in their own craftiness. RobS 20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you get the part about compulsory and mandatory being synonymous? Making the statement tautological? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean making mandatory insurance compulsory, or compulsory insurance mandatory. Interesting debate. Kinda like auto insurance, if I choses not to have mandatory insurance, I have the option to walk, ride a bike, or use public transit; but if I chose not to have compulsory healthy insurance, what are the Democrats gonna do to me, force me to not live? RobS 02:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sure they will get you when The Great Purge comes, Rob. - π 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely that's the choice!!! Goddamnit, if you won't take care of yourself by buying insurance, then we'll just kill you off so that you won't need healthcare!!! Seriously, I have to agree that I am seriously concerned about forcing everyone to buy insurance. What about the homeless? What the fuck are they gonna do? Is the government gonna deny them the can of beans they spent 2 hours begging for if they don't have insurance?Lord of the Goons 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(EC) This might come as a shock to you Goonie, but Rob and anything he links to are not reliable sources of information. - π 02:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I know. But I still wonder myself about mandatory insurance, and how we'd go about forcing people to buy it.Lord of the Goons 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Rob, yes. The new rule will be that everyone has to be part of the pool. And if you can't afford it, it will be provided at reduced cost. You do not have the option of "not wanting it". You have the option of moving to some nice civilized country that does not provide universal health care, of course. America - love it or leave it, you hippy. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do we even indulge RobS? Apart from being bat-shit scared of the perceived "red menace", the guy is a waste of time. Ace McWickedModel 500 02:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Human, so you'd agree with me the logic is flawed in this Associated Press report [3] dated Sept. 8. It reads, "The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage." Just like auto insurance. If I opt out of driving, I don't have to pay, likewise if I opt out of breathing, I don't have to pay.
Sheesh, you Dems, libs, commies, progressives, or whatever you wanna call yourselves, good luck on this one. Looks like a tuff sell. RobS 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as we allow you to use this site to spout such nonsense, do you mind chipping in a few buck? The problem with Free Speech is it is not exactly free. - π 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
So true. That's probably why Rush Limbaugh earned a quarter billion dollars in the free market and Air America has so much unsold advertising space filled with dead time (music). Conservatives pay to hear ideas, nobody in thier right mind pays thier hard earned cold cash for commie BS (except George Soros, but he's not in his right mind). RobS 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(ECX2)As the right are more supportive of big business than the left, you are always going to have a larger share of mass media market. Kind of puts a crimp in the old left-wing media bias talking point though. - π 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not in your right mind Rob. Where are the commies now? Under the bed or in your closet? Weirdo. Ace McWickedModel 500 03:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago I remember commenting that there are only about 6 actual communists left in the world and a few hundred thousand undergrad posers. - π 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Last I noticed, Rob, Air America is still on the air despite boycotts by conservative advertisers. The station I listen to is fully "advertised". If you are listening on-line, sometimes spots reserved for local ads are just blurred with that silly bland rock noise. Oh, and screw Baucus. The point it to get everyone into the health care pool. If you want to "opt out of the communism, buy private health insurance. Or what? How about no health care if you fall and can't get up? Watch out if you fall near your bed, since the reds are only sleeping, and they will come out and chew on your liver... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"Conservatives pay to hear ideas." - Er, no. They pay to have their bigotries and prejudices reinforced. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 06:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Exactly Rob. I don't have time to listen to talk radio and have my views reinforced. Some of us have work, or school, or both and have better things to do than sit around and be told how and what to think. Nice try though. SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously guys, I need some input on cp:Obamunism#Indoctrination. Did I manage to connect the dots? RobS 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)What you connected a mixture of newspaper editorials, the comments of a now ex-government advisor, a few dedicated campaign works and a false rumour? I can't even work out the point you are trying to make and I pride myself on being able to speak fluent wingnut. - π 03:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unblock us from CP, asshole, and we can discuss it in a more appropriate forum, asshole. TheoryOfPractice 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Unblock us from CP, friend, and we can discuss it on the talkpage, friend. I'd also really love to see your liveblog of Barry's speech tonight on utubez. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
As much as I enjoy all the ad hominem argumentum which only demonstrates the sterility of rebuttals and liberal ideas (kinda like Godwin's Law does), unblocking any of you would only give CP herpies which I'd get blamed for and I believe in abstinance. And I haven't a clue, the time, or patience to sort out who is who in the all various and sundry sockpuppets created over the past several years. If you want credibilty, create an internet persona and stick with it. All else is trolling. Just some advice for the youngsters. RobS 04:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
See if you can learn out to spell "herpes" and "abstinence;" otherwise the youngsters will not take your advice seriously at all. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Asshole? You sound just like Van Jones. Ex-adviser? Hmmphh. D'ya suppose something can be done with this material?
Excerpts of Herbert Hoover's 1940 speech to the GOP convention: Pages 213-214 pdf)
"In every single case before the rise of totalitarian governments there has been a period dominated by economic planners. Each of these nations had an era under starryeyed men who believed that they could plan and force the economic life of the people. They believed that was the way to correct abuse or to meet emergencies in systems of free enterprise. They exalted the State as the solvent of all economic problems. ...These men shifted the relation of government to free enterprise from that of umpire to controller. Directly or indirectly they politically controlled credit, prices, production or industry, farmer and laborer. They devalued, pumpprimed and deflated. They controlled private business by government competition, by regulation and by taxes. They met every failure with demands for more and more power and control ... When it was too late they discovered that every time they stretched the arm of government into private enterprise, except to correct abuse, then somehow, somewhere, men's minds became confused. At once men became fearful and hesitant. Initiative slackened, industry slowed down production.
"Then came chronic unemployment and frantic government spending in an effort to support the unemployed. Government debts mounted and finally government credit was undermined. Out of the miseries of their people there grew pressure groups business, labor, farmers demanding relief or special privilege. Class hate poisoned cooperation."
Let's now look at the some of the material in Van Jones's Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), Spring 2004, for example pg. 35 pdf, : "Party discipline. Members are expected to put the interests of both the organization and the movement before their own." Then examine Robert Gibbs statement: "The president and the CEQ accepted his resignation because Van Jones, as he says in his statement, understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward on something as important as creating jobs in a clean energy economy. [4]

1. If you find fault with ad hominems, why did you give [5]this user a block with the reason "Stalinist holocaust denier; Soros stooge."? I did not see them deny the Holodomor, and simply writing in an editorial style (not openly discouraged at Conservapedia) in favor of socialized medicine doesn't make someone a "stooge" of Soros. Soros did not create the concept of socialized medicine, or even name it - I believe the AMA did that when Soros was only 17. How is this not an unwarranted ad hominem?

2. What is your feeling about the Conservapedia sysops who have left the project, such as PJR due to harassment by a RationalWiki-editing parodist who was frequently commended by Andrew Schlafly and then given sysop status by him, all while many at RW believed him to be an obvious troll? Or DanH, who left because of Schlafly's insistence that Obama is a muslim? Or JessicaT who left due to harassment by TK?

3. Are you citing Herbert Hoover's GOP convention speech, which the party essentially ignored completely at the time, as an accurate prediction of the economic state of the USA some 70 years later? Well, whether you are or not, could you please give me a politically neutral (or even liberal) link to the complete text or audio of his speech? All I can find from Googling quotes is a handful of right-wing blogs, a New World Order/Third World War conspiracy site and a Christian ministries site. Megaten 05:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) ok, so you found one instance of me dealing with a troll, big deal. (2) To quote Eisenhower, I don't get involved in personalities. (3) There's a link provided with page numbers cited. John Flynn quotes him verbatim. Look at Hoover's conclusion, "Then came chronic unemployment and frantic government spending in an effort to support the unemployed," (emphasis added) after years and years of stimulus. Look at yesterday's NYT, "[6] "Many experts envision a jobless recovery," i.e. "chronic unemployment." 15 million Americans now are unemplyed, with no hope to return to work anytime soon. Obamunism envisigaes so-called "structural unemployment" at 8%+ in perpetuity. 15 million human beings, that is more than the 11 million FDR had.
Who are these "starry-eyed men who believed that they could plan and force the economic life of the people," Van Jones? Max Baucus? "shifted the relation of government to free enterprise from that of umpire to controller," e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, etc.
"They met every failure with demands for more and more power and control;" after the Bush stimulus with the $600 rebate failed in 2008, they demanded a bigger dose of the same bad medicine, Obama's $787 billion dollar stimulus in 2009.
"everytime they stretched the arm of government into private enterprise, except to correct abuse, then somehow, somewhere, men's minds became confused. At once men became fearful and hesitant. Initiative slackened, industry slowed down production." We couldn't describe better why there is no hope for Recovery anywhere on the horizon better than this -- the threat of extendeding the hand of government into healthcare confuses minds, no one will risk creating new jobs, initiative slows, a jobless recovery & chronic uenemployment is all that's in store (but as Rahm Emanuel said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So hopefully, all this government created misery will rebound to the Democratic party's benefit with new WPA type projects).
Read the source & see what was left out:
"These men thought they were liberals. But they also thought they could have economic dictatorship by bureaucracy and at the same time preserve free speech, orderly justice and free government. They might be called the totalitarian liberals. They were the spiritual fathers of the New Deal.
"These men are not Communists or Fascists."
Hoover may have been polite, but others may have had other opinions likewise. RobS 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"If you want credibilty, create an internet persona and stick with it." OK, Rob, I'm Human on CP, here, probably WikiSynergy, and aSK, at least. Or if you prefer, unblock my IP address and let me create the user "HuwP", although I'd prefer to retain credit for all my work as "Human". ħumanUser talk:Human 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As Ronaldus Magnus said, "There you go again." I thought you were AmesG. RobS 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that's you. --Kels 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Closed up shop again?

Maybe Andy has finally decided that only the chosen few can edit his precious blog.
"You do not have permission to edit this page.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit" --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Night mode. It's been on more and more lately. Stupid word Hoover! 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The saddest thing is that whether night mode is on or off these days, there's not much difference in the "Recent Activity." Junggai 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The saddest thing is that it seems like every couple of days someone posts on this page with their knickers in a twist because night mode is turned on or membership creation is turned off, as though that's something that hasn't happened four or fives days a week for years now...TheoryOfPractice 21:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be working now. Plenty of probable trolls creating accounts. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the saddest thing is the way Andy butchered that tea party news post and none of his sysops have fixed it up to at least make it a consistent mess. - π 23:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the saddest thing is the state of the Republican Party as judged from Andy's photo. 100% white, 95% old. You suck. I hate you. 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
He even defended the layout. Having done that I doubt anyone will fix it. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't tell me Schlafly still has his monitor set at 800x600, that is what I had to reduce mine too to get the text to sit under the picture. - π 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Shortsightedness

I did a literal spit-take when reading the (WIGO'd) "Hooray for letting corporations pump money into political campaigns!" announcement.

Is Andy really openly approving of the coal industry potentially buying politicians to fuck up our planet even more declare Global Warming a fraud?

Then I guess he will have no objection to the tobacco industry doing the same, right? Oh, and abortion providers. And the porn industry. And anti-religious groups.

I'm surprised, really. Especially since CP usually seems to oppose lobbyists potentially influencing politics. Oh, wait. My bad. CP merely opposes lobbyists potentially influencing liberal politics. Sorry, folks, I briefly mistook CP for a site that treats both sides of the political spectrum equally... --Sid 00:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sid", could you specify how the theory of relativity has helped anyone? I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and noticed that you expressed support for the gay agenda, so I'm confident you're an Obama supporter. Like all liberals, you deny that pregnancy deters language devolution. Do yourself a favor and admit that I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded. Pontius Pilate, who was no dummy, had no understanding of the concept of truth. Can you quote something that you think demonstrates Roman appreciation of the concept of truth? Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--aschlafly 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Damn, you got me, Andy. =( --Sid 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Active Editors at CP and RW

Active Editors
  • Some edits were transferred from teflpedia, so our traffic isn't zero over the time of the exile
  • Conservapedia didn't profit from our time-out
  • the number of active editors at Conservapedia is on an all-time low. With the start of Andy's new course, this will change
  • IMO, Conservapedia never recovered from the effects of the week that never was. I hope that our handling of a similar - even worse - situation, will show better results....

larronsicut fur in nocte 08:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the week that never was is a correlation, but not a causation. At about the same time, TK got his sysop rights back. -- Nx / talk 08:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems clear to me that the sharp dip over the summer is from TK turning the screw. Will be interesting to see if it goes up again now that he seems to have lost interest slightly.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much of this is TK's work. But the handling of their data loss was a how not to do it manual - perhaps influenced by TK... BTW, I up-dated Conservapedia:Active users and RationalWiki:Active users: only 25% of the 150 editors who contributed the most comments to CP are still editing, on RW, the number is 56% ... larronsicut fur in nocte 09:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I still enjoy the fact we have more users very-active (3 edits per day) and above than CP has semi-active (1 edit every 3 days) and above. - π 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if my 2486 edits in January is a record for edits in a month. What a waste of time. Aboriginal Noise with 4 M's and a silent Q 19:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As you asked, I wasted some of my time :-)

top 10 edits in a month
# month editor #edits
1 Apr 2007 cp:User:Jaques 3655
2 Apr 2007 cp:User:Ed Poor 3353
3 Apr 2008 cp:User:EdBot 3229
4 Jan 2009 cp:User:WesleyS 2486
5 Jul 2007 cp:User:Aziraphale 2289
6 May 2007 cp:User:Jallen 2241
7 Jul 2007 cp:User:Learn together 2172
8 Apr 2008 cp:User:Deborah 2138
9 Jul 2007 cp:User:Aschlafly 2131
10 May 2009 cp:User:RobsSmith 2009

larronsicut fur in nocte 06:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Gentlemen/TK at a rather liberal website...

That is all. Cheers! SJ Debaser 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This message is just a link to a youtube video of a mumbly reading of cp:Time. Coarb 17:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do better then. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 17:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that a mumbly recitation video is better than no video at all. I think any reader can do better by simply visiting cp:Time and reading it. Coarb 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
A sentiment with which I can only heartily agree. People can read the article on their own, and chortle at its hilarity. Now a dramatic reading of Conservapedia might be amusing. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Rob's articles would need to be read in hushed, conspiratorial whispers. --Kels 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Calling William Shatner... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
My challenge is to create a better video mocking CP not do the same thing with better diction. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but seriously - can you imagine Shatner reading that article (or for that matter, Schlafly) word for word, deadpan or dramatic? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Invisible Hand of Grade Inflation

Well, Andy's graded his first homework paper from his first lecture, and the bar for quality has been set. Take this example from question 4, which asks for an explanation of what "The Invisible Hand" is, along with an example:

The “invisible hand” is the influence that motives people to work harder and create their own opinions and ideas. An example where the “invisible hand” made its mark was when the USA began their mission to space so that they may prove to the Soviet Union, who at that time was the most advanced in space technology, that we can do an even better job. The “invisible hand” helped the USA to progress the knowledge of space and open more doors for the next generation.

Hey, nobody's perfect, and this is a good opportunity to explain the problems with the answer and actually correct the student's misunderstanding. Instead:

Fascinating explanation of the "invisible hand"! May use as a model.

Parents, please get a refund while you can. If you paid nothing, at least you're getting your money's worth. --SpinyNorman 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about an answer that has nothing to do with the topic. Surely Andy knows the Apollo project was a, um, gubmint waste of money? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We've all seen Andy be willfully ignorant, or very selectively ignorant. This isn't ignorance, it's absurd stupidity. Andy needs a dope-slap. -Lardashe
I'm so glad Andy is grading again. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a fond wish that someday, one or more of Andy's students not only realize what a poor (mis)education they received under him, but has the integrity to write about it online as a warning to others. I truly feel bad for these kids, who are going to have a rude awakening when they get to college and experience a real-world economics course grade for repeating Andy's idea of a "model answer" like the one above. --SpinyNorman 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Forget the invisible hand, my invisible backhand is the ultimate motivational tool.--Tabris 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
15Theory: the "courses" are a phantasmagoric entertainment made from whole cloth to amuse us.
Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics and the curiously absent

I am wondering if Andy stuck TK on his leash during the economics season. He has been absent. Ace McWickedModel 500 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

TK's smart enough to stay way clear of anyone and anything directly bearing on Andy's classes. -SpinyNorman 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
He did block a student last week, he probably is being cautious these days. - π 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Then why no "news" items from him? This has been a great week for "conservative" news, but no TK. I think he's resting somewhere quiet and dark. Yes, that's it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think he slunk into a dark cave to ponder his next move. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Abuse of power becomes an addiction. TK isn't getting enough kicks any more from CP. He was away from there for almost a year without a peep so he must have another playground, which he has returned to now that the fuss over his last shit-stirring scheme has died down. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 06:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(section removed by a friend)