Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed. The election booth is now open!

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

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  tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

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

Archives for this talk page: Archive list

## A Theory of Everything

Andy explains his. Zelmerszoetrop 04:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit. I'm staggered...
Just, wow...-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
My favorite quote: "The miracle of walking on water is more fully understood under a physical theory based on order/disorder than than a traditional view of gravity.". Does the man ever get tired of outdoing himself? Tetronian you're clueless 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course just like "liberal" is "anyone who disagrees with me," "disordered" is "anything whose order I don't understand." Faith is more ordered than other forms of thought! The eye is more ordered than other organs! Deny this only if you want to lose credibility. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That whole page is Andy's Timecube. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 04:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The man is insane. It would be hilarious if he wasn't pedalling this shite as 'educational'. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I like how walking on water is an example of increased order, when later in the same article he argues that a closer arrangement of objects has greater order than a distant scattering. So wouldn't Peter up to his forehead in the Sea of Galilee have greater order than Peter separated from the Sea of Galilee? After all, the surface area of the smallest sphere that encloses both is larger in the latter case.--Martin Arrowsmith 05:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe other people feel the same way, but Andy's crap about how order is established on consciousness and thus if we think about things the right way we can walk on water makes me think that Andy's watched "Being There" again and (as usual) has derived a grand theory from the first thought that came in to his head. Bil08 11:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I must echo Antifly. Just, wow.... Then again is this any different from ID? Grab one "big idea" (Order/Complexity) misapply it all round, attack current science by rigorously misunderstanding it and bring in some moral dimension necessitating teaching it to students. Anytime now he'll be putting all of societies ills at the door of "chaos-ism". Just look at the chaos Hitler caused, and we're teaching this to our kids in public school! Toffeeman 12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Andy's solution to healthcare reform would be less government spending and more faith healing, I'd suppose. Maybe he fell asleep reading a Green Lantern comic before he came up with his willpower-versus-disorder theory. (Perhaps when no one's looking he puts his hand on a Bible and recites a version of the G.L. oath to get a 24 hour charge of righteousness before editing). This is truly his closest orbit yet around planet timecube. --SpinyNorman 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(Because I can't resist):
"In brightest day,
In blackest night
No liberal shall escape my sight
Let those who worship reason's might
Beware my power - Oversight!"
(Still waiting on your recap of the Rutgers panel, Andy) --SpinyNorman 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
"Epaaaaaaaa!"
- Green Lantern being thrown into a vat of acid by Sinestro. --Edgerunner76...and a hotplate! 13:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a nice bit of moronic yet accurateimg vandalism. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That made me chuckle. I wonder if DouglasA appreciates the humor. Tetronian you're clueless 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That was mine. Happy to be appreciated Ace-o-aces 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with that, it seemed a very weed induced thing to claim. sshole 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

## 'Christian children'

This story on their mainpage really annoys me. It's about a secular advert using pictures of 'christian' kids. When you see the picture in question (on the Times article), you can see that the kids are no older than 3 or 4. A 4 year old is NOT a christian, any more than a 4 year old is a conservative or a liberal. This kind of shit from religionists really really pisses me of. Bastards. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How much do ya want to bet that the parents will run their kids lives, possibly homeschool?--Thanatos 02:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A five minute block? I like how Ken put "The atheist community has a higher rate of suicide compared to the theist community" at the end. Nice little rant about the happiness of Christians compared to atheists... psst... atheists kill themselves more than theists! What crappy wording for the front page. SJ Debaser 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The headline is unbelievably ironic. "Hey Dawkins! Know how you don't want to label kids as Christian or Atheist?! The kids on your advert are Christian, not atheist!" The cognitive disconnect is enormous. 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No one seriously denies that atheist children are a different species from Christian children. --Kels 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I hear of "Christian children" I'm reminded of this quote:

 “”it is my opinion that the correction of children should start as soon as the need for that correction is made manifest. Every discerning parent who has been blessed with a little child in his home realizes that his initial impression of the sweetness and the innocence of the child is in reality an illusion. A child very quickly demonstrates his fallen, depraved nature and reveals himself to be a selfish little beast in manifold ways. As soon as the child begins to express his own self-will (and this occurs early in life) that child needs to receive correction. My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will broken by the time he reaches the age of one year. To do this, a child must receive correction when he is a small infant.

--PsygremlinFale! 05:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

@SuperJosh: But the theist suicide rate has a higher body count.. you know, cause they tend to want to bring others along with them, with the means of strapped on dynamite or hijacked planes... --GTac 10:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Bad taste, but probably quite true. But seriously, this is a whole "how much can you possibly miss the damn point" job. As Publius, the disconnect is extreme, I assume they didn't even read the big friendly letters. sshole 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the disconnect here is huge. Bible-bashers think it's ironic that a campaign not to label kids is using 'christian' kids, whilst ignoring completely the irony of them labelling the kids as christian. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again the knuckle heads at CP prove the point by missing it --Opcn 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## The Weakly Toon

...appears deeper than probably intended. Conservatives see this as a display of weakness from Obama. Democrats/liberal, on the other hand, can enjoy the scathing attack on the international results of the Bush era!--Ireon 09:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Being Conservative means never having to say you're sorry. If (according to Andy) Jesus wasn't into forgiveness, why should they be? But you're right, there is a lovely double meaning hidden in that cartoon. --PsygremlinPrata! 09:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The humor makes a whooshing sound as it flies over his head. Tetronian you're clueless 12:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that too. It appears some American conservatives don't even know what other continents look like, even when it's necessary to prove a conservative point. Junggai 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Junggai, I hardly think Kajagoogoo's knowledge of geography is representative of "conservatives" in general. He's his own idiot. TheoryOfPractice 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. I think not even Sarah Palin would be dumb enough to have Obama apologizing to the people of Hawaii. Junggai 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I like how he has Obama saying "oops my bad" to what appears to be the Northeastern United States.... and the Yukon territory of Canada. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I like how he has Obama giving out apologies in deep waters off the continental shelf, as if he had offended the angler fish --Opcn 10:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## The last four WIGOs...

...I like how each one is about the antics of an individual editor. Short and sweet. Ken: We're rich! Jpatt: I'm hardcore! RobS: I can't debate! Ed Poor: I can't be within 200 yards of a school! Nice. SJ Debaser 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

as the author of two of those bad boys, thanks. TheoryOfPractice 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
So in reverting a source that says "consevative ideology is very much the same as the ideology of Adolph Hitler," I'll just put "Godwin" in the edit summary and not bother debating the user on the the talk page. [2] Thanks the tip. RobSmith 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Josh, your Ed comment came close to showering my keyboard. Sir, I salute you. We should check Revelation for references to the three dumb-arses of the apocalypse. --Ask me about your mother 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I authored the Jpatt one. I like the consistency in them. I'm unusual. You are quite welcome CR, three dumbarses are a paedo, a delusional prat, and a closet gay. And maybe a McCarthyite if there is room for a fourth... SJ Debaser 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Those were good WIGOs, short and to the point. They should be an example for people to follow. Tetronian you're clueless 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
They could, of course, be the Other Four HorseMen of the Apocalypse. Lemme see, Ed = Grievous Bodily Harm (possibly to little girls? just JAQing...), JPratt = All Foreigners, Especially the French, Ken = Really Cool People and Rob = Cruelty to Animals (altho we're not sure if he's for or against it). --PsygremlinKhuluma! 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

## Minor lulz

Ok, so which one of us did this?img Whoever did gets a hearty handshake from me. Tetronian you're clueless 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cancel that offer, the person isn't that smart after all, as proven hereimg. Tetronian you're clueless 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If'n youse nEeds another go at it I'll log in a CP oversighter to help you out with a clean slate. 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

## Old hat

Came upon this while browsing:

It made me smile. In cognito 19:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They could look closer to home to find non-family friendly content. --PsygremlinParla! 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That one always makes me laugh. In fact, I wrote a poem about it. Tetronian you're clueless 02:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Stitch75

I'm surprised he's lasted so long - he's been popping up and passing comments then vanishing again for ages, especially given thisimg reply to Andy. It's been over a year since he tangled with my sock. Maybe I should have blocked him then. Still, I'm sure Terry will soon sort that oversight out. Amazed to see JWDPianist still pottering along too. Terry! Terry! You missed one! --PsygremlinPrata! 19:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Terry, sweetheart. --PsygremlinTal! 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## There goes another one (encore)

I will be taking an indefinite leave of absence. I have decided that it is not cost-effective to attempt to work here. The cost is too high—I, and my colleagues KSorenson and MarkGall, have to deal with too many distractions and obstructions in the form irrelevant philosophical/political/religious controversies. And the benefit is too low—I (we) had hoped that Conservapedia would live up to its mission of providing a useful educational resource for pre-college students, and therefore that our work would have a significant audience. But Conservapedia has increasingly had its mission diluted with activities that harm its reputation, to the point where it has essentially no respect anywhere on the internet. [1]img In cognito 23:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This was bought up a few days ago here. SJ Debaser 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. It was the removal that brought it up to my notice. In cognito 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

### TK, you asshole

You just couldn't resist, could you? Tetronian you're clueless 03:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Andy on Relativity Redux Redux Redux....

Two things here: 1. Does Andy realise that churches, while they "spend their own money" get a free ride re: taxes that enables them to do so? 2. Is this the closest he's come to stating that Einsteinian Relativity = moral relativity? TheoryOfPractice 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he used to state it explicitly in the relativity articles. Looks like he might be getting back to that. I think Andy's objections to relativity stem from poor reading comprehension. Ace-o-aces 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
"People who believe in relativity should spend their own money on their activities, not ours, just as religions do."img How about the slight(!) tax break that religions get Andy? In cognito 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Andy supports non-Christian churches being taxed? That might be worth burning a sock to ask. Tetronian you're clueless 02:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
James Madison at one point opined that it was a breach of the separation of Church and State to exempt churches from taxation. ListenerXTalkerX 05:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wonder if Andy will soon start saying he should get tax-exempt status? He does not believe in relativity, he is a man of some kind of faith.--Thanatos 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
He is already immune to copyright law, I'm sure he will eventually call CP a 501(c)3 --Opcn 10:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be so funny. It would be the next FBI Incident. Tetronian you're clueless 13:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course there was also that state funding thing that Andy applied for and never got. I'm sure someone whose brain isn't addled by alcohol can find an appropriate link. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Are Andy's homeskollars...

...straying from their path? EddyP 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Although he still has the worst ones up there "Abortion is murder", "homosexuality is wrong." As neither a woman or gay (supposedly) he has no business saying they're wrong. SJ Debaser 12:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Still, it's good to see that Andy isn't totally brainwashing them. Tetronian you're clueless 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of his talk page for some classic Bugler. Corry 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That is classic. Damn, I miss the epic parody that used to be able to fly under the radar at CP. Tetronian you're clueless 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been getting too easy to vandalise CP in his absence. Although could you unblock my IP address please TK? Jpatt took it out last week. Cheers! SJ Debaser 12:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much interesting goes on when he's around though, because he just blocks everyone after their first edit. We had an awesome time last week with all the relativity stuff which wouldn't have happened with TK about because he would have just blocked the 'offenders' straight away. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is what I missed - TK's creepyimg mentioning of his checkuser abilities, whenever he can. --PsygremlinParla! 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention his constant mentioningimg of the unmentionable site. Psst! Terry92270, your spam probably has more to do with you visiting sites like this than us. --PsygremlinTala! 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## The Bible Bump

 Active Editors at CP whole period last ninety days Active Unblocked Editors at CP whole period last ninety days

The CBP increased the number of active editors, after the dismal performance of CP in August/September. But many of the active contributors were subsequently blocked, so the community didn't grow... larronsicut fur in nocte 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

larron, your charts never cease to amaze me. But the result doesn't really surprise me: since when has CP even allowed the majority of editors to stay? Tetronian you're clueless 13:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## I'm sure I've asked before

but does Andy actually go to church? Does his priest know about all his shit? How does Andy keep from piping up and telling the Priest what God really said? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I'd love to see him screaming at the priest. "Liberal lies!!! Open your mind!" CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what church he goes to. I would think that he would believe most churches in NJ have liberal bias. Tetronian you're clueless 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone want to burn a sock and ask which church he frequents? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought he was Roman Catholic, but much of his views seem well outside of Catholicism and more in line with hard core Protestant fundamentalism. (With the great exception of sexuality matters, a lot of Catholic social teaching is quite liberal.) On the other paw, he does not seem to be obsessive about the Rapture or the "End Times", which is very closely tied with American fundamentalism. (I believe Catholic doctrine is that the Book of Revelation is historical allegory and not prophecy.)
At this point, Andy has essetially turned conservatism into a religion. I half expect the CBP to include apostles named Rush, Sean, Bill, and Glenn, and Conserva-Jesus to hang out with Doctor Laura Magdalene. MDB 14:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Andy obviously thinks he can do better at Christianity than anyone, I don't know why he'd sit there and listen to liberal bias. I might ask. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I might be (probably am) pulling this out of my butt, but I thought he was "Catholic" because he "had to be" when he got married. If so, would his current theological ideas verses his "Catholicism" be deceit? --Edgerunner76...and a hotplate! 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Why would he have to be Catholic to get married? I could be wrong, but I believe the Catholic church only requires one of the couple to be Catholic to allow a Catholic wedding. I know a couple that had a Catholic wedding; he's quite the devout Catholic, but she's not much of any religion. MDB 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Kettlewicket told us that Andy goes to church. But the biggest clue from an outsider's viewpoint is his Sunday essays which to my mind seem to be inspired by the sermon he has heard. Also there is definitely a couple of hours on Sunday mornings when he doesn't edit. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I do think Andy once made some reference to how strong his faith was by how long he could wait in church to eat. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Strangely there's no mention of religious persuasion on mommy's bio page. At a cursory glance, anyhow. In cognito 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia says her religion is Roman Catholic (but we all know that's full of liberal bias). Perhaps her Eagle Forum bio doesn't get into specifics about her own faith to avoid driving off Protestant supporters, since American Protestant conservatives really don't like Catholics (and will sometimes insist they're not Christians.) MDB 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh Andy must have said something to the priest. We're talking about a guy who reacted to the priest's use of "it" rather than "he" by rewriting the fucking bible. My bet is that a few years ago the priest got sick and tired of Andy yelling about liberals during every sermon about peace and tolerance, and so started going all out conservative (along with the congregation), desperate to avoid inticing the idiot in the back row leering over everybody else. But then one day like in some comedy show, at the end of another flawlessly fundementalist service, he made the slightest slip-up causing Andy to explode with a speech about how people only listen to the priest because of his liberal bible, and he'll sure as hell show them. Or something like that. Bil08 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A while ago he said he was involved in handing out those red letters they were sending to the White House. Somehow, I can't see a highbrow Catholic Church doing that. --PsygremlinHable! 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Wouldn't this be a non sequitur?

I don't see how one follows the other, heathens. SoldierInGodsArmy 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you were to forget all the nonsense you were taught in public school and open your mind you'd see. Godspeed. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Public schools are Satan's playground! The only proper way to educate kids is to homeschooling. SoldierInGodsArmy 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"The only proper way to educate kids is to homeschooling" And what a shining example you are, Sir. By the way, I didn't know there were sane people who still used the word "heathen". Oh and I'm sure Jinx will be thrilled to see that you were calling down gOD's wrath on him - very Christian of you. --PsygremlinRunāt! 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you think god ever planned for the internet? Because, damn. X Stickman 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"SoldierInGodsArmy" (obviously your parents were atheists to give you such a pagan name so you're probably obese), we have rules against incessant talk, talk, talk. Take a look at your own edit pattern and check it against the rules. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and you claim that faith isn't an uniquely Christian concept, so clearly you're favoring immorality. And you persist in denying the obvious truth that capitalizing Hell deters rape. Whatever the mainstream media might say, Obama stood by his statement, in which he concluded that he "was right" as supposedly proven by his absurd analysis. Help yourself by opening your mind, before it's too late. Next you can predictably insist on your liberal last wordism.--Andy Schlafly 14:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

## MainPageLeft

I haven't bothered scrolling down CP's mainpage for a while but I noticed that Karajou mashed Joaquin's Masterpieces into one section to make way for his Weakly Toon. I guess he felt obliged to gave JM front page billing to keep him happy. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## Huh?

This. Tetronian you're clueless 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, suddenly Andy's "mystery" about "was Mark a child" has suddenly become fact in his mind. And he's clearly clueless, there's no reason at all why a child wouldn't be helping out on a boat - except to support Andy's "argument". Hell, what defines as "child" would have finished schooling, be working and in all likelihood married by 14. If, in our enlightened times, 6-year olds can be working down the mines, children would be helping out on the family boat in those days. As for the rest, it's just more word salad, supporting Andy's belief that science stopped with Newton. --PsygremlinPrata! 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I just found the edit summary funny when taken out of context: "Mark was a young boy, and young boys shouldn't be in the middle of lakes at night." Tetronian you're clueless 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Which was also the view of the courts when a 13-year old Dutch girl wanted to sail round the world. Yet we had 14-year olds joining the army in WWI (not legally of course). As always it's Andy trying to impose his own 20th-century, urban-American viewpoint/values on not only the rest of the world but also the rest of world's history. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC^2) Aside from the general oddity, it made me notice how often he says "I have an open mind about this" these days. Five times about the Gospel of Mark...and once, "this (and all other issues)." ~ Kupochama[1][2] 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You gotta admire the shear depths of that guy's delusion to think that he actually has an open mind on anything and then to tell others to open theirs. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I also loved "Science is a part of truth." Gee, I wonder what the other part is. Tetronian you're clueless 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## The fate of gun control

If the fate of gun control depends on Andy Schlafly, then the NRA might as well pack it in now, and beat their AK-47's into plowshares or something. MDB 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's writing an amicus curiae brief. They're probably not even going to read it. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
For information from WP:
An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court.
An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.
(my emphasis) In cognito 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Essentially, isn't an amicus curiae brief the Supreme Court equivalent of a letter to a Congress-critter or the President, albeit with legalese? I can imagine Andy's letter now:
Dear Justices:
There are too many liberals nowadays. Please eliminate three million. I am not a crackpot.
Yours, etc,
Andrew L. Schlafly (Esq) (Mrs.) MDB 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ooh! A python fan! 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but (a) As incomprehensible as Andy is, even poorly written amicus briefs filed at SCOTUS are much more coherent than, say, letters to the editor, and (b) They only get a few (less than 50 or so) briefs per case (c) Every justice has several clerks (d) The briefs are organized, with tables of contents, so readers can skip parts that are redundant.
OTOH, it is hilarious that Andy thinks the court's decision is up to him. This is the best Andinsanity I've ever seen, since it extends beyond the bounds of his wikirealm. Coarb 18:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It's at least a close second to the FBI Incident. Maybe Andy will also try to influence the gay marriage bill that is floating around the NJ legislature right now? Tetronian you're clueless 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Andy's writing is not so good. Here's the AAPS amicus brief from the DC v. Heller case if anyone's interested. His alleged McDonald v. City of Chicago amicus brief isn't posted yet. 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I can tell from the writing style that it is Andy. Loved the "gun control = genocide" bit. Tetronian you're clueless 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) "The Primary Use of Guns Is Defensive, Having a Beneficial Effect." Classic Andy right there. But more to the point, the AAPS, an organization of medical doctors, are filing and amicus brief supporting the propagation of a device that exists only to kill people? WTF? TheoryOfPractice 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The opening bit explaining what the AAPS and why they care about gun control is a bit distressing. I don't know about you, but there seems to be something almost unholy about a group of pistol-packing-physicians (would make a good grindhouse movie, though). Kaalis 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
OMFG!!! "Had someone used a gun to avert the 9/11 massacre, it would not have generated anything near the news that did result." You have to be fucking kidding me.... SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wonder if he ever considers that four times in about 150 years(?) US Presidents have been killed using the defensive weapon of gun? (not to forget the incident that triggered(hee) the first World War.) In cognito 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The 9/11 bit destroyed my last respect for the man (yes, I still had some left for some reason). DEAR GOD, WHAT THE HELL? --Sid 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think his strangest argument is his idea that children, if armed with a firearm, could overcome a normally more powerful aggressor. Because, you know, it would probably be better if every child had a gun in their backpack just in case a bad guy came after them on the way home from school. No way that could go wrong. Oh. And I loved the reference to Hollywood bias. -- JArneal 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is just staggeringly funny. There exists an organization crazy enough to have Andy file briefs with the SCOTUS on their behalf, and he drowns the page with the most absurd Andyisms imaginable. Is it too much to expect "Dear Supreme Court. No one denies that autumn leaves are beautiful except evolutionists, and since doctors defend against medical tyranny and the incroachment of relativity with guns, we cannot allow highschoolers to watch Colbert. 2+2=4. I await my appointment as President. - Andy." 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
He is just as wacky a guy outside the wiki as he is inside. Side note: I sent him a (sincere) email once, and he signed his reply "In Christ" I was (almost) surprised he didn't write "Supreme Court" (please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)... Tetronian you're clueless 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
after reading the brief from the link above , my basic reaction was WTF !!! but I did like this bit quote: Gun control makes citizens, particularly children and mentally disabled people, unprotected targets for crime. The right to bear arms enables these targets to obtain protection. Hamster 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Vaccines could be taken as a public health analogy for guns." WTF??? About the only Andyism I haven't found in there is gun control causes breast cancer. I assume this drivel was laughed out of court? Oh yes, and if Anne Frank had a gun, she would have kicked Nazi ass, apparently. --PsygremlinPraat! 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"The AHPA brief claims that the risk of firearm related death is greater in homes with guns than homes without, but again, such data are defective for failure to specify who fired the gun and whether the gun in the home was the one fired. There is much reason to expect that most of their deaths were by criminal assailants and the presence of the gun in the home had nothing to do with the death." Jesus, point missed much, Andy. Where the fuck did the criminal assailants get the gun, you idiot? With tighter gun control, they might not have had one. --PsygremlinParlez! 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Relativity weirdity

Just above the latest argument about whether relativity is liberal, Andy makes this bizarre comment: [3] He's saying that if the photon has an infinitesimal mass then there will be an infinitesimal gravitational force in Newtonian mechanics (that much is correct), and then he seems to be saying that this would lead to a discontinuity if the photon had zero mass and zero gravitational force. He completely misunderstands basic limits! When is the mathematics course going to take place...? Fawlty 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The mathematics course will begin once Andy figures out a way to praise God using equations. (But his recent "Quantifying Order" efforts might eventually work towards this goal...) --Sid 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Andy's confusion is actually valid, believe it or not. Newton's theory says that anything with zero mass will have zero gravitational force on it; that is, it'll be unaffected by gravity. But relativity says light will be affected by gravity. Surely this is absurd, no? Well, no. As anybody would understand if they even read the title — not the whole thing, not the abstract, just the flippin' title — of Einstein's first paper on special relativity: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." The whole paper was about the seemingly bizarro fact that light is massless and yet is affected by gravity. It's not like that's some side-prediction of relativity (or worse, some assumption). It's that Einstein said "Woah, hey, gravity isn't supposed to affect light and yet we see that it does, how can this be?" And then came the science. So Andy's question is a very astute one, actually. It's just that he's unaware that (a) he's not the first person to ask, and (b) the answer was worked out and put down on paper a hundred years ago. It's just a classic case of Andy knowing a little and thinking he knows more. --4perf 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not quite, 4perf. Light is affected by the warping of spacetime caused by gravitational bodies. Basically (from what I understand) photons themselves are not being influenced by gravitation, but rather they trace a straight line throw now-curved spacetime, which observably alters their trajectory. 67.213.71.134 04:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is actually the way acceleration effects space. Usual trick to understanding these things is a thought experiment. A person is in an accelerating elevator (going up say) and sets up a laser that goes across the elevator. How does the path of light appear to the person in the elevator? How does it appear to a person outside? - π 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think BoN is right: light is going the shortest distance (i.e. straight) through curved spacetime. (Is Ksorenson around to weigh in on this?) But Andy is certainly wrong: he says "The Newtonian force equation applies to objects having at least an infinitesimal mass". Actually it holds for all objects: ${\displaystyle F=ma}$, and if ${\displaystyle m=0}$ then ${\displaystyle F=0}$. Then Andy implies that there is a discontinuity, which there isn't. I think what he means is that (1) ${\displaystyle F>0}$ when ${\displaystyle m>0}$, and (2) there would be a discontinuity if ever ${\displaystyle F=0}$. If that is what he means, it's rubbish. Good thing he writes so poorly you can't figure out exactly what he means! Fawlty 10:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There is another possibility: maybe Andy means, regarding the gravitational force ${\displaystyle F}$ on a photon, that (1) the limit of ${\displaystyle F}$ as ${\displaystyle m\rightarrow 0}$ is ${\displaystyle 0}$ (in Newtonian mechanics), and (2) ${\displaystyle F>0}$ in curved spacetime (in relativity), so there's a discontinuity. But (1) you can't take the limit of ${\displaystyle m}$, because ${\displaystyle m}$ is a constant (it's the rest mass), and (2) this is mixing together Newtonian and relativistic mechanics within one equation. Not even Andy could be that confused. Could he? Fawlty 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Good job

Very effective five year block, Terry. El TajDon't make me do stuff 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

## ORLY?

Does anyone else think teh assfly and Orly Taitz should have a love child? If we can't pull that off, maybe we could at least find a way to get her to be a contributor at CP.Phallus of Satan 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

She already is. Conservapederast 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think phallus meant "a more active contributor", like the level of insights FOIA is adding to CP's certain articles. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## I know this is old news...

But doesn't teh stoopid give you headaches? I mean, for example, this:

evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

.I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but do they really think that our subjective assessment of beauty is "eternally" relevant? Arghh!Phallus of Satan 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy does. That's all that matters over there, remember? -- JArneal 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not just "old news," it's so infamous that it has become a RW meme. Tetronian you're clueless 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Phallus, I have an open mind about this, but I urge you to look beyond what you've been taught by liberal professors. What you haven't been taught is more important. Do you deny that autumn foliage is beautiful? Of course not, it is undeniable. So-called "evolution" is at a complete loss to explain how it might be advantageous for trees to turn beautiful every autumn as they so obviously do. In fact, the evolutionists have spent literally billions of taxpayer dollars trying to prove that autumn foliage was beautiful even before there were people around to enjoy it! This is a site where logic prevails, and trying to censor the obvious fact that God made beautiful fish for us to appreciate via his blessed servant Jacques Cousteau and through the National Geographic magazine and public-funded aquariums won't fly here. You can go to Wikipedia for that kind of thing. Finally, I found your comment to be needlessly verbose. In the future, please try to be as concise and unequivocally right as I am. Do you know what a provocateur is, Phallus? Because I don't, but the word sounds so cool I want to believe it's something politically acceptable, not one of those ugly, deceitful, liberal lie-words. God's peed. --4perf 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"4perf" (you can't even post in your own real name), you complain like a liberal and yet claim to be a "proud Christian Conservative." Guess what: conservatives don't capitalize the "C" in "conservative". I looked at your contributions and I haven't seen a single insight from you yet, so I'm confident you're a victim of Professor values. Furthermore, you deny that women knowing their place stops school shootings. Liberals don't like it, but Wikipedia is the house of atheism on the internet, and it's going the way of East Germany. I can't think of a single hospital built by atheists. It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them.--Andy Schlafly Phallus of Satan 00:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

## HOORAY!

Let's have a big vandal site cheer for everybody's favorite currently-active parodist, MarkGall, who has returned! Zelmerszoetrop 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The liberal detector is pretty awesome, but no one has topped the Bugler for the little clues he dropped. I cant resist re-posting my favorite: [4]76.121.59.123 06:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We can expect great things now that he has wiled his way into a higher echelon of Andy-trust than even TK. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Requesting permission to use irony meter. PLease!

OMG Geometric Growth !!1!11! The triumph of Andy's conservative homeschooling methods is inevitable!!1!!!-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that "performed at college level on our midterm exam" means passed the CP midterm with a 65 or something like that, but it's vague enough to mean whatever Andy wants it to. So now 60% of your students can pass your own midterm, Andy, instead of 60% failing the last time around? That's great, but seeing how they'd do on a standardized test like the TUCE would be a bit more meaningful. --SpinyNorman 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Liberals

Here's what I don't get. Liberals control the media, schools, the courts, science, the government. Liberals control everything. They're clearly inferior people to conservatives so how do they do it? (That and I cant get out of my head this image of gun toting physicians patrolling their offices at night - I mean seriously, are the judges legally compelled to read the rest of Schlafly's crap after they pick themselves up off the floor?) — Unsigned, by: 76.121.59.123 / talk / contribs

It is just old anti-communist propaganda, which did not make much sense in the first place, taken out of context so as to make no sense at all. ListenerXTalkerX 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Um... Ken..

WTFimg? The meds wear off and your head keeps bouncing off the padded wall keyboard? Still, I'm glad to see Dec 1st "might" be a big day... or then again, it might not. --PsygremlinSermā! 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FLYING FORTRESS!!!! AceMcWicked 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The servers went down for a bit, he probably wasn't sure his edits were getting through so he kept hitting refresh, which kept submitting the "add section" edit he'd made. Zelmerszoetrop 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually seen that user's talk page? It's just Ken masturbating all over itimg because the user made the mistake of making a "good" edit to the atheism article. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That WIGO was funny before it was modified. Now it's freaking hilarious. I love how the user has a total of 4 contributions, all of which took place within less than 10 minutes of each other a year and a half ago. And Ken just can't get over him. The entirety of his talk page is still Ken's weird messages. Capturebot rules, by the way. -- JArneal 09:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how he's going to kill evolution this time. Is he going to pay Nephilim Free to put on his giant headphones and cry in a Youtube video? Is some random fundie webpage that nobody reads because it spews Hitler yelling going to post a link? Is Ken going to challenge Dawkins to debate Boteach, although neither person will notice? We'll just have to wait and see! Ole ole ole! Corry 13:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what on Earth is going on. He's just deleted it and restored it AGAIN. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥

## More to the point on Psalm 109

If you read the verse in context (which illiterate, prooftext-loving fundies never do) it says something completely different. It is a psalm of David (you know? One the Bible's big heroes?) in which King David is complaining about the teabaggers of his day.

I know that was a lot of Bible readin', but the upshot is: the Bible predicted Glenn Beck! WodewickWelease Wodewick! 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, that's awesome. --Martin Arrowsmith 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Jinx's cherry picking is pretty epic. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, am not surprised that Jinx is (a) continuing to obliquely suggest someone should harm the President, as he's one on his own website, (b) quotemining the bible, and (c) lying about what he's doing. He's an artless twit, though predictable. 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Andy

It is often proclaimed in WIGO's and on this page that Andy has reached a new level of stupidity, or is becoming insane. Do you people think this is really the case, or is it just rhetorical? In my opinion (browsing Andys page) he seems to maintain a fairly constant level of idiocy. Pietrow 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last couple months, I've been holding fast to the idea that Andy has real delusions and is not at all mentally healthy. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
After a certain level of fucktardery, there is little difference. It becomes asymptotic, as it were.Phallus of Satan 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It's like living with a furry. Sure it's creepy at first, but after a while you'd probably get used to seeing anthropomorphized badgers banging away on the kitchen floor. By an odd coincidence this probably leads us in to a discussion of Ed.--Ask me about your mother 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You need saturated arithmetic to describe Andy's stupidity. His degree of stupidity may be consistent, but everything he says seems impossibly stupid, so it seems like a new record. Fawlty 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ooh? *goes to check his kitchen and comes back disappointed* Vulpius 15:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It really appears that Roger cannot stand the ignorance Andy ejaculates all over the relativity pages. This week's gathering at the Schlafly house should be videotaped like a CMT reality show. --Irrational Atheist 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Has anybody actually emailed Roger and asked him whether his brother is nuts? Now I don't expect him to reply that he's a fucking nutter but I am half tempted to "out" my CP account just for his response.NetharianCubicles are prisons! 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## Gun control in England 1997

From the court document linked in the gun control section above, Andy once again makes arguments about gun control in England in 1997 that just don't make sense to me, as someone who lived in England until 1995 at least. My understanding was that the only hand guns remaining at the time of that ban were kept at sporting clubs and used for sport shooting only. They couldnt possibly have been used for home defense. Can anyone confirm? I can honestly say that I personally knew of no one that kept a gun at home, and I'm pretty sure it would have been illegal.— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.104 / talk / contribs

I was a friends with a guy who owned a hand gun, and his definitely had to remain locked-up at the club. This would have been in the early to mid 90s --Ask me about your mother 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

## TK and proxies wigo

"Close but no cigar. You should learn to use anonymous proxies for your subterfuge. More than one, I might add." That's not how I read his comment - to me it seems like TK is accusing the user of actually editing via several anon proxies, whether true or not. In absentia 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That how I took it too - I think he just phrased it wrong. Tetronian you're clueless 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, "In absentia," that's what I was doing. I performed a routine checkuser, skip trace, and credit report pull on the new user and confirmed that he was editing via several anonymous proxies. I went to his home address and sat in a tree in his back yard watching his family have dinner and watch a movie in order to confirm that he and his attractive young wife are deceitful liberals, childless because they prioritize elevating their "selfish quotient" over anything that advances the interests of society at large. --TK/MyTalk 19:45, 24 November 2009 (EST)