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

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Ken! Ken!)
Line 53: Line 53:
 
Actually I didn't notice early but he noted the effect of unionisation in the NFL. Next year there might not even be an NFL due to a players strike, but each year the best soccer players keep getting paid more and more in a open market where you can be traded freely between leagues. Also, I don't know the rules of soccer management, but in the NFl you can only sell a team with the agreement of all the other owners, seems very socialist to me. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
Actually I didn't notice early but he noted the effect of unionisation in the NFL. Next year there might not even be an NFL due to a players strike, but each year the best soccer players keep getting paid more and more in a open market where you can be traded freely between leagues. Also, I don't know the rules of soccer management, but in the NFl you can only sell a team with the agreement of all the other owners, seems very socialist to me. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:Not to mention the fact that most big UK (and I assume European) clubs are publicly listed companies and many others are propriety companies. Also, let's not forget that one of the most successful teams of the early days was that nasty bunch of Commies, the Old Etonians. Altho, let's not mention that to Andy; I couldn't stand explaining to that mental midget how an English public school is actually a private school.  --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:Not to mention the fact that most big UK (and I assume European) clubs are publicly listed companies and many others are propriety companies. Also, let's not forget that one of the most successful teams of the early days was that nasty bunch of Commies, the Old Etonians. Altho, let's not mention that to Andy; I couldn't stand explaining to that mental midget how an English public school is actually a private school.  --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
::Not in anyway true I'm afraid.  The majority of clubs are private companies, and some of those that are listed are seeking to delist and go private again.  That I can think of from the so called 'big' 5 Chelsea, Stretford Plc (man u), Moss side rovers (man shitty), Liverpool and Arsenal are all private companies.  Going down further off the top of my head Fulham, Birmingham, Tottenham, Wigan and Newcastle are also private.  I'm not sure about Everton, Bolton and West Brom but I think they are.  I can't think of a single club listed on the main market.  One or two may be listed on AIM but that's about it.
 +
::The sad truth is that almost all league football clubs in the UK, English and Scottish, are private companies wholly owned by a small number of shareholders.
 +
 +
::There are a couple of supporters trust run clubs and a very small number in which supporters have some stake, normally through the auspices of a co-operative society or the like, but true listed companies or fans owned clubs are few and far between even down so far as the 7th level of the league.
 +
 +
::The honourable exceptions including the wonderful AFC Wimbledon and clubs like Telford and Wrexham.[[User:Oldusgitus|Oldusgitus]] ([[User talk:Oldusgitus|talk]]) 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== Conservative Vector Fields ==
 
== Conservative Vector Fields ==
Line 245: Line 251:
  
 
: Presumably guns in church are good because of the horrible [[cp:Conservative_parables#The_Fasting_Woman|Conservative parable]]. [[User:Cantabrigian|Cantabrigian]] ([[User talk:Cantabrigian|talk]]) 11:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
: Presumably guns in church are good because of the horrible [[cp:Conservative_parables#The_Fasting_Woman|Conservative parable]]. [[User:Cantabrigian|Cantabrigian]] ([[User talk:Cantabrigian|talk]]) 11:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah I am curious, the article is rather vague on this, were firearms specifically prohibited from being brought into houses of worship beforehand? From what I can gather, such places can now allow concealed weapons rather then being ''required'' to allow people to carry them to such places. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] - Just an astronomy guy 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
  
 
== Anyone else find it funny... ==
 
== Anyone else find it funny... ==
Line 252: Line 257:
 
:No, it is all the defence Ken needs on why no one else can edit it. He was made a sysop so he could edit the locked page. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:No, it is all the defence Ken needs on why no one else can edit it. He was made a sysop so he could edit the locked page. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::On CP 'irony' is just a part of the periodic tabley. However, I'd love to know what kind of credentials guys like Ken, Karajerk and User188 gave Andy, given his abhorrence of "unfounded claims of competence", for him to sysop them just days after signing up? Even lil'Phyll had to bake cookies for two years before she was sysopped. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::On CP 'irony' is just a part of the periodic tabley. However, I'd love to know what kind of credentials guys like Ken, Karajerk and User188 gave Andy, given his abhorrence of "unfounded claims of competence", for him to sysop them just days after signing up? Even lil'Phyll had to bake cookies for two years before she was sysopped. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Yeah, but she is female, and we all know how Andy views women as inferior. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] - Just an astronomy guy 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::::On that note, I see it's been a year since Jallen last edited. How long before she gets demoted for inactivity? --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Murican Gummint 101 course. ==
 
 
What a shame Andy calls it "in our fall, free course", it would sound so much better as a "free fall course". {{User:Lily/sig}} 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:I've got 100 internets that say we see all of Andy's Obama hatred condensed into one easy to read tirade, plus all the good of St Ronnie and a special mention of George Washington's recall letter. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== US Cyber shield ==
 
 
Very droll {{TK}}, of course the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=793584&oldid=793582 US government is installing a cyber shield] against "vandals", not terrorists. Have essential utilities been targeted by atheists and evolutionists? I don't think so. {{User:Lily/sig}} 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:Next they'll be bleating that the liberal govt hasn't included Andy's blog on it's list. Btw Terry, seeing as you curry so much favour over there, how come Andy still hasn't implemented your flagged revisions idea? Could it be that he doesn't know how? Or that he doesn't trust you enough? People want to know. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Night Edit Mode ==
 
 
The day before yesterday, I became annoyed by CP.
 
Again.
 
This time it was the about [[Conservapedia:Night editing|night editing]]. Once, there was a little applet on this site which allowed to check whether Conservapedia was in night-editing-mode (done by psygremlin, if I remember correctly).  I tried something similar at home, and the right pic is the result, the left one is generated with older data from 2008:
 
 
{|
 
|[[File:Nightmode-2008.png|thumb|night editing at CP in 2008]]
 
|[[File:Nightmode.png|thumb|night editing at CP in 2010]]
 
|}
 
 
So, switching off night-editing-mode in the morning seems to be automatized (it's now at 7h, one hour down from 2008), and generally seems to work.
 
But the use of night-editing-mode over the day is arbitrary...
 
{{User:LArron/sig}} 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:Nope, wasn't me - but thank you for the faith in my wiki-fu. --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Ken! Ken! ==
 
 
Just so you know, [[cp:Homosexuality and language]] is top of the wanted pages list, with 71 links (all created by you, no doubt). Quick, quick, run along and write some drivel. Show us your ma-cheese-mo! Make sure to include "ainderby quernhow' - "One who continually bemoans the 'loss' of the word 'gay' to the English language, even though they had never used the word in any context at all until they started complaining that they couldn't use it any more." --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:You can read it in all it former glory <capture>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Foxtrot/Homosexuality_and_Language here]</capture>. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 14:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 14:25, 8 July 2010

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

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

How many infiltrators?

I'm planning on doing them up the ass. They're so paranoid they make it easy. Unsource, unsource, conjecture, delete, condemn, repeat, profit. I only learned of that site a few days ago but I've never before seen such a collection of rash ignorance, and most clearly, hypocrisy. I don't self-identify as liberal, hell, I don't self-identify as gay most of the time, but seeing their shit makes me so glad some people actually do value peaceful co-existence. So how many parodists do you folks estimate constitute that site? I'm going to guess over half. The guy actually says the bible says not to change it, then he goes about removing god's biases toward tolerance. And this guy has money? Money for being a fluke struggling its way out of its host's political pigshit? Sodom (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

His mommy and (probably) his wife have some money. If you've only learned of these guys a few days ago you've missed out on nine out of ten edits and nineteen out of twenty editors they will ever see. Traffic has been decreasing fairly steadily, albeit with some hickups, since early 2008, and is now at a few percent of its peak value. Even if the site stays afloat for a few more years their median lul must have been more roughly two years ago. mb 06:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Soccer

Guess that means that socialism and liberalism are the most popular philosophies in the world with conservatism trailing a very distant last. Guess Numbnuts didn't think that one through. Whoops, no of course, he did think it through, it's just another sad attempt to make Andy look like a dribbling imbecile.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See also here (I beat TK to it, it seems) 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The butthurt is strong with that one. (that ought to have been a WIGO's title). So, since I don't watch socialist football, I take it the US lost or something? Sen (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically every four years the Yanks get reminded that they suck at the world's most popular sport. Instead of admitting that they suck they pretend that it doesn't matter because it's a girly game and lacks macheesmo. Meanwhile Terry Koeckritz picked up the link that was posted in the Saloon Bar and used it as part of his CP Parody - he's getting almost as good as Bugler these days. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious why CP has such a downer on football (i.e. the ball game played with the feet). The USA has a pretty good team which almost always gets past the group stage at the World Cup. But the trouble is they then lose to homosexual-loving, dope-smoking Dutchmen or socialist-voting, nudity-tolerating Brazilians. True Murr'cns who play true Murr'cn sports - sports that no-one else plays - conservative sports - don't have the problem of meeting people from other countries who are not completely identical in every way to Murr'cns. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Soccer is a socalist sport until Heathen Germany imports Christians! AceLiquid Room 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the biggest star is muslim - Mesut Oezil - but somehow, CP is a little shy about mentioning that... The Real James Brown (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Look at who holds the (now defunct) Rugby Olympic title, where handling the ball is of course encouraged. 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
That proves it. Goddidit. In fact, Goddunnit so much he's cast a spell (or whatever it is he does) to prevent anyone else organising rugby at the Olympics and thus depriving the Murr'cns of their status as champion ball-handlers. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Atheistic, Socialist NZ holds the Rugby World Cup Next year. Hope Andy catches it. If not I am sure I can dangle some bait for TK. I would really like to see CP's take on Rugby which is far more brutal and replete with machismo than any American sport. AceLiquid Room 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago I saw a comparison between the max forces on the bodies of American footballers and Rugby footballers. The momentary forces on the American Footballers were higher, but, after allowing for the body armour, the actual stresses on the individuals were the same per tackle. having said that the rugger players stayed on the field for the whole game being involved in up to 40 tackles - not just in 4 - 5 minute patches and possibly only participating in two tackles per game (apparently?) The were all Americans btw - even the rugger players - from California somewhere.
Reasons why Rugby is not a conservative sport. 1. Throwing the ball forwards is illegal - an example of liberals making up rules as they go along. 2. Tackling players off the ball is illegal - i.e. people who play liberal sports are panty-waists. 3. Players don't wear padding - i.e. people who play liberal sports don't take good care of the bodies that God made for them. 4. You only get five points for a try (touch-down), not six - so liberals undervalue individual effort and initiative. 5. You get three points for a drop goal (field goal), not just one - so liberals overvalue sneaky ways of taking advantage of your opponents' lack of organisation. 6. All the players stay on the field for the whole game (more or less) - so who's on the bench praying for divine intervention????? Go on, have a go yourself. Try "why cricket is liberal and baseball is conservative" or "why it is more conservative to play hockey on ice than on grass". The Real James Brown (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Nearly forgot. 7. Rugby players can hold the ball with their hands even though the game is called Rugby football - an example of liberal deceit. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Correction: a field goal is USian Football is 3 points, it's the conversion after a touchdown that is worth 1. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Liberal denial; open your mind. Meanwhile, I'll be trying to figure out how the oversight function works again. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Correction to Human. In American football, a touchdown is worth 6 points (with an extra point conversion worth 1 for a kick, or 2 for running or throwing it in) and a field goal (kicking it through the uprights from the field of play is worth 3 points. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind doing one myself: Why is tennis a liberal sport?
  • 1.) The scoring system, using words such as "love" and "deuce", is derived from French terms - a language spoken by a country plagued by universal healthcare and un-creationist beings.
  • 2.) Of the eight current Wimbledon champions, only two hail from the great US, and both of them happen to be female - there is clearly a liberal, anti-American conspiracy going on here. Not to mention that they are both women, who we all know to be intellectually inferior to men.
  • 3.) When a player makes a serve, it must land in the opposite service box without touching the net, all while the player uses correct footing - an example of strict and complicated rules held by the common power-hungry liberal.
  • 4.) The wacky and patternless scoring system (15-30-40) can only be the figment of a liberal mind - who else would make such a scoring system that has no math base whatsoever?
  • 5.) Conservative President Richard Nixon used "Ping Pong Diplomacy", with ping pong being a sport similar to tennis. The liberally-biased Wikipedia, however, censors this fact on their article regarding ping pong.
  • 6.) The server has the advantage of winning - an unfair setup, similar to one that a liberal would often use at the beginning of a debate to give himself an advantage, such as using liberal assumptions or statements that put the opponent in bad light. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Does Andy complain about the rules of Soccer? I mean, American Football has more convoluted rules than just about any other sport. For a guy who boasts that his wiki has only a few straightforward rules, he certainly isn't using the same criterion to judge his sports. DickTurpis (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that cricket is more convoluted, but given that the NFL rule book is 289 pages and the ICC rule book is a measly 116 pages, I have to take my hat of to the yanks, you are the owners of the most confusing sport in the world. - π 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Simon, you are guilty of the liberal trait of giving undue weight to the number of pages without regard to page, margin and font size. Also Cricket has 42 rules while NFL has only 18, therefore Cricket is more complicated! However, looking at the NFL rule book there are so many sub-sections, exeptions, penalties, official signals that gives me impression that it is intensely rule-bound. The paradox of course is that, for me, it is more liberal to have fewer rules. There was a dsicussion about the UK constitution on the radio yesterday and whether we should have a single codified document similar to the USA, but it was pointed out that the US constitution is not a single document with its 27 ammendments but also includes 270 volumes of case law.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The FIFA Laws of the Game] has only 17 rules and 140 pages, all available as a freely downloadable PDF file - now that's socialism.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The rule thing is Terry Koeckritz's parody.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The opening sentence of their article is a delicious combination of parodies, mocking CP's politicization of anything and incredibly poor writing/editing style: "Soccer is a popular Socialist football sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot." ħumanUser talk:Human 09:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

JDWpianist's point

Actually I didn't notice early but he noted the effect of unionisation in the NFL. Next year there might not even be an NFL due to a players strike, but each year the best soccer players keep getting paid more and more in a open market where you can be traded freely between leagues. Also, I don't know the rules of soccer management, but in the NFl you can only sell a team with the agreement of all the other owners, seems very socialist to me. - π 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that most big UK (and I assume European) clubs are publicly listed companies and many others are propriety companies. Also, let's not forget that one of the most successful teams of the early days was that nasty bunch of Commies, the Old Etonians. Altho, let's not mention that to Andy; I couldn't stand explaining to that mental midget how an English public school is actually a private school. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not in anyway true I'm afraid. The majority of clubs are private companies, and some of those that are listed are seeking to delist and go private again. That I can think of from the so called 'big' 5 Chelsea, Stretford Plc (man u), Moss side rovers (man shitty), Liverpool and Arsenal are all private companies. Going down further off the top of my head Fulham, Birmingham, Tottenham, Wigan and Newcastle are also private. I'm not sure about Everton, Bolton and West Brom but I think they are. I can't think of a single club listed on the main market. One or two may be listed on AIM but that's about it.
The sad truth is that almost all league football clubs in the UK, English and Scottish, are private companies wholly owned by a small number of shareholders.
There are a couple of supporters trust run clubs and a very small number in which supporters have some stake, normally through the auspices of a co-operative society or the like, but true listed companies or fans owned clubs are few and far between even down so far as the 7th level of the league.
The honourable exceptions including the wonderful AFC Wimbledon and clubs like Telford and Wrexham.Oldusgitus (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Vector Fields

I knew it would happen sooner or later. Andy's desperation to get the number of Conservative TermsTM to double every century has reached the point where a conservative vector fieldimg is now a conservative term, even though the article itself says "(not related to political conservatism)". He shows his usual scientific and mathematical ignorance of the whole subject, of course.

One hour later, he used this new "insight" to add crap about "Virtually all well-tested fundamental physical forces"img and points out that relativity fails this. He cites what seems to me to be a bullshit paper. The paper was apparently never published in a real ("peer-reviewed", i.e. "worst of the public" / "atheist" / "lamestream" / "driving-people-away-from-the-bible") journal, and no reputable scientist seems to have picked up on this person's discovery in the 30 years since the paper was published. Andy seems to scour the internet for crackpot papers that support his delusions, whether they be about relativity, cosmology, or Fermat's Last Theorem.

Is anyone else (Hi, MarkGall!) able to say whether the paper is bullshit? Yes, we know that Andy's conclusions from it are bullshit.

Gauss (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the paper is bullshit, but here's one by an actual physicist that says: "The work of Vera in no way refutes the account given above of energy conservation." [...] "The fact that this article has never been cited by journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science database tends to confirm that Vera has not made a strong case against any important part of standard physical theory." I think it's safe to say Andy's conclusions are bullshit. --MarkGall (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
A correction to Gauss's comment: the paper was actually published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, which is a proper peer-reviewed journal - not an incredibly well-known journal in the field by any means, but I've read some interesting papers from it. However, this is the only paper listed on the author's website as having been published (conference proceedings aside); there's a long list which are tellingly described as "Sent to <journal which rejected him>". Although that doesn't necessarily mean anything for this paper, I'm rather sceptical. If I can work up the courage I'll try reading it in the morning.. alt (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
By that logic perhaps they should make the word "numbers" as a conservative term as well because 1) it's a book in the Bible and 2) scalar field is a 1 dimensional vector field (There should be no rotation in an 1D vector field, right?) ThiehPracticing involuntary celibacy 02:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, as long as they're not those nasty liberal complex numbers. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Homework Questions

Has then been mentioned before? What a pile of utter gibberish. AceLiquid Room 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw it a while ago. I like: "Teaching more people how to read: that benefit one political side more than the other?" - dunno, Andy, but you really ought to learn how to FUCKING WRITE! (sorry - he just gets me so mad- that thing pretends to teach!) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Also: "Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course." Say No More! 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I like: "Why should it matter what the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution was?" Because Andy is attempting to (re)interpret the "Original" meaning of the Constitution from a letter by George Washington to use that to recall some NJ Senator. K61824Ask me for relationship advice 02:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
His first lecture is now up, along with some more "homework". First order of business: teach your students how to pull numbers out of their asses, Conservapedia-style. Röstigraben (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Politics is like icbergs
The midterm elections; what it affects, and what it does not affect
Andy Schlafly, the great miseducator.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind, these are his first draft lecture notes. He will IMPROVZZEZ them in due time. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget to make sure you count independents as democrats... I actually can't wait to see the turned in the homework and see Andy grade them just to see if he calls any of the "students" a liberal.Quazywabbit (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is one enormous trick question in the list - Define conservative and liberal.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
From Conservapedia: Liberal: One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative.
Now if I say Conservative is the to opposite of liberal do I get full marks? - π 09:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
These two have always seemed like good working definitions to me:
Liberal: Politically "Left", whatever that means.
Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
From the Illuminati card-game's rules. --Gulik (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Defining 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'

I wish I could remember the exact wording a very politically astute friend of mine came up with some years ago, but...

Conservative: Favors what is proven and traditional, often attracted to candidates with strong background and experience.

Liberal: Favors bold new ideas, often attracted to candidates with a vision.

One of my more smart-ass friends responded with:

Liberal: Sexy, bright and witty. Generally favors candidates with brains.

Conservative: Mean, bitter and nasty. Often smells of steamed cabbage.

MDB (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Soccer denies intelligent use of the hands, while encouraging unintelligent use of the brain"

Amazing. You know something that denies intelligent use of the hands? Hotdog eating competitions. AceLiquid Room 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know something that encourages intelligent use of hands? Pleasuring oneself. You know something that requires intelligent use of brains? Managing infidelity. K61824Practicing involuntary celibacy 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
"(By the way, I wonder if "rise to the bait" is a cp:mixed metaphor -- uh oh, we need an entry about that)" No Andy, it's not. It's just a metaphor. It's about fishing. Get it? Another sport many consider boring, but some enjoy. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, check out Andy's brilliang new article I just fixed link to! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't be stupid Human, fishing is clearly a conservative activity as people who fish can the sell to the free market. Jesus endorsed fishing himself on the Mount. AceLiquid Room 02:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet all these activities, including Jesus's fishing ventures, deny the intelligent use of the appendix. I sense a socialistic takeover. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You know, I never fully grasped the concept of sour grapes until I read the neoncon reaction to the US's performance in the World Cup. DickTurpis (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? Their reaction to Obama winning was sour grapes by the bushel. - π 05:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer football actually requires restraint of the hands, conscious control over automatic reflexes. Surely that would make it a conservative trait? Use of the hands would be a filthy liberal tactic and bad-sportsmanship. Andy & TK's ridiculous posturing to score political points (more like own goals) is a just a gossamer veil for their naked xenophobia.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I play in goal, which pretty much requires use of the hands (unless I want to lose really, really badly) - does that make me a conservative football player? Worm(t | c) 09:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I deliberately left the goalie out because it's such an obvious, allowed exception. But yes, goalkeepers by nature are extremely conservative their role being to defend the status quo; there even used to be a saying as safe as the Banks of England.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins dislikes football. Doesn't that mean that those who don't like football are machismo-challenged?Toffeeman (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would have thought that scum-sucking miserable excuse for a human Uruguayan piece of shit (no, I'm not bitter) using his hand to block a certain goal was a clear case of liberal deceit. But if he used his hand, then it must a conservative trait. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, one of my most conservative friends is rather disgusted by his fellow conservatives' loathing for soccer. Of course, his love of soccer is practically genetic -- his grandfather was a huge fan of the game, helped establish organized soccer in Maryland, and is in the American soccer hall of fame. MDB (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Andy and TK are not the only ones to think that "soccer" is a socialist sport. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess Soccer doesn't require using the one real distinctive feature of humans in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, out large brains. Except of course, like all sports, it does, because it requires tactics and skill.
What I really do not understand is CP's weird obsession with the sport. They obviously follow the World Cup based on the repeated front page pronouncements about various national teams winning and losing, but for some reason, they hate the sport they loyally follow. I suspect it represents the hate-love schism thay have for themselves as individuals. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Capturing this gem from the pianist just in case TK doesn't think it's funny: Talk:Mainimg --MarkGall (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic. I'm very impressed. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
TK responds with a pretty weak, cut-and-paste comebackimg. "I rest my case" indeed. Junggai (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah didn't the moron say exactly the same thing a day or two ago? WTF, deja vu? ħumanUser talk:Human 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, though he's quoted just about every other dubious assertion from that blog. Junggai (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember if all of these nonsense 'Spirituality and political conservatism = Sports prowess' CP blog posts were going on during the Olympics, or is it just for the World Cup? Also, TK wrote "Soccer is the only sport in the world where you cannot use the one tool that distinguishes man from beast: opposable thumbs". Actually, most primates have opposable thumbs, as do pandas and some marsupials[1].--Leotardo (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz, I know you're reading this. Seriously, all you can do is quote the same dumb blog over and over? Some peple are unoriginal, but you're pathologically so. Get some ideas, little man. Junggai (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Klose & Cacau

  • Cacau (Claudemir Jerônimo Barretto) is indeed Christian, of the more annoying sort - from his website: Wenn Du auch, so wie ich, ein friedliches und erfolgreiches Leben wünschst, nimm Jesus Christus als Deinen Herrn und Heiland an. (if you - like me - wants to have a peaceful and successful life, take on Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour). He came to Germany being 18, but wasn't homeschooled: being a working single mother, I doubt that his mother had time for such a thing.
  • Lukas Podolski, Piotr Trochowski, and Miroslav Klose live in Germany since their very youth, so they are products of the German school system. Though they are probably catholic, there isn't much public display of their beliefs.
  • Another player who is known for being religious is Mezut Özil: his girl-friend just converted to Islam to marry him.
  • Sami Khedira seems to be a more laid-back Muslim.

larronsicut fur in nocte 06:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy's whole line of thinking here is just nonsense. He can warp stuff like Germany into it, but what about the god-fearing nations that have been knocked out? Award for most Ned Flanders-like would probably go to Kaka, who didn't even turn up to the World Cup. MaxAlex Swimming pool 09:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
He's now settled on Uruguay as the last hope for a Christian triumph against the forces of evil - guess he liked their last-minute "hand of god" moment and wasn't too beholden to hard-praying Ghana after all. It's not like he's got a whole lot of options left with those Dutch liberals, German heathens and Spanish socialists clearly being out of the question, but those who care about fairness will be united in chants of Hup Oranje tonight. Röstigraben (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kaka did indeed show up at the WC, only to get a red card and then a yellow in the subsequent game. And evangelical Brazil certainly qualifies as Christian (I think Kaka actually tithes...) ScientificRigor (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Uruguay is by far the most secular country in Latin America. How to explain it? Bluefish (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Constitution Retranslation Project

Based on the "homework" Andy has assigned I would love to see a CP "US Constitution Retranslation Project". Hot damn, the laughs would flow. AceLiquid Room 06:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Was Jesus pro-life?" One of the great unanswered questions of US politics.Webbtje (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As if Andy would accept any answer short of "yes, absolutely, 100%". MDB (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly fix the "Establisment Clause" once and for all. Those Founding Fathers, what a bunch of rubes. They left "God" out of the Constitution. It has to be a copying error. Jimaginator (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea! Time to get rid of that misleading "well regulated militia" clause, too. Weapons of gun for everyone! I only wish the idea had been suggested there rather than here - it might actually have stood a chance. Bluefish (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Really hot in the N.E. USA, what is God punishing us NOW for Andru?

It's got be the gays, or liberals, or UK people, or "BCE". If I'm really really un-liberal, like telling Andru his Bible is awesome, do you think God will turn down the temp? Thanks. Jimaginator (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

is that a star trek reference to landru? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, as a liberal, I'm probably lying, but Yes... Jimaginator (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's because the Queen of atheistic Britain is visiting us in New York today. God is giving her a preview of the scorching fires of hell. --Composure1 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I knew there had to be a logical reason. Who says God works in mysterious ways. Once you say it, it's so obvious. Jimaginator (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
She's the head of a liberal, atheistic church after all. Webbtje (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Summer here is hot. And humid. Not unseasonal yet in my clime, although predictions were for crazy heat levels that never occurred. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It's effing hot here but I've been drunk on pre-mixed margaritas for 4 days and haven't noticed. ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least we know it isn't global warming. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

exceptional

dictionary.com might data "exceptional" to 1840 but merrian-webster does date it to 1787, so Andy is right for once, for one source. CS Miller (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka?

Concerning that WIGO about CP's newsline on abortion-breastcancer research, what's meant with the bolded Sri Lanka part? Does the location of the research impact its validity, or am I missing some kind of joke or something? To me it just looks disgustingly racist in a way, it might as well say "How could those loons at CP use a source that's a study conducted by Asians?". --GTac (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say racist but certainly "Heh, those 2nd worlders! What do they know?" a bit of cultural superiority perhaps. Anyway, change yes. AceLiquid Room 08:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed. AceLiquid Room 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sri Lanka specifically isn't known for their high academic standards. For instance you can get a mail ordered MD from Sri Lanka, that's what "Dr." Nick Begich MD did. It's also third world, second world is the soviet union and their allies. But it is war torn, and that always boosts the level of academic research right? --Opcn (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, right? How can anyone possibly trust their lying, liberal statistics?  Lily Inspirate me. 09:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever. To use the parlance of our times, Sri Lanka is a developing nation. Still, the WIGO betrayed an unnecessary cultural superiority. AceLiquid Room 09:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like my irony was too subtle.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even read your comment, Lily. AceLiquid Room 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Germany

So now that Germany lost what is CP going to say about the World Cup and who do they expect to win. They first predicted Ghana for there religious nature but they are out, they then picked Germany since they have members from [what they consider] christian countries and they are out. So we have Netherlands with its legal soft-drug usage and red light district and considered to be very liberal and Spain. Quazywabbit (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain: Catholic country. Bondurant (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I predict one of two outcomes... 1) The winner will suddenly become the great bastion of Christendom, its articles whitewashed of liberal accusations, and its history declared Conservative™ in the defense of Andy's convictions that only Christian Conservatives can win at sports. 2) Soccer and the World Cup become liberal cesspools of deceit and treachery. No Christian could ever win because of liberal bias, everyone that lost early will now have lost from persecution by atheists. In either scenario, any insinuation that Conservapedia said anything different before will be met with swift banning. HumanisticJones (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, Spain is laxer on personal use of drugs than The Netherlands, but can't find a ref. just now. CS Miller (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that Andy does not like soccer he has spent quite a lot of time talking about it--Tlaloc (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Csmiller: Yup, in spain one can grow as much weed as one likes legally, as long as you don't smoke it in public or sell it[2]. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Tlaloc, I don't remember the main page ever being as overrun by sports of any kind. Very strange. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Spain just liberalized its abortion law. A World Cup defeat would be a logical result of that. M the T (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
They will just declare Soccer a liberal, socialist sport, that is why leftist European nations are in the final, it won't matter wither Spain or the Netherlands wins. TK is already setting it up this way through his regular rants against the sport. This way they can attempt to claim they were "ahead of the curve". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Spain does have a longer history of Muslim-bashing than any other country. Santiago Matamoros and all that.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"They will just declare Soccer a liberal, socialist sport" - already done!img. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So much clueless

Andy might know all about the teams' religious views, but he's clueless about everything else. The "Trustworthy" blog proudly displays the "World Cup arena" where Spain will play the Netherlands.img Ok, Terry, now listen closely, because I'm only going to say this once.

  • It's not an "arena", it's a stadium.
  • The photo is of the Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenburg and is captioned as such.
  • This stadium hosted it's last match on June 26.
  • The final is at Soccer City in Johannesburg on July 11.

Now, I know that when Andy was faced with all this socialistic sport and liberal multi-culturism he probably got a bit confused, so be a good lackey and run along and fix Andy's fuck-up on the main page, will you? Run along now. Good boy! After all, I'm sure that not even you want Andy's ignorance displayed for all to see. You're welcome. --PsyGremlinFale! 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Children preying on children

fun stuffimg courtesy of the  K e n  D o l l . --Opcn (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Egad, it is the equivalent of someone placing an "I am a moron" sticker on the back of your t-shirt and instead of taking it off, you wear it with pride. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Question evolution? Yes, of course, question everything. Don't forget to also question GOD. 00:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
If they were actually questioning it I'd be all for it, sadly what they are doing is denying it and saying that they are questioning, skipping past that whole pesky inquiry step. --Opcn (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
DING! Yes, they made up their minds quite a long time ago on evolution and it wasn't through rigorous scientific scrutiny. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what did Noah do with all the freshwater fish?82.23.208.15 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a miracle! You see when you misunderstand Occams razor then "The toothfairy did it" always passes muster. --Opcn (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha. But two can play at this game. Using almost as much time as Collected Morons International did, Anti-Aliasing-What's-That? Productions proudly present The science vs. stupidity store. Gorge yourselves on its goodness. Or not. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves FTW!!!! 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Guns in church

Not only Andy's reaction, but the news itself shock me.

If I've understood correctly, as an American you do have the (constitutional) right to carry guns - however, the owner of any non-public place such as a workplace, a private property, a church etc, also has the right to forbid you from bringing the gun (or just about anything else) into these facilities.

And, as I see it, this bill somehow forces churches (and only churches) to allow anyone to enter carrying a gun. Or, is it some kind of previous ban of guns in churches (and only churches) that now has been lifted?

Either way, I cannot understand how Andy thinks this is a good thing. Etc 07:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. NH is a "will allow" concealed carry state and two techs next door, well, pack heat at work. And at least one of them has poor judgment in my opinion. The other one is just a redneck. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you know why? Are there lots of people who feel the need to wander about armed to the teeth? Broccoli (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
St. Gabriel Possenti approves of this bill! --TheEgyptiansig001.png 11:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I note the article CP links to says that the law says that it will allow guns in "“any church, synagogue, mosque or other similar place of worship.” (emphasis added.) Just wait till the "ZOMG! Muslims are coming for us!" crowd sees a Muslim heading into a New Orleans mosque packing heat. Their little brains will melt into oil and add to the Deepwater spill.
More seriously, I seem to remember this law was discussed earlier on RW, and one of our Louisiana resident members said that the law made it legal to carry concealed weapons into places of worship (presumably it had previously been completely prohibited, or perhaps the new law expressly allows it where it was unclear before), but said houses of worship could still prohibit guns on the premises. MDB (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Presumably guns in church are good because of the horrible Conservative parable. Cantabrigian (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it funny...

... that the evolution talk page at CP still has the big CPanel decision at the top? Do you think  K e n  D o l l  diligently submits all his edits to the homskollars for approval? This remarkable archaeological remnant of an age before CP was surrendered entirely to insanity is certainly worth preserving in a screenshotimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is all the defence Ken needs on why no one else can edit it. He was made a sysop so he could edit the locked page. - π 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
On CP 'irony' is just a part of the periodic tabley. However, I'd love to know what kind of credentials guys like Ken, Karajerk and User188 gave Andy, given his abhorrence of "unfounded claims of competence", for him to sysop them just days after signing up? Even lil'Phyll had to bake cookies for two years before she was sysopped. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)