Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

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

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (I am so fricking confused.)
(I am so fricking confused.)
Line 497: Line 497:
:::::If TK really is a parodist, then, why do the RW and RWW articles just claim he is a malevolent jerk who is trying to destroy both communities (plus some dating site evidently)? And how can you post that here without the CP people catching on? I assume they have infiltrated this site to the same degree you all have infiltrated theirs, right? Is everyone on both sites really just the same people having self-referential arguments about themselves? AGHHH!!!
:::::If TK really is a parodist, then, why do the RW and RWW articles just claim he is a malevolent jerk who is trying to destroy both communities (plus some dating site evidently)? And how can you post that here without the CP people catching on? I assume they have infiltrated this site to the same degree you all have infiltrated theirs, right? Is everyone on both sites really just the same people having self-referential arguments about themselves? AGHHH!!!
:::::It probably says something bad about me that I find this so utterly fascinating, but I really do.--[[Special:Contributions/|]] 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::It probably says something bad about me that I find this so utterly fascinating, but I really do.
::::::And there goes your account. {{User:Crundy/Sig|}} 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::And there goes your account. {{User:Crundy/Sig|}} 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'd hide the revision, but the vulcan of a tech admin would probably slap my wrist... <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse513|Neveruse513]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse513|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse513|Block]]</sup> 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'd hide the revision, but the vulcan of a tech admin would probably slap my wrist... <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse513|Neveruse513]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse513|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse513|Block]]</sup> 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:07, 3 December 2009

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

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

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

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

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Something VERY interesting

I have discovered something VERY interesting, but in the interest of not exposing parody, I won't put it here. Who is safe to email this fascinating tidbit to? MisterEd 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about anybody. Try this guy.TheoryOfPractice 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How about me? AceMcWicked 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If it's worth the while, Ace, send it along. How you been? Thx. TheoryOfPractice 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I been OK, thanks for asking. And you? AceMcWicked 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The usual--overworked, spending too much time pissed off at people on the internet and not enough time naked and out of my gourd. TheoryOfPractice 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You should be naked as often as possible - the rest comes naturally. AceMcWicked 04:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If you would be so kind Ace, flick it this way.Rad McCool 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes well, I actually haven't gotten nything yet. AceMcWicked 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Always excuses.Rad McCool 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoever gets it last, send it along to me please? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Pass the mustard, please. DogPMarmite Patrol 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
And the salt, pretty please?WodewickWelease Wodewick! 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Send it along to me, please. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That IS very interesting MisterEd. Nice detective work. We shall be watching developments. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wing it Josh's way could ya please sweethearts? SJ Debaser 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This user is certainly not a CP sysop in deep cover and would like to know what is happening with these electronic mails. YorickCrass. 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent eleventy-one of you your eighth copy. Well, all except that "Wodewick" person who hasn't slept with me yet. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please send the lulz this way.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
And again, H? TheoryOfPractice 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to your fifth copy. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Human, that certainly bears watching.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it means, indeed. (tldr) ħumanUser talk:Human 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, I had an all day rehearsal. Someone wanna shoot the resident token a quick email? SirChuckBCall the FBI 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody send it to me too, please? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 08:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because I don't want to sleep with you doesn't mean I'm not a dirty secularist :( It just means I'm a dirty secularist with good taste. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again, nobody sent it to me and once again I feel all unloved. --PsygremlinPraat! 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I have it too? Word word Hoover! 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would be eternally grateful if someone were to sling it this way. And some SDG if you can, I've seen none of that :(. EddyP 10:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One for me, please. (Also, should someone create an "email list" for things like this, with links to Special:EmailUser for each person who wants these kinds of emails?) Dreaded Walrus t c 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a good idea (or maybe a private intercom group), but it would have to be invitation-only or have some sort of vetting procedure, to make infiltration hard. Professor Moriarty 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that would be the benefit of having it as an on-wiki page. If you see on that list Human, Pi, Totnesmartin, and SecretCPInfiltrator, then someone can just remove whichever one is the odd-one out (i.e. only allow trusted users on?). I guess it has the same overall effect as an invite-only group though. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like a CABAL. There is no cabal. I am eating Toast& honeychat 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I Read the e-mail. I refuse to believe such a thing about RJJensen BertSchlossberg GeoPlrde TK. TheoryOfPractice 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I want the e-mail ;_;. EddyP 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I have a copy too? Anyone? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I want to be cool too. Someone send me a copy; my curiosity is piqued by all this tantalizing talk. Fedhaji (Talk) 21:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


I've still not got a copy of whatever the fuck this is. If it's really important, post it. This use-a-wiki-to-say-how-cool-you-are-but-not-post-the-content shit is not on. Post it or die. You're just gonna end up sending it to a CP admin anyway. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Or email us both a copy. You can trust me. Seriously. I'm more trustworthy than would appear. Professor Moriarty 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but I don't care, because I'm not all hung up on having to be one of the "in crowd". --WJThomas 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SR. This sort of thing should definitely be shared, and definitely not posted on the wiki. Perhaps the protocol should be to simply bang off an email to the users you trust with instructions for them to do likewise, and make no mention of it elsewhere. Thus the trusted members will be in the know and the untrusted members won't know that they aren't trusted. Also, this should be saved for very important revelations only.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the day the subject of the email is a CP sysop we've already discussed extensively. Nobody who got the email was surprised that the conclusions drawn in it were gained without any special knowledge at all, but straight from information readily available here and on CP. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, CP has more undercover operatives than the CIA (except they're not their spies!). That is QI. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now I'm interested. lol. At first when I saw this I was like, meh, who cares.. but now my curiosity is aroused. Anyone care to send me a copy, please? :p thank you. Refugeetalk page 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait, wait, nevermind. I don't want it after all.. if it were to get out I wouldn't want anyone saying maybe it was me.. and I like to stay out of drama of all types.. changed my mind, retract request. :p (wishywashy Refugee, lol) Refugeetalk page 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it to me. I'm too dumb to be a mole. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Email it to me, you godless heathen! SoldierInGodsArmy 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Send to me, pl0x Senator Harrison 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't wait for Andy's Writing Course

When he's the source of "improved" translations like thisimg from the CBP:

"And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink."
"They wave over their partners, who were in the other boat, for them to join and help. Those came and filled both boats with the fish, so much so they began to sink."

If someone has the inclination as well as the free time, this latest edit of his just inspired a new concept: the Schlafly Heuristically-Interpreted Translator. Feed in a bit of text, which is then run through a search-and-replace loop against a reference list of words/phrases and their "improved" substitutes per Andy (maiden = bimbo, Satan = chaos, "that they" = "they", etc.), followed by a few random changes of tense between past & present. Want to know what the Gettysburg Address would look like if Andy was Lincoln's proofreader? Run it through, and see what conservative insights his brain would have S.H.I.T. out. --SpinyNorman

Well, we do have a close equivalent: "Ann Coulter" live-blogging the Gettysburg Address. MDB 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I love this assignment from his old writing class[2]. I love how he characterizes the public school kid as a petulant idiot. Such an asshole, that guy. Corry 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If I might interject, my favourite thing on that page is the essay title choice "New Jersey is my favourite state because..." Now I'm not American, and I don't want to cause any offence to any Jersey-ites out there, but isn't that state one of the ones which is ridiculed for being a shithole? SJ Debaser 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but mostly by people who either don't live there, or have only seen/lived in the industrial hellholes like Newark or Jersey City. I'm from the more suburban part of NJ, which is rather nice aside from the horrible humidity in the summer. --Gulik 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sweet merciful crap. If you look around some of the other homework assignments for the class, you'll see that the "textbook" for the class is a book called The Supremacists, a book on "judicial tyranny" written by none other than.... Phyllis Schlafly. God, Andy, have you no shame? MDB 15:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Got to keep up those book sales for Mommy. Shameless indeed, and worth noting that Andy's never published anything original of his own, unlike his mother, or his former Editor in Chief at the Harvard Law Review. Also worth noting that you could just as easily use some of the highly-graded homework submissions from his history classes instead of the "public school" example in his writing homework above, and there'd be just as much to clean up. I'd provide examples but that would be picking on the kids, who are the victims here after all. --SpinyNorman 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, seeing as this page was created in 2008, no one credibly denies that Obama's books were written by ghostwriters. I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Andy has published two (IIRC) legit scientific papers. I'd call that publishing something original. Though I haven't read the papers, I'd bet that they're more worth reading that his mom's book. Coarb 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have cites on those papers? I just searched ISI for papers with him listed as author. Only one came up, and it was an editorial in, of all places, "Surgical Neurology", and it was neither serious, nor surgical, nor neurological. Indeed, it seemed rather out of place to my eyes. I would be interested to read what passes in his mind for science writing. Kaalis 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"Control logic and cell design for a 4K NVRAM" Coarb 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Kaalis 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Which journals are those articles in?-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Coarb mentiones is in the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 18(5): 525-532 (October 1983). Andy is listed as third author. The paper also includes one of the worst pictures of Andy I have seen. He looks a little like a young Bill Gates on crack. Kaalis 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kaalis. I searched for any other publications and came up with a total of 6. They are listed on the serious Andy page. We could probably use some commentary as well. I will leave it to anyone who actually works in those fields. As far as I know the IEEE journals are a bit of a joke, for anyone outside engineering, due to poor peer-review (and content). The law journals don't look any better.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. IEEE journals are not, broadly speaking, a joke. Some may be jokes, but in general they are not. See [3] or [4] or [5]. We should not assume that everything Andy does is shit. He might be a very good engineer or squash player or cook.Coarb 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Engineer? Nah, his math and logic skills are much too weak for that. Squash? He doesn't strike me as the quick-reflex athletic type. Golf, maybe. Cooking? Nope--that's women's work. I'll bet that Andy is a very safe driver, and a skilled bridge player.--WJThomas 01:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think another issue should be taken into account. Namely, the time factor. Those engineering papers of his were published quite a while ago, with the most recent being 26 years old. He might have been competent once upon a time, but that doesn't mean he is now. I have only been watching him since the Lenski affair, and his work on Conservapedia over that time betrays quite a degradation. I think he can pull together some semblance of reason and rationality when it is absolutely required, but I think he is in more than a bit of a delusional spiral. Yes, not everything he has ever done is garbage,but the garbage is making a greater and greater proportion of his work as time goes by (and the garbage is getting more and more rancid). Kaalis 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) @Coarb. As I said, I don't work in those fields, so I am happy to accept your correction. Although your second citation gives the top ranked Electrical Engineering Journal a rank of 293, which doesn't seem brilliant. Also, the rankings seem to be based on "impact" which can be problematic. I don't know if Andy is a good engineer or not, and it doesn't really matter one way or the other. This conversation started because you claimed that he had published two legitimate scientific papers. I would question how scientific those papers actually are.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That rank of 293 is out of all journals. The page I linked to is a ranking of only EE journals, and nine of the top ten have "IEEE" in their title. That is, 292 of the top ranked journals are not related to Andy's field. Andy published in #6 of the EE journals on that list.
Impact is a fine way to measure journals, as it measures what other scientists think.
I don't think you can credibly question how scientific those papers are until you are qualified to be a reviewer for a top-ten EE journal. Coarb 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It would seem he was part of a team that worked on a 4K NVRAM, and staked a claim to that ground in an IEEE journal, most probably without revealing too much of the really proprietary stuff. That's nice. Around the time I was getting my BSEE, the half-life of an engineering education was said to be about 5 years, IIRC. So unless someone has really kept their chops up, after 26 years about 2-5 or say 3% of their education in that field remains relevant.
IEEE journals are not noted for the jewel-like flame that is rhetorical exposition at its crystalline best. Good for what they are, but pretty much TL;DR at its dreariest. I can think of way better things to put on a writing teacher's CV. Sprocket J Cogswell 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits has a very good reputation in its field. Pietrow 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
@Coarb: I'm aware that 292 of the top journals are not related to electrical engineering. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I opined that IEEE journals are not very good. I meant that the journals are not very good, not that the IEEE journals in the field of electrical engineering are not as good as other journals in that field.
Impact does not measure "what other scientists think." It measures the number of citations to a particular journal. It's probably the best way to quantify the quality of a journal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have problems.
You are right, I have wandered outside my field of expertise. I withdraw my query as to whether or not Andy has really done any science, I will leave that to people with more engineering experience. I also withdraw my judgement of IEEE journals, as from your remarks and the remarks of others, it is clear that they have a better reputation than I was given to believe.
However, I don't accept your last admonition to the letter. It is ridiculous to require that someone be qualified to referee a top 10 journal in any field in order for their criticisms to be taken seriously.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
My language was not as clear as I meant it to be. I think anyone who can speak the language of EE is qualified to criticize a paper as a bad paper or of dubious validity. I expect a critic to pass a much higher bar to call something "not scientific" after it was deemed scientific, interesting, well-written, and plausible by some of the best scientists in that field.
I would set a lower bar if you were criticizing the peer review process ("Results aren't independently experimentally confirmed before they're published!" does not even require EE-specific knowledge to discuss) or EE in general ("Electrons are just angels!" is an argument I disagree with, but clearly one a layperson can understand). To call Andy's paper "not scientific", though, is almost like calling something that was at the Cannes Film Festival "not a film", rather than just "a bad film". Coarb 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
As just another blind guy feeling my way around this "elephant" that some claim to have seen, I'll go ahead and say that I bet there wasn't a whole lot of science involved. They found some jigsaw puzzle pieces, put them together, and announced that they had done so. The main theme probably went like, "work up a different way to get 4096 bits to hold still when the power goes away, package it, and tell the part of the world that cares what diligent fellows we are." Sprocket J Cogswell 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, if one's argument is "Engineering is not science," I would not expect one to be an expert just to say so. Coarb 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


For those interested, the following is the complete text of his little editorial (Note that he lists New York as one of his associated institutions):

Editorial Ten things trial lawyers hope you don't learn

Andrew Schlafly Esq (a, b), E-mail The Corresponding Author

(a) New York, NY, USA

(b) Association of American Physicians, and Surgeons, Inc., 1601 N. Tucson, AZ 85716

Available online 27 July 2006.

Over the past 30 years, the number of lawyers in our country has risen sharply. And while Medicare cuts its payments, physicians suffer even bigger losses because of lawyers distorting, fabricating, and outright lying in their attempts to fleece doctors.

Trial lawyers have their seminars and trade groups teaching them how to game the system. To fight back effectively, physicians need to learn the lawyers' tricks. Here are 10 things they hope that doctors won't find out (or do):

10. Physicians cannot rely on insurance company lawyers for a full defense. Insurance companies impose limits on the lawyers they provide, and neither the insurer nor the lawyer cares if you are slapped with a huge judgment.

The insurance company will just raise its rates to cover its losses. But when you pay off a malpractice claim, you will be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. A single report can damage all future applications for a job or hospital privileges.

Successful physicians take affirmative steps both before and after being sued. They do not just rely on the malpractice carrier.

9. It often helps to attend the deposition of the plaintiff's medical expert. In litigation, a party has the right to attend all depositions.

The plaintiff's expert will not lie as much about someone who is sitting across the table. Also, physicians can strengthen their case by feeding questions to their attorney during depositions of their opposing expert.

8. Beware when seeing patients who were mistreated by other physicians. In malpractice lawsuits, all the doctors are sued, even the ones who tried to help.

Before seeing a problem patient who might bring a lawsuit, a physician should consider obtaining a fully informed release from the patient first.

(less o' tehh "darlin", sweety. )

7. Most malpractice lawsuits are for “failure to diagnose,” so your advice to obtain diagnostic tests should be documented. If a patient still refuses to have a test despite your warning, then consider having the patient sign an acknowledgment.

6. Special laws allow trial attorneys to pay for successful referrals. The public is unaware of this practice, which is prohibited as “fee-splitting” in the medical profession.

The malpractice crisis would end overnight if a referendum or statute prohibited compensation for referrals among attorneys.

5. Screening techniques can greatly reduce the odds that a physician will be sued. Office waiver forms, even if not fully enforceable, are useful in screening out litigious patients from a practice.

4. Develop a list of good defense experts in your specialty. Malpractice cases are won or lost based on expert testimony. Having a good expert means you will win; struggling to find one at the last minute means you may lose.

3. Make sure you depose everyone who might be called as a witness against you. Even the billion-dollar pharmaceutical giant Merck recently made the fatal mistake of not deposing a potential plaintiff's witness in the Vioxx trial. That $5000 economy cost Merck $253.4 million in the end, as the never-deposed witness sank Merck at trial.

2. Protect your assets beforehand so your exposure is limited. Although malpractice insurance covers you (up to a limit), you will handle the stress of litigation far better knowing your assets are secure no matter what happens in court.

1. Read AAPS's monthly newsletter and quarterly journal. Malpractice attorneys are forever developing new stratagems to ensnare physicians and so are medical boards and hospital peer review panels. Physicians need the latest information for self-defense.

Pamphlet No. 1097, December 2005. Reprinted with permission Kaalis 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. To be fair to Andy, the above isn't a big load of crazy. Screening possibly litigious patients out of your practice brings up some ethical issues, and JPandS is a joke, but a lot of this seems like good advice. Corry 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I really meant non-serious for a scientific publication, especially for a very niche journal. Yes, it does look like decent advice, but much of it doctors should have been given long before. I have a feeling, though, that a doctor who turns away a patient for seeming potentially litigious would soon face a lawsuit. Kaalis 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, they'd be more likely to face a law suit the more accurately they detect litigious patients. User:ZoetropeUser talk:Zoetrope 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
When I read the subhead I always read it as "Andy's writing coarse" I am eating Toast& honeychat 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think doctors have any obligation to treat someone any more than a lawyer does to serve him. As they say, the practice of law is not like driving a bus; you don't have to stop for everyone. Do we have any docs here other than PalMD (who is not presently active on RW)? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Not so sure about that, what's the Oath de Hippo say? I suspect in an emergency their "options" are limited, at least. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think doctors are bound by the Oath de Hippo. They don't even recite the Oath de Hippo in schools in the US. Doctor's certainly aren't obliged to treat anyone, regardless of circumstance. Just think of how far you would get walking into a doctor's office without money or insurance, in any part of the world.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you do recite the hippocratic oath upon graduation from most US medical schools, though slightly modified from the original. Also, as a physician in the US, in an emergency, you are required by law to treat a patient. So certainly,a physician working in an ER or ICU would be required to treat.
In the UK you'd get treated first then asked afterwards: that's why there's immigration control on e.g some countries. I am eating Toast& honeychat 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
A bit more googlin': "A UK High Court ruling on April 11 has brought some welcome and long-awaited clarification to the rules about migrants' eligibility for health care in the National Health Service (NHS). 1 In this landmark decision the judge ruled that it is not reasonable to expect UK health professionals to assess patients' immigration status and entitlement to free health care, and that care should be provided on the basis of clinical needs." [6] I am eating Toast& honeychat 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see your cite. What it seems to be addressing is insurance fraud, and yes it is entirely infeasible to expect doctors to verify a potential patient's immigration status. But if I walk into a UK doctor's office and say "Hi, I'm not a citizen, but I have a strange rash on my ass," I'm betting that they are going to ask either for some proof of travel insurance, or money. Of course, doctors are people too, and if I walked in and said, "Hi, I'm not a citizen, but I have just been shot in the ass," then they may apply bandages first and ask insurance-related questions later. The only point I'm making is that doctors are not legally bound to help people.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: "... care should be provided on the basis of clinical needs." The doc'd probably examine the patient & either refer for treatment (if it's urgent or life threatening or similar) or tell them to see their own doctor when they got home. A GP is NEVER going to ask for money! Although if the person asked for private treatment then they would be able to get it wherever they came from if they could pony up the readies. If they refused treatment, or at least examination I think they'd be up against the GMC in short time. I am eating Toast& honeychat 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Toast, I'm a bit too tired and emotional, but you're being a tad simplistic there. It is not a trivial matter to sign up with a GP these days. If you can't provide your NHS number you need to provide details of your previous registration with another GP. Even when attending an A&E department you have to say who you are registered with. You are extremely unlikely to be refused treatment for anything acute, but you are not likely to get access to the NHS treatment for a lot of stuff unless you can prove you are entitled to it. My late partner worked with asylum seekers and getting them into the system was not a trivial matter. Sorry for any in coherence Sphincter 03:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anecdotal: for about three years I wasn't registered with a GP (my old one packed up & I never re-registered). During that time I was travelling around in a RV. Several times I went to various (GP) surgeries without any paperwork or any ID & was seen & given prescriptions by GPs. Chiefly in Scotland but twice in England. Eventually I settled @ my present address & had enormous difficulty getting registered - but the first (insurance paid for, for pension reasons) examination detected a malignancy & I was treated (NHS: free) without question. I've never proved my entitlement to anyone - my current GP hasn't even got my records past 5 years as they apparently went AWOL when the old one packed up. I am eating Toast& honeychat 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Programs don't generate insights"

I lolled at this one. But the more exciting part was Andy revealing that he was a full time programmer. That's certainly not in our article, and I've never heard it come up before. *thinks about it* On second thought, I'm not sure if I believe him. He's never demonstrated any programming knowledge as far as I can remember. Tetronian you're clueless 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with his statement ( and that bothers me) but he was an engineer. Dont they use FORTRAN and maybe Forth or Pascal ? Hamster 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's true, I didn't think of that. But that still doesn't make him "a programmer." Tetronian you're clueless 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't feel bad if you agree with him on that statement (I do too); even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as my Pa says. And remember that he is an expert in whatever subject is currently under discussion.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably not Forth. FORTRAN was still alive and kicking in the early 1980s, and PL/1 may have been taught in aid of structured programming, as well as Pascal for the precious aesthetes in academia. There was IBM 360 assembly language for the ones who leaned more towards the "computer science" side, along with some new microprocessor assembly languages for the Z-80 or 8080. For the real hard core, there was unix, which at that time was restricted to Bell Labs and academic institutions, running on "minicomputers" the size of a Miata. C and grepping and emacs were still Very New Things. Sprocket J Cogswell 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hang about a moment. Didn't Andy boast not that many Wigo's ago about how Conservapedia does not censor at all. Now he is saying they are "reluctant" to censor. What's next; that Conservapedia censors only when it has to, and then only what it has to? I know its a minor thing compared to some of the other bull$#!+ he's been called out on, but still. Concession to what the rest of us already knew or freudian slip? -Tygrehart
I'm guessing it's just the good ol' Wheaton College backpedal. (If you don't get that reference good for you, it means you haven't been hanging around here too much) Tetronian you're clueless 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone mentions Wheaton College, I think of this and chuckle. TheoryOfPractice 03:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's defense (yeah, I probably shouldn't have typed that), sneakily renaming conservative bugbears using "liberal vocabulary" isn't exactly deep linguistic programming. Hai guyz, pro-choice advocates are "bigoted maternalists". See, I can do it too and I didn't waste years of my life reading Strauss and Schmitt. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The whole idea of MemeShock seems so dishonest. It even treats the people it is trying to support like marks. Tetronian you're clueless 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Behold Neoconservatism in all its incredibly creepy glory. Their followers are worse than peons; they're machines. What the hell is Jfraatz on?
Prescribed amphetamines for my ADHD. Johanan Raatz
I dare say he's further out there than a lot of CP's regulars, what with his grand objectives of social engineering. PubliusTalk 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Theocrats only hate women and teh gays; neocons hate EVERYONE. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You are completely wrong about Neo-Cons. read some of the early neo con work by Fukuyama and Kristol - it is a sound political philosophy that got raped by the religious right and creepy fucks like Cheney. The original tenants of Neo-Conservatisim and pretty sound. Aceof Spades 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Neo-neo-cons? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I really want to see Andy (and maybe PJR) somehow rail against genetic algorithms. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Electrical Engineers and Programming

Speaking as someone who learned electrical engineering around the same time as Andy (I graduated in 1989, I think he graduated in the mid-eighties) and worked in a similar field (we both worked in microelectronics design), I can say the following:

  • A lot of the people I worked with back then learned C.
  • I'm not sure how much its used now, but back when I worked in microelectronics design, there was a "programming language" VHDL, which basically allowed you to write a program that described the function of chip, and then could be "compiled" into the design of a chip. It was very much like "actual" programming. I never designed anything elaborate in it, but it could be used for some very elaborate designs.
  • He probably learned Fortran as an undergrad (and I dispute, strongly, the assertion above that doesn't make him a programmer. It may not require the level of skill it took, say, Linus Torvalds to create Linux, but writing decent code in any language takes talent.)

Admittedly, I'm just basing this on my own experience, but Andy's college education and early career and mine are quite similar. (Though, to be fair, he went to a much better school -- Princeton -- while I went to a state school most noted for its ability to field a collection of orange-clad muscle-bound jocks to toss an oblate spheroid around a field of grass on Saturday afternoons in the fall.) Based on my experience, I do not think its unreasonable for Andy to call himself a programmer. I doubt he could write code in any modern language, but the general knowledge of "how do you write code" is probably still in his head. MDB 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although Andy would be envious of the conservative Volunteers. - π 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
East Tennessee (where UT's main campus is located) is extraordiarily right wing. Andy would fit right in. MDB 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"And I say that as a former full-time programmer"img. Not an engineer with programmming skill but a FULL TIME PROGRAMMER! I am eating Toast& honeychat 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I know a number of engineers who drifted into full time programming. It's not unusual, especially for those who specialized in microelectronics. MDB 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I have sometimes spent several days at a time doing nothing but programming. I guess that during those periods I was also a full-time programmer. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting the way programming has been conflated with electrical engineering. Pushing electrons to and fro has had to do with getting massive objects spinning, or wiggling voice coils, or tickling phosphors, or pinging in search of distant objects, or producing devices to do those things, generally in commercial quantities. Programming in its pure form has more to do with capturing the raw stuff of poetry itself, making abstract ideas dance in predictable, useful ways.
The conventional wisdom used to be that you could generally cross-train a hardware person to do software, but not the other way around. I've been paid to write assembly code and C, but I've also dug in my heels and protested loud and long against being called a computer programmer. Oops, there's my bias showing. Nowadays I sometimes work with raw HTML and a barebones text editor, but in my own mind I'm still not a computer programmer.
I freely admit that I don't know the particulars of whatsisnutz's education and early career, but calling himself a full-time programmer may be resumé inflation, politely put. That assessment is mostly based on the obviously high BS content of other stuff he says. Those skills fade, and memory is selective, so bragging about pecking at a keyboard decades ago is one mark of a gas-filled douchebag, the way I see it. Sprocket J Cogswell 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying Andy is telling the truth, per se, about having been a programmer; I'm just saying its not an unrealistic claim that someone with a degree in Electrical Engineering eventually became a full time programmer. MDB 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dude, not a speck of disagreement will you get from me here. In his case, it smells very much like a horse's ass variant of the argument from authority, where the authority is self-proclaimed, that is. Genghis pretty well nailed it too. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Along the lines of resumé inflation, there's a huge difference between using a ready-made tool for semiconductor or board layout, and coding interactive user widgets or researching and designing AI. I suspect that what Andy did was more along the lines of the former, which amounts to holding down just another drawing board in the bullpen, doing glorified bookkeeping. AI experience would be a better backup for what he saidimg, but if he had any of that, he would have screamed it from any handy rooftop. He hasn't, and is a douche. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I resent the suggestion that board or chip layout is ridiculously easy. Sure, any monkey can do it, but to get it working with high-speed or high-sensitivity signals is a whole other piece of cake. The most complex modern boards have 16 layers, and one needs to account for tiny details like impedance changes in a track corner, adding miniscule extra-length zigzag parts to match delay to another track, etc. Pietrow 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Who ever suggested "board or chip layout is ridiculously easy"? Obviously it isn't. The "computer skills" needed for it basically call for running something handed to you on a platter, though. Not much programming there, which is what the assclaim was. By the way, good luck finding a sixteen-layer board with a 1983 date stamp on it. Some outfits were still using graphite on mylar in those days, since capable CAD seats were a futuristic dream.
I've had to try and clean up the mess when boards or hybrid circuits were laid out by numbnutzen who thought all you had to do was get some copper to agree with the wire list, aggravated by management's reluctance to pay for power and ground planes. Behold! a cluster fuck that essentially killed a company. Another time, sensitive analog inputs were snuggled right up against their own highly amplified output. Does the word "birdies" mean anything to you? That can happen when a visual artist does the layout with Rubylith and an X-Acto knife. A year or two down the road with that one, and the guardians of schedule and budget were still refusing to do the right thing. There must be a reason somewhere for needing aptitude, plus years of schooling and experience to get hardware right. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nutty WIGO

I don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some random editor at CP gets blocked as a sock of me. Nice wordplay from Human. Get it? A Nutty roux is a sauce? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
A sauce? Or a lousy WiGO? We report, we also decide. Now shut up and take it. --Kels 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Now I get it. It still isn't funny. Tetronian you're clueless 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I did get the 'sauce' joke, I just didn't see what it had to do with what was going on. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The main reason I tossed it up there was the direct call-out of an RW editor by name. Oh well, maybe one day it will be the lowest voted WIGO! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
ThickKunt does that with Ace all the time. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Where the fuck did this guy come from? He's going on about memetic vectors and "deep process", which probably only have meaning in his twisted little head. Have we found somebody crazier than Andy? ENorman 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are already many, many people crazier than Andy.  K e n  D o l l  for example. Tetronian you're clueless 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
See here-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The guy is a legit wacko. I wish him and teh Arse got along better. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain he is a satirist (there is a suspicious "hehehehe" on his Facebook group's main page).--MNA 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
While's he obviously somewhat deranged in his conclusions, at least he's asking the questions none of you seem capable of thinking about. Oh, how I lament this poor, self important website. MarcusCicero 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Access, with stretcher and small potatoes

His fans had a hard time accessing him, cause of the rest of the crowd. I can live with stretcher, since nobody uses the word litter in that sense any more, and gurney is mostly used by civilians. The rolly liftup thing you scoop a patient onto for loading into the back of the ambulinks is a stretcher, OK?

But "access" instead of "find [a]... way" to him? "Get to" uses the same number of characters if you count the space in the middle, and doesn't have the same tinge of computer-speak (neologism involving verbatization of a noun) about it. Must. Be. Concise. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With stretcher, it was more of Andy saying his word choice made more sense, even though proper translations use the same word. Perhaps it really was a bed, a mattress, maybe a cot, rather than a stretcher? Andy wasn't there, and if he wasn't there, then he can't know (by Andy logic). --Irrational Atheist 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It may well have been a thin futon or a reed mat. In my parents' generation, when someone came out with nonsense of that ilk, the standard response was, "Was you there, Charley?" or actually, "Vas you dere, Sharley?" No idea of the source of that.
I just realized "access" may be a conservative word, with the free market including purveyors of face time with policy makers and all. Don't arsk me to research whether it is actually a c-word though. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Also hidden in CP's Luke (translated) is avoid feminist rendition of "prophetess".... Here's me thinking feminists dislike the use of a diminutive of the masculine to form the feminine. CS Miller 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Pretty sure it was Harry (for 2¢ plain) Golden who wrote a short bit about how "-ess" was used (maybe only in 19th century lit.?) to form the feminine for under-people, such as "Jewess" and "Negress." Sprocket J Cogswell 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"What doubt is [sic] your hearts?" Shall we be concerned that Jesus does not wield the english language properly? ThiehWhat is NOT going on? 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it's undeniable that Jesus invented the English language, shortly before inventing comedy. Cantabrigian 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that AndyPants insists on stretcher in v.18, but in v.25 the guy picks up his bed. Water to wine, stretcher to bed, the miracles never cease.... Worm(t | c) 13:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

shit -> fan

The shit may be about to hit the fan. Stay tuned. User:ZoetropeUser talk:Zoetrope 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, keep us posted Z. Tetronian you're clueless 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, c'mon, don't troll us like that. That sounds like the "a mjor creationist website will soon announce a major effort to destroy evolutionism on the internet" stuff at CP, except even less specific. MDB 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people will have a very specific idea of what I'm talking about, MDB. I'm posting this really for one guy, but also so that anybody interested might keep their eyes out. User:ZoetropeUser talk:Zoetrope 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke. My apologies. MDB 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I know exactly what you are talking about and it's a pity my work computer is completely blocked from viewing CP. Don't forget capture tags! Aceof Spades 19:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Did it hit the fan yet??? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
WTF are you people talking about? Tetronian you're clueless 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ewwww....creepy shout-outimg from TK. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Funny - TK told me a little while back he couldn't even view RW as Tmt had blocked him server side. And yes TK, I have the transcripts at hand. Aceof Spades 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I recall him going on about being "404 blocked". — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't be surprised, he is a known liar. Aceof Spades 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, Trent's admitted to server blocking TK for a very short time (less than hours), but certainly not permanently. There's a discussion of this on TK's talk pages here. Trent confirmed the short server block to me at our Midwest Meetup and I'll take Trent's word over that of TK and the rest of CP put together in the blink of an eye. In any event, people's IP addresses cycle; at the time Ace IM'd with TK, it is my belief that TK was no longer even browsing from the same place Trent server blocked for mere moments years ago. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Zomg, shit -> fan going to happen? Could someone email me this magnanimous prophecy that's about to happen? AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Was that it? Did it just happen?????? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What's goin' on? TheoryOfPractice 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't smell anything yet. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This "hay guiz something cool and vague is going down that I'm just going to drop tantalizing references to" stuff is getting annoying. There's a reason nobody likes  K e n  D o l l  Fedhaji (Talk) 01:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on you people, do I need to spell out this silly drama for you? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes you do. TheoryOfPractice 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I second that, as I have no idea what is going on. Tetronian you're clueless 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough. One of "us" (well, probably many) is TK. They created a puppet on CP that earned block rights. Then they offered up said puppets "details" (name/password) here a few months ago. Then recently they took over the puppet again and said mean things to another, allegedly teenaged, puppet on CP. The manager of the second puppet chided the "owner" of the first that talking that way to a teenager was not good style. Then the first puppet blocked the second and named the puppeteer. Then TK in his own incarnation finished the "redlinking" we are all so familiar with these days. Clear enough? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the offering of the details, it happened right here on TWIGO:CP. The rest I will try to figure out on my own. Thanks Human. Tetronian you're clueless 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you're welcome. I really thought that "explanation" would only make things worse ;) PS, I don't think no (new) shit hit no fan today. But I haven't studied the goat entrails carefully since yesterday. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I got a couple of wonderful email from TK today actually. He moaned about me not playing fair. Well, sorry TK, thems the brakes. Aceof Spades 04:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"Clear enough?"
I have no idea what that paragraph was about. Why the quotes around "us"? What do you mean "is" TK? Is there no person IRL, or do you just have his password? Were the mean things said on CP? How do you know the teenaged character was a puppet? To whom was the puppeteer named? What is "redlinking"? Is it deleting userpages?
You don't have to answer any of those questions, but I thought I would explain why I found your paragraph baffling. Maybe it's just because what I like best about CP is when Andy says something bonkers, rather than when the underlings fight. Coarb 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if that comes off mean. I only mean to say "I'm confused, but you don't really have to explain yourself". This is especially true if explaining yourself decreases lulz. Coarb 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, if I explained it clearly, it wouldn't be funny anymore, and might compromise one of TK's puppets here. Yes, "redlinking" is deleting a user's page. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Clear as mud. But I assume that's the point. Anyway, I thought Bugler was a consortium, but it turned out otherwise. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm new to this whole thing but just curious- why is exposing one of TK's puppets a bad thing? Isn't TK a mortal enemy and sworn foe? --MNA 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
TK is just another parodist. As the old saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my (really creepy) friend." — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No way. Really? If so he's managed to rise absurdly far in the organization. Man, I can only aspire to such great heights... I wonder what his end-game is? Oh, and do people from CP read this thread? --MNA 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am increasingly of the opinion that CP and RW are one group in cahoots with each other, with most users on both sites as non-aware pawns.--WJThomas 13:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me. Tetronian you're clueless 23:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Break because Nothing Continues to Happen

Yeah I worked it out - largely because of the email I received a few days earlier, hut hey. I agree with everybody who said that this is far too  K e n  D o l l -like. If you have something to post, post. If you think something may be about to happen, wait until it happens. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to even try to figure out what people are possibly talking about. I'll just wait until someone writes it up. X Stickman 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Criminy! You guys act like grade-school girls tittering about who has a crush on whom. SoldierInGodsArmy 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TK and Andy! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Ed Poor never fails to amuseimg. Aceof Spades 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHA!! I love how the first line repeats itself. Tetronian you're clueless 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Is Ed actually aware that this is not some tech help wiki? Maybe he just logged into the wrong site. Edit summaries like the one for this moveimg make me genuinely doubt that he was fully aware of his location. --Sid 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That is one of the best Ed stubs I've seen in a while. SJ Debaser 00:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this is something like Ken's SEO nonsense, a sort of techie honey pot to pull in hits from something unrelated to the wiki, and hope people look around for more once they're in. It would at least make a stupid sort of sense, even though it would still be idiotic. --Kels 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Raatz WIGO

A pat on the back to whoever wrote that one. That was one of the cleverest and (dare I say it?) most insightful WIGOs I've seen in a while. Tetronian you're clueless 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly agreed. Not because there was anything wrong with the WIGO, but because it linked me to thisimg: "Ideally if we could viral the language enough." Verbing weirds language. --4perf 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Methinks nounverbs are doubleplusungood. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Calvin and Hobbes ftw!-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 04:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the C&H reference! Tetronian you're clueless 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I'm not used to seeing Andy act as the [1]img voice of moderation. This memeshock guy is just plain creepy. Corry 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Is Raatz the figurative Abyss staring back into Andy? Also, best use of 1984 quote in a WIGO. ENorman 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Goddamn brilliant. Best written WIGO I've seen. PubliusTalk 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, very poignant. But the whole MemeShock thing is very self-aggrandizing and silly. I don't think anyone has ever thought that Newspeak or the principles it works on could actually function in reality. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I find it a little funny that Andy still thinks this is all being done by a computer somewhereimg. Meanwhile, having received Andy's imprimatur, JimR twists the knifeimg. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Debate:MemeShock.

Andy's linguistic abilities

I was wondering , is any of us doing this (or a similar) kind of indoctrination education to Andy for him to have his linguistic skills today? ThiehLooking for potion recipes 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Naughty TK

andy tells TK to cut back on the /16simg (And then thinks better of it so deletes it.) I am eating Toast& honeychat 01:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add that, lol. Maybe something like:
User: "Help! TK rangebl-"
WodewickWelease Wodewick! 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
So he cuts it back to 6 months!img Superjosh, what have you been doin, you naughty boy. I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Look a bit more closely. That wasn't Andy. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes! well fooled me: glad I didn't WIGO it! I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
God, imagine if Andy actually did that. That'd be another "hell freezes over" WIGO. SJ Debaser 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Take it it was you, SJ? I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Fuck it, it was. I've never been a parodist over there, and I wasn't even that bothered, I just fancied trying to be an actual decent contributor there. No joke. I didn't really fancy TK announcing my university to the world, but then I realised I don't give a shit. SJ Debaser 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why TK keeps blocking himself? WodewickWelease Wodewick! 02:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Pure stoooooopidity. I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
So we'd ask ourselves that question. He's wanking over our messages concerning him right now. "Look at me! People know I'm here!" SJ Debaser 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The Andy impersonator made an error. MIT controls an /8 block of 16,777,216 IP addresses. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the shortcomings of IPv4 is that many companies or institutions have been allocated blocks of IPs far in excess of their current need. However when all telephones, security cameras, automatic doors, fridges etc. also have their own IP then 64K for a university might then seem restrictive. Roll on IPv6. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 10:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I like TK's quick wank over his block of SJ's Uni "Another good catch!". Well done you. Have a sweet and then go back to your kiddy porn. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Drop me an email could ya TK? I'd like to talk to you civilly. You're still technically a member here so the email this user function should work. Cheers! SJ Debaser 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think his AIM account still functions: Same as his email begins with "ex" and ends with "1", (as is showed on his CP [not TALK] page}. CЯacke®
His AIM account is still active yes. Aceof Spades 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you want to talk to that remtard? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CBP makes the AP

Andy surfs teh web
Our little secret
Obviously. ...

The AP has a piece on the Conservative Bible Project, their biggest story yet. It goes pretty easy on Andy, which I guess it has to if it wants to remain a neutral source. Ironic that the liberal MSM goes much easier on their stupidity than WND. DickTurpis 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to provide one new idea from Andy, in response to the criticism he's received from numerous theological conservatives:
"The phrase 'theological conservative' does not mean that someone is politically conservative,"
Which seems to be a tacit admission that his motives are political, not theological. MDB 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I would think the fact that his project came about because "liberals ruined the bible" would pretty much prove that point. I do like how the AP piece makes him look like a freaking idiot, in it's own, neutral way. SirChuckBCall the FBI 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Brace yourselves for some lulz, people. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised it hasn't made the front page of Conservapedia yet. You asleep at the switch, Andy? DickTurpis 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I do like this comment: "This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda" - Timothy Paul Jones. Duh! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That picture of Andy at his computer has considerably less frothing at the mouth than I always assumed he'd have. X Stickman 14:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Y'know, though... you can see what on his monitor quite clearly in that picture. Now, its conservapedia's home page, of course, but someone with a little bit of Photoshop skills could change that to something far more interesting. Perhaps even... scandalous. MDB 14:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
And it only took eight minutes. I'm impressed. MDB 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice shopping...though the young men are a bit too old to be groomed by Schlafly...12yo's would be better...maybe an underwear advert? CЯacke®
That's about all I could get with a SFW search for "homoerotic". — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Upload a blank screen version. I see a new internet meme developing. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the conservative response when conservative politicians are caught in sex scandals is usually "meh", but they rail against anyone who deviates the slightest from ideological purity, it might be more scandalous if he was, oh, watching Keith Olberman. MDB 14:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's see what you got. File:Andys Blank Monitor.png — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
@NU - if a promo still of Zach and Slater from Saved By the Bell is homoerotic then a generation of American males in their late 20s and early 30s were exposed to something unsavory. I'm glad I'm a little too old for SBTB to have been on when I was glued to the tube. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)I lack all photoshop skills (or even a acopy of it at work). MDB 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to wait until after work. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Last one before I try and get shit done. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This will require a separate gallery of liberal deceit in which to display our work. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Noticed

... and he's dubbed it the Best. Article. Ever.FINEST ARTICLE YETimg (Andy's emphasis, not mine) about the CBP. Meaning "its the only one that's not portayed me as being nuttier than an oak tree." MDB 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm lauging so hard at him redlinking his own pride and joy in that diff. --Kels 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd imagine the window on account creation will soon be closing. I hope something funny happens before then. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It's hilarious that he quotes himself. Kinda telling when the best compliment he can find is his own words. Besides which, the article isn't even an endorsement and does portray him as a nut with an agenda, it just uses more polite language. --Kels 15:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Does Andy smoke? I see yellow teeth in that picture. He underbrags in his post, he only says the article "hits the presses nationwide". The AP has a lot of international subscribers. Internetmoniker 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Article is on the NPR site too. --Kels 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Say, he's still identifying as RC, I wonder if he gets enough attention from the press the Mother Church might have a word or two. Or even funnier, if someone like Bill Donohue tried to muscle in. --Kels 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing would be as funny as Andy vs the Catholic church. It would be the greatest CP event in history. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Andy still identifies as a Roman Catholic is one of the great unanswered questions about him. Who knows, maybe he has fantasies about starting a second Reformation via the CBP. MDB 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
So what's he gonna nail to a church door? I am eating Toast& honeychat 16:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
AmesG. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
More flinging than nailing, I suspect. Although he does still make claims about being Catholic, although clearly his attitudes are more in line with American fundamentalists. Maybe he wants this to be his ticket into The Family? --Kels 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps he's part of one of the "traditionalist" Catholic sects that think the Church went to Hell after Vatican II. Considering such groups will insist they are the real Catholics and all that stuff in Rome is just the work of pretenders, that would fit with Andy's disagreement with the official Catholic position on a number of issues, but still calling himself a Catholic. On the other paw, Andy at least seems to accept other non-Catholic theological conservatives as Christians, and I believe the pre-Vatican II stance was that non-Catholics weren't Christians. And I'd suspect a traditionalist Catholic would view coming up with your own Bible translation as more than a little heretical. So trying to figure out what religion Andy considers himself to be is about as easy as Kremlinology back during the Seventies.
Of course, as I've remarked before, Andy's real religion, whether he admits it or not, is Conservatism. With Ronald Reagan as God, Bush the Lesser as the Paul, prophets named Rush, Sean, Bill, and Glenn, and "Doctor" Laura as the Virgin Mary. MDB 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more exposure - it's on the Yahoo front page right now! Including the picture of Andy in front of the computer monitor. --Composure1 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wether Andy likes to call non-RC'ers Christians is not really important. He has to, otherwise he would be completely alone. He even tolerates Moonies. Pietrow 19:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The CPB has made the AP. And does the rock vomit? Professor Moriarty 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposing CP

Today I've read 13 examples of Rationalwikian idiocy on talk pages alone. Who gives you the right to mock any other website when you're hardly custodians of the rational ideal yourselves? MarcusCicero 17:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

^-- 14 now. ;) --Sid 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Banana.gif — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me Neveruse, is that supposed to be funny? A dancing banana? You cunt. MarcusCicero 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It was supposed to be an example of Rationalwikian idiocy. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What's it like being the only man alive who knows what's funny? Jon Stewart must pay you a bundle. --Kels 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


says the bloke from the secret website. Totnesmartin 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding <capture> tags etiquette

Is there any etiquette for adding <capture> tags to other users' posts that lack them? CS Miller 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Capture tags are always good. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help! New to all this.

Hey guys, I'm new to RationalWiki and recently gained some admin privileges over at Conservapedia (working my way up to sysop). I actually stumbled across this site long after I began my plan to destabilize their community (though I'm not sure if they can really be considered stable).

So three questions:

1) Is there any way which roving CP sysops can figure out who I am based on this post? I'm new to internet subterfuge, wiki-style.

2) How can I use my new-found powers to cause as much chaos, devastation and hilarity as possible to ensue on CP? I have a few long-term plans in motion, but I'm always looking for more ideas.

3) Does anyone else here have Conservapedia accounts/is interested in collaborated in my dastardly plots?

Please do not add information from what you consider to be a "good" source. Textbooks are liberal sources of information. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:10, 5 June 2009 (EDT) --MNA 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. Not unless they are intimately familiar with your writing style.
  2. Banning good-willed contributors, for one.
  3. Perhaps...

I hope that's not a quote TK actually said to you, because that could get you found out. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Seriously, what's the point? You're not going to "destabilize" their community any better than they do themselves. There's enough hilarity, chaos and devastation when you let Andy and the boys do their thing. --Kels 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kels- Because it's fun. They're crazy, famous, and hateful, and it is my solemn obligation to have a damn good time messing with them. And I'm trying to think big- no petty vandalism here. I'm trying for a schism which will deprive the site of every good-faith editor it has. And maybe get Ed banned too, just because I have a masters in math and he makes me mad.

Neveruse- No, not at all. Just a quote I found hilarious.

I assumed you guys would have more experience with this sort of dastardly deed than I, and have some hard- won veteran advice for me. Either way, I'm truly gleefully excited by this. In a very evil way. The results of this should be catastrophic. Why? Because Andy seems to like me quite a bit (in a creepy, fatherly kind of way) and I'm pretty sure I can get him to turn on poor Ed Poor.

And I have to say, thanks so much for this amazing site. I spent two hours reading through the history of CP and laughing out loud. Stuff like mentioning the FBI, the Massacre of '08... unbelievably awesome. My roommate keeps looking at me like I'm crazy every time I open a new page of history and can't contain myself. --MNA 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can railroad Creepy Ed, you'd definitely earn a spot in the hall of fame. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, good luck with your grand plans, I guess. I doubt there are any good-faith editors over there in the first place though. --Kels 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Kels! And that's the goal, Neveruse. What rite of initiation do I have to go through to meet some other like-minded sabeteurs? --MNA 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hang around for a while, let them get to know you and they might be in contact via email. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 /

Talk / Block 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll do that. --MNA 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose now what you certainly shouldn't do is edit here while not logged in as that will flash your IP all over the place. Other than that, no vandalism or parody gets organised on Rational Wiki (despite certain individual's assurances otherwise) and it's considered the height of vulgarity to brag about your own stuff, which will probably get you banned from CP. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to be disagreeable, but I see at least one instance of organization on this very page. But thank you for the good advice about the IP address, and I'll try not to be vulgar.
some parody is shared amongst members but vandalism, not really. I am fairly sure most RW members have long given it up. Aceof Spades 18:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree there. Vandalism is childish and not really very funny. Sowing seeds of discord and provoking members of paranoid communities into attacking each other, however, is hilarious. On a related topic, is it possible that TK is not who he seems? --MNA 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Go to and search TK for a history. Aceof Spades 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not follow links from RW to CP, the referer could show up in CP's logs. Instead copy the link and open in a new window/tab. CS Miller 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If I were a sysop, I would (1) Keep as much crazy as possible in all the articles (2) Try to keep the sane contributors unbanned.
This would allow Andy's crazy to shine on talk pages without diluting the insanity in mainspace articles that would clue in stumblers that CP is a website best to be used for lulz only. Coarb 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am so fricking confused.

So I thought this was pretty simple: Conservapedia is a crazy website full of crazy people and RationalWiki exists to document and mock their insanity.

Then I read on this site that most of the founding members of RW were once conservapedia members.

Then I read the article on TK only to learn that he is (or was, it's unclear) somehow in both groups at once and was at one point trying to lead a crusade against CP.

Of course, through my various puppets at CP I have had the pleasure of encountering TK in all his glory, banning and crazy-ing away.

But he's not a RW parodist either, since he seems to have no support here.

Can anyone make sense of this for me? I read all the relevant pages: TK, RW1, and RW2. Maybe I'm just too sleep-deprived to put it all together. I also realize that as the noob on the block you don't owe me any explanation, but so far I've found this site really hilarious and kinda want to stick with it. --MNA 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much got it figured out. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you, the fucking Riddler now? Just stick around big fella and pick up the clues as they fall like droppings from an incontinent rabbit. Aceof Spades 19:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap and now I've found RationalWikiWiki, a wiki about RationalWiki. This is FUCKING INSANE. How do you people keep this all straight?--MNA 19:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget about RationalWikiWikiWiki]. Long story short, the original editors of RW were editors at CP who disagreed with the people in positions of authority. RW was set up to mock (and occasionally vandalise) CP. TK did edit here, before causing a controversy I cannot completly remember. TK hasn't edited here in a while. And for the record, you are right, TK is not A RW parodist, but several. You will get the hang of it, but remember that absence of TK from November 11th to the 18th? One of us just didn't feel like doing any editing. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate! 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If TK really is a parodist, then, why do the RW and RWW articles just claim he is a malevolent jerk who is trying to destroy both communities (plus some dating site evidently)? And how can you post that here without the CP people catching on? I assume they have infiltrated this site to the same degree you all have infiltrated theirs, right? Is everyone on both sites really just the same people having self-referential arguments about themselves? AGHHH!!!


It probably says something bad about me that I find this so utterly fascinating, but I really do.
And there goes your account. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd hide the revision, but the vulcan of a tech admin would probably slap my wrist... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)