RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000

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

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Rob just got the RW article on WP restored.)
(Rob just got the RW article on WP restored.)
Line 247: Line 247:
::::::::::::::::: Are they going to blame RW for the Barack Obama article too? [[User:Alain|Alain]] ([[User talk:Alain|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::: Are they going to blame RW for the Barack Obama article too? [[User:Alain|Alain]] ([[User talk:Alain|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If the subtext here, by the way, is that Rob wants RW to be responsible for goading on Andy's cretinous conduct in the Lenski Affair, perhaps he ought to come out and say that he also disapproved of Andy pursuing that course. Then when we get him to admit that there's no good support for the proposition that RW is somehow officially responsible for the tone of that debacle we'll have him admitting that Andy's hubris is the source of CP's butthurt, not some unidentified editors with no editorial control who were banned and oversighted in any event. {{:User:Nutty Roux/sig|}} 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If the subtext here, by the way, is that Rob wants RW to be responsible for goading on Andy's cretinous conduct in the Lenski Affair, perhaps he ought to come out and say that he also disapproved of Andy pursuing that course. Then when we get him to admit that there's no good support for the proposition that RW is somehow officially responsible for the tone of that debacle we'll have him admitting that Andy's hubris is the source of CP's butthurt, not some unidentified editors with no editorial control who were banned and oversighted in any event. {{:User:Nutty Roux/sig|}} 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:Well Nutty, here's the beauty of that matter: I was inactive for a long period of time. RW kept good recoprds of these matters ("[http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ASysops&diff=404524&oldid=398131] Damn, he's back."). As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful what transpired in  my absence.  Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group.  These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around.  Ne-eev-er. So I've had time to conduct an internal review, and now must mitigate the damage.  [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|don't bother me]]</sup> 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
== Rob, explain this De-Wiki please ==
== Rob, explain this De-Wiki please ==

Revision as of 18:27, 24 March 2010

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

Presidential height wigo

Height doesn't appear to be completely irrelevant: e.g. http://www.hackwriters.com/tall.htm. What would It would say about Palin's chances I wonder.

Critical Thinking in Math

Let us all pause for a moment of silence in fond memory of the announcement, on CP's main page, of the Critical Thinking in Math course. It was announced 2-1/2 years ago, on 5 August 2007, and withdrawn a couple of hours ago, at 18:53EDT, 20 March 2010.

In the page announcing this (the page is still there; maybe Andy intends to have the course after all), and its talk page, Andy took on all comers. Many people tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to pound some mathematical common sense into his head. He claimed that "proof by contradiction was disfavored, for obvious reasons", and that it was controversial. He claimed that "when resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself". He claimed that "elementary proofs" (a term which still isn't defined satisfactorily) are preferred, and that there is some kind of cover-up about this. He (and sycophant parodist suckup Foxtrot) got totally owned about the axiom of choice, and about complex numbers. He never did explain what he meant by "additive factoring". (I think I know, but it's not important; It's not about the Goldbach conjecture.)

In all cases, no inroads could be made into Andyland.

Gauss (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"when resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself" - this statement is true. it's just that nobody suspects there's a contradiction in the axioms we accept. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 07:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
But if there was a contradiction in the axioms, surely more would fail than just proof by contradiction, right? At least that's my gut reaction. --Sid (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That's right, Sid, except that the theorem you prove is *in the system* of the axioms. Everything in that system would be uninteresting. But you can still make a mistake in a proof that uses consistent axioms. Actually, as FineCheeses says, aschlafly is correct, in the sense that a proof by contradiction would be invalid if you make a mistake in logical reasoning. But that is true about *any* proof. He seems to prefer constructive or intuitionistic proofs (although he probably doesn't know what these mean). But if you make a mistake in a constructive or intuitionistic proof, you can also prove a falsehood. In other words, Aschlafly's complaint about proof by contradiction is just a proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I really would have loved to see the Conservative Math course! Fawlty (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If there were a conflict in our Axioms how would we proove it? Proof by contradiction ... BAM! --Opcn (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Menendez recall committee

I have two things to say:

  1. As an NJ resident, I am pretty surprised that this happened so soon at all. Menendez is not well liked, but wow.
  2. Andy?!?!?! Are they fucking insane??

That is all. Tetronian you're clueless 03:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do have one more thing to add: how the heck did Andy get tangled up in this? I thought he was out of politics at this point. Tetronian you're clueless 03:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
He is not out of the incompetent lawyering business.--Opcn (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well wait a second and ask what he's tangled up in. I wouldn't envy him under any circumstances. Any lawyer, even Andy Schlafly, can represent a few shit-stirring troublemakers like these people, particularly when the odds are they're going to completely fail. And keep in mind that as far as I can tell Andy had nothing to do with the trial and appellate work done to get where these people have gotten. They're fighting a tremendously unlikely fight that will either (a) amount to diddly squat if they fail to get enough signatures for a recall election, (b) amount to diddly squat and cost the state of New Jersey a shit ton of money if they get their signatures but the recall election fails to produce a recall, or (c) on the extremely remote chance the recall election succeeds in producing a recall, cost the state of New Jersey a shit ton of money before it gets a new senator. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is why would anyone hire Andy when we have an entire section for his record of rookie mistakes (I am sure there are records for his win/loss ratio elsewhere) I am sure better choices are available for equal or less cost elsewhere. ThiehWhat is NOT going on? 05:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nutty, I don't think the fact that the hard work was already done and that there is likely nothing the theoretical Andy could theoretically do to not fail really matters; he will be incompetent no matter how low the bar. You can only drive a shitty car at 5 miles an hour on unlit roads so others can't see how lousy it is, but it will still be a rusty bucket of junk. --Opcn (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
"In short, our State Constitution, and the democratic process that produced it, deserves our utmost respect unless federal law clearly and definitively trumps it." ħumanUser talk:Human 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
"Given the will of the people embodied in our State organic law, and the dearth of clear precedent nullifying the people's enactments, we accordingly decline at this juncture to find our State constitutional provision and related statute permitting recall of a United States Senator to be unconstitutional." ħumanUser talk:Human 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You wacky Americans and your Constitution. In the UK we just make it up as we go along.
I have to say, I love how in the article it says "Conservapedia began as a project of a 50-strong group of home-schooled students but now includes thousands of editors." Me looking at recent changes list... Aschlafly, Mjadam00 (new user which will be blocked by the time I've finished typing this), Conservative, TK, TK, Conservative, Conservative, RobSmith, BertSchlossberg, Conservative, Jpatt, Jpatt, Conservative, Jpatt, Conservative, Jpatt, Joaquin Martinez, TerryH, Aschlafly, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Dasonk, Jpatt, Jpatt, Wuhao1911, Tzoran, Wuhao1911, Aschlafly, HenryW, HenryW, Clintville, Jpatt, Jpatt, Jpatt, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Jpatt, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, Joaquin Martinez, DerekE, DerekE, Joaquin Martinez and Joaquin Martinez. They neglected to mention TK blocked essentially the whole world apart from America. SJ Debaser 12:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
See also. Doc Holiday (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
"Conservapedia began as a project of a 50-strong group of home-schooled students but now excludes thousands of editors." (not me, BTW, I just returnedimg. Though I'm range-blocked at the moment... ) larronsicut fur in nocte 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Since your reason for wanting to return seems to be pretty well demonstrated here, LArron, is there some reason I shouldn't reverse my offer? I find it pretty petty to post here what you only just (at the time of your posting here) emailed me about. Deceit thy name is European Democratic Socialist (example #32847), it seems. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And I found it pretty amusing to come back after 15 month and run into one of the numerous range blocks. Amusing - and blog-worthy - that's all: I haven't implied that this was the result of some e-v-i-l manipulations... larronsicut fur in nocte 21:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
And I promised never to read CP again because there's a limit to how much lunacy the human brain can tolerate. But as soon as I do (I have no idea why - maybe my finger slipped) I read that the Tea Party people are hiring Schlafly as their lawyer. Mr Menendez must be sleeping a little more easily at night! Let's hope Sarah Palin chooses him (Schlafly) as her attorney for the 2012 election. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to be fleshing out his legal strategy here.--WJThomas (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh. He didn't even address that Art. I, Sec. 3 sets the qualifications and terms of election of a senator and that the Supremacy Clause means the Constitution trumps state law. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
From WP: The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes ... (my emphasis) Willem de Zwijger (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What does Andy expect to happen with this? They're going to gather a stack of signatures, present them at some New Jersey state office, and an official will declare "Wow! You have signatures! Despite the fact there's absolutely no Constitutional basis for such a thing, we'll hold the recall election next Tuesday!" Once again, Andy is letting the perceived rightness of his cause trump all logic. If he had anything resembling a sense of strategy, he'd first work to get a recall system into law, then try to recall Menendez. As it is, this is going to end up like the numerous lawsuits the Birthers predicted would lead to Obama removed from office -- a court will basically look at it, say "there's nothing here" and move on to matters that actually matter legally. Basically, Andy's going to get Lenski'd again. MDB (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I have contempt for the guy and his proclivity for slapping up any old frivolous argument and some personal insults to advance the "conservative" cause. But it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. These clowns won the right to gather signatures when the NJ appellate court reversed a trial court order denying their request for an injunction requiring whatever public official to accept their Notice of Intent to Recall. The constitutional issue is not resolved: it will be addressed if and when they gather signatures from 25% of registered voters in NJ, which they rosily underestimated in their court papers. There may or may not be a constitutional basis for a recall in the sense that the entire question resolves to whether despite Article I, Section 3 already addressing the qualifications of a senator, the lack of any express provision for recalling a senator under state law means that "right" is reserved to the states under the 10th amendment. I think it's a fucking stupid argument, but hey. That's the world Andy Schlafly lives in. Interestingly, the Constitution may also provide no basis for even impeaching a senator, as the last time the issue was raised in 1797 the senate determined it didn't have jurisdiction over the matter because a senator was not an "officer" of the United States. Anyway, WhizKid asked the right question on the essay talk page. We'll see how Andy addresses the text of Art. I., Sec. 3 vis a vis the Supremacy Clause. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This will run and run: I think we ought to have an article ready to go on it. Doc Holiday (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so Andy's not completely pissing into the wind -- he does have something resembling legal hope, and this isn't him tilting at windmills.
Actually, though, my conspiratorially minded side says this: even if this goes no where in court, its still not a bad strategy for whoever plans to run against Menendez (and I'm sure they have someone in mind, I just wouldn't know who.) If they actually succeed in a recall, great for the unnamed candidate. If they fail, they've already got a grassroots movement to tap into for support, and they can use "do what the courts wouldn't let us do" as a campaign slogan of sorts. MDB (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, he really is just pissing in the wind as far as I can tell, it's just not as objectively frivolous as his usual strategy of arguing by assertion, repetition, and insult. This is part of the far-right becoming "violently ungovernable," a phrase I heard on the BBC this morning :) Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another great one hit wonder

"There's just something about the way its hook grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor."

Vanilla Ice! Best of the public!img And it's Andy himself, not some parodist doing a reductio ad absurdum on Andy's insight. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, it was written while he was a teenager, so it supports two AndyInsights™. Tetronian you're clueless 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Yo yo yo! I've capture tagged that motherfucker! Are we 100% sure that Assfly's not a parodist? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It's an age-old question. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The spatula on Vanilla Ice's hat approves! Barikada (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful. Isn't this actually an example of "the worst of the public", since the song is universally known to be quite stupid and everyone who ever thought it was cool is now ashamed of it? It made the whole hip-hop genre look stupid and somehow that's what got it into mainstream. Not to mention all the drug abuse and violence generally associated with the artist in question. Great example there, Andy, a real role model for your homoschoolers. Etc 05:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What an amazing page. The St Louis Gateway Arch was designed by an "unknown" architect? I guess if Andy hasn't heard of Eero Saarinen, no one has? What a maroon! - Poor Excuse (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, by that measure, "Carmen" was written by an unknown composer, and John Bunyan was a one-hit wonder with the novel "Pilgrim's Progress." Anyone want to sock up and add these to the list? Junggai (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The page lists Linux and Linus Torvalds as an example. While Linux is an amazing accomplishment to be sure, note that Linus originally based Linux on MINIX, which was written by a big bad college professor. MDB (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, Linux wouldn't have gone very far without the foundations laid by GNU, a project run by pretentious communist welfare queens working for elitist ivory towers located in latte-sipping socialist nanny states. mb 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, Linus's master's thesis (University of Helsinki, 1990) was Linux: A Portable Operating System. RMS (founder of the FSF, who make the GNU tool chain), graduated from Harvard magna cum laude with a BA in Physics in 1974. CS Miller (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia uses
  • MediaWiki, written by Lee Daniel Crocker (education not stated)
  • The PHP scripting lanaguage, written by Rasmus Lerdorf, BSc (applied) University of Waterloo, Systems Design Engineering.
  • A web server, defaults to Apache, lead author Robert McCool, BA University of Illinois, (subject not stated)
  • A database, defaults to MySql, written by Michael Widenius, studied at Helsinki University of Technology, but didn't graduate.
CS Miller (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


"The Democrats face a tough battle when it comes to passing ObamaCare and it is no sure thing for them that they are going to pass it. I also believe they will likely encounter a backlash if they do pass ObamaCare. Dick Morris appears to have been the first person to say that health care would be Obama's Waterloo. A Republican Senator appears to taken the line from Mr. Morris. Although ObamaCare may turn out to be Obama's Waterloo and I hope this happens, it was a mistake to cite Dick Morris repeatedly on the main page as he appears to be no Gerald Celente when it comes to making predictions as can be seen HERE. I have to admit though that Morris did come up with a colorful phrase though when he said that ObamaCare would be Obama's Waterloo.  :)" Says Kenimg totally without irony. Doc Holiday (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) (should have said: emphasis mine)

That's possibly my favorite Ken quote ever. I'm tempted to make a second Ken quote generator based around this. Tetronian you're clueless 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That there is some good england writing that is there. I hope this will be used as study material for their writing course. Looking forward to the new Ken quote machine, Tet. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If you make the "topic words" in the QG randomizing subtemplates that get used over and over again a la  K e n  D o l l , they should only get parsed once, thus putting the same randomly chosen phrase in every instance. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Gerald Celente... such bullshit.--ADtalkModerator 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it me or do all Ken's ramblings read like he never takes a pause to take a breath? Whenever I read his shit, I can vividly picture an ADHD kid being just too overexcited to get his words out properly.. Take a minute to recollect your breath from time to time, Ken! --GTac (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I had always assumed that the keyword-tourette's was part of the grand search-engine optimization plan. Maybe he knew before-hand that these mails would become public and did his best to get them well-indexed? MaxAlex Swimming pool 11:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Christian humour

I see Aristophanes has made it onto the front page of CP as World Treasure of the Week/ Month/ Whatever. Does anyone remember the crap about a year ago when Andy "argued" (i.e. stated without evidence and blitzed anyone who disagreed with him) that humour only came into existence with the foundation of Christianity (if you don't follow the logic, don't worry, there wasn't any). The CP page on Aristophanes mentions the word 'comedy' several times. It also mentions that he died in 380 BC. Hypothesis disproved, matey. CP users who wrote the page about this very funny, pre-Christian dramatist don't seem to have been cast into outer darkness. Yet. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Andy response to that point was that "comedy" was a misleading modern term, and that they didn't display "real humor."--ADtalkModerator 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Foundation of Christianity already exist back then. What do you think the Old testament is? ThiehCP≠Child Porn? 03:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of the funniest people I know are Christians. It's just that the humorous nature of their utterances is unintentional. --Horace (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Christ was nearing climax, but he did some tantric hojamajab and managed to hold off for another 400 years or so. Once his refractory period is over he should come again. --Opcn (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hereimg (and hereimg since CaptureBot just captured up to the next headline) is the old discussion about this (there may have been another one somewhere, though). --Sid (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You can find the RW (okay, my) take on it here. MDB (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work there, MDB. That's an excellent example of how it is simply not possible to disprove a ridiculously wild assertion once it's been pulled out of the Assfly's arse. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny Christians

Just for what its worth, there are Christian humorists, and not just "ha ha, look at how stupid people who don't think like we do are" types. I give you The Wittenburg Door magazine. Even though its target audience is believers, it doesn't mind criticizing a lot of the stupidity that comes out of the religious right. MDB (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing teacher

"... could cause more abortions than Roe v. Wade by using federal taxpayer funding under the Executive Order and/or after its rescission. " [1]img

Where does the "and/or" fit in with the English language, let alone with the the meaning of the sentence? Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, he had me until he turned that weird illiterate corner. Andy, take it from a professional, let sane people edit the shit you write when in your cups. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have parsed the sentence in the following manner:
"|... could cause more abortions than Roe v. Wade| by using federal taxpayer funding| under the Executive Order| and/or| after its [the Executive Order's] rescission. |"
Does it make a bit more sense now? K61824Looking for potion recipes 03:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Err ... no? Willem de Zwijger (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So basically they were counting on people being too poor to abort or something? Sen (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Where "and/or" fits in... Yoohoo ingredients: Water, milk and/or sugar. (I probably have the milk part wrong, but it is true that ingredients have "and/or" Fuzzy =^_^= 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't that usually be various vegetable oils or sweeteners, that are "substituted" by using whichever is cheaper at any given time? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CP officially loses its shit.

Andy is so pissed at Rep. Stupak that he floods the borken news template with all kinds of rambling shit. Apparently he thinks Stupak is like Judas, at one point using the phrase "The betrayal of Christ comes a week early this year." I think someone has an inflated sense of history. SirChuckBCall the FBI 03:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

CP and the larger conservative movement were dancing on healthcare's grave as recently as a week ago; a month ago they were confident their victory was certain. How many goddamn "Waterloo" pronouncements have we had to see? Now that Obama and Pelosi have proven their chops and gotten it done, despite all expectations (right and left) to the contrary, Andy is very bitter. And it looks like his bitterness has focused in its usual haphazard fashion on the most recent thing to have caught his eye - in this case, the notion that Stupak was going to be unwilling to rely on Obama's word as to the executive order.--ADtalkModerator 03:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The "Waterloo" comments I saw never explicitly stated whether Obama was Napoleon or Wellington (or Blücher - getting there eventually). It's quite funny watching Schlafly's reaction. You can imagine him spluttering with indignant rage while scouring all the right-wing news sources for more bile. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
He's just a lame blogger liveblogging the news on his lame blog. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Those poor fuckers. I can imagine them being so angry that poor people will be getting helthcare. Poor people! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is worth a WIGO which documents the Conservapedia news feed's gradual transition from confidence of the bill's failure, to arrogance, to denial, to indignation, and finally to name-calling. Junggai (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling Sid! ħumanUser talk:Human 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I didn't pay any attention to the bill's key players/moments or to CP's news items about this, so I wouldn't even know where to start with this, sorry. --Sid (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On a different note... Barack Hussein Napoleon Pol-Pot Obama's stalinised medicine wins! OH YES YES YES YES! --TheEgyptiansig001.png 10:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Would like to see what Kendoll has to say in regards to Barack Obama's Waterloo in regards to universal healthcare in America. EddyP (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
A good try, but where are the rhetorical questions and the awkward beginning? In regards to Kendoll's predictions in regards to Barack Hussein Obama's Obamacare being his Waterloo, will Kendoll address his predictions that Obamacare would be his Waterloo? A certain B in a certain H of R has passed and has skewered the sacred cow of the Tea Party. Will Kendoll admit that the Tea Party's sacred cow has been skewered? Rational Wiki predicts that Obamacare's waterloo will be Kendoll's waterloo. Waterloo. PubliusTalk 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sure the talking point will now be "ObamaCare's passage will lead to Waterloo for Obama in the fall elections". Which may not be too far off the mark -- the Republicans are going to be hitting the issue hard until November, and I think it may work for them. The issue has the Republican base incredibly energized, and it will be used against every vulnerable Democrat who voted for it. MDB (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What'll be even more entertaining is when "CollegeRepublican" in the 2025 version of CP will claim that "Conservatives have always been for public health care, 'cause Baby Jesus said it was good." We know it'll have to be CollegeRepublican since Andy will have been carted off to the nuthouse after he fux up the "recall that Senator we don't like, anymore" campaign. CЯacke®

Goonie left this on my talk page. It's a good read and I think it belongs here. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What was it? Commenting has been suspended (and existing ones temporarily hidden) due to the number of comments. CS Miller (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't read any comments, but anyway, it's David Frum saying that healthcare might be the GOP's waterloo because their strategy was fatally flawed. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
He makes a very good point, actually. A strategy of "no" will only go so far. Tetronian you're clueless 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I interpreted as having several key points:
  • The Republicans bet everything on being able to beat the bill... and lost, bit time.
    • Their strategy was weak in that they underestimated just how liberal Congress currently is (compared to 1994 when Clinton's plan was defeated.)
    • They should have been willing to compromise.
  • The bill has definite similarities to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan, and builds on ideas the Heritage Foundation floated in 1994 to counter Clinton's plan. (My interpretation: this was the conservative plan once.)
  • The only winners among the Republicans are the talk radio/Fox news crowd, because their audience is riled up and will keep coming back to hear more reasons to be angry.
    • Overheated rhetoric can only carry them so far, and it's well past that point now.
Frum's analysis strikes me as dead on accurate. MDB (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mental disorder

Same old shit. Karajou = liberalism is a mental disorder, look at the UK. Fuck you, Karajou, etc. Can you come up with some new stuff now please? Start talking about how us British have shit teeth and bad breath. SJ Debaser 11:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad breath? Shit teeth, yes, I'll grant you. But bad breath? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Daddy, why do the fundies keep calling Che Guevara a mass murderer? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad breath is a result of the awful, socialist NHS Britain has! And "Nutty Roux," it's obvious that anyone that ever went against America ever in the history of ever is labelled as a liberal/socialist/terrorist/murderer forever ever and ever. Please learn with an open mind, or suffer a ripped off head with a neck full of shit. Godspeed! SJ Debaser 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
More seriously, it is quite normal to consider that political views that are sufficiently divorced from one's own are derived from a warped world view - or mental disorder for the less politically correct. Consider the terms 'loonie lefties' or 'mad mullahs'. It was along these lines that Soviet dissidents were imprisoned for mental disorders. Now, if you start from a position as extreme as the CP crowd then European centralism looks as deranged as they do to us. Hence liberalism is a mental disorder to them in the same way that we have often questioned Andy's grasp on reality or Rob's paranoia. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Jack hit the nail on the head. There is definitely a sort of relativism to this whole thing. These days everyone is entitled to their own facts, and it is only natural to call other people delusional when they don't share your view of reality. Tetronian you're clueless 15:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Relativism is an evil and discredited so-called "theory" for which no Nobel Prize has ever been offered in the whole 6,000 years of existence. Free yourself from atheistic, liberal brainwashing, and learn how a conservative, god-centred world view can give you whiter teeth and better breath! --TheEgyptiansig001.png 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian? Conservative?

Nice little exchange hereimg Doc Holiday (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed that one. Karajou can determine whether or not you're a true Christian in 500 characters or less. Andy's cry of "last-wordism" followed by banning and reverting to give himself the last word somehow never gets old. Even better, Jacob and Douglas weren't around to fuck the whole thing up with their god awful parody. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please to not call my parody god awful. kthxbye. mb 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Depends on which one...Jacob is god awful. Douglas might not be. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you implying Douglas isn't a parodist or that his parody isn't awful? Either case is quite a stretch. PubliusTalk 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I was only trying to be nice to MB by implying that if he was DouglasA, his parody wasn't nearly as bad as JacobB's. Still bad, though... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Awesome how Conservapedia gives rise to... new forms of politeness. Who'd have thunk. mb 21:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
So wait, if only 20% of Americans are liberals, that would make the majority of Democrats conservatives?
Andy's final reply ("go be wrong somewhere else") was what made it funny for me. Tetronian you're clueless 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Parody can be so bewildering. OncomingStorm (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but this incident is a perfect example of why it's so funny. When Andy et al. argue with parodists, they reveal their own positions on certain issues, which are often more extreme than the parodists' mock arguments. Tetronian you're clueless 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Often when one intellectualizes too much on a collection of simple words, they miss the real point. I think this is what you've done here Tetronian; in fact you have somewhat embarrassed yourself. OncomingStorm (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And what, pray tell, is the "real point?" My point is simply that Poe's Law creates some amusing arguments, like the one linked to above.
I'm not sure how pointing this out (even if it is incorrect) counts as "embarrassing [myself]." Would you care to elaborate? Tetronian you're clueless 22:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't feel offended if I say 'no'. OncomingStorm (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't be offended, but I will draw the conclusion that there was no "real point." Tetronian you're clueless 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"It's NOT okay to be wrong sometimes" and such were actually worth watching TK troll...
P.S. Anyone who finds meaning in the words of others is a damned fool. Now if you'll excuse me, I no longer feel like discussing this. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
"Often when one intellectualizes too much on a collection of simple words, they miss the real point." Jinx, you've come a long way since yelling about "penis-stuffed butts." Corry (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I never thought I'd see two such unrelated words in the same sentence - "Jinx" and "intellectualizes".  Lily Inspirate me. 12:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The quote counts as a separate sentence, I believe. ThiehWhat is NOT going on? 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob just got the RW article on WP restored.

Check wp:Talk:Conservapedia for the epic WTH, started and thoroughly escalated by Rob... that ended with somebody restoring the RW article on WP. I hadn't been active on WP around that time, I think, so I completely missed the pros and cons of the decision to turn it into a redirect (end of 2008 or so). My intuition would say that it doesn't meet notability, but I'm totally not up to speed with the WP rules. If people from here still remember and/or are knowledgeable about the rules and facts, this might be a good time to chime in. --Sid (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, isn't the opposite of what he intended? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to tell what he intended... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Going by what I see, I'd say that not even he knows what he intended. Going by what I suspect, it's simple trolling: He either wants to paint RW in the worst light possible, or he wants its presence gone from the article. That's why he went from Lenski to PalMD to the Hit List, to questioning the LA Times, to involving the Register (to alter who gets "credit" as founder - the cornerstone to focusing his accusations on Pal), to invoking NPOV, to accusing Pal of defamation. And he will go on and on until he gets his way or until a sysop realizes that that section alone is more than 30kb large, filled with wild tangents and accusations by Rob. --Sid (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Which one is Rob again? K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Nobs01. Just check the talk page there, it quickly becomes obvious. --Sid (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Weapons-grade batshit for brains. Can't miss him. --Robledo (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of annoying to read, in that those little bloggish articles are treated as factual scholarly sources -> "RW IS AN ORGANIZATION DESIGNED TO VANDALIZE CP". Rob's own hit list is pretty great, though. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, all his whining accomplished his goal in a way: The NPOV of the entire article is now in dispute just because one section says what a CP-approved source says and nothing more. God, this is why I hate wiki politics. --Sid (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Just call me a "transformational figure" and "agent of change." RobSmithdon't bother me 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the accusing PAL of defamation better or worse than Brian McDonald stating that Trent and Ames are criminals over and over? I can't tell. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
£20 says that Colin (whoever he may be) is actually in prison for crimes of internet terrorism against CP. EddyP (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't take that bet all day because Karajou's making damn sure all of us RatWikian vandals end up in the clink! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are more words in the Conservapedia WP article than there were in the LA Times article. I think I'll stay out of it, but why is RW in the CP article at WP anyway? It doesn't add anything but more criticism. Šţěŗĭļė dot 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is RW on WP in the first place? Is WP:Notable? I don't think so. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki is nowhere near notable enough for Wikipedia. You need to start a Liberal Bible Project (LBP) or something, and make a lot of noise. Cp anon (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Mh, wikilawyering is fully engaged. I am now officially accused of a COI (which I only fully realized because I happened to check his contribs) because I fixed an error in the RW article while stating several times that I'm a longtime RW member. God, I fucking hate trolling. --Sid (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Though I admire the tactic from an outside POV: Never stick to one subject, keep bringing up new accusations while always claiming that this is indeed what you've been saying the entire time, then mix it all into one big, garbled claim... and ask for outside sysops who don't know the history. He did it with the NPOV claim, he did it with the COI claim... and let's see what he does later and tomorrow. --Sid (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Sid, sorry to have to do that, but you violated process and trolled me. WP is not RW or CP where you can troll at will. I'd be happy to discuss some issues here if you like. But it would have to begin with a recognition and statement from you that some of my concerns (my concerns, not Andy's, TK's, Karajou, Phil Raymont, et al) are quite valid in WP, and your constant bring up extraneous arguments (trolling) is unhelpful. Thank you. RobSmithdon't bother me 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, right, because misuse of process isn't in the wikipedia guidelines. Except it is. Šţěŗĭļė dot 02:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The CP trolls at WP keep trotting out the line from the LA Times about "[RationalWikians]...by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism." Just who admitted this and exactly what was admitted to? Did anyone admit to vandalism or posting pornography? Because from what I have seen here, out of the early members only one could be called vandal in the traditional sense of the word. I'm thinking of IW unless anyone can suggest any other likely suspects. Certainly it was not the modus operandi of Trent, Ames etc.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Lily, you are completely correct. However, since WP is stuck with "reliable sources", if the newspaper writer got it wrong, and no one else bothered to get it right, WP has to report lies. It's an interesting conundrum (in WP world, anyway). ħumanUser talk:Human 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
We have two reputable, verifiable sources per cp:WP/RS wp:WP/V, that Peter Lipson founded RW, "by their own admission engages in cyber-vandalism. From there Lipson writes 'CP represents everything I abhor {insert more marginal, fringe, and extreme views quoting Lipson's hate filled screed]'" Proposed text: "Rationalwiki editors have confessed to at least two acts of cyber-vandalism, (1) the Hit List, and (2) authoring brusque, offensive and deceitful comments about Dr. Lenski," per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V.
Now, the question is, do you guys want the RW entry deleted? vote here. Do you think you can control its content, too? What about WP:COI? What if you can't and RW is exposed for what and who it is? It probably makes sense for you guys to remain non-notable, marginal, fringe, and extreme. RobSmithdon't bother me 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think both those statements would have issues with verifiability, OR, undue weight, and some other policies, but that could be discussed if the article is kept. Frankly, I expect it will be redirected to its section in the CP article. DickTurpis (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yah but you guys aren't going to be able to sockpuppet and troll to control it's content in the manner you've become accustomed. You'd probably all end up being banned indefinitely. And I'd probably have to retire from RW to avoid COI. We need serious negotiations at this point per wp:CIVIL, and it would be helpful to do it here in RW. While I appreciate the humor and laughs with you guys, I ain't fuckin around nomore. I know where the bodies are burried. Please, only serious editors engage me how to proceed. And trolls go fuck yourself (Sid, did you really say you hate trolling above? Well look who's calling the kettle a honkey). RobSmithdon't bother me 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
What's cyber-vandalism? The hit-list was parody, and brusque, offensive and deceitful comments on Lenski were made by Aschlafly, too. Is he a cyber-vandal himself? larronsicut fur in nocte 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob, it has been explained to you several times exactly why you are utterly and completely wrong. Can we please stop feeding the troll and let the WP guys handle this? -- Nx / talk 15:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Be advised, you need to begin taking me seriously, cease incivility, and if youj are indulge these discussions, address specifically the concerns that have been raised. You will be the next user reported to COI Noticeboard. RobSmithdon't bother me 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been incivil.
Your concerns have been addressed multiple times.
This is RationalWiki, not Wikipedia, you can't report me at WP for my comments at RW.
I don't think I have violated COI, so go ahead and report me. -- Nx / talk 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You edited mainspace RW. You could show good faith now by voting to delete the RW entry. RobSmithdon't bother me 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:COI does not prohibit me from editing the RationalWiki article at Wikipedia (I'm assuming that's what you mean by mainspace RW, and not RW's mainspace, which I have, indeed, edited). -- Nx / talk 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would expect acts of vandalism to be reverted on Conservapedia - after they have been spotted. So, while this necessary criterion is met by the hit-list, what about the brusque, offensive and deceitful comments against Lenski? No reversal there, Conservapedia seems to endorse them! larronsicut fur in nocte 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The Hit List and in inifiltration in the Lenski affair probably would warrant thier own subheads in the RW entry if it survives. Hell, that's RW only claim to notability. RobSmithdon't bother me 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Does RW really cares about being on WP? like CPAnon said, We are not doing all this to please mommy ( and get the inheritance). RW is not pandering to the left wing for recognition. We are just concerned/entertained by the sheer stupidity and closed-mindedness some fundies have...
I don't think anybody here seriously cares for a RW@WP article beyond some vanity, and most people agree that it doesn't meet notability standards. And the lack of Reliable Sources about RW would make it practically impossible to expand beyond its current state since anything beyond that would be Original Research. --Sid (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob, I am going to say this one more time. Nowhere have you shown that RW members admitted to inserting brusque or offensive comments, nor have you produced these comments. Please show us or kindly be quiet. EddyP (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Are they going to blame RW for the Barack Obama article too? Alain (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the subtext here, by the way, is that Rob wants RW to be responsible for goading on Andy's cretinous conduct in the Lenski Affair, perhaps he ought to come out and say that he also disapproved of Andy pursuing that course. Then when we get him to admit that there's no good support for the proposition that RW is somehow officially responsible for the tone of that debacle we'll have him admitting that Andy's hubris is the source of CP's butthurt, not some unidentified editors with no editorial control who were banned and oversighted in any event. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Nutty, here's the beauty of that matter: I was inactive for a long period of time. RW kept good recoprds of these matters ("[2] Damn, he's back."). As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful what transpired in my absence. Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group. These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around. Ne-eev-er. So I've had time to conduct an internal review, and now must mitigate the damage. RobSmithdon't bother me 18:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, explain this De-Wiki please

Stephanie Simonimg

I missed the part about the dewikification of the conservative wiki... Alain (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious? De-wiki of "Los Angeles Timesimg... while at the same time reverting the entire article back to his initial version. --Sid (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, complete with his misspelling of "Los Angelas." Junggai (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Aaaaand... re-wikiimg and fixing the typo... while still sticking with his initial version. Nice. --Sid (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
*groupie squeal*img --Sid (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob is made of awesome. mb 05:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, this feels like watching dungbeetles Alain (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or naked molerats. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Naked mole rats push around piles of shit? --Opcn (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If Rob was a naked mole rat he would push around piles of shit. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
All this talk of shit and mole rats is getting me awfully hard.Webbtje (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't complain, fix it

Oh, you couldn't, it was lockedimg. Andy is a total stranger to Dale Carnegie isn't he? SsshSssh 15:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

By tradition people do not edit their own entries on wikis. But they can 'Clarify' it... Alain (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. This is puzzling. He sasses someone for complaining by saying they could have fixed it and in the very same breath admits the article was locked. Huh. I guess the editor was supposed to pray fervently that some saint would intervene and notify Andy of the error so he could unlock it and invite the editor to fix it. Or something. I guess it just goes to show you'll always be incorrect about procedure when one of the goals of Andy's set of post hoc rules is to shame and insult. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)