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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 382: Line 382:
::::I agree with Nx, TK aint funny. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>i9</sup>]] 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree with Nx, TK aint funny. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>i9</sup>]] 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
::(EC) Thanks Ace. I've enjoyed RW for a long time and it's nice to be able to help out once in a while, albeit in minor ways. I'm sorry for ruining the WIGO though! --[[User:NotANumber|NotANumber]] ([[User talk:NotANumber|talk]]) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
::(EC) Thanks Ace. I've enjoyed RW for a long time and it's nice to be able to help out once in a while, albeit in minor ways. I'm sorry for ruining the WIGO though! --[[User:NotANumber|NotANumber]] ([[User talk:NotANumber|talk]]) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:::TK is not funny to the cabal. The cabal can go fuck themselves. <sup>&mdash; Sincerely, [[User:Neveruse|Neveruse]] / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|Talk]] / [[Special:Block/Neveruse|Block]]</sup> 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:07, 8 April 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

March 2010 and CP and RW

edits and editor's rights at CP Mar 2010
edits and editor's rights at CP Mar 2009
edits and editor's rights at RW Mar 2010
edits vs account creation at CP Mar 2010
edits vs account creation at CP Mar 2009 - a more diverse picture
edits vs account creation at RW Mar 2010
  • RJJensen edited only once more than CollegeRepublican
  • the editing sysops are divided into two groups: the old guard, who created their accounts in 2007, and the not-yet-outed-parodists of the year 2009
  • last March, 501 editors made 13,009 edits, this March, there are only 226 editors, making 7481 edits. This site is growing rapidly!

RW is more vibrant, counts more edits and more editors. And it is not dominated by an old guard...

larronsicut fur in nocte 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Spiffing! Webbtje (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I love your graphs. Good work! Senator Harrison (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should graph pageviews since that is the most telling sign of progress, 7 mil homepage. Check out their ranking among Conservative blogs. Oh it's they all come there to laugh, sure you can say that to make yourselves feel better. RW views/ page manipulation bots only affect no more than 5% of the results, if that. Have a Holy Thursday.-- (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it's telling that 348 editors at RW made 16,600 edits last month - and only two (TK and RobSmith, btw) got blocked larronsicut fur in nocte 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yah, awfully closed minded, intolerant and oppressive of minorities. Thanks for highlighting that. nobsdon't bother me 19:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Rob, for pointing out more obvious facts about CP. What would we do without you? DickTurpis (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, RW is the place to complain about CP and RW. Doesn't sound too closed minded, intolerant and oppressive of minorities for me. larronsicut fur in nocte 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for appreciating! larronsicut fur in nocte 20:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, man, your charts are works of art. mb 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, CP as a whole is waaaay under the 90/10 rule!!!! Alain (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, dear BON, all the numbers have to be taken cum grano salis: while clicks may originate by clickbots, many of the edits aren't legitimate either - it will be quite amusing to have Aschlafly comb through the Bible translation when JacobB is outed as parodist... PS: works of art jeez, thanks! Upps, April 1st... larronsicut fur in nocte 07:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

active editors at CP
active editors at RW
active unblocked editors at CP
active unblocked editors at RW

Check out their ranking among Conservative blogs. Conservapedia is one of the leading conservative blogs. No doubt. But is it a wiki? It becomes less and less so: there is only a handful of contributors, and a discussion on content doesn't take place any more. larronsicut fur in nocte 07:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

They are bloody impressive graphs, how long does it take to pull together that data? Didn't realise we have more active editors than CP now... Pretty sweet. yay RW! --TheEgyptiansig001.png 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I try to be micro-invasive: so, it takes up to one day to gather the data via some perl scripts. Then, it's a couple of minutes for the R scripts to produce the pics... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the graphs you've been knocking together. Interesting to see the sites compared - particularly with the distinction made between blocked and active editors. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Making Karajou Funny (Redux) (sticky)

Well, if he's going to keep on drawing them, it is our duty to at least make 'em funny. --PsyGremlin講話 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard of the world

I know he's just trying to get us to bite but... img yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

urgh. Nothing worse than a jingoist. Acei9 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi TK, you jingoistic fuck. You are quite wrong in your assertion BTW. Which standards has America invented? Chivarly? nope. Democracy? nope. Metric Standard? nope? English standards? nope. Acei9 22:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Acei9 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Standard Oil. Vulpius (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
attention whore craves attention. Acei9 22:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail&diff=767546&oldid=767531img - correct link? Cause that looks more like a "wrong window" rather than whoring. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope, its whoring. Acei9 23:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Radar, chaff, and jet engines (Britain and Germany), VTOL (Britain) CS Miller (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget good ole Uncle Joe (man made satelite, animal spaceflight, human spaceflight, civilian supersonic flight, and insanely un-usably large H-bombs). --TheEgyptiansig001.png 23:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm, I smell Poe in that Daily Mail article. Mind you, the whole site stinks of it so.....P.S. Good luck CP editors in trying to get rid of the Poe from the article without looking like you're caving into liberal pressure.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, TK? Well the Greeks invented anal sex. Top that, troll! – Nick Heer 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Topping that: The Jews invented/discovered/(documented it earliest) Onanism. Now top that. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ud Attention whore has made a list http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail&diff=next&oldid=767531img none of which are 'standards'. Oh, and an extremely sophisticated production-line was in use at Portsmouth Dockyard in the 18th century. (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Troll - even on another site. - π 00:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on pilgrim, he might write us a "gentlemen" message if we egg him on enough! And, yeah, his list of "standards" was nothing of the sort. I offer ROHS (Or is it RHOS? Too lazy to look up). The only "standard" I can think of that 'merca stuck the world with is the bizarre p-metric tire sizing system, which includes inch-based rim diameters. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And the voltage/current output of cigarette lighters. - π 03:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that TK doesn't know the difference between standards and inventions. What an ignorant old man he is, and as Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".  Lily Inspirate me. 07:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh look, the Troll page lists Eric S. Raymond. I love this wiki. I love this wiki so much. mb 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

CP not fans of liberals on Richard Posner's list of "top public intellectuals"

Just wanted to recount my ten minutes of trying to troll Conservapedia, for what it's worth.

Reading the article on Ann Coulter for lulz, and noticed this little gem: "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals"

Kind of vomit-in-your-mouth worth stuff, huh? But then I decided to check out this list of "top public intellectuals". It's not only 700 names long (which sort of lessens the sting from your burning esophogaus) but includes such folks as Chomsky, Carson, Zinn, Said, Sunstein, Krugman, etc. etc. etc.

So, I figured, why not append this glowing endorsement to everyone's page? Within minutes the intrepid TerryH [1]img had used the nuclear option (including wiping out an even more innocent edit from months ago). — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Cool story, bro. - π 00:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Riveting tale, chap. -- Bunchanumbers
Fascinating anecdote, sir. Barikada (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sublime raconteurination, my esteemed colleague. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of the nazis and mass murderers who were added to the list of famous homeskolars.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


WIGOs seem to be getting a lot of votes recently. Is traffic up? Or is it just because there are fewer WIGOs because not as much is going on over there? Tetronian you're clueless 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's that the new WIGOs are awesome. Keegscee (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At Tet, it's both. Our traffic is slowly increasing, whereas their activity is slowly declining. We are now a bigger site by all measures except people coming to laugh adding pageviews. We have more editors, more edits, and probably more (true) content. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Their activity last month was actually up 8% from the month before. Oh, never mind, it's also down 43% from the same month last year. I made some new charts this Sunday but I found I couldn't be arsed to post them anymore. mb 06:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I remember a time when we were concerned what RW would be without CP. Alas, I think the roles have reversed, what would CP be without RW? Just look at the WP talk page. Its all RW. tmtoulouse 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob is loading for bear

[2]img -- (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this "citation" is remarkably dishonest. ShadowRanger Rees11 (in the revision that Rob hides) removes the POV tag, and Sid doesn't edit the article for many revisions after that. Pretty deceitful, Rob. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Edit: had the wrong name. 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Where I come from, that's called "lying". I doubt wikipedia admins are stupid enough to be taken in by such chicanery. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I edited your comment with a link to the Rees11 edit. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I notice he brings up the removal of the COI tag, but never mentions the discussion that preceded it. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried:" ...empty. As such, it will get tossed out. But if this thing is actually completed and accepted, this would turn out to be a really interesting case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Nah, he's going to put his attempts at private discussion there. -- Nx / talk 11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone shut up and enjoy it. Every problem we point out is a problem that ArbCom doesn't see and doesn't act on. Wait until he submits it to rip it to shreds-- (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, BoN, but one last thing. Now he's talking about himself in the third person. If you read it in Gollum's voice, it's quite entertaining. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like his statement will be a sort of Gish Gallop of lies and half-truths. Debunking it all would just take up precious space, which is exactly what Rob is hoping for. Ah, this is going to be hilarious. --Sid (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If he was serious he'd compile his "evidence" off-wiki. He's just trolling. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And playing to his audience. Tetronian you're clueless 12:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
@Toast: Oh hai! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"off-wiki" as in "in private and not openly on a wiki", not as in "not on Wikipedia". --Sid (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's all got such a TK sort of feel about it, doesn't it? The whole desire to say things off WP, so they're less likely to be used as evidence of things like harassment and so forth. Which is probably why, when he got blocked for harassing and threatening here, he didn't repeat a single word of it over at WP, where he could easily post to your talk page. Funny, that. --Kels (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is funny indeed. While I can see the advantage of using a wiki to "prepare" his "case" (formatting, etc.), he could use any wiki. But as I was "analyzing" some of what he has typed, I suddenly realized that CP is the dumbest one to choose - he can't type "rationalwiki" on that wiki! 16'll get you twenty that that page is dead and he's working on it elsewhere, once he realized what a pain it will be not being able to actually type his adversary's name. Oh, and far as the "TKish" aspects, you do know this is a TK joynt, right? Look at the goal - to inconvenience as much as possible the backbone of the RW "cabal". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And he can't even spell Trent's name. Tetronian you're clueless 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
By "inconvenience" you mean "incapacitate through spasms of laughter", right? --Kels (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Braggin' rights

Whats gonna happen?

RobS won't ever get it done.



Arb com refuses to even hear the case.



Arb com hears the case but dismisses it and takes no action.



Arb com hears the case and finds against RW members issuing sentences up to and including bans.



Arb com hears the case and finds RobS is in violation of harassment rules and bans him.



Loving big guv'mint?

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Loving big guv'mint?. at 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Menendez recall committee

Andy might actually have a chance. Tetronian you're clueless 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd have thought, by now, that Hurlbut/TerryH, as an Andy fan, would have asked Andy to take a more flattering photo of himself. Ideally one which doesn't make him look like a sex offender. Though thinking about it, that photo of Hurlbut is deeply disturbing too. Webbtje (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Terry looks as if he's leaning in, telling some small child to remove their pants, while styling that crazed smile. There, I said it. --Bunchanumbers — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a fairly decent AP photo by Rich Schultz, only the shirt Andy's wearing looks like it's from a Moldavian sales bin. mb 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This one? Andys Monitor.jpg — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No, the one from the Hurlbut piece about the March for Life. It's the same shirt though. Come to think of it, the shirt in the AACP video doesn't look all that different either. Either this man owns exactly one shirt, or he has a real hard-on for PET polyester filament yarn in 1972-formula Columbia blue. mb 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
IIRC he wore a different shirt (white) for his appearance at the Colbert Report. but the tie looks the same however. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Andy.mplayer.1.png Andy.mplayer.2.png
BZZT WRONG BITCH. It's blue. It does look like a slightly paler blue on my monitor but that means absolutely nothing. Look at the 70s collar and the button on his cheapo pseudo-Italian cuff in the right picture. It could EASILY be the same shirt AGAIN. mb 18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What a good looking man. Keegscee (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fact of the day: Andy shops at a Sears stuck in the '80s. – Nick Heer 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If that's the same shirt, then it all makes sense now. The AAPS video has the intermediate shade of blue, and so the same shirt is getting paler as time goes on. What bleach is Andy using to have that uniform colouring again? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic

As per the topic of the header, I think it is kind of interesting actually. The NJ state constitution clearly states what I think are the recall parameters. The state courts of NJ are constricted to what the state constitution says. The argument from Menedez is that there is a conflict with the Federal constitution. I don't think that can be settled in state court. The ruling they did get though was not that the recall was constitutional but rather that you could not stop the petition processes on the claim alone. That "standing" wouldn't exist for the constitutional claim till the signatures had been gathered and a recall election was put forward. Ultimately, I think the NJ state courts are bound to rule that the petition is valid under state constitution. However, whether there is a conflict between the state constitution and the federal constitution is a more interesting question. Has Andy ever argued a case before the national supreme court? I know he filed amicus curiae briefs all the time, but hell anyone can do that. I don't think he has ever actually been on council for a major enough case. I am interested. tmtoulouse 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very interesting, especially as an NJ resident. Initially, I was surprised that the case made it to the Supreme Court so quickly, but Trent's point about the state constitution conflicting with the lack of federal precedent explains why. The problem (which I think Nutty brought up previously) is this: the Supreme Court doesn't like to set major precedents when they don't have to, and siding with the state constitution would mean giving states the power to interpret Article 1 of the Constitution (since it does not mention recalls), which would be a dramatic and earth-shattering verdict. I would think that they are more likely just to strike down the clause in the NJ state constitution that allows recalls, which they can certainly do under the Supremacy Clause. Tetronian you're clueless 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It is still in NJ though right? I thought it was before the NJ Supreme Court, and if my legal understanding is correct they would still be obligated to find based on the NJ state constitution. tmtoulouse 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Strike that, apparently a state supreme court does have authority to rule state constitutional clauses as violating national constitutional clauses. tmtoulouse 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Right. Since the problem is that the clause indirectly contradicts Article 1 of the Constitution, striking the recall clause seems like the most likely option. If the Court gives the go-ahead for a recall, they will be doing something utterly without precedent and messing with Article 1, so I doubt that'll happen. I'm not sure if this can be appealed to the US Supreme Court, but I doubt it will. Tetronian you're clueless 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of the lower courts decision that says, basically, until a recall election is actually called there is nothing for a court to do? tmtoulouse 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It seemed like they were just passing it on to the higher court, since they didn't (or can't) strike down the clause in the NJ state constitution, which of course is the heart of the problem. So, they just passed the buck and said that they couldn't do anything until someone forced their hand. Tetronian you're clueless 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it would hit SCOTUS until/unless the petition succeeded, creating a federal issue - a state actually recalling their Senator. And Andy is disingenuous, I think mentioning CA - if he's referring to the recall of their Governor, a state office of no federal impact. Let's face it, Senators don't work for their states, they work for all of us, in that the federal gov't pays them, not their state. I doubt that is "legally" interesting, but it is still interesting. To me, anyway. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you damn yanks just do it like we do? Don't have anything written down, and let the lads in the HoL/Supreme Court argue it out and not dare to mention that we have a deeply unrepresentative and corrupt parliament which is meant to be supreme. Great fun to watch.Webbtje (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Once more Andy makes capital out of the misfortunes of others

Andy says: "And his suicide was not because he was bullied in school, which is what liberals usually claim in order to promote their harmful agenda further."img with no evidence at all.yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if it really would be a bad thing to giggle like a monkey if Andy and his ilk were to contract particularly painful and terminal ailments. He's a nasty piece of work, and only gets in to the human race on account of a technicality. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Added to cheap shots. What a gigantic tit (not the fun, bouncy kind). – Nick Heer 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If there's really a Hell like Andy believes, he'd best pray that Jesus is more compassionate and forgiving than Andy seems to think He is.--WJThomas (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Andy, I have nothing but contempt for you. Fuck you. --Ireon (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Andy's a cunt. If people like him are going to heaven, I'll gladly go to hell. SJ Debaser 13:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Andy has decided that JDWpianist (contributor of many knowledgeable pieces on classical music) is a liarimg - or at least quite an oddity. The whole discussion is typical: Andy decided what the truth has to be - and to hELL with reality!

larronsicut fur in nocte 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup! He's cruisin' for a bruisin'. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade)
It's Ok to make poorly informed and nasty personal remarks about a person, but when he refutes their basis you get to shut the discussion off by saying you won't address the specifics because they're allegedly as anomalous as a marathon runner smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day? Andy Schlafly in a nutshell, really.
Are there any references to the day-age and framework viewpoints to the Genesis creation story on Conservapedia? Anyone? This "literalism" in a vacuum shit to support a YEC framework is getting out of hand. It seems the only biblical hermeneutic Andy and these YEC fundamentalists are capable of employing is EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS THAT AGREES WITH ME IS READ "LITERALLY"/EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALLEGORICAL. In other words, Andy's faith isn't remotely informed by his reading of the bible, rather his reading of the bible is informed by his own ad hoc religion. He is a Christianist. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Andy's faith isn't remotely informed by his reading of the bible, rather his reading of the bible is informed by his own ad hoc religion." Sounds a lot like your evisceration of diatribe against Phil. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, although PJR's religion has a name - YEC. I'm not sure what to call Andy other than an apostate Catholic or a Christianist. In other words, you know what to expect when you talk to PJR. Andy's a whole 'nother ball of wax, just a hodge podge of extreme views. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just sayin that PJR's religion informs his reading of the Bible, similar to Andy. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah dude, it's the same made-up shit. But at least PJR's cult has a name. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, JDWpianist has always been striking me as a kind of expat Jensen. Having grown up in Vienna, I happen to know that he's not always completely accurate, but he seems to be sincerely interested in building a genuine encyclopedia, quietly adding useful article after useful article in exchange for no recognition whatsoever. He may be their absolutely, definitively, irreversibly last and final bona fide contributor. mb 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"...sincerely interested in building a genuine encyclopedia..." So you're saying he's opposed to Conservapedia's goals, then. --Kels (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's true! Some of us actually did attempt to build a genuine encyclopedia by writing real, factual articles, then we ran afoul of Conservapedia's Number One Unwritten Rule: "Andy is always right", and that was that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Of course, some of us built it by copy/pasting WP articles. Just an aside here: I wonder how Andy deals with the fact that there's quite a few global-warming deniers running around, who were also paid by the tobacco companies to say smoking doesn't cause cancer (names escape me at the mo - remember it from 'the denial machine'. Are they now good people because they agree with Andy? --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing with Andy is what gets you ahead on Conservapedia, it doesn't matter if you are a decent or honest person or not, just if you are sufficiently sycophantic on issues dear to his heart. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Obviously you won't address that Jesus expressly confirmed the occurrence of the Flood, so maybe you're picking and choosing passages that match your own preferences."
That's a bit fucking rich coming from a man rewriting the Bible. SJ Debaser 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we now add "psychics" to the list of Andy's expertise, now that he can get to know a person better than the person himself with little or no physical/verbal interactions? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, that's not new. Andy can tell with 95% certainty that you are liberal, atheist, support gun control and eating babies simply from the taste of your semen. --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I LOL'ed. JWDpianist is an arse. Even if he believes in the idea of creating an encyclopedia, it should be pretty clear that CP is not the place where it's going to happen. The best he'll ever achieve is to create tiny fragments of scholarship in a sea of vitriol and junk. Andy's just accused him of being a liar and a false Christian. What else does Andy have to do to get rid of the guy? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe that JDWPianist is still around. Andy and co. have given him so much shit. He's been blocked, had articles deleted, and I think he even had an article swiped JacobB-style. In spite of that, he still sticks around. The guy's either a masochist or a complete moron. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Did any of you here read the pianoman's latest editimg? He's perfectly polite and sober by any reasonable standard... but he does point out Andy is not arguing in good faith and the CBP is a disaster. I guess that's it then. mb 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I read that, and it was a good reply, but ultimately pointless. JDW should know by now that Andy is not going to back down, and that even if JDW manages to prove that Andy is wrong, his comments will be quickly oversighted and we'll end up with yet another odd talk page conversation in which Andy appears to be arguing with himself. Even if the comments remain, I'm not sure who else is left to be warned by them? It's hardly a secret that Andy is a deranged lunatic intent on remaking Christianity in his own image, with Jesus being nothing more than a figurehead or a rubber stamp for Andy's Sermon on The Blog. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Andy already replied in a predictable manner complete with red herring.[3]img --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My favorite Schlafly Classic: "There is a high correlation between belief in evolution and liberal political beliefs; that correlation alone demonstrates that evolution cannot be factual." Them's logics, you can't argue 'gainst them, I don't who you are, them's true. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Auf Wiedersehen, Andy Update: apparently this was an act of wiki-suicide? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

JDW Pianist Says Buh-Bye...

Screencapimg P-Foster (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Poor bugger. At least he can salvage some dignity by walking away before TK came in to ban hammer him. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thousands upon thousands of productive edits (Or are they? ;) A civilized, faithfull parting shot. What a loss. Please go help Wikipedia, JDW Alain (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Pasted in from later section. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, JDWpianist has excused himself very gracefully. Perhaps this is my brie-nibbling, latte-sipping Eurosocialist elitism talking, but it was obvious to me from his articles this man had too much taste and style for a madhouse like Conservapedia. I've been waiting for this for almost a year, i. e. from back when he was one contributor among, er, several. I've updated the archive so the circumstances of the pianist bowing out will be preserved for the benefit of future historians. mb 03:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
JDWpianists's comments in this section are amusing to read, too. Indeed, the world history lecture provided us with numerous insights: English is the best language, Prussia is Germany, Orwell was not only a republican, but a Republican larronsicut fur in nocte 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Classic difflink, courtesy of some asshole

[4] ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wha? mb 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this some oversight magic at play? Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has been oversighted, not as far as I can tell. On the contrary, watch TK being considerate and sympatheticimg .mb 05:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
JDWpianist's wiedersehensgruß wasn't oversighted, but the (perhaps sympathetic) comment of another editor. Obviously, if not done by TK, commenting on such is thing is a violation of CPTK's MYOB-policy... larronsicut fur in nocte 06:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, obviously. Very stupid of me. Thanks for setting me straight. mb 07:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I capped Hector's comment before going to bed since it was just the sort of parthian shot that gets oversighted quickly. Nothing we haven't seen before, and I'm mostly just uploading it since it was oversighted before most people here noticed it. --Sid (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, you're right. The comment is true, the comment is perfectly accurate, the comment adds absolutely nothing of value. Some random parodist who got bored before he found his voice, as it were, and decided to go out with a bang. Thanks for capping it anyway; it's good to know we didn't miss anything of importance... or creativity. mb 11:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup, yup, yup, aaaaaaaaaaaand yup. --Sid (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken's urging re Abortion

Bert's joined the anti-abortion lobby.img So far he's the only one though. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 18:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no women on the Internet...

...or at least on CP. Remember the good ol' days of Deborah, Justine, Bethany, Sharon, Jess, HSMom? Now, if memory serves, there isn't a single member of the fairer, cookie-baking sex left on CP. Just sayin'. --PsyGremlinFale! 18:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough I just saw a wonderful bit of parody on CP, in which someone has managed to sneak in a brief guide to masturbation. I suspect that advice is pretty useful now that the boys have managed to drive all the girls out of their fort. I won't link the page in question, but well done whoever managed that. It's been up now for over 2 years.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Mama Schlafly would be proud. Keegscee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ooh! You e-mail linky nao pleez? Erm... just so I can read the parody, of course. --PsyGremlinParlez! 18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Me too! I was asking first, Psy just outeditconflicted me. mb 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Mails sent. I wonder if women are leaving because of the sheer aggression from Andy and and a few of his fellow sausage wielders. The JDWpianist comments were amazingly harsh and fairly typical of Andy's "You're a fucking liar and you're going to burn in hell" approach to handling those who don't fully embrace the Schlaflyianity. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Concerned Resident", women are more likely to be atheistic, feminist and liberal. Using basic statistics, one can deduce that the number of women on Conservapedia is inversely proportionate to the number of individuals who have accepted that Jesus Christ confirmed the flood. Seeing as how 100% of Americans know the Flood is real and that evolution is evil, you can draw your own conclusions. Godspeed. -- VradientHit me up 19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the mail mate. I LOLd. Several times, actually. Work of art. mb 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a safe bet that Opcn would want that link too ;) -- (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I can haz e-mailz? EddyP (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I like emails. -- VradientHit me up 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to see! User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see too, but dont email it too much, 8 clicks the same day on a non-homosexuality-related page will blink red on TK's radar... He will notice something strange and fix it. Alain (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, I'm hesitant to send on any more copies. We do not own Conservapedia. We merely take care of it for our kids. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I will so HomeSundaySchool my kids with RW!!! tanks for the idea, ConcernedR! Alain (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, email it tomorrow then? plz? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot and send to every e-mail on the planet except TK and Rob, plz? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 06:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Sign me up as well. Thank you. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Sumbuddy Email it to mee pleeese! --Opcn (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we create a private forum for this kind of stuff? Oh wait... -- Nx / talk 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
CR, the Super One awaits your email, if you'd be so kind... SJ Debaser 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat funny.

Not sure what series of events lead me to this page but it gave me a chuckle.img Acei9 20:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken's life is just bloody great. It would be normal if not for his habit of using PCP as a sugar substitute. I'd love to see the world through his eyes, but only for a few minutes. Yeah, must be a fun story behind this one. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
They banned THE Dr. Richard Paley of Objective Ministries from CP as a parodist? Certainly not! His writing is the purest and most informed writing ever on YEC. HumanisticJones (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At this rate, Ken is going to ban either Andy or Terry next. Betting is now open. – Nick Heer 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. It certainly explains Ken's unblock and swift re-blocking. I'd forgotten about those guys. Thanks. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

According to those Obama-loving lieberals at the CIA, Fidel Castro is alive [5]. CS Miller (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Eventually Castro will die. How is Andy going to react to that? Keegscee (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It'll be another FBI incident. Anyone drawing attention to Andy's earlier and incorrect claims will be removed. I don't think Andy would admit to being wrong, but I also doubt he'd postulate some kind of "Weekend at Bernie's" conspiracy to suggest that Castro had actually been long dead, but his corpse had been carried around and brought to cocktail parties in order to create the appearance of being alive. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Weekend at Bernie's. Haven't seen that in years. Time to hit Amazon and purchase my own copy I think. And while I'm watching it I also get to have the lulz of watching it and comparing it to Andy and Ken dragging around the corpse of Conservapaedia. Oh, and what was the name of the one with Elliot Gould as the zombie news reader? Might get that at the same time.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Link not work well from what I could see. Better one? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That addressed to me? Open the "Government" tab, and then scroll down to "Political parties and leaders". Or for a different page, [6]. CS Miller (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
When Castro finally meets his end Andy will be like "A severe blow to the liberals as they finally admit their deceit that fidel Castro is dead." The problem is that whether Castro will live surprisingly longer than Andy. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Cuba, CP has a thing up about Elian Gonzalez(sp?) on the borken news template. Why is it that conservatives hate illegal immigrants, but they make a giant exception in this case? SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 07:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the conservative ideology is no need for consistency. Unless of course you're a liberal, in which case none of your views may be contradictory. Keegscee (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman MDB (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Do I contradict myself? Fuck you, open your mind and you'll see that I and the Bible are always right! TK, ban this idiot." -- Andy Schlafly --Kels (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Stubby

I found what may well be Ed's shortest articleimg. Excluding the title and the external link, zero text. It's a lot like copy/paste, only lazier.--WJThomas (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there had been even shorter ones (where he didn't even give a link description), but I don't have any examples handy. --Sid (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember one or two stubs where he just copied and pasted a link in. Even that, though, isn't as short (or as funny) as this. Tetronian you're clueless 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
cp:Eft is another contender for the record. --MarkGall (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That one might take the cake - he doesn't even bother to capitalize, though he does link to the "newt" article. Tetronian you're clueless 01:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
They mostly come out at night... mostly. Stile4aly (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not that short though, really. Sure it's his shortest? Anyway, the other 187 editors will soon flesh it out! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the shortest stub. zero text, not even external linksimg. (Somebody else is updating it for him with a stub tag and someone else changed it to speedy deletion candidate.) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
KnThreeOhNine for he win! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
What's remarkable about that is he added a category. Virtually every other stub of his is category-free except for the really stupid ones that he makes up like cp:Category:Movies about football coaches with 11-year-old daughters or cp:category:Microsoft Problems.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid, half of the 187 editors are blocked now :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Why thank you so much for explaining the joke. mb 06:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Technically that was a new joke. ONE / TALK 12:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant, it's not real humour. Sorry, humor.Webbtje (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget smart growth, a personal favorite. TheMayor (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
We should have a page of Ed stubs.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a wiki of 'em. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Haha, very funny Toast. Tetronian you're clueless 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking that they would fit onto a handy single page rather than rooting round a grubby blog. Sorry but I'm a lazy slob.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive Winking0001.gif CS Miller (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Goddamn, is KenEd a worthless asset to that site. He writes like a fecking four year old. He started an article on a movie called Hounddog and from the edit comments it seems he wrote it as he was watching the movie. It's like reading a retarded kids blog. The last sentence of the "article": "Then the girl gets rape, having been lured to an isolated shack," accompanied by the edit comment: "at this point, I stopped watching." Too funny. SJ Debaser 19:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That brightened my day up a bit. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind SuperJosh but I took the liberty of changing Ken to Ed. --NotANumber (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I can't believe nobody has mentioned the PoorTwitapedia in the course of this discussion. Maybe it should finally be moved to CP namespace and linked around. ONE / TALK 20:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. Let's do this like the annotated Bible that can be extracted for quotes. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the PoorTwitaPedia. Awesome. Is this still work in progress? I could scan my archive for additional Ed stubs very efficiently; would it make sense for me to go looking? mb 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It was originally created as a snapshot in time, but it can cetainly be added to, I can even hack together a script to pull out new articles to add if I can remember how I did it originally :) Worm(t | c) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Paranoia and Language

Please enjoy this recent Andy edit re: Title IXimg. There's a vaguely amusing slip there: observe that Title IX is not used by homosexuals or the homosexual community but by the homosexual agenda, i. e. the homosexual agenda has gone from an abstract product of human discourse to a person-like sentient entity with political consciousness. It almost like reading de Beauvoir again. I you've seen one persecution complex you've really seen them all. mb 12:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's like the ontological god: if it is imaginable, it exists. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You do know I'm really afraid of Cthulhu, right? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I love how he just drops this blatant assertion in the middle of an "encyclopedic" article and doesn't even attempt to find a source to back up his bullshit. He cites no court cases, no press releases, nothing. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The legal claim he refers to is real and there is a DoE guideline that may have the force of law (I don't know). The homosexual agenda stuff is deflection to distract from his butthurt at living in a world where homosexual students get to go to public school, which to him is wrong on so many levels. I love these glimpses into how hate filled and unsavory Andy's world is. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the claim, I just find it funny that a trained attorney would just drop something like in an article with no citation. It can't be hard to find one. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More whatthefuckery.

Regenerative ability of early humansimg. I can't wait for Andy latch onto this insight. Of course, if early humans could regenerate, wouldn't that negate Jesus' miracles. Hmmm? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see Poe written all over it, but that might be just me. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
TSpencer seems like some pretty deep parody to me...and I like it. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should copy that to aWK. As a mainspace article. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh heh. It'd work just fine on CP as a mainspace article if the author could find some kind of anti-homosexual/liberal slant. Teh gay takes away our ability to regenerate like Wolverine. It's Stephen Fry's fault that I don't have adamantium claws! --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Do liberal teachings cause us to decay? Acei9 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is parody or not, it is obviously self-defeating because it uses YEC as its basis but suggests that human have been affected by mutations over time. Tetronian you're clueless 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, he does explain those mutations only caused "loss" of information. That's pretty YECcy. Internetmoniker (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
ConcernedResident, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. When I first looked at the essay, I had the strangest sense of deja-vu, but I couldn't put my finger on where I had seen it before. Your Wolverine comment finally reminded me: It was thisimg comment (mentioned in Archive 174, the JimPT section where Wolverine was also brought up in the same context) by the same guy. So thanks for letting me sleep easily tonight. =P --Sid (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wolverine does not naturally have adamantium claws. He has regular bone claws that were later covered in adamantium (along with the rest of his skeleton) by a shady government department for shady government reasons (probably obama's death pannels needing a new assassin). So Stephen Fry has taken away our bone claws. </comicnerd> X Stickman (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Stick my friend, you are going off of the recent retcon story. Originally, Wolverine only had regeneration. The adamantium claws were added by the Weapon X program. This is obviously Obama's secret plan to upgrade his private Readycorps Army (which may not be an army, but has an army sounding name, so we'll assume it's an Army) to supersoldier levels so he can force all dissenters into Fema Camps. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Retcons are still canon! Plus this is still talking about the 90s, when magneto magneted his ass. Also it totally makes sense; they couldn't just jam metal claws in there, because they'd have to add a whole system to cope with it, like a method of locking them into place, muscles to control it etc... and we all know that Obama's healthcare will be so terrible that they won't have the ability to perform such complex surgery. So they must have been there right from the start. One thing I've always wondered, though; how does he bend his wrists? He's either got some amazingly strong wrist muscles when they're extended, or he shouldn't be able to bend his wrists at all. Also they must retract all the way into his forearms. X Stickman (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


He must be kidding. No one can be this insane... Tetronian you're clueless 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The bill creates a "Ready Reserve Corps" as part of its attempt to help reform the national medical response teams which supplement local emergency aid. This is a deliberately stupid interpretation of that section (5210).--ADtalkModerator 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I read the articles he linked to - nowhere does it mention "military" or even "militia," so the Reserve Corps in question is obviously a medical emergency response team. It's stunning that anyone could be so hyperbolic or that CP (for all its insanity, there are people even crazier) would allow something like that on the main page. Tetronian you're clueless 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked into this. The link points to a YouTube video of a Fox News segment. Andrew Napolitano goes off on this tear about how someone is trying to build a corps of 6,000 armed and uniformed doctors. Not joking. Naturally, he doesn't give the numbers of any segments of the bill, thus making it hard to look up. I picked up a few context clues and learned that he was blathering on about Sec. 5210: Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps. What it does is establish an organization similar to the National Guard, but designed specifically to aid in public health emergencies. Actually, it doesn't really establish the organization - Sec. 5210 is an amendment to a bill passed in 1944. What it does is change the organization of the health corps.
Are the corpsman armed? No. Are there 6,000 of them? The section doesn't say. Does it allow the corps to poach men from the National Guard? Not by my reading. In sum: Napolitano is full of shit, and so is BenjaminS. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably being a bit naive here but why would Obama even need to create a new army by using sneaky wording in the healthcare bill. Doesn't he already control the actual military? Plus the national guard. 6,000 doctors/healthcare specialists, armed or not, don't really compare to that. X Stickman (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to find my copy of this book (I've moved so often lately that I have no idea where half my library is any more) but from it, my recollection is that some, but by no means all, employees of the the CDC (and possibly other public health organisations) are members of a "uniformed service" and have uniforms (obviously!) and so on. Of course I can't remember useful details such as the name of said service!--NotANumber (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already has a rapid response section (the Epidemic Investigation Service) which investigates outbreaks of disease caused by anything from food-borne microorganisms (my area of interest) to Ebola and everything inbetween. Some EIS members are part of the uniformed corps referred to in the previous edit but so are other CDC employees. This corps might be called the Commissioned Corps but don't quote me on that.--NotANumber (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy explains: "Reserve Corps" sounds like an army name, so therefore it must be one. Perfectly logical.--WJThomas (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered if being a judge isn't one of Andy's secret fantasies, actually. To some extent, a lot of ECHR and UK HoL cases do end up boiling down to 'because I said so', just as Andy's done here - it's just that the person or persons saying so have decades of experience and are infinitely more intelligent than Andy are (though it's shaky at times, I know). If Andy was to become a judge, I think he would be a little bit like this (explanation for why this is so fucking hilarious at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe, incidentally, from 'Homosexuality scandal' onwards, though it is a stunning sketch without the foreknowledge anyway). Webbtje (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything with "corps" in it is a military organization, obviously. Marine Corps, Peace Corps, Americorps... TheMayor (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Citicorp? :P --TheEgyptiansig001.png 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't she die like 30 years ago?

yet there she isimg, spreading the cancer. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, but I think that even in a vacuum the rest of the statement would earn the whole thing some scorn. --Opcn (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OH NOZ! $700,000 went to Planned Parenthood affiliates...that give breast cancer screenings and mammograms... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't you see, they are treating the breast cancer caused by the abortions so that they can have the women have more abortions. It's crystal clear. Big red truck, duh... Ravenhull (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Sorry to be a nuisance but TK, not Andy, posted the news item about the reduction in the number of nukes the US has. --NotANumber (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, nice catch. Acei9 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I was about to fix this, so if anyone asks, I'm the one who did. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not that it matters, I removed it because it ruined an otherwise decent wigo. -- Nx / talk 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Nx, TK aint funny. Acei9 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks Ace. I've enjoyed RW for a long time and it's nice to be able to help out once in a while, albeit in minor ways. I'm sorry for ruining the WIGO though! --NotANumber (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
TK is not funny to the cabal. The cabal can go fuck themselves. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)