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: $3680Goal: $6000

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 17:07, 23 March 2010 by K61824 (talk | contribs) (Christian? Conservative?)

Jump to: navigation, search

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.

TK needs a civic lesson

Terry Koeckritz doesn't understand the difference between a political system and an economic system. "It is clearly demonstrable that the U.K. has long ago crossed over from Democracy to a European Socialist state." Oh TK, you rascal you. SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I kind of agree with TK's point here.
No, I don't agree that we're a socialist state as the workers don't own the means of production in the UK. And TK is hopelessly wrong when claiming that it's one part of the government telling another part of the government what it can and can't do - the ASA isn't owned or appointed by the government nor is it statutory.
But TK's point about "...in the U.K. there are competing boards and commissions issuing obfuscating "rulings" isn't checks and balances as we know them here.....but government by bureaucratic fiat..." has a certain resonance here, even if the remainder of his post was claims about how we're socialists and the US system is the perfect model. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying he doesn't have a valid point in his critism, I was more amazed that he seems to think a soceity can "cross over" from Democracy, a political system, to Socialism, a economic system. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Spoken like true students. Your point, SirChuck, assumes that the archaic text-book definitions still fit in today's world, which in many cases they do not. And to Andrew, if the ASA isn't statutory, appointed or elected, just what is it and how are its "rulings" binding? And please don't put words in my mouth, okay? Where did I say the U.S. is the perfect model? --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot about how you are with definitions over at CP. To you schmucks, socialism is just one of those terms (like liberal) which means "something I, good God-fearing individual, think is evil." Forgive us citizens of the real world for forgetting this. Junggai (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
TK, at least do a damn search before posting rubbish. You would quickly find http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Who-we-are.aspx which states in part that:
"We are independent of both the Government and the advertising industry and operate according to published standards of service. The ASA’s authority is recognised by the Government, the courts, other regulators such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and Office of Communications (Ofcom) as the established means of consumer protection from misleading advertising."
You would find further down that it is an industry-established body - ie, self-regulation, which is exactly what Conservatives are supposed to like. Now please stop demonstrating your incredible levels of ignorance and go back to abusing your powers on CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Pretty damn rude for a place that supposedly values dialog. Glaringly you ignore the other points, which is a strong indication of a narrow-minded irrational twit. Sorry if this Yank isn't completely up-to-date on arcane points of U.K. bodies. You seem to be a very angry person. Did I do something offensive personally to you? I posted a question, as civil people do, and got your tirade. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 21:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I value intelligent dialogue, not the outpourings of a loathsome troll-cum-parodist. I'm responding to one point because it's one you could have answered yourself with a quick recourse to a search engine beginning with "G". You would rather troll than do your own research. It also undermines your entire argument about this being a perfect example of Socialism. In fact, it's a perfect example of industry self-regulation. Now, are you going to correct that on the CP Main Page talk? I didn't think so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, since you asked and answered your own question, there isn't really any need for you to ever respond to me again, nor for me to ask you a question. Glad that is resolved. You're just an angry elitist man instead of being a narrow-minded twit, and I apologize for calling you that. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If being able to find things on the Internet makes me elitist, then yes - I'm an elitist. Posting incorrect information, sure in the knowledge that you can simply block anyone who disagrees with you, makes you a parodist and a liar. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You're not a civil person, TK. You may have performed a single, civil act but you aren't operating in a vacuum over here. What actually goes through your mind when you say that? 173.10.105.29 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"I was speaking of nameless, faceless appointed government functionaries, never elected, never approved by the citizenry, issuing broad sweeping policy edicts. In the United States, DMorris, our Judicial branch, the Supreme Court, is appointed by another branch and confirmed by the third....quite different than the monolithic bureaucracy deciding."
"Me, I prefer accountability from our elected officials, not them handing off responsibility to a bureaucracy that is on the civil service and cannot be removed."
No, quite right, you didn't say it, TK. But it's pretty implicit. And I agree to some extent with your criticism of the UK being over-run with unaccountable officialdom. But that doesn't, in itself, make the UK socialist. Or even, compared to the US where huge amounts of power are vested in non-elected unaccountable people and organisations, especially undemocratic.
To a conservative American, socialist can be meant as a catch-all bogeyman description for everything to the left of Reagan. To us poor Europeans, it means, well, what it means. And socialist the UK ain't. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not disagree, totally. CP is by design an American-centric project. The group we are speaking about is indeed one not approved by the citizenry, no matter if the intentions for it were good. The news isn't encyclopedic, isn't intended to be. IMO opinon the U.K. is socialistic. I am entitled to think that, right? Isn't anyone without being verbally abused and called names? --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course you can think that. From the American Conservative perspective, you're probably right about the government in general and I don't dispute that. However, when presented with overwhelming evidence that the body under discussion is anything other than socialist, you should have the good grace to admit a mistake. That's having an "open mind" - and not in the Schlafly sense of letting any nonsense drift into one's thinking. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
So why all the necessary name calling insults then? You see it as you do. I see it as another abdication on the part of leaders to some board that is not elected or appointed by the elected leaders, to impose its will upon the people. That certainly to my mind isn't democratic, but more like socialism that imposes the government's considered opinion on the people. So I don't accept it is a "mistake" that needs an apology, just a differing of opinion. So no one is in need of an apology, because no one was injured by my opinion. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 00:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And you're lying again. That's not what you think. At least learn to be consistent in the way you lie to us, TK. You, as a Conservative, love industry and big business. This agency has been established by big business. It has managed to get itself into a position where it can even influence government. Ie, Businesses influencing government - a conservative's wet dream judging from the reaction to your Supreme Court's outrageous decision that Corporations deserve Freedom of Speech. Said agency reprimands a left-wing (ish) government. Instead of using it as an example of businesses promoting a typically right-wing, ant-global-warming agenda (something you would normally support), you're somehow twisting it into an incorrect example of socialism just (to attempt) to cover up the fact that you were wrong on CP. You're a lying scum. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, are you a teenager? For someone who has never once had a conversation with me, you sure do presume to know what I think and what I believe. You never once called me a Nigger, but I suspect that is next. You vacillate between being civil and and being hateful like someone in need of medication or dictated to by raging hormones. Obviously you know nothing about what "conservatives" think. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang about. Isn't being a member of a "known vandal site" a blockable offense at CP? Strictly speaking shouldn't you and RobS be now banned for posting here? Furthermore, what are you both doing here in the first place? I mean, I know Rob was trying to protect brother dearest by derailing a thread calling into question his...ahem, personality. But you...?
Oh, and we all do know who you are TK. You're the deep, deep, DEEP cover parodist trying to bring down CP from the inside. Shouldn't you be there banning legit contributors?-Tygrehart
He has some twisted logic that because he joined before he made up that rule he does not have to follow it. - π 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nothing twisted, moron. I have proven myself to never vandalize CP or harm it. Have you? I was invited here, actually, by one of the original founders. Were you? --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 01:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I have just done more for the good for this site on a bad day than you have in your entire time here. I probably come close to adding more non-plagiarized material to CP than you ever have and I never once knowingly added a false statement to CP. - π 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess that 'original founder' thought you'd be good for entertainment when things get slow. So far, you're doing a wonderful job - watching you twist things around in a fruitless effort to make it seem like you're not just utterly wrong is most amusing. What's even better is that you genuinely think people actually believe that you aren't. 92.0.102.86 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
He's lying again. He snuck into RW1 via sockpuppetry. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Tautology: "He" (when "he" is TK) & "Lying" are the same thing. 04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Willem de Zwijger / talk / contribs
Hehe, I know, but I had already hit "save" before I remembered that. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Huw, you never fail to surprise at the depths of lowness you will sink to. I was talking about RW 1.5 or whatever it was, when Colin asked me. Not that you would care because you are one of the main reasons his vision was changed and bastardized. What a hack you are. Tell me, how many of the persona's above licking your ass are your own socks? --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 04:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone licking my ass, but most of them, indeed are me. As are you. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As Andy's chief Asslicker, you should be able to tell. Willem de Zwijger (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

EZ SirChuck Edit Break

OK couple of things since I missed out on most of this conversation.... First of, to a reponse waaaay up top. TK, identifying a system by its correct term has nothing to do with being a student. Socialism has become some creepy catch-all boogeyman for the right whenever they don't like something done by the government. But. hold on this may surprise you, Socialism by itself is a pure economic system. You can have a Democratic socialist state (like most of Europe) you can have a Totalitarian Socialist state (Like China and Cuba) and you can even have an Oligarchical Socialist State (I don't know of any in the real world). You see how that works? Just because your economy is run one way, you do not necessarily fall into any particular political form? make sense now? good. Second, what's with throwing nigger around? If you think you're going to schock us, you're dead wrong. See our wonderful Nigger article for more. Third, I am a sock of Human. SirChuckBHITWIN FOR PRESIDENT! 06:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the civility, SirChuckB. We disagree on that issue, and I would submit the old guidelines, as I said above are antiquated. And I think China still proclaims itself to be a Communist State in some of its own literature. Wasn't trying to shock anyone, just was giving my opinion that with all the hate speech insults here, that had to be next. I learned early on how racist white liberals really are. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 06:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem being civil when the curtesy is returned. I don't think it has anything to do with guidelines. Categories are arbitrary and set by people... But if I may ask, what does a Socialist country mean to you? When you say England is leaving democracy and crossing over to socialism, what does that mean? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 06:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It means to me Euro Socialism, or what many call a Democratic Socialist State. Basically an electorate endlessly demanding entitlements, and a flaccid parliament giving them out for longevity in their elected office dole, and borrowing against the future, taxing everything that moves and some who don't to keep up. Have you ever been to the U.K.? There isn't a move anyone can make that isn't watched by the authorities, endlessly running their recognition software.....very Orwellian. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"an electorate endlessly demanding X" "and a flaccid parliament giving X out". You have just described the political system known as a democracy. Internetmoniker (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
IM does have a point there. Futhermore, I would argue again that excessive government monitoring, a valid criticism of the English government's style of security, has nothing to do with their economic policy. Even if the government totally controlled all major industry, that doesn't mean they have to video their citizens. Also, you seem to be so against socialism, but you do realize that America has a lot of socialist policies itself..... Or policies that might as well be. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 07:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, I reject the conventional norm of saying it is "just" an economic system, and I am not alone in that, there being many so-called "liberal" experts who say so as well. In any event I am not some newb to the political process and know full well and agree with your comment about what the U.S. is also sliding into. I am against Socialism as you rightly perceive, but I am not against all social services per se. Feel free to discuss this at any length via IM or email. And thanks for thinking to add the edit break....the scrolling was getting a bit much! --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 08:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing your main contention here TK. You're saying that Socialism isn't just an economic system and that you have other experts who will agree, but then you agree that a socialist country can have different political system. It really seems like you're contradicting yourself. Please excuse what is basically a repeat question, but what is Socialism then, politically and economically. Where does it fall in the poltical classification system? SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 08:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
...Have you been to the UK?.... I live in the UK, and it is one of the least socialist countries in the EU. CS Miller (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
And as an aside to SirChuckB: England doesn't have a government. The UK does, though. alt (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The UK definitely has a surveillance problem, but I'll echo CSmiller's comment. The UK is positively anarchic when compared to northern Europe. The the extreme conservatives are pushing America to the same conclusion that the most vile version of socialism would bring. Look at the school prayer business, since that's a great example of people wanting the state to intervene in the private lives of its citizens. Although it's often claimed that school prayer has itself been banned, I credit you with enough intelligence to understand that personal and teacher-led prayer are two very different things, and that the former is and quite rightfully should be protected. How about the Ten Commandments monuments, and the push to get religion in to science classrooms? The extreme right are compromising the neutrality of the institutions that should remain separate from governmental interference. With all this going on, it's not really arguing against governmental intrusion in to private lives - it's more being unhappy that the government isn't interfering to push the "right" agenda. Right or left, government needs to be seriously slimmed down and restrained, in both the UK and US. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 16:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that most of Europe and to a lesser extent the UK are social democracies. While the UK may have seen more social welfare and government regulation since Labour came to power, it still remains much more capitalist and economically less regulated than most of the Continent.
And even then, the more socially-leaning countries are also very successful economically. Second largest exporter in the world? Germany (only recently overtaken by China). Largest food retailer in the world? French. Second largest aerospace company? Franco-German-Spanish. Second largest chemical company? German. Largest construction company? French. Second largest insurance company? French. Second largest oil company? Anglo-Dutch. I mean, hardly a long list of failed socialist states now, is it?
The surveillance issue in the UK is a complex mix of a control-freak government being sold very effectively to by technology companies and a public too lazy to do anything about it.
But the clumsy dismissal of the UK as no-longer democratic because of its alleged socialism is just plain wrong. Yes, it might resonate with a certain audience in the US for whom bogeyman terms get the juices flowing, but that doesn't make it accurate.
And, oh yes, I was banned from CP simply for being a member here, TK. Never vandalised or did any harm whatsoever. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'd disapprove of feeding trolls, but when it turns into owning TK like this, I'm all in favour :D H. Randolph Twist (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The surveillance culture in the UK is also over-estimated sometimes. In many cases there is camera coverage, but realistically the footage is very poor quality, not routinely monitored, and inexpertly set-up so it is to all intents and purposes useless. Not all of it by any means, but certainly a fair proportion. Worm(t | c) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Herr Goebbels H. Randolph Twist, merely repeating garbage, as you should have learned by now, doesn't make it so. What exactly do you define "Trolling" as? Perhaps you have some wrong idea in your head, and are merely ignorant? Or perhaps you deliberately throw out incendiary comments in some small-time "big lie" technique you find clever?

Ajkgordon, merely repeating back what others have said, that the "U.K. isn't all that bad" compared to other members of the E.U., isn't a refutation, it is a dodge -- like saying someone who kills 50 people really isn't a mass-murderer as compared to Stalin or Hitler. Nowhere did I claim the U.K. is a full-blown Socialist State, that was another liberty with the truth someone else took, a Red Herring. I said it is no longer a Democracy, and strictly applied, that is indeed so. Your POV is European, as I recall, I don't disrespect your thoughts, but I do sincerely ask that you try to see the POV of someone who has grown up in the U.S. but has lived abroad several times in my life, and dearly love the people and distinct cultures in Europe. History takes broad swings. At present the U.S. itself is and has been for some time, adopting European Socialist/"Democratic Socialism" ideas for our own country. So please try to guard against unilateral pronouncements like calling someone whom you disagree with "wrong" as you did. There isn't anything intrinsically "wrong" with what I said, merely a differing of opinion, eh? As for your block, if it makes you feel better playing to your agreeable audience here, so be it, but you were not blocked for no reason, and I would request you stop obfuscating that point.

Worm, I have more than passing knowledge of biometrics and both the hard and software used for surveillance in the U.K. and to dismissively say the monitoring is of low quality is misleading. Perhaps what you have seen of it is. I can assure you it isn't, only perhaps what is shown publicly. I have personally seen satellite imagery where I could clearly read the text of newspapers, and with street-based images and the software enhancements used, one gets significantly more detail. Do the research, and you will see. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was by no means intending to be dismissive, and I'm not talking about specialist surveillance - I'm talking about the generality of CCTV coverage, which is not of the quality that many people seem to assume. My impression is that people see 'a camera' and assume that it is beaming HD images to some bunker where it is monitored on a 24-hr basis. This is simply not reflective of reality. A satellite capable of reading newsprint? I highly doubt it. I'm open to evidence, but I'm not aware of any satellite optics that are capable of that kind of resolution - care to provide some examples? Street-based images can, of course, be pretty good but often are not, and no I'm not talking about the images that are 'shown publicly', I'm referring to images that, for instance, the police use when collating evidence. We have many problems in the UK, but 24/7 surveillance by Big Brother is a myth. Worm(t | c) 02:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Just as a quick note TK, I created a CP account with the SirChuckB name and it was blocked almost instantly. In fact, the account was only up for about a minute before it was hammered. You also blocked Jinx when he certainly wasn't a "member" of the site. He hates us and we've created an entire sport around fucking with him. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 23:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Your memory, for some reason, isn't reliable. Like 99% of members here, except those you disagree with, contrary to published RW policy and goals, Jinx could undo his blocks, and did. My last "friendly block" of Jinx was for sixty seconds. Anyone with the same user name here will indeed be blocked, by policy, Sir Chuck, and if my memory is correct, your past comments indicate you know that. If you are a conservative, and honestly wish to contribute, make an account. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just found this account at CP which has the same user name as an account here. From what you've just said, based on "policy", you should go and block that account forthwith. alt (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I have the NuttyRoux account on CP I've always wanted? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I think asking here, instead of by email, pretty much has precluded that from ever happening. --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 05:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Terry, you don't like it when others put words into your mouth, so please don't do the same to me. Nowhere did I say that the "U.K. isn't all that bad" (your quotes, FFS!). I merely said it is more capitalist and less economically regulated than most other European countries. That's not a judgement and it's neither US or European POV.
"It is clearly demonstrable that the U.K. has long ago crossed over from Democracy to a European Socialist state." You will have to forgive me for reading that as you claiming that the UK is no longer democratic but is now a socialist state. I don't really know how else to read it. If it doesn't mean that you'll have to explain it to this European simpleton.
But until that happens, my opinion is that your opinion about socialism in Europe and especially the UK is wrong. As opinion, surely you can respect that too?
I never claimed I was blocked for no reason. I claimed that the reason was for being a member here. That's pretty clear with no obfuscation.
As I said before, I agree with you generally about surveillance in the UK. But satellites reading newspaper print? Step away from the Tom Clancy novels, TK! Ajkgordon (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh silly TK, wade straight in and call the Jew "Herr Goebbels". No wonder nobody likes you. Take your ball and go home. You are a troll. You know you are. Why? Because you lie, cause trouble and make inflammatory remarks to get attention. It's how you get your kicks, control and manipulation. You know it, I know it, we all know it. You've been thoroughly beaten and yet you keep going, 'cos that means it'll still all be about lil' Terry. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic?

"At present the U.S. itself is and has been for some time, adopting European Socialist/"Democratic Socialism" ideas for our own country." oh, that it were only the case. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Is that a nipple on the main page?

Yes it isimg, sure it's a paintingimg but still it seems out of place. Wasn't sure f I should WIGO it or not bother.--Opcn (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, she's beautiful. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Meh, she's cute, but I don't really go in for that slightly erotic look. I have a thing for nude readheads myself. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 08:45, 21 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. K61824"6+18=24" 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)

Crappy wigos

the three most recent are really lame - mostly in the way they are written. Ed's registry - "your computer" might be a Mac. Schlafly lead counsel - links are in wrong order. The other one is TK, 'nuff said, who cares. </bitch mode off> ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Andy WIGO has a ton of potential because of his proclivity for dramatically overstating things and because it's an interesting legal issue. I frankly think Andy's team should and will end up losing under the Supremacy Clause and that their argument that the appellate court could permit the signature gathering phase of the recall process to go forward where there was a significant chance they'd fail to obtain 1.3M signatures will ultimately waste a shitload of other peoples' time and money, but I'm thankfully not from New Jersey. Of course Andy's correct that the case will be "precedent setting" because "no senator or congressman has ever been recalled before." What he omits to state is that nobody ever tried because Article 1 doesn't contain any exceptions or mandate for state action and the Supremacy Clause otherwise prohibits it. This will be a precedent setting "so what." I'll consider how to make the Andy WIGO better tomorrow. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting point, Nutty. But if that's the case, why is the State Constitution written the way it is? (see Huw's comments in the section above). Tetronian you're clueless 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree it has legs, but right now it's just a shitty, poorly written wigo. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In defense of the registry one, it didn't originally have the second sentence. I thought less was more and deliberately kept it to the first bit. I thought the brains comment detracted from that, but hey. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If only there was some way of anonymously logging your disapproval of a specific WIGO, or even a way to edit said WIGO to improve whatever you find unsatisfactorily with it.. Alas, the only reasonable thing one can do now is complain about it on the talk page. --GTac (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Nah, that's not nearly as satisfying as bitching about it on the talk page. -- Nx / talk 12:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Eddy, baby

Ed asks for pat on head: (italics mine)

==New Articles==

Hi, Andy, I've been too busy with my new job to contribute much lately, but here are my last 10 articles:

  1. [[Imprecatory prayer]] Stub
  2. [[Take the Lead]] Movie review
  3. [[Antonio Banderas]] One line stub
  4. [[Cary Grant]] Ditto'
  5. [[Registry repair]] One line quote
  6. [[Windows registry]] Two line stub
  7. [[Immersion]] Quote
  8. [[False error messages]] Stub
  9. [[Confessions of a Shopaholic]] One line Movie review
  10. [[The Celestine Prophecy]] Half line movie review

Some are just stubs, but with collaboration they can be improved.

Go on, Andy, throw the faithful old dog a bone Willem de Zwijger (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Windows registry" article was fun. "The registry is the brains of your computer". No, the CPU is. That's in the first page of "My First Computer Book" for all of you kindergarteners. "It provides all the system policies for your system." That too, but one could better describe it as a database for application and system configuration settings - clearer, no? "Microsoft has gone out of its way to make the Registry mysterious and fearsome sounding." No, they just never expected end users would need to deal with it normally, so they saw no need to make it easier to approach. And they expected the application developers wouldn't mess it up too often. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of those articles don't even have sufficient (or in the first, correct) context, even for a WP stub. "Imprecatory prayer" doesn't describe that the prayers are meant to harm someone. "Windows registry" could have a link for advanced users and "Registry repair" refers to software programs, but doesn't mention the open source script. It's easier just to provide the official MS KB article. "Immersion" is unclear as well, but at least you understand it if you read the quote a few times. Then again, who'll risk their account trying to correct errors made by high-ranking admins? --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha, now Andy has no excuse for not noticing the shite that Uncle Ed is producing. I liked JacobB's rather strained justification for Ed's existenceimg. Ed contributes in ways that are special and useless, and he is consistent in both regards. Perhaps we'll see the category "Stuff Ed learnt about Windows, and things that frustrate Ed" --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 16:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That was some top class parodying from JacobB there. (capturebotted for brevity)Does 'capturebotted' sound rude? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So lets say I saw a user say something they shouldn't in a place where it should have been caught?

The user has been around for a few months, should I put it up here? I don't want to spoil it, but I don't want it lost to a deep burn archive event either. --Opcn (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not until they are blocked forever? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're afraid it will get burned, screen cap it yourself and save it for when that user is banned, then show it to people. — Unsigned, by: FineCheeses / talk / contribs 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Just let me know, I'll save it for you. :P --TK/MyTalkRW User #45 07:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, TK is useless, unlike Mei. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If it's been around for a few months, it's in my archive. mb 09:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It's got to be parody, but it's so foul I can't imagine someone thinking he could get away with that. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Just post it on up, that seems to be the done thing around here now. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No, don't. Burndall (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
This is getting intriguing. Email it to me, somebody? User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, we're not doing that "I'm so cool passing whatever this is around by email" clique thing again are we? If we are then please email it to me too DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Change a comma in the article with a sock? Alain (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I scored a comma at WP today. Here: , Anyone can use it wherever they want. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cash-only medicine

The video of Andy on the article about him talking the lead counsel position is hilarious. I'm sure there is a new meme in there about the efficiency of cash and how all your medical bills should be paid in good hard greenbacks. No chemo or transplant for you! MaxAlex Swimming pool 11:30, 21 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)

Irony

"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)

Joint articles at aSK, CP, CZ, and RW

common titles
I took a look at the 334 page titles which appear at all four wikis, like Adolf Hitler and User:Ed Poor (the only one to be present in this fourfold). I didn't look at common subjects when they were spelled in different ways (Barrack (Hussein Obama), and I didn't include redirects.

On the upper half, you'll find the views per article: readers at CP and RW are interested in the same articles, there is a strong correlation between the views, while the views of aSK and CZ (citizendium) are uncorrelated (and I think they are independent): though CZ has a soft spot for homeopaths and suchlike, it's another lunacy then the readers of aSK are interested in.

The lower half shows the length of the articles: Not much of a surprise here, generally the lengths of the articles in the various wikis are correlated...

larronsicut fur in nocte 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How about some kind of graphical representation depiction of what information is on your previous graphs & charts? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:51, 21 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? ThiehAhh! my eyes!! 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? ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 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" Kettle o' fish 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. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 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)

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)

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. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 17:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)