Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki

Article of the Weak  • Previous AotWs • Talk AotW
WIGO CP • WIGO Clogs • WIGO Blogs • WIGO World
Talk CP • Talk Clogs • Talk Blogs • Talk World

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.

Contents 1 Presidential height wigo 2 We couldn't make this up 2.1 In which Crazy Rob Drives off on some wild tangent 3 ZB part deux 4 TedC 5 Me musing... 6 "Dear JimPT, I understand your frustration at failing to see my point." 7 Happy St. Patrick's Day 8 TK needs a civic lesson 8.1 EZ SirChuck Edit Break 8.2 Back on topic? 9 Wow. Andy wants a Civil War 2.0 10 Where are all the homeschoolers? 11 Critical Thinking in Math 12 Is that a nipple on the main page? 13 Menendez recall committee 14 Crappy wigos 15 Oh Eddy, baby 16 So lets say I saw a user say something they shouldn't in a place where it should have been caught? 17 Cash-only medicine 18 Another great one hit wonder 19 Irony 20 Joint articles at aSK, CP, CZ, and RW 21 Pre-Christian humour 22 Writing teacher 23 CP officially loses its shit.

[edit] 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.

[edit] We couldn't make this up

At the blog We couldn't make this up, there is an entry on Conservapedia’s Zeugloden Blues chat room. It claims to be the original chat of some of conservapedia's sysops from Feb 2008 until Feb 2009 - and it surely reads like it. As usual, I looked for the mathematical highlights, and I was rewarded:

On Jan 4, 2009, cp:User:Conservative reports that a blocked user mailed him (of all!) and complained on two mathematical articles, cp:center and cp:decimal number. As ♥ K e n D o l l ♥ is out of his depths, he asks the big ones for help. And he gets the advise of a veritable expert, cp:User:Ed Poor states his credentials: "I think that a 760 SAT in math (in high school) qualifies me as a math expert and I am suspicious that hardly any one but me has been able to produce an error-free article on any aspect of math below the university level. He has no problems with the articles, so everything is okay. And so, still today, at least the article on cp:center is a fountain of joy: The center of a cp:geometric shape is a point that, on average, the points of the shape are cp:equidistant from. This point does not have to be on the shape itself. - how can points be on average equidistant? Oh, the marvels of conservapedian mathematics!

If the archives are true, well, it's everything one expects: Ed Poor is a pompous ass, TK is just an ass, Aschlafly chimes in with absolutely uncorrelated remarks, which get interpreted by his acolytes. Tim S. looks like an ordinary guy, struggling in vain to keep some decency for conservapedia... If they are faked - as TK will claim - well, it's fun to read.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They can't be fake. There's thousands of posts there, and it matches up with the timeline. Personally I'm astounded by how they let TK back in and Andy's complete lack of leadership. EddyP (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I briefly looked into it and found "How long are we going to tolerate TK?" (860/d0f1c0a9e00ee7da.html). And man, Geo managed to exceed my expectations when it came to failing as a parole officer:

PJR: TK has also repeatedly violated the "Civility" section of the Guidelines page, as I also documented a short time ago.

Geo: When did Andy specifically approve civility? It provides a stick for RW to hit us with.

PJR: Are you really suggesting that users don't have to be civil?

Plus other gems in the same thread, like Geo being against permanent bans and for rehabilitation of users... as long as "users" means "TK".

Oh, and if someone can supply a CSS file that fixes the horrible formatting, I'd be quite thankful. --Sid (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/ -- Nx / talk 13:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that's awesome! Thanks! =D --Sid (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Though it sometimes seems to remove short messages. :/ For example in "260/cb6952f5e2b70b6c.html". Guess it wasn't really made for this weird reason. XD --Sid (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TK might claim they're fake, but he released them... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. These aren't fake, but they're not real either - someone has messed with these, consistently, each page. Not sure what they're trying to cover up, but these aren't straight downloads. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

they fit PJR's tale of the events - and they remind me why PJR seemed so exceptional at CP: he was the only one to stand up against Andy, questioning his erratic behavior, and he didn't regard every editor at first as an enemy... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

628 - the battle over MYOB between PJR and Dean - is good. I've gotta admire PJR (and Tim) for standing up for the right thing in so many places, despite massive opposition. Also, check the Saloon bar for a proposal of mine regarding this. EddyP (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Geo just a kid? (no offence intended, young uns) Putting him "in charge" of TK is like puuting a sheep in charge of a hyena's diet. 13:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Which is probably why a couple of weeks later TK quietly removed his own parole restrictions and nothing more was said about the matter. Geo made about as effective parole officer as Mary Poppins would. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Geo's not as old as most other CP sysops. His user page says "While I am not yet in college", which gives you a rough estimation. And the MYOB discussion sums up CP in a single line:

"The liberals are taking advantage of our compassion": WHAT compassion?

Small wonder that Philip lasted as long as he did, really. --Sid (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Guantanamo discussion (same folder, it apparently triggered the MYOB thread), Karajou nicely sums up CP's double standards (emphasis mine): " I'm not going to tolerate any liberal individual who tries using force to control the content of the site." Man, this archive is a gold mine... --Sid (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I love you guys. What's a zeugloden? mb 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeuglodon --aSKTim 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Andy has said this before but I found this concerning why Andy keeps TK around despite his attempts at "harming" CP. He's never vandalized the site and his self-initiated "double agent" work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely that. It was not a sincere effort to harm the site. This is in folder 250, very bottom of the folder. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No dice, that's the plot line from Hairy Potter!--Opcn (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugh, Ed refers to the group of sysops(him included) as "The Talented Ten". (860, last one) Internetmoniker (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Think that's funny? Here is something hilarious: they have another special "more secret" sysop group called "Cp-Fab-Five" for TK's elite chosen sysops: ASchlafly, TK, Ed Poor, Geo and Karajou. They talk shit about the other CP sysops there. LOL. News flash: it's not as secret as TK would like, obviously. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a separate page just devoted to this. I've barely scratched the surface and I'm already floored by the insanity of TerryH. This is going to take up a good deal of my time for a while. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How about creating a project page we can use for discussion and ideas on how the conversations can be used? Kind of like a clearing house. The page could be messy, but we could archive or delete it once we're done picking through the conversations. --^{Ask me about our telephone} 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Completely in favor of this suggestion. There is just too much material to be restricted to this section. And do I read this correctly? At one point, Philip wasn't in the group, but KEN was? WOW. --Sid (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the Saloon Bar, I think that we should create a page pointing people towards the interesting messages so that they don't have to trawl through all 900. Also, would like to remind JacobB to start making copies of their new SDG. EddyP (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You crap lovers have nothing again. When will you learn that we move forward and nothing, nothing will stop us. Go ahead and read through all the glorious nothings posted. Liberalism is on the ropes so I understand why your pea-brains are interested. You're all a big joke that amounts to a circle jerk. Enjoy as you climax.--193.200.150.152 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, 193.200.150.152. Anyways, since TK leaked these, and well AFTER he was banned and returned AND re-sysopped, doesn't this sort of give him away, totally? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TK's been given away (often by himself) many times before. This hasn't stopped him yet. EddyP (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TK also made the first SDG public way back then. Since then, he became a sysop (again) with CheckUser and Oversight rights and was allowed into THIS group. Basic lesson is that TK can do no wrong, no matter how much wrong he does. --Sid (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What's particularly amusing is the way that the sysops insulted him when he wasn't in the group - TerryH calling his actions 'T-R-E-A-S-O-N', Karajou declaring he would never be in such a group at the same time as TK - but now that TK's back they're all kneeling before him. EddyP (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

EddyP says, "Andy's complete lack of leadership;" Tygrehart up yonder says, "Andy always struck me as one of the those people who saw the world as being populated by two types: Superiors and Subordinates. Superiors are to be toadied and sucked up to, subordinates are to be used for his purposes." At least you're all on the same song sheet and probably make sense to each other. Thank God for Rational Analysis. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Get a fucking clue, Rob. Only at authoritarian wikis blogs like Conservapedia is everyone required to tow a single party line and is dissent crushed. Rational, indeed. Junggai (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Rob will shortly regale us with tales of how Andy's sterling leadership held the CP boat together at various critical times. Editors he's driven off? What editors? Problems he's ignored? What problems? EddyP (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tow a single line? How many times has TK said he's not a YECreationist? And me, I don't even have a view on the matter cause I know nothing about it. So, there are three different lines to be towed. Seems to me, your collective irrational hate of Andy clouds your collective judgment and opinion on things. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You may have a point, but our hate (if it can be called that - it's really closer to disgust, disdain, and pity) is far from irrational. For example:

• He believes the Bible has liberal bias
• He doesn't believe in relativity
• He thinks Obama is a Muslim

Need I continue? The point is, while there is some groupthink here to a small extent, Andy has definitely proven himself to be worthy of our disdain. Τe†rоиіαn ^{unintelligently designed} 22:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob... You and TK like to throw that one around don't you. Small differences like OEC/YEC are but a drop in the bucket. Anyone who doesn't toe the line on the bigger things is, shall we say, politely removed from the site?" SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, nobody is saying that everybody at CP believes the same things, but it's undeniable that CP will in the end say what Andy believes, period. We know Ed's an Old Earth Creationist. And yet Ed never seems to speak up against cp:Counterexamples to an Old Earth. I'm sure some people believe in General Relativity, and yet surprisingly few sysops voiced their objections against cp:Counterexamples to Relativity. Hmmmmm. Tell me, where were you when Andy declared Jesus' healing powers evidence against relativity? People who contradict Andy are wrong by definition because Andy's opinions are The Truth. Here, let me quote your fellow sysops (from 320/4fe9e7f404a424e2.html):

CPAdmin1: "What is CP? Is it an outlet for Andy's opinion? Is it a political attack machine with the goal of making liberals look bad and conservatives look good? or is it an encyclopedia concerned primarily with truth? That question has to be answered before we can proceed here." (and later) "However, if he wants the site to be based solely on his personal opinions, THEN HE SHOULD NOT ADVERTISE IT AS A FACT-BASED ENCYCLOPEDIA."

TerryH: (after some back and forth) "The answer to your question is: /both/. If Andy Schlafly does not base his opinions on fact, then what do you think he bases them on? If the site cannot be "based on his personal opinions" and "based on fact" at the same time, what does that make him? You have called him a /liar/!"

Oh gosh, memories... I think there were some judas comparisons thrown around too... --aSKTim 01:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On CP, you have the freedom to disagree with Andy's insights, but you should never actually voice them. People who break this simple rule are troublemakers. You know... like PJR, that darn liberal who kept defending darn liberals against stuff like "MYOB" and "If you were blocked, you did something wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been blocked." --Sid (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or how about the thread where Ed announced he had booted Philip from the list (360/a7a377bc9c5117a7.html)?

Geo.plrd: "Openly fighting with Andy in the Barack Obama article is rebelliousness. The posts here about bad decisions are insubordination."

DeanS: "I think Dan served as a good example. Dan really objected to the Obama article and left. He realized he wasn't going to change Andy's mind and decided he could use his time better elsewhere. Philip can do the same thing. He has crossed the line from disagreeing to insubordination and rebelliousness to Andy in public. Philip should either respect Andy's decision and apologize for his disrespect or leave Conservapedia."

Conservative: "As it stands now, if Andy is mistaken about a issue/fact in an article, it will stay no matter what. It doesn't matter how important or high profile the article is, the error stays as it is now if Andy wants it to. I do think this state of affairs is not desirable." (Yes, I just cited Ken as a voice of reason. Hell has officially frozen over.)

Geo.plrd: (again) "While it is fine for a Sysop to privately disagree with Andy, we need to present a unified public appearance."

Yep, totally not towing the party line... no, sir... --Sid (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] In which Crazy Rob Drives off on some wild tangent

So, other than that, how did Jimbo Wales ever get his unofficial title as benevolent dictator and god-king? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody other than fringe Conservapedians actually think CP and Wikipedia have anything remotely to do with one another, so that comparison is pointless. NOBODY HERE IS SAYING WIKIPEDIA DOES ANYTHING BETTER (although a list of things that are done better there... nevermind), this is a discussion of Conservapedia in and of itself. Wikipedia has an autocratic leader who subverts the truth to his whim? Whatever. No clue if it's true or not, and it's not germane. So fine, they do. I take it you've just conceded that Conservapedia is, in fact, Andy's blog, since your only retort is "just like Jimbo," right? 67.170.6.1 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, plenty of people here are saying Wikipedia does much better. I am, for one. Obviously it's not perfect, but it is nearly impossible to be any worse of an "encyclopedia" than CP. I don't give a hit one way or another about Jimbo, but he does remain pretty far distanced from the day to day squabbles and goings on at WP. Rob, if you can find one example of Jimbo inserting his personal opinion into an article, and defending it against question merely on his say-so, I'll be shocked. Link the diffs, please; they don't oversight the way CP does. DickTurpis (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dick, I'd be glad to. And let's keep this on a the plane of a rational discussion. Jimbo Wales told Editor & Publisher magazine, "I don't consider Daniel Brandt an expert on anything at all." Let's examine this statement, (1) made to the premier granddaddy trade journal in the publishing business. (2) denies the notability of the subject article. (3) if the the subject is non-notable, why keep his bio? (4) Granted, Jimbo did not himself edit Brandt's bio, however 1300 sysop suckups adopted Jimbo's opinion about Brandt and refused Brandt's wishes to have it deleted.

There's more, but I'll await your response to these points. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh for shit's sake, Dick. Thanks for reminding me why I tell myself not to do this anymore. 67.170.6.1 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you ignored the request for difflinks. ħuman 04:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Brandt's bio has now been oversighted, but I do have a fairly accurate record of what occurred with endorsements from Brandt and others. Here's what Brandt said to me, "Did I ever thank you for your hard work (as User:RobSmith) on the articles about Chip Berlet and Wikipedia on Conservapedia? A bit right-wing slanted, I must confess, but nevertheless an important counterforce to the crap that passes for that "encyclopedia" we call "Wikipedia." [2] Here's what the WikipediaReview moderator credited with exposing Ryan Jordan as Essjay said of my version of events, "the version of the Essjay story is one of the more accurate ones I've seen." [3] It was over the Brandt's issue the WP:BLP was formulated, read the first editors comment, "I started this due to the Daniel Brandt situation." [4] This occurred in the midst of my Arbitrration and the Siegenthaler controversies, events that Brandt was directly or indirectly associated with. I am an eyewitness to all these events.

Now the point is, to address Dick's question, what other WP bio ever had the notable weight of Mr. Jimbo Wales being cited in WP, in comments Jimbo Wales made to Editor & Publisher, essentially calling someone a nutcase, alongside other highly defamatory smears placed by an editor who cites himself, which violates WP's own policies? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob...... You do realize that CP has a completely unverifiable PRIVATE DINNER CONVERSATION that may or may not have happened in the Early 90's right? No really..... I'm not joking..... Still don't believe me..... here's my proof. You must have a hard time finding underwear that doesn't cut off blood circulation, cause you have some huge fucking balls to sit here and complain about any kind of sourcing issues on WP. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Does Andy defame another human being in the link you provide? Does Andy say, "In my opinion, person X's complaints about how we enforce our policies is meaningless because, according to our own self published, marginal fringe and extreme editors with conflicts of interest and axes to grind, person X is a fascist holocaust denier based on guilt by association." Does Andy have an army of 1300 sycophant suckups on a top ten website to destroy a persons reputation? Did Andy ever tell CNN it is never the case false information is allowed to remain in a persons bio and then take a year and half to remove it after being notified? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 08:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Does rephrasing something as a rhetorical question make it more true? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite amused at how the subject switched from "What? CP sysops totally don't tow a single party line!" to "LOOK AT WIKIPEDIA!" the moment people made a good point. --Sid (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ, Rob, since when is saying "I don't consider Daniel Brandt an expert on anything at all" a vile, slanderous statement? Who gives a shit? You take that statement and extrapolate all sorts of shit from it. That statement, as you point out, almost reads like an endorsement to delete Brandt's bio, yet editors, without input from Jimbo, were not able to muster up a consensus to delete (at least not for a while). Now, instead of trying to show us how awesome you are with irrelevancies about Essjay and the like, why don't you show me some diffs wherein Jimbo inserts his opinion into an article as a fact? I could show you Andy doing it thousands of times, then reverting and blocking those who challenge him. I hear Jimbo is an ojbectivist; show me him trying to whitewash the Objectivism or Ayn Rand articles so they endorse his POV.

Now, while Andy obviously doesn't say "In my opinion, person X's complaints about how we enforce our policies is meaningless because, according to our own self published, marginal fringe and extreme editors with conflicts of interest and axes to grind, person X is a fascist holocaust denier based on guilt by association" in so many words, he repeatedly basically says "In my opinion, person X's complaints about how we enforce our policies is meaningless because, according to our own self published, marginal fringe and extreme editors with conflicts of interest and axes to grind, person X is a liberal who has not contributed meaningfully to this project." A bit better, but not much. DickTurpis (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You can begin following the diffs from here: cp:Wikipedia#Jimbo_Wales_chooses_sides_in_the_dispute. They are all footnoted. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, post something relevant or don't bother replying. I see Brandt/Berlet/Essjay is the new communism/Marxism/Maoism: all conversations inevitably lead to this point. I'm wondering if you're able to order a pizza without a reference to Stalin. All you've shown is that Jimbo dismissed Brandt in an interview, which is hardly surprising considering how critical of Wikipedia Brandt is. I remember the Brandt bio controversy, but purposefully stayed out of it as it looked loaded with idiocy on both sides. Brandt whined about his bio, and maybe he was treated unfairly, but WP does not delete articles on people because the subjects object to them. His bio did eventually get deleted, and I don't see any input from Jimbo in keeping it or deleting it.

Now, I asked if you could cite a single example of Jimbo inserting his POV into an article. It seems you can't. Fine. I think that alone illustrates a single major distinction between WP and CP. Obviously there are many, and CP is the inferior party in all of them, except perhaps in "conciseness" and reversion of vandalism (it's easier to oversee every edit when your site gets a few hundred edits a day other than a few million). DickTurpis (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Always amuses me when people from CP try to use the "double standards" argument. Ignoring how non sequitur and badly supported the argument is (quantity of foot notes isn't a measure of truth ya know), what are you actually trying to say, Robby boy? It's okay that the CP admins will censor anything and ban anyone which don't comply to the groupthink.. because someone at Wikipedia does it too? Bravo, you are 12! --GTac (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(A) Brandt did not become critical of WP til after it refused to take down his bio. Brandt was indeed working with WP editors at the time Wales attempted to discredit him in Editor & Publisher; (B) Wales imposed his opinion and shaped content -- slanderous content -- off wiki, with CNN & Editor & Publisher which then was cited in WP; (C) Wales influenced WP Admins in a similiar fashion in the cp:Wikipedia#The Wordbomb Saga; (D) as I understand it, WP now will allow subjects of some degree of privacy if the so express. Last I saw Chip Berlet was claiming the Brandt precedent to have his bio deleted.

The point I'm making is, the Brandt bio was created for one specific purpose only -- to maliciously slander Brandt as marginal, fringe, and extreme so that Brandt could not be used as a critic of Berlet. Jimbo Wales bent over backwards to protect Berlet who worked for the Socialist Workers Party while at the time WP's Reliable Sources policy specifically cited the Socialist Workers Party as an example of a partisan, marginal, fringe, and extreme source. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A is basically irrelevant. B you've shown no evidence for other than that Wales said he didn't consider Brandt a reliable source. I fail to see how that was slanderous. C I'll have to look into, but we're not talking about influencing ediotrs (which may or may not be benign), I'm asking you for examples of Jimbo inserting his personal views into Wikipedia and enforcing those views in a way even somewhat comparable to the way Andy constantly does on CP. And I fail to see what your point is with D.

Your second paragraph you've shown no evidence for, though I have little doubt certain editors did use Brandt's article as a platform for criticism of him (something I know Conservapedia never does). It always remained controversial, and the community was always split on how this tricky situation should be handled. But those who sided with Brandt, or supported deletion of his article, were not banned from the site and considered enemies of the state. And if the system was abused for a while, it eventually came through at least in this one instance, as Brandt's allegedly libelous article has been deleted. This is simply not comparable to the way Andy runs CP. DickTurpis (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I really care very little about the various pram/toy event s that happen on Wikipedia or elsewhere. However,I do find it hard to imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance that is required for anyone at CP to complain about any kind of bio. information on any other wiki being anything other than 100% accurate and verified, when they allow the train-wreck that is cp:Barack Hussein Obama to exist. Physician, heal thyself. Worm^{(t | c)} 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Context for (B). In a series of Arbitration cases, namely Rangerdude and Nobs01 and others, source material for Chip Berlets bio was discussed. Berlet responded wirth this diff to a quote placed in his bio, “Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”

Berlet outed the leftist writer whom the original source kept anonymous, "This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt," the first mention of Brandt in WP. SlimVirgin literally within moments created Brandt's bio using Berlet as the source.

SlimVirgin says here in the Rangerdude Arbcom case (see cp:Wikipedia#What is a reputable source?), "'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"93 ”

Rangerdude responded, “ the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?[94] "

It was at this point that Jimbo Wales intervened to save both Chip Berlet, and SlimVirgin's credibility with his comment to Editor & Publisher which was promptly placed, with WP:UNDUE Weight, into Brandt's bio. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a bio page specifically to attack someone's credibility in a debate? The audacity! Internetmoniker (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- I just created an article stub Conservapedia:Zeuglodon, where we can place our favorite snippets... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Rob, trying to follow your warped logic is always more trouble than its worth. You started out OK, then pulled a conclusion out of nowhere. You seem to do that a lot. Let me get this straight...

1) There is a debate over what is a reliable source, specifically: is Chip Berlet a reliable source on Brandt? Am I right so far?

2) So someone points out that extremist groups are not reliable sources, and Berlet is linked to such a group (the SWP), so therefore he should not be a reliable source. So far so good.

3) Jimbo makes some (apparently unrelated?) comment on a significant media outlet saying that he does not consider Brandt a reliable source.

4) that somehow directly ties into the previous discussion, and somehow not only condemns Brandt but exonerates Berlet, endorsing his views and declaring that whatever Berlet writes is fine? Not sure I follow. I admit, I may not have the background information I need to fully figure out what you're getting at. Or you could be nuts. Even money, probably. If Jimbo calling Brandt unreliable was put in Brandt's article, giving it undue weight, that's an editing issue, unless Jimbo added it himself (which I'm guessing he didn't). You really can't blame Jimbo if someone took a passing statement he made and prominently featured it in an article on another person. In any case, none of this has anything to do with what I was talking about, so I'm done. I have a wedding to go to this weekend, and I'm leaving town imminently. DickTurpis (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your close to seeing it. On (1) The question began over whether Brandt was a reliable source of criticism for Berlet. Brandt was never even cited directly until Berlet outed him as an anonymous source in the Chris Arabia article. Once Berlet outed Brandt, a hit piece in WP was created to discredit Brandt. Berlet cited himself (see img here) alleging Brandt was a fascist holocaust denier using guilt by association with Fletcher Prouty & the ihr. Wales granted sweeping protection to Berlet & SlimVirgin for these smears by alleging in the pages of Editor & Publisher that Brandt was not a credible source for anything other than himself. Editors who challenged Wales ruling, Berlet or SlimVirgins blanket protections -- despite standing written policies -- were barred, banned, dispatched, and slandered themselves. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

By who? Those illustrious "1300 sycophantic suckups"? You do realize you are just seeing conspiracies wherever you look right? Care to show us how you got that number and the proof that they bow to Jimbo's every whim? Internetmoniker (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See WikiTruth's Brandt the Boogeyman for example. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're still seeing it from cache. That site is gone. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or Brandt's hivemind page.RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This one may be of interest, too. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Who you talking to buddy? 19:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to the question about WPs 1300 pimply faced sycophantic suckup sysops. Look at this letter to Salon: "Wikipedia is a mess, and it is clear evidence that he [Jimbo Wales] can't manage, can't delegate and can't organize problem solving. He's taking all the fame of Wikipedia, and is raising investment capital, while Wikipedia is a complete disaster. There are 7 paid employees at Wikipedia, and its great taht he can get all the free labor, but there is no oversight, and the content has suffered. Most administrators on Wikipedia are under the age of 18, and they have no training. You'll find 10th graders banning university professors, or teenagers who taunt private people by retaining biographies that aren't warranted. Wales just lets most of this happen - he doesn't care." [5] Sounds like RW's criticism of Andy. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 20:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that you started this tangent saying Jimbo Wales was influencing articles on Wikipedia like an evil master puppeteer and now end by saying Wikipedia is so bad because he has no influence over what happens whatsoever? Internetmoniker (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I didn't say it; I posted a letter in Salon. Can you tell the difference? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Ok, hell I'll say it.... No, I don't see the difference... In fact, it seems that the letter you quoted extensively goes agaisnt your main point (if we can remember what the hell that was). You claim that Wales has 1300 yes men who copy his every move, but then you post a complaint that says he has no power..... Explain if you can SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 05:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly critical of Wales. I support both Brandt & Bagley's contention Jimbo knew Brandt & Bagley were correct in thier assessments and both were being treated grossly unfair by an Admin community unleashed to make thier lives miserable. The Salon posting above is a toned down assessment about what went wrong after the Essjay scandal chased most expert, scholarly and good faith editors away. Has there been improvements in content over the past three years? Yes. Have some of the worst offenders in the cabal been disciplined or driven out for thier outrageous conduct (SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Berlet, for example)? Yes. But all I'm concerned with is policies. And frankly, I haven't the patience to wade though them meticulously anymore.

One thing I will note though, however, I am an editor now in good standing. And I don't wish any major confrontations with any of the assholes I've dealt with in the past. And I think many of them have been driven off because it became obvious they were a detriment to the project. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 08:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I'll say it again. You're pathetic. Remember how this all started? That no one at CP is allowed to express disagreement with Andy's personal opinion (a.k.a. "the truth"), and anyone who does is banhammered? So then you start writing a dissertation full of factually-challenged assertions that contradict each other, just to "prove" that Wikipedia works the same way. When you and we all know that it doesn't. Whatever Wikipedia's problems, Conservapedia is simply not in the same league of accuracy, fairness, or open-mindedness. Get the fuck over it. Junggai (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I am now truly flabbergasted. You start your tirade saying WP is terrible, but you end saying you are now an editor in good standing and those that you deem "assholes" have been dealt with? Doesn't that mean that the system in place at WP works? Internetmoniker (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very few editors can do the kind of work I do. Through the collaborative process we've reconciled the problems between WP & CP's copyright (see the histories behind wp:Grigory Kheifets and cp:Grigory Kheifets for example). I'm recognized as a knowledgeable editor in a highly specialized and controversial area. I'm also the founder of WP:Project Cold War history. I can prove through diffs my interest in the Obama/commie connection is scholarly, historical, and non-partisan. I'm exactly what WP needs. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 15:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Rob, you provide links for the claims that are pretty nominal, and then make sweeping statements that are clearly nothing but your own warped view. "Wales granted sweeping protection to Berlet & SlimVirgin for these smears by alleging in the pages of Editor & Publisher that Brandt was not a credible source for anything other than himself." How does merely saying someone is not a reliable source (which seems like a basic, true statement to me; most people are not reliable sources in themselves) grant sweeping protection to anyone? It doesn't. What editors were "were barred, banned, dispatched, and slandered"? "Most administrators on Wikipedia are under the age of 18" can you back that up? And if you can, you realize sysops at WP are nothing like sysops at CP. They are basically custodians, not a group of thugs who make ad hoc rules and wield unquestionable authority. "The Essjay scandal chased most expert, scholarly and good faith editors away." You really like to blow that event out of proportion. It clearly did no such thing. I'd like to see you try to back that one up. You're clearly seeing things as being the way you want them to be. You're a CP sysop through and through. DickTurpis (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at wp:Roots_of_anti-Semitism, it redirects to "Anti-semitism." All the material was either merged or deleted. The only two sources were Karl Marx, and Chip Berlet. [6] After an extensive discussion on that talk page, wp:Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism#What counts as reputable? the concenesus among high level sysops was Merge & redirect. [7] Rangerdude proved Berlet was not a reputable source about anything other than himself. The problem was WP, in combating the LaRouche editors, and Jayjg to support his West Bank articles, and SlimVirgin in a myriad of disputes, all heavily relied on Berlet. Berlet's critics needed to be silenced as "marginal, fringe and extreme," so Daniel Brandt was attacked. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I: Much of this material was rehashed in the BADSITES case. We finally got a larger segment of the WP community to review that discussion at Talk/Roots of Anti-semitism and see the fraud. It was not long after that Berlet quit, SV & Jayjg were disciplined. Will Beback (User:Willmcw) also has had problems, I understand. But I'm now an editor in good standing, despite the fact SV said the BADSITES policy only targeted 5 websites: me, Brandt, Bagley, Michealmoore.com WikipediaReview (where me, Brandt, and Bagley talk) and Encyclopedia Dramatica. [8] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum II: The best representative sample of response from the WP community over the Essjay scandal can be found here, wp:User talk:Essjay/There's a special circle of Hell reserved for duplicitous sacks of shit like you. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RobSmith, don't listen to ṬK, he's obviously pulling your chain: "I've been following your exploits. Nothing gets them on the run faster than facts and logic. I notice no matter what your responses are they keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults. Not a good sign for people who proclaim their "open minds". Perhaps in some distant decade they will finally see the light of what has really happened at WP. But I wouldn't hold your breath! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:34, 19 March 2010 (EDT)"
We're certainly on the run, alright. Who the fuck is obscuring here and changing the subject? Or do I need to remind you again where the thread started, and where you keep taking it? Are you at all interested in answering the charge of CP being an authoritarian blog, rather than bleating about abstract abuses at WP which only make sense when you squint your eyes a certain way? Junggai (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Dick to review the material. He seems to one of the few posters here with a clue as to what's going on on this planet. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, excellent answer to my question. Way to get us running with facts and logic! Junggai (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you have a screenshot on a subpage of you (presumably) calling Andy "retarded." Is there reason for preserving this momento? Is it something you're fond of, or proud of? Do you have a life? Did those actions of yours serve any possible purpose to benefit humanity? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I notice no matter what your their responses are they you keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults." Rob, seriously dude, are you going to engage with the topic at hand or keep blowing farts? The answer to your first two questions is "no," by the way. I happened to be watching while it happened, and ordered the screencap before it disappeared. To the third, yes, quite a satisfying one, full of love. Fourth, while technically there's no answer, as I've never vandalized Conservapedia, I'll let you know that I've done my share of humanity-serving as a profession, and it doesn't include keeping newsclips about commies on my bedrom wall. Junggai (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So you were "watching," then someone engages in childish vandalism, and you felt it necessaary to make a screenshot. Then, afterwards, your stored the precious momento under your pillow as a subpage. Why would you wish to make a screenshot of Andy being trolled and victimized by a juvenile prankster? you wanted to document harassment of Andy? Why would you store this precious momento? When the day comes, you wanted to be ready to defend Andy as the victim? 23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"I notice no matter what your their responses are they you keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults." Rob, this isn't CP, and I'm a grown man with kids of my own, so there's no need for me to answer your coked-up speculations. I've said plainly that I've never vandalized Conservapedia, and don't care if you believe me or not. What I do care about is why you refuse to say anything about Conservapedia's editorial policy, even to defend it. What are you trying to cover up? Are you actually a deep-cover parodist, trying to bring Conservapedia down by refusing to defend it against its detractors? (See how easy it is?) Junggai (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what Young guy Junggai, gimme a hint at a plausible explanation why you would (a) take a screenshot of somebody calling Andy "retarded," and (b) why you would tuck such a treasure under your pillow, and I'll take anything else you might say seriously. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that, because you haven't taken anything anyone's said seriously since the beginning of this thread. But anyway, I'll bite. The sequence of events were as follows: a) Some moron wrote a juvenile message on Andy's talk page. b) I read it, and laughed. c) It was a low-traffic time at RW,so I capped it in case the situation escalated and a screenshot would be needed for a WIGO. d) As soon as the screenshot was made, I moved it to my sandbox to clean out the screenshot requests without losing the filename. e) The moron showed up here to brag, so I lost interest and forgot about it.

In case you doubt the veracity of this, check out the low view count of the screencap (4 last I checked) and, incidentally, my Sandbox, which has been around much longer. If I had really "tucked it under my pillow," wouldn't I at least have pulled it out now and then to admire its gleam? In fact, I capped it, moved it, and forgot about it, until you brought it up to try and dodge answering questions about a completely unrelated matter.

Great, that was boring. Now do you want to talk about how open-minded Conservapedia is to opinions other than Andy's? Junggai (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, that really is "Jung G(uy)," in case you were wondering. I'm a bit of a fan. Junggai (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's dated March 2010, so that's hardly ancient history to forgot about. "Some moron" doesn't sound plausible cause why would you bother with it then? But I said a hint of plausiblity so I'll bite. Frankly, I don't know a whole lot about Andy and opinions cause we rarely get a chance to discuss or exchange them. Most of our interactions are spent fighting off trolls who do screeshots of morons calling people retarded. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's the best I'm gonna get from you, a weak dodge, and after I've been 100% honest with you. At this point, if this were the real world, I'd punch you in the face, call you a sonofabitch, and buy you a beer with no hard feelings. As it is, it's getting late here, so I'm going to leave the computer and imagine we've bonded over this pointless little flame war. You can go back to writing about communism with no real standards of falsifiability, and I'll wake up and take my son to the park. You know, Rob, you write well, but you'd write even better if you didn't assume so much from scanty evidence. That's what makes you a nutty conspiracy theorist who writes well, rather than a solid conservative thinker who influences people with his ideas. When we flame you, it's only because we're dismayed at the wasted potential. Junggai (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ZB part deux

"These aren't fake, but they're not real either - someone has messed with these, consistently, each page."

Do you think the source was someone in the group, and they removed their messages? Does anyone have access to "the original" and want to, carefully, tell us what's "different"? ħuman 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What looks fake? --aSKTim 01:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How have they been messed with? I haven't noticed anything. EddyP (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Being grammatically in/correct, maybe? K61824^{What is going on?} 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

MaxAlex said up above what I quoted to start this section. ħuman 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. There are things which definitely look wrong with these files; there is of course no way of proving it - for one thing, it's from Google Groups this time last year, so it's difficult to actually verify against a known real example. There are also things which just look plain odd, like the page offering a sign in link.

The content looks pretty clearly genuine to me for obvious reasons, not least the damage such a piece of method acting would do to the sanity of the writer, but as to who released these - I'm 80/20 on that issue. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a way to see the originals. They were mirrored on another account, so they cut off when the "source" cut off the supply. That access point was the source of this archival version. I'd go make the comparison, but I'm too lazy to download the 15MB file again and wade through it all. I deleted my local copy ages ago, never really bothered to look at it. ħuman 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect those to be any different though; no-one would have bothered fiddling files which others had already seen - if someone did alter them, it was before they were released. It could just be an artefact of how they were downloaded, though, but it still bothers me that the pages say the downloader has no right to post when TK is supposedly logged in, and it bothers me that they were downloaded from South Africa when it strikes me as pointless to use a proxy for a service like this. It smells mostly of plausible deniability, though... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It didn't bother me, MaxAlex. The reason being that the South Africa IP was the one used by the defrocked CP Sysop, "Jessica". All of her edits to CP were from that country. It now appears that "she" was plainly Rational Wiki Admin PsyGrimlin, as I suspected all along. Your insights were ignored here, because it doesn't suit their need for deceit. But the time-line stops with the removal of that impostor. Anyone with a brain and some fairness will realize this is just another contrived accusation against me. Sorry Psy, it didn't work and do me any harm whatsoever at CP. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh Terry, are you still stalking that poor girl, not to mention stuck in your "all-Germans-are-Sid" mentality. Still, I'd love to see you prove your theory. Maybe you can get Rob to help connect the dots. He's good at that. Still, interesting defence on your part. After all, I doubt Andy would tolerate you opening the SDG twice. --Psygremlin^Praat! 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So you think being a sysop (not even a crat) on a crummy backwater blog like CP is a pretty cool accomplishment for a 60 year old political operative? Congratulations. ħuman 10:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I could pretty much buy into that - it explains a few things. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it maybe possible that the "Sign in" thing would normally just be hidden via JavaScript? Not everything you see in this version was necessarily visible at the time of saving. --Sid (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. It doesn't seem to do that for me right now, but of course we're talking about a year ago. Just to be clear tho, those things just look funny to me - the comments about being altered were about a couple of things in the source which look find-and-replaced. But again, that can only be a suspicion - there's nothing plainly wrong, that I've seen yet, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if it turned out these had been pulled from Google Cache and then altered. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, somebody left this comment on the blog post all this came from:

Someone on the internet Says: 17/03/2010 at 9:59 pm In the middle of a long telephone conversation with TK, I casually mentioned that my “mental image” of him is based on Chris Cooper in “Breach” the movie about double agent Robert Hanssen. He showed not the slightest sign of feeling insulted. This incident speaks worlds of insight to me, i.e., I regard it as tantamount to (1) an admission that he committed “treason” against Conservapedia and (2) an acknowledgement that he feels no guilt or remorse for what he did. So TK is not the kind of person I want as a trusted admin. By the way, one of the first things I did after he was de-sysopped was to unprotect dozens of articles that he had over-zealously protected. IIRC Andy said that was good. He can be an ordinary user, but absent convincing proof of repentance for sharing secrets with our opponents, I vote against giving him any position of trust again. Ed Poor

Was this in the files? I can't find it. And why does TK always refer to "his friend Ed Poor?" HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in "910/0dd1f995f94460bf.html" at the bottom. --Sid (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They're certainly not fake (I've just been having a laugh at the Dec 2009 debate over who to make sysop, with the old sane people trying to keep parodists (TK included) off the roster). But if they've been modified in some way, how? 22:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone set up a page to collect the good parts yet? The Lara Croft discussion (880/1a8whatever) is another odd one. It's also suggested that all the Harry Potter pages should have a parental caution -- I always figured this suggestion was a surefire way to know a parodist! --MarkGall (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Lara Croft (was the 880 above?), I love karajou asking creepy uncle Ed why he deleted the Tomb raider pic and Ed says, "Voluptuous breasts and bulging vulva isn’t slutty?”. The discussion goes downhill from there - with karajou equating slutty with prostitution. Must be a sailor thing. (No linky, ain't got the sauces on this machine).--Psygremlin^{말하십시오} 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, - 880/1a81245f873aba66.html. Also like the comment from Temlakos "Large breasts aren't necessarily the problem; the way her breasts hang out of her blouse, is" Worm^{(t | c)} 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just love how Ed describes his ideal Tomb Raider article: "Rather than write an article which recommends the game, or explains all the "fun" things about it, we could serve educators and parents by pointing out all the bad elements in the game which Wikipedia overlooks." Typical. Point out all the foibles, and neglect to mention that Lara Croft has rockin' tits. SuperJosh ^{celebrates over 2500 contributions to a liberal vandal site} 18:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, her knockers were too big. Now her bum, on the other hand. I declare jihad (sudden jihad syndrome) in favour of the supporters of the ass you can bounce coins off. --Psygremlin^Praat! 18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Moar fun, this time from TerryH: "...But tight shorts and a tight blouse that allow the breasts to hang out do not strike me as appropriate or even safe attire for an archaeologist." SuperJosh ^{celebrates over 2500 contributions to a liberal vandal site} 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some bluster from Kara: "Since Toulouse is operating RW from the comfort of his university account, I strongly suggest we lean hard against that university and threaten legal action unless Toulouse is suspended and/or expelled from the university." ...and... "I'll be convinced of a victory over RW when I see one of them in a jail cell."--WJThomas (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And this is fun: Ed says something fairly (dare I say) insightful--"It is largely because of [RW] that Conservapedia has remained in the public eye. If not for their backfiring attempts to discredit us, we would have lapsed into oblivion..."--and follows it up immediately with an utter delusion--"Eventually, [CP] will find a way to attract big name authors, and then things will really take off."--WJThomas (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That delusion is actually sort of a running theme from what I saw. Several people (IIRC) occasionally mentioned attracting big-name authors or communities to CP. (A fulltext search for Coulter or Rush might yield results.)

This often came up in connection with things like MYOB, 90/10 or the departure of Philip/Dan/etc. from the group and then from CP: The apparent reasoning of some people was that those big names would shy away from CP if they saw people showing Andy on talk pages just how wrong he really is. Others at least argued that those people wouldn't pay attention to talk page bickering and would rather focus on the extremely bad shape their articles are in (mostly re: Obama article). But it was easier to blame Philip and the various other hammered users for CP's utter failure than to consider that maybe these people were on to something. --Sid (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] TedC

This guy is awesome^img. He's been doing his best to fill out the article matrix - first Evolutionist Censorship^img, then Professor Tools, now Liberal Nitpicking^img. I looked into his articles, and there's no sign of mockery or anything else off-kilter - just Aschlafly-style hackery. Either this guy's a great parodist or an absolute asshat. Regardless, I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is, I can't decide which would be more interesting, him being a parodist or him being a real nutjob. If you're reading, TedC, nice work! Τe†rоиіαn ^{the anti-anti-atheist} 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have 10 internets and a cup of 2-day old soup that says, because we mentioned it... block, delete, oversight. --Psygremlin^{話しなさい} 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems like they haven't done that as much recently (remove something after we mention it, I mean). Probably because TK is the only one doing the oversighting nowadays. (Then again, now that JacobB has the power...) Τe†rоиіαn ^{boorish Jesus} 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I smell a Poo Poe. SuperJosh ^{gets rude and a-reckless} 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So TK just blocked TedC for being a sock. Do you think TK ever lies about his checkuser findings? Only the few checkusers on CP would ever know if he were lying and they would never call him out on it. Keegscee (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But will his articles of sheer hilarity remain, for that is the question. "Professor tools"^img has to be my new personal favorite. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Heeeeee, the ban reason is nice:

17:00, 18 March 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked TedC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Same as TrondE, MichaelMc, DanGleeballs and TedC, abusing multiple accounts, Same IP: 77.241.101.2, Norway)

I know what he means, but a small part of me wants to believe that on CP, you can be banned for being yourself. --Sid (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Sid, that is certainly true in your case. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, that's my latest sock finished. It was fun while it lasted though! PS. "TedC" was a tribute to the late great Father Ted DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, there used to be an advisory about not exposing deliberate parody. Whatever happened to that? Let's all congratulate Colonel of Squirrels and most of the others in this thread for pointing out the bleedin' obvious without being particularly funny in doing so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was tempted to delete CoS's orignal post when I first saw it, but I wasn't sure if that was the done thing. But in future, let's not highlight things like that from a new CP user until said user is established enough not to be suspected of parody (ie JacobB). I'll never get that article matrix filled now... DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, SR. My point was that this wasn't obvious parody. I suppose I'll just take my socks and bugger off. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not funny?! I think my "poo" comment was pretty well side-splitting. Sorry Delta. And I love Father Ted... SuperJosh ^{talks with no substantial contributions} 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Me musing...

...about the user Newton. He signed up about a week ago and I stumbled across the article he wrote about Nick Clegg. Assuming he's a uni student (TK on talkpage: "your uni's lovely.") he's got shit grammar skills, though it's a possible parodist methinks. SuperJosh ^{may be an idiot, but if there's one thing he's not, it's an idiot} 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of us managed to squeak through college with out fixing our horrible grammar. --Opcn (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Who needs grammer when they'rs internets. --Radioactive PIzza (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, especially some of us got crazily good GPA with atrocious grammar, like myself and Andy (and it's like law school for Andy too, the one place you need to write properly). K61824^{ZOYG I edit like Kenservative!} 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that why God gave us computers? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Computers can check the spelling of individual words, but can't check your grammar beyond the most rudimentary level. - User = 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well he needs something better than rudimentary, because the quality of writing in that article equates to that of a five year-old. TK, please fix it or unblock me on CP so I can. SuperJosh ^{likes food} 22:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of Proxima. Stupid evil Phantom! 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sweet Proxima. Haven't seen her around in ages. SuperJosh ^{kills the poor} 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Leader of Liberal Democrats "describes himself as liberal". You learn something new every day (if you open your mind). Cantabrigian (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Dear JimPT, I understand your frustration at failing to see my point."

I think that this is what Andy would sound like^img with less power. On a related note how is RobertE not banned after that discussion with TK? --Opcn (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that make much more sense than Andy. This is more like halfway between Andy and PJR. K61824^"6+18=24" 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It was much more polite than Andy. It was hardly condescending at all. But I have to confess I got lost halfway through. Something about Moses being Wolverine, right? --98.204.160.254 (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to watch that movie! --Ireon (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Give Japan a few more years. They certainly seem to be moving in that direction... --Sid (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Happy St. Patrick's Day

Hi everyone!

I'm wishing you all a happy St. Patrick's day, where we cal all celebrate the colour green (or something), but remember that preaching green means you're more likely to steal^img. --75.119.247.145 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Τe†rоиіαn ^{boorish Jesus} 14:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] TK needs a civic lesson

ṬK 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. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 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. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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. - User = 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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. - User = 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. ħuman 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. ħuman 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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. ħuman 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)

[edit] 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. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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? SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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. SirChuckB^{Penguin 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 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. --^{Ask me about our telephone} 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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? 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I think asking here, instead of by email, pretty much has precluded that from ever happening. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW 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)

[edit] 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. ħuman 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wow. Andy wants a Civil War 2.0

Andy tries to draw a link between the health care legislation and a piece of legislation that expanded slavery and helped bring about the Civil War. How long before he starts calling for secession? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The National Republic of Anthem/Blue Shield today declared its independence from the United States. Leaving the Union are large sections of the South and Midwest, as well as Alaska, Utah and a small home in New Jersey. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 06:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the part in New Jersey already is independent from united states. K61824^"6+18=24" 08:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy just bypasses the 'featured article' committee (which these days consists of TK and Pratt) to post his own little scree. Not to mention his ability to link anything to Obama. --Psygremlin^{말하십시오} 13:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. This is just so old. CS Miller (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Alaska is Alaska, if the union breaks up Alaska is not going to join Jesusland, Alaska is one of the least religious states in the union (#5) and our state house is a rather blue shade of purple. While Alaska is the highest recipient of Federal funds per capita it also pays more in taxes than it gets out in pork (i.e. Alaska would be fine with out any other states). Alaska leans libertarian, not Republican. --Opcn (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Where are all the homeschoolers?

Reading through the ZB, I saw a couple of mentions of the student board (of CP) and this got me thinking; where are all the homeschoolers? Addison and Duncan have dropped off the map, as have the ones from the World History Homework; the writing course isn't happening, and I don't think I've ever seen CPanel make an edit. Andy makes a big fuss about how CP was started because of homeschoolers, but as far as I can tell HSers have absolutely no presence on there at all now. What gives? EddyP (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they only want to work on CP if Andy obliges them to; and because Andy doesn't teach "independent study" or "general research", They don't show up very often when Andy is not teaching. And then there is the problem that some of them are socks of ours that some of us are trying to avoid attention. K61824^{Ed Poor types in Chinese?} 17:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking RW socks, I'm talking real homeschoolers in his classroom. EddyP (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of those are our socks too. 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a transition that has been in progress for some time and which has now completed, it seems. CP may have been created as an educational resource at first but it's now nothing more than an anti-Liberal, anti-homosexual, anti-intellectual etc etc blog for Andy and his dedicated team of morons and parodists. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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)

[edit] Is that a nipple on the main page?

Yes it is^img, sure it's a painting^img 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. ħuman 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. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 08:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Τe†rоиіαn ^{boorish Jesus} 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. Τe†rоиіαn ^{unintelligently designed} 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. 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^{Practicing involuntary celibacy} 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." ħuman 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." ħuman 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. SuperJosh ^{Winner of RationalWiki's Biggest N00b Award for 2009} 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 returned^img. Though I'm range-blocked at the moment... ) larron^{sicut 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_/MyTalk^{RW 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... larron^{sicut 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. 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)

[edit] 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> ħuman 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. 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). Τe†rоиіαn ^{moar more lame humor} 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it has legs, but right now it's just a shitty, poorly written wigo. ħuman 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)

[edit] 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 existence^img. 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" --^{Ask me about our telephone} 16:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was some top class parodying from JacobB there. (capturebotted for brevity)^{Does 'capturebotted' sound rude?} DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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? ħuman 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_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, TK is useless, unlike Mei. ħuman 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. 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just post it on up, that seems to be the done thing around here now. DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 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? 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} DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 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. ħuman 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Another great one hit wonder

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™. Τe†rоиіαn ^{boorish Jesus} 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? DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an age-old question. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks 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)

[edit] 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 Ken^img 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. Τe†rоиіαn ^{what's a tetronian?} 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. DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 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. ħuman 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Celente... such bullshit.--^Salut! 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Joint articles at aSK, CP, CZ, and RW

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...

larron^{sicut 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? DeltaStar^{Speciationspeed!} 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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."--^やあ! 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Foundation of Christianity already exist back then. What do you think the Old testament is? K61824^"6+18=24" 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)

[edit] 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. ħuman 03:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 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. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 03:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)