Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive109

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Andy grades the exam

So according to Andy, Dinsdale got 14 wrong on the test, proving that people are liberal because they think a certain 19th century sermon was given by George Whitefield instead of Jonathan Edwards (which also proves they are ignorant of economics and science). I counted only 13 wrong (assuming all the ones I wasn't sure the answer to were incorrect, including his retarded idea of what cool kids did in the 50s). What a smug little shit. And Dinesdale still did better than a large majority of his brilliant little urchins who actually took the goddamn class. Andy, you are utterly ignorant of history, economics, science, math, literature, and, I bet, even law and engineering. Though honestly, Dinsey, tell me #56 was a typo. You don't really think Eugene Debs had anything to do with Bill Ayers, do you? DickTurpis 18:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Link. What an ass. Shouldn't Andy be more concerned that ONLY sixteen students (since his class is so huge, that's not so great), after taking the course and supposedly studying, did better than Dinsdale, who took the test off the cuff? And by the way, 48/61 = 78.7%, which is generally considered a passing grade. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 18:52, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I have to honestly say that I really took my best shot at the test, without cheating, so yeah, I blew the Debs question fair & square. I didn't recognize the name, but it wouldn't have been surprised if Andy tried to pull an anti-Ayers line into the test somehow, which is why I chose that answer. I've responded to Andy regarding his "If you knew more of this stuff you wouldn't be so liberal" comment, but I doubt he'd take me up on the idea of having other conservative homeschoolers taking his test to see how someone not reading his conserva-trivia lectures in advance would do.

So where is the link to the scores the students have been getting? I was trying to see where the reference to sixteen students above came from. --SpinyNorman 19:23, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Fair enough, though I'm surprised you don't know Eugene Debs; he's one guy us lefties really are supposed to know. Now, I didn't know why he was arrested, but it was one of those things where if you know anything about him you can figure out which is the right answer. I'm still trying to figure out my score. I know I missed at least 3 of the main 51, and at least 2 or 3 of the honors questions too. But until I know the "real" answers to a few (including the one about whats cool in the 50s; fucking hell that's retarded, or "idiotic") I won't know my score, but it seems I beat most of his students, even though I never read any of his lectures or took his course, haven't taken an American history class in 15 years, and haven't taken a class in pre-Reconstruction history in 20. The ones I'm not sure of are whether stalwarts included some northern democrats or radical republicans, whether Cleveland tried to curb spending, exactly which parties favored tariffs, and which decade in the first half of the 19th century saw utopian soceities. Clearly, if I don't know these completely, it shows I cannot grasp the fundamentals of history, economics, and science, and it is my utter ignorance that prevents me from being a die hard conservative. Once I find these answers, my worldview will do a 180 and I will be a Schlafly accolade. What complete dickhead. DickTurpis 00:54, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I'm 95% certain that those are non-public scores from his real-life class, so you will never see those scores/answers or know who did better (assuming that Andy didn't just make up the number).

Keep in mind that Andy doesn't give a shit about the people on his site. If you don't know what I mean, just look at those "Conservapedia will be at the [blah] event!" and "Conservapedia chartered a bus! Few seats remain!" mainpage posts that don't give ANY info on how Conservapedians could actually sign up. (Or those "I will be at that University for an open debate! But I won't give you any details so that nobody from here can actually get there to challenge me!" posts from way back.) It's all about his real-life classes. The site is merely his venting platform for idiocy like the Lenski Affair and the Obama Hate. Oh, and it also does wonders to boost his class size so he can brag about having the Biggest AP Preparation American History Class On Planet Earth ("Nobody showed me a bigger class, so my claim must be true!"). --Sid 20:19, 20 January 2009 (EST)

The answer to AddisonDM's question beneath that seems even weirder..

AddisonDM: It seems that there were some errors in the test, cause the test said "retard" where the lectures said "idiot", "modern research lab" where the lectures said "industrial research lab" and the lectures mentioned nowhere that he failed multiple times in creating the lightbulb. link

Andy: O RLY?! Well I checked the lectures and these obviously stated that the teacher told young Edison's mother that her son was an idiot, Edison invented the industrial research lab and Edison once said "Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time" link

...and Andy seems to imply with this that AddisonDM is wrong, even though he is proving the exact opposite?? --GTac 20:40, 20 January 2009 (EST)

LOL. This is so funny it bears repeating. Andy sez "It is worth pointing out that once a student knew that answer choice (A) is true, as is the premise in this challenge, it required recognition of the truth of only one of (B), (C) or (D) to direct the student towards (E) as the correct answer." Really Andy? If I know that A and C are true but B and D don't look right I should choose E anyway? I should recognize that each statement re-iterates your "perseverance is all" meme and select E? At least Andy has proven that something stuck with him from his undergrad days... Engineering Induction! -- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:49, 20 January 2009 (EST)

It appears that my lecture properly used the term "idiot" to describe the view of Edison by his teacher in the 19th century, and my exam properly used the term "mentally retarded" to address the same issue today. Perhaps it would have been called incorrect to use precisely the same term on the exam as in the lecture, given the different usage across the time periods!--Andy Schlafly 21:44, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Wait what? The proper way is to use the term from the 19th century perspective in the lecture and use the translation of the 20th century in the question, without any explanation or warning whatsoever? Oh god there's gonna be another fountain of shit here, I just know it. --GTac 22:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)

This is some triflin shit right here. The Edison question was fine, the multiple choice induction argument is fine, and the reader who thinks "industrial" v. "modern" is the key to the question is just trying to find reasons to pick at Andy.

He is dbag, but come on. Coarb 22:34, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I agree. The question itself may be been mildly retarded, and perhaps Andy should have taught his students the transition from "idiot" to "severely retarded", but to pick on it, out of all the possibilities, was just silly. ħuman 23:07, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I love how any change of language is "political correctness." In this situation it was people who work with the mentally retarded trying to use a less-stigmatized term. Idiot, moron, and imbecile were words used to describe retarded people. Naturally, calling somebody and idiot, etc., entered common usage, and mentally retarded was born in an attempt at de-stigmatization. And so on. I think Andy's argument is thrown together in order to avoid the conclusion that he did screw up on this- you can't expect a bunch of high-schoolers to know the background of every word. If this was a point Andy intended to make, he would have made it clearly in class. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 09:43, 21 January 2009 (EST)

What the hell is this, Now?

WalterE gets banned before even making a single edit by Andrew Layton Schlafly because he did not provide his full real name. Is this the end of "first name, last initial," or am I missing something? TheoryOfPractice 18:45, 20 January 2009 (EST)

You missed a really good movie, actually ;-) --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:50, 20 January 2009 (EST)

huh? Do not follow. TheoryOfPractice 18:53, 20 January 2009 (EST)

WalterE = Wall-E, I assume. Whether or not this was the intent, I'm guessing this is what Andy's read of it was. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:56, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Jesus, that's the height of paranoia. And an insult to guys names Walter Edwards everywhere...TheoryOfPractice 18:58, 20 January 2009 (EST)

The only thing that rings a bell is the box on the Create Account page that asks for your full real name - but it is also shown as 'optional' so doesn't really make sense either.--Worm ^{(t | c)} 19:01, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Once again, I have to wonder why they allow new users at all. Every new user just means another contributions page to check for acrostics, a name to run through BabelFish, posts to vet for Conservative Correctness, etc. Surely just sealing the place up completely would be SO much easier.... --Gulik 19:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's just a bad day for Andy & he just took it out on somebody randomly. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:06, 20 January 2009 (EST)

To be perfectly honest, personally I suspect that every new user who follows the strict naming policy is a parodist, since they would be about the only people who know about the strictness of the naming policy. The normal people that sign up won't return after getting banned for having a ridiculous name. I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't it be delicious irony? --GTac 20:33, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I'd say you are probably correct. ħuman 21:22, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well if that's the new rule, I'm fucked then. There's no way that I'm giving my real name to Andy, even if held at knifepoint. ENorman 22:42, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Is "JohnQP" taken yet? JaneDoe (that would be sweet)? ħuman 22:50, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Obviously, you just use a random first name and last letter. That's what I'm doing. Er, would do. If I was wandalizing, which I'm not. Because that would be wrong. And bad. Right. --Gulik 00:52, 21 January 2009 (EST)

You can't really make any assumptions based on user names, because genuine newbies could figure it out by looking at what's going on. Back when I was a kid, the Usenetters had this curious habit of "lurking" and "learning a bit about the conventions of the group before joining them". (Courtesy is dead, long live Chivalry!) A clever newbie might connect the dots and think "Oh, there's a lot of people here who have names in format FirstnameL, maybe that's what the registration page is rambling about and maybe I should do likewise". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (EST)

'Real name' is selectively enforced, and when you sign up, there's no real name requirement mentioned. The rules are whatever Andy says the rules are, which vary on a whim. If he likes your ID, you're golden. If not, you're crap. This may be difficult to explain to the uninitiated, but for a free-thinking person, CP leaves an unclean feeling.

--UnicornTapestry 00:43, 25 January 2009 (EST)

The new "Obama is a Muslim..." is no longer "Obama is not a citizen...."

....it's now the oath thing. BHarlan is havin' hisself a field day with it.TheoryOfPractice 21:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

There was a flurry of stupidity at WP on the topic today, too. As mentioned elsewhere, odds are that B. Hussein O. signed the damn thing around 9-10 AM EST with witnesses. For clarity's and history's sake, and all. ħuman 22:52, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, but how do we know he didn't have his fingers crossed? Eh? EH?!? --Gulik 00:53, 21 January 2009 (EST)

BHarlan has been discussed elsewhere. I think he would be a sysop now if it weren't for the fact that he called the son of St. Ronald gay, which pissed Andy off. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 09:50, 21 January 2009 (EST)

'Tis "liberal deciet" http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html !!! ArmondikoV^pathetic 10:57, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Every now and then...

... you find something on CP you agree with, this guy does have a good point. - User $\pi$ 22:56, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I tend to find that CP is right almost exactly twice a day... ħuman 23:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Whether they use it or not, we should work up some snark based on that for our People Eating Tasty Animals article. ħuman 23:05, 20 January 2009 (EST)

"Sea kittens?" Heck, I already eat ordinary kittens, so... what? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 23:06, 20 January 2009 (EST)

As my friend said today, if they succeed in renaming them "sea kittens", then 4chan will totally shut down, because everyone will go offline to eat kittens. --Kels 23:33, 20 January 2009 (EST)

At least RW and CP can find a group that we mutually hate. Also, kittens taste great. Not quite like chicken though. ENorman 23:54, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well not "hate" - but as extremists, they are vulnerable to intelligent critique. Or right wing slander. Mmmmm, tastes like chicken.... ħuman 23:57, 20 January 2009 (EST)

In the words of Ivan Stang, the problem with PETA is that "they have a bad tendency to sound like utter kooks when the HORRIBLE TRUTH should be enough". (Mmmm... kittens....the OTHER other white meat!) --Gulik 00:56, 21 January 2009 (EST)

According to oceanographic surveys I found in the library, McDonald's fillet o' fish already is made of kittens. --JeevesMkII 01:08, 21 January 2009 (EST)

--Gulik 01:32, 21 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Probably got it from the Colbert Report. "Thanks to PETA, I finally see fish for what they are: adorable! But more importantly, if I stop eating sea kittens, I believe I get to start eating what I like to call 'land fish.' Delicious, deep-fried land fish. So thank you, PETA. You can be sure I will make land fish a regular part of my diet, alongside field potatoes and sky nachos." --Marty 01:40, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, good ol' Colbert. Best right-wing show on TV! (Yes, I know he's a joke. That's what makes him good.) On a slightly more serious note, I recently finished reading an interesting book called The Omnivore's Dilemma. It's about food, culture, and industry, among other things, and there's an interesting mention of the logical problems PETA has with the simple fact that even if humans don't eat animals, animals will keep eating animals. The writer was sympathetic but unsparing of them. --Gulik 01:48, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Book iz well recommended, although I haz not read yet :( ħuman 02:00, 21 January 2009 (EST)

The first part, about McMeals, bulk food, and industrial farming, is pretty depressing reading, but the rest is significantly more hopeful. And it's all interesting. --Gulik 04:48, 21 January 2009 (EST)

The book "Fast Food Nation" is in that vein and also very good. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 09:53, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I'm a big fan of animal rights - cagefree, organic, all that - and my fiancee is a vegetarian, on the force of moral convictions alone. Despite all that, we both hate PETA, and deranged little this "sea kitten campaign" is precisely why. They make animal rights look ridiculous. It's like having Mr. Slave from South Park advocate for gay rights: it does no-one any good. So yes I agree with them too-Diadochus 19:44, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Look up about 4 or 5 sections. Sorry. - User $\pi$ 19:46, 21 January 2009 (EST)

(EC)Scroll up til you see the Lolfish (although this one is funnier). Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:48, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry for reposting in a new section... please forgive the new? Can I still coast on that even though someone foolishly sysoped me?-Diadochus 20:03, 21 January 2009 (EST)

That must be how sane conservatives feel about Conservapedia. NightFlare 01:26, 22 January 2009 (EST)

This reminds me that the RW article on PETA could do with a serious makeover. ArmondikoV^pathetic 11:03, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Messiah complex

This conversation about CP opening up its editing to make the place more welcoming to n00bs took an scary twist into Andy's inner psyche. - User $\pi$ 00:06, 21 January 2009 (EST)

<afterthought>Does that make Bugler Judas?</afterthought> - User $\pi$ 00:10, 21 January 2009 (EST)

When I read that I kept thinking it was another plug for teen accomplishment crap. Looking at it as a comparison though, It really does seem like Andy is comparing himself and the Sysops to Jesus and his 12. Bugler of course playing the role of Judas. Anyone care to assign roles to the other sysops? ^{— Unsigned, by: ScottA / talk / contribs}

The idea of Jesus' disciples as parodists, liberals and homskollars makes for a pretty interesting delusion. Perhaps the Bible rewriting project should replace every instance of "lord" with "aschlafly" --JeevesMkII 00:18, 21 January 2009 (EST)

We can now officially pronounce Andrew Schlafly "insane"? Seriously. He equates CP with his Messiah's mission? (PS, he only denigrates 25% of the disciples that "Jesus spent his whole life looking" for as trolls, parodists, and Icewedge gangs. So how come CP has trouble getting 0.01% of their new users confirmed as actual idiots who are cool with the program?) ħuman 00:34, 21 January 2009 (EST)

PS, "Good, smart, open-minded people are hard to find" you blocked me, you idiot. ħuman 00:35, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Foolish human, you forget that in Schlafly-tongue "open-minded" means "agrees with me all the time." --JeevesMkII 00:49, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Oh SHIT, silly human, no bagel. Or radioactive cracker. ħuman 02:02, 21 January 2009 (EST)

<unind>Tony Sidaways raised a few good points.

The cost of closed editing seems to be quite high. To try to get some data I've just checked all users created on January 4, The vast majority of those accounts seem to have been blocked because of their choice of username, and didn't come back. Just one of those even got to make a single edit. A number of others were blocked as socks of a troll or vandal. Of those who did make it through to editing, most were vandals. Of the tiny few remaining, whom out of about 30 new accounts I could count on the fingers of one hand, not one of them made edits after January 6. It seems that the main problem here may be the practice of blocking new user accounts with the message "Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial." Hardly anybody bothers.

If he reads RW - as he should :-) - here are some more details: The new accounts created between Jan 1st, 2009 and Jan 14th, 2009. In brackets, you'll find the number of edits made until Jan 17th, 2009...

Accounts created at CP

Would Andy allow Peter the Apostle to sign in? Or would he get blocked for not using his real name, Simon? LArron 02:41, 21 January 2009 (EST)

LArron, your ability to provide us with so much good quality graphs never ceases to amaze me. If you stop by the saloon I'll buy you an internet beer. - User $\pi$ 02:49, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks, it's nice to get some appreciation for the pics! LArron 03:07, 21 January 2009 (EST)

As for Andy and his Apostles, if I am Judas, then PJR - hmmmmmm - does he doubt the Word of Andy, or does he deny it? A bit of both, really. On balance I'd say he is Thomas, because Peter denied having anything to do with Jesus. Fretfulporpentine 05:40, 21 January 2009 (EST)

And as I was writing the above, on came Thomas, doubting away like billy-o: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate%3ACan_conservapedia_become_the_next_Wikipedia%2C_is_this_good_or_bad&diff=615907&oldid=615825 Fretfulporpentine 05:42, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Apart from the "he only intended to have 12", which I don't know anything about and can't comment, I can't agree more with that edit. Which translates into Andy hating it and probably reverting and blocking any second now. ArmondikoV^pathetic 09:53, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't remember any of this bullshit Andy is preaching anywhere in the gospel. He did go ahead an insert some Asclafly Brand^TM made up statistics into the argument. Maybe we'll see that again later. As for one being a doubter, a denier, and a traitor, can this be seen as a slight against the Catholic church, who view themselves as being founded by Peter, "the denier?" Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 10:05, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Andy is still really big on his "the disciples were children" kick, does he not see how creepy that is? I mean, a grown man traveling with a bunch of "open minded" children... Really Andy? Besides, at that point in history, Children were rarely given any consideration. After the death of Jesus, his followers organized the early Christian Church. Do you really think anyone would follow a 15 year old? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 11:25, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Tony Sidaways comments are thoughtful. He seems to want to help... No wonder, that he is scolded by Aschlafly:

Tony, we're the most open and open-minded Wiki on the internet. We have never, ever rejected anything because it is "not invented here" and your comments are baseless. We have many users who do not use their real full names and our blocks are limited to likely vandals. We do differ from Wikipedia in this respect: we stress learning here. Please contribute some insights or knowledge of a substantive nature.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 21 January 2009 (EST)

How many lies are there in a few, short sentences? Does Andy believe what he writes? LArron 11:51, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Andy is either Gene Ray levels of delusional, or the god of Deep-cover liberals and a troll with power to match Maddox himself. ENorman 13:11, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Every single word in that except Andy's name is a lie, including 'a' and 'the'. --Gulik 13:11, 22 January 2009 (EST)

So...

Obama was sworn in on Lincoln's Bible (an artifact that certainly couldn't be a Koran in disguise) and he's been dancing the night away. Seems Andy has been proved wrong on two of his "Obama iz teh Mohammedan" hypotheses. I'm sure we'll see a correction soon, no? DickTurpis 01:09, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, but we already know that those deceitful musselmen are authorised to lie in the service of their satan-inspired faith. --JeevesMkII 01:13, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Touche! DickTurpis 01:26, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Me wantz to watch the dancing. Which capitalist pig tv stations broadcast for socialist commentary tonight? Me think that "Michelle" iz teh hot, for the record. ħuman 02:04, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Except for that dress made of tissue paper. What was she thinking?Z3ro 09:44, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Who says Lincoln's Bible isn't a Koran in disguise? Find me one reputable news source that claims Lincoln's Bible isn't a Koran, and maybe you'll have something. Also, "Abraham" could just as easily be a Muslim name as a Christian one. --Marty 03:06, 21 January 2009 (EST) right?

Yes, all hail Ibrahim al-Lincoln!--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 06:13, 21 January 2009 (EST)

al-Lincoln, I didn't know he was from Nebraska. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 11:31, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I thought "Lincoln" was an anglicization of "al Inkhan"? ħuman 15:59, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Inshallah, all Muslims hope to follow in the footsteps of the first Muslim President Ibrahim al'Inkhan. Stile4aly 17:16, 21 January 2009 (EST)

RickD

Besides being another CP bully, I'm not sure just what is his beef with cp:Work ethic also [1]? He's another CPian whose so-called Xian attitude sucks. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:01, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I think he also has a problem with teh Jews, if my memory serves. Pretty sure he is a parodist, from his user page. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 09:42, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Oh yes.Waxing lyrical about Professor values et al. He's added to my new parodist basket, along with BHarlan. Go guys - Bugler did it, you can too! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:48, 21 January 2009 (EST)

New Liberal Terms

"Dark Ages" disparages Christianity not because the time had a lack of scientific or cultural achievements, but because the Enlightenment (which is disparaged in the context) didn't like Christianity's spread? "Homophobia" is a failure for liberals to get everyone to subscribe to the homosexual agenda? "Pro-choice" is the want for taxpayer-funded abortions? "Quote mining" has no logical definition? "Swift-boating" is complaining about exposing "the truth" about liberals? The page is more of what the idiots at CP *believe* these to mean, rather than their actual meaning. But it's a great resource for that bus-load of kids heading to DC. --Irrational Atheist 16:58, 21 January 2009 (EST)

To be fair, many are parody entries. All too few, sadly. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Unless DeanS is a parodist... RichardMuir, still waiting, but possible. --Irrational Atheist 17:02, 21 January 2009 (EST)

One of those is a parody. Not tipping my hand as to which is my sock, as that's not the one I've been looking to burn, but not all those edits were in complete seriousness. Hactar 17:26, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Many of them them were added by the now-blocked MikeSalter, too. It's pretty obvious which ones those are, except they probably won't be removed. That said, the quote mining one, if I remember correctly, was added by none other than the Assfly himself. I think RaymondS summed up the "quote mining" situation perfectly here. Dreaded Walrus 17:40, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Racism is now a liberal term? Environmentalism is a form of neo-paganism? I laughed. Hard ENorman 18:43, 21 January 2009 (EST)

RichardMuir has since been blocked as a parodist. I figured he was, but since hindsight is 20/20 I'll refrain from saying that he was much too obviously a Bugler wannabe. --Marty 00:56, 22 January 2009 (EST) oops

You guys need to open your mind more..

Didn't know they didn't have this page before. I'm betting on that it's parody though, though still it will great points with teh Assfly for saying that "Open-mindedness is a decisively conservative trait". --GTac 18:34, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I doubt it will win enough points to give Rod his powers back. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:39, 21 January 2009 (EST)

(ec) © Rodweathers. Say no more!  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 18:40, 21 January 2009 (EST)

He lost his powers? Seems like I missed some stuff --GTac 18:47, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Several weeks ago. But for some godforsaken reason he's not banned, so the parody continues. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 18:51, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Pre New year, same time as Buggler. Presumably also a candidate for sysoppery but thought better of when Buggy turned out to be naughty.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 18:55, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Therians

Oddly enough, they blocked me. Again. What for? Bringing up theriantrophy on the main talk page. I suggest something make an account and ask teh fly about his position on therians. Be sure to include a link. I'd do this, but they've managed to keep me from using proxies. Please help. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 18:56, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I think they actually blocked you for edit warring. (Whodathoughtit!) + I think their main page talk is for discussing things on the main page (i.e. news), not off-the-wall "what's your policy" questions. Also, please include a link when referencing stuff at CP, rather than making other editors look it up for themselves. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:03, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Also, didn't you link to a furry wiki? I mean c'mon, I'm pretty much agreeing with them on that --GTac 19:04, 21 January 2009 (EST)

It was more accurate than Wikipedia's article, which was about prehistoric therians. And sorry about not linking, Weasel. Still, I'd appreciate this if someone sorted this out. Oh, and it wasn't edit-warring. It was 'vandalism.' At least they didn't stick a liberal in front of it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 19:08, 21 January 2009 (EST)

What's the point, especially since you've revealed yourself here? They'll just keep reverting and blocking -- Nx ^talk 19:12, 21 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) They just use a drop down menu, same way as us, & I don't think they have "edit war" on there. If a sysop reverts your comment, I think you can assume they don't want it put back in & will block you for doing so. Sorry you've had another setback in your grand plan to take over Conservapedia, but I doubt that anybody will "sort this out" for you, whatever that means. Why do you care so much what Andy's policy is on something he's probably never heard of before? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:13, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I know. Which is why I'm asking someone else, with an unblocked IP address to do it. And I brought it up on the werelist. And several wondered. So it is pretty important that I know this. By the way, that wasn't part of my grand plan. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 19:15, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Their policy is: therians are sick people, and CP will pretend they don't exist -- Nx ^talk 19:19, 21 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, if you're going to reference some obscure subculture thing (werelist), please either link or explain rather than making other editors look it up for themselves. & Since they're interested in this issue, why are you asking us instead of them to help you out on this? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Teh werelist. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 20:22, 21 January 2009 (EST)

CP doesn't like people who deviate in their lifestyle choices from the mainstream in anyway - especially where it potentially involves a sexual component. Asking them their position on therians is rather like asking them their position on Wiccans.-Diadochus 19:30, 21 January 2009 (EST)

CUR earlier today when you said "I'm excellent at subversion" and nobody believed you, this is why. - User $\pi$ 19:40, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I'd find it somewhat strange if someone created a new a/c and then immediately asked what our position is anyhoo. You can't be one of us until you've made at least one or two edits.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 19:44, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I remember someone saying our once and Andy berating him form having joined less than a week ago and claiming partial ownership of the site (fortunately my account that was involved in the discussion had been there for a couple of months so Andy got to berate me fo being liberal instead). - User $\pi$ 19:55, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Cur, you've picked an odd trajectory for getting into Andy's inner circle. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 21:21, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I wish I understood what was going on...really, I do. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 21:45, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Check the saloon bar. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 21:46, 21 January 2009 (EST)

<reads> Uh...huh. And you thought Andy would give a shit why? --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 22:06, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Riding the Andy Bus

So I wonder how long it'll be before we're informed that the "Conservapedia Bus to D.C." is "the largest bus junket in the world!"? --Phentari 21:04, 21 January 2009 (EST)

He'll probably announce that it runs on pure crude oil and has no emission control systems.... and He's personally driving it because he knows more about Commercial Driving then the union plagued bus companies. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 21:33, 21 January 2009 (EST) PS, "Riding the Andy Bus" sounds like the worst house dance mix EVER!!!!!

Maybe the buses will be run on steam produced by burning atheists at the stake. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 22:04, 21 January 2009 (EST)

How many are sincere and how many are just us taking the piss? - User $\pi$ 23:10, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I was just wondering that. How many are parodists just wasting Andy's time/money? Or how many do you think are going just to give Andy a bad name at the rally by acting out?--ScottA 23:13, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Honestly, if I lived in New Jersey I would go along with Andy and pull a pro-choice poster out when I got there. - User $\pi$ 23:16, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I'd pull a poster with a message along the lines of "Abortions cause homosexuality". NightFlare 10:23, 22 January 2009 (EST)

So now "Conservapedia brought a full bus with every seat was taken, and others could not fit on. A large contingent from Philadelphia was spotted just arriving at Union Station", and "Conservapedians were met who had taken buses different from the main bus to participate." Aside from the first sentence being one of the worst I've ever read (and from the Great Teacher himself!), considering that there is no other reference on Conservapdia about the Conservapedia bus, how amazing it is that so many people wanted to go, how they spotted a contingent arriving (waving a CP banner, one must presume?), and how they happened to randomly encounter other "Conservapedians" in a crowd of 100,000 and identify them as such, am I the only one suspecting that he's just making it up? Not his actual going to the event or taking some students, but the image of his legions uniting for a Glorious cause, for which only The Chosen could journey with the Esteemed Leader. It would appear that in order for that to happen, practically every CP user who isn't a parodist must have been there in person. Perhaps I'll employ my schlafly Statistics bookText to quantify the chances. Thoughts? Kallium^talk 22:47, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Isn't a bus of that size called a "sports car"?  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 23:19, 22 January 2009 (EST)

They haz flag they waiv to each othr. Of course, we know the bus wasn't full of "conservapedians" (there aren't that many), it was Andy's mystery homskollars and some crewe. Note only 1/3 of the homskollars seem to bother using the wikiblog for classwork. ħuman 00:45, 23 January 2009 (EST)

"Riding the Andy bus" sounds dirrrrty! --Kels 23:29, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I think I read 4 out of the last 7 news items to all be about this same thing? Why doesn't he write a damn article about it, kan we haz pikchers of Ed Poor grinning in front of the bus? Personally, I think Ken Kesey's bus was probably a lot more fun. ħuman 00:47, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I thought 'riding the Andy bus' was going to turn out to be a synonym for colloquial perjorative (probable misspelling FTW) 'riding the short bus'. You disappoint me again. --Snotbowst 15:47, 23 January 2009 (EST)

TK laying it on too thick?

Most will recall - even lurkers, like me - that TK is no real conservative. But do you think he's trying to hide it too visibly? His latest mainpage edit is just a little too overcompensaty.-Diadochus 22:13, 21 January 2009 (EST)

I think he may be a parodist. This is too good to be true! --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 22:20, 21 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, read up on TK. Though I'd hardly call it "good", you are correct in believing it to not be true. TK doesn't seem to do "subtle" well by most people's standards, but most CPers are so remarkably oblivious that subtlety might not get him what he wants. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:29, 21 January 2009 (EST)

He's not exactly a parodist. He IS a parodist, at least in the sense that he's a subversive element... but he's best described as a community destroyer.-Diadochus 22:47, 21 January 2009 (EST)

He is an ass kisser. Andy has the keys so he is the only source of any power TK can get. TK is sucking up to him because he is away on this march thing and TK knowing that it is important to him decides to make a big deal. Andy will see this and go "TK is a great asset to this site" and ignore all the power tripping he does. - User $\pi$ 22:54, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Obama re-oaths

How long before CP's new conspiracy theory hits the Obama article or main page: So Obama took the oath a second time as a precaution after the fuck-up the first time around. Only according to the news, he didn't use teh Bible this time!!1111!!!!!oneone!!11 How much do you want to bet it was a setup all along, so he could take the fake oath with the Bible, and then take the real oath the next day with his other hand on a mini-Koran in his pocket!!!!!! Prove it wasn't there, folks. Prove it wasn't there. DickTurpis 22:49, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Links to this news story? - User $\pi$ 22:55, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Ask and ye shall receive. I figure it's more likely that they'll claim that since there were no media in the room, we have no proof that he actually did it. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 22:59, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Huh. So it was basically the Chief Justice's fault the first time? Wonder if he did it on purpose. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 23:09, 21 January 2009 (EST)

It is largely unimportant he had been President since midday. The only reason they did it again is because politics has becomes so divisive that they don't want people claiming he is not really President based on a stuff up with the line at his inauguration. He become President through the Electoral College vote, not some swearing in ceremony. - User $\pi$ 23:20, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Not to long I guess.^{— Unsigned, by: ScottA / talk / contribs}

Technically true, Pi, but American government, like all government, turns to a great deal upon ceremony. While Obama's CiC status was inevitable after the EC vote, no "transfer of power" formally occurs until he takes the oath, as administered by the Chief Justice (and no, it doesn't/shouldn't matter whether Roberts fraks it up). So doing it was important. On that point, because Joe Biden was the only "sworn in" executive official @ 12, when Bush's presidency formally ended, there's a case to be made that Biden was president for all of five minutes. Not that it matters, he did nothing more than sit on stage & look cute, but a fun puzzle.-Diadochus 23:24, 21 January 2009 (EST)

At the moment I am more annoyed at the idiots carrying on at this video (I Googled the video to see what happened). Someone said that Obama managed to stuff up history by getting his line wrong. Considering how much money was spent getting Neil Armstrong to the moon only for him to stuff up his line when he got there was far more embarrassing. - User $\pi$

23:29, 21 January 2009 (EST)

In fairness, I thought that it had been demonstrated that Armstrong had said his line correctly, but that a communications blip eradicated the 'a' between 'for' and 'man'. Fretfulporpentine 14:12, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Basically, if there is a "scandal", it's that Roberts was a total fuck-up. Barack expected to be repeating the oath of office as he surely had memorized it, and Roberts bungled it, embarrassing only himself. End of story. PS, the oath was redone today, just in case. ħuman 02:02, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I have to ask this once and for all.

And this seems to be as good a place as any. Move/delete if not apropos, but I saw people discuss it here and there and decided to centralize it.

So. We know that there is one "Conservapedia", a bastion of right-wing ideology and religious fundamentalism. Of course. We know that it's run by one Andy Schlafly, son of activist Phyllis Schlafly. Duh.

Well, uh. Let me cut to the chase. I've been following Conservapedia for a much shorter time than most of you (since late summer 2008) and I've absorbed what I could. But as of late, Andy seems more particularly... crazy than usual. More extreme. Are we sure he either 1) hasn't gone insane, 2) has decided to become some sort of a parodist attacking his old way of life, or 3) some combination of both? Being the son of a nutcase like Phyllis, seeing an old classmate with very different viewpoints become the President of the United States (more stinging if you remembered his own failed run for congress, if nothing else), and having your big major project in your life right now become one of the major laughingstocks of the internet can't be good for anyone's psyche. (In fact, I actually discovered Conservapedia by way of some raids and discovered RW in particular from Encyclopedia Dramatica.)

Anyway. I say this in particular because it's just that seeing things like the slipping yet blunt racism (he said intelligence was a racial trait in that Native American debacle with Roger a bit ago, and of course, letting the miserable attacks on African Americans stand), and comparing himself and Conservapedia to Jesus made me wonder. I think what finally convinced me was the Bible Retranslation Project: submitting his holy book (which remember, he's supposed to believe!) to a much more current and yet still ultimately temporary political ideology. (The idea of him trying to find Jesus homeschooling makes me laugh to no end, to say nothing of finding a way to fit "moral majority" in there.)

I seriously wonder if he is (has become?) a parodist because while I can believe he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer by any means, I also don't think he can be a total chimp. I mean, even if he was an entitled spoiled kid, going to Princeton and Harvard and graduating from each has to mean he has a wee bit of brainpower, right? He can't really, REALLY believe all of the sexist/racist/homophobic/anti-scientific crap he spews or approves of after at least some point, right? He has to know he's damaging at least his personal and professional reputation beyond repair.

I don't know. I'm just wondering out loud here. I thought I met some pretty crazy right-wingers and fundamentalists in my life, but none were as wacky as Andy. (And I supposed this argument could be extended to any of the major players there, but I'm thinking of the ringleader in general tonight.) Photovoltaic Array 01:36, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Oh the doubts instilled by Poe's Law. Firstly, I can't imagine any circumstance which would lead Andy to parody his old world-view. Nor any possible event/trigger which would cause him to doubt it. He has been raised in an insane manichean ideology of liberals=lies=evil=murder and conservatives=everything-good-that's-ever-been. He is totally incapable of questioning his beliefs in an open-minded manner, even for a second. Ever seen Andy concede in a discussion? Ever seen him acknowledge that his approach to something, no matter how small, was flawed? No. He occasionally accepts germane corrections from his close friends (little factual bits of no ideological importance, like a historical date), but whatever he believes at the start, he believes at the end, so #2 is right out (wow, roundabout?)

He's probably under a lot more mental stress, as you suggest. Can you imagine the envy involved, to have graduated from Harvard with a man who came from a hell of a lot less than you, to categorically vilify everything he stands for, and see him become the most powerful man in the world and a veritable historical figure? Methinks a sock should make cp:Presidential_Classmate_Envy. Personally, I never cease to be amazed by the shit that comes out of his brain. How did he graduate from Harvard magna cum laude? Given his often hideous ignorance of legal matters, I really wonder.

On an aside, I wonder what it would be like to be one of the sane people in the Schlafly extended family (there are always sane cousins of nutjobs). "Oh god, do we have to go for Thanksgiving with them? Andy will be croaking on about professor values while Phyllis shrieks about god knows what." - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (EST)

[EC] I know where you're coming from. I've been saying it for a while, but it bears repeating: hyperbole, snark, and malicious intent aside, I honestly think Andy is becoming, well, unhinged. Obviously I don't have the credentials to diagnose him with a specific mental disorder (nor could anyone over the internet) but one doesn't necessarily need a degree in psychology to figure out that someone just ain't right. Personally, I think degrees from prestigious schools are not in themselves indicative of intelligence. Harvard is hard to get into, but once in you don't need to be a genius (or even especially bright) to get out of there with a degree in hand. Some people are good at getting certain things done; it's a talent, and Andy could be one of those people. That said, when I was considering law school a few years back, I took some practice LSATs. They're not the most difficult thing by any means, but they do take a basic understanding of logic. On that point, Andy, in his current state, is teh EPIC FAIL. I don't see any way a guy with the grasp of logic and reality could pass such a test. I think his mind is going. Trent (I think it was him) said recently, I believe, that some of Andy's old classmates from Harvard couldn't believe what he was up to these days, and it seemed he was much different in his college days (conservative, I'm sure, but not batshit insane conservative as he is now); he admits he somewhat recently embraced YEC, which is not something someone usually does after looking at scientific evidence. The guy just says way too much stuff that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and he appears to believe it wholeheartedly. It is not the sign of a mind that is in correct working order. I honestly would not be surprised if in the near future he does something beyond the pale and is put in an institution for a while in order to get help. I say this without malice; I honestly think it's a possibility, and if it happens, I hope he gets the care he'll need. DickTurpis 01:58, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Doesn't it all boil down to betrayal? He's been betrayed by everything and everyone: the country's liberal; his old class mate(sic) has become president; a mixed race person's become president; no-one listens to him; turns out that mommy was lying when she told him he was the best; etc ... etc ... etc ...  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 02:07, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Without getting too far into things, I think the big problem is world outlook. I think every Republican president since Reagan has been a dismal failure. Reagan's problems are legendary (ignoring the Aids crisis, ignoring the gang problem, instituting a worthless program to deal with drugs, and screwing the country sideways with Reaganomics) Bush the elder's best move in office was the tax hike, which Conservatives despised, but probably saved the country from disaster (By using the evil liberal taxes) and Bush the younger was....well, we all lived through it. On the other hand, Clinton made a lot of advances, for all his problems and is still going strong. Think about it, what did Reagan do after leaving office (I know he was sick, but even his family did nothing) whereas Clinton is still a major figure in US politics. Now, Obama is looking at unprecedented approval ratings (high 80's to low 90's). It's not just Andy, just take a look at other Conservatives in the country. Hell, FOx news was going on about whether Obama is really president because of the oath gaffe. This is a whole segment that has had their political views flushed down the toilet by the electorate and none of their usual tricks worked for them. Conservatives in general are hurting these days, Andy is only one of the really gone ones. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 03:12, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed with you all fully. In specific response to ChuckB, one of the things that has been scaring the crap out of me is how much the archconservatives have been pissing on Obama. They're trying their darndest to deny him the election he won fair and square, and their increasing disrespect for procedure is something to be leery on. Seeing Obama called everything from... well, here's a list of supposed "slurs" I've heard him called on why he shouldn't be president: Gay, Arabic, Muslim, Hispanic, Atheist, Hindu, Communist, and even British. (!) The oath crap is the latest line in this. Honestly. Obama fits the requirements to be president and he won the election. Oh noes! It almost reminds me of the CSA-to-be, the American ultra-conservatives of that time period, trying every tactic in the book to keep Lincoln from being elected, and when they lost fair-and-square (rather bigtime, in fact), well, that was when they decided to up and leave. (Hey, how's that for another Obama-Lincoln comparison?)

Back to Andy! Actually, the more I think on it, the more I wonder if parodist was what I was looking for to describe his mindset. I wonder if at this rate he's trying to convince himself of his life path and ideals. I mean, honestly. I'm starting to feel honestly sorry for him myself at this point. (Warning: half-assed guess at how his mind works and probably the closest thing to a pro-Schlafly tract on this site ahead.) I mean, his life had to have sucked, by and large. Being the son of Phyllis couldn't have led for a very fun youth. He did manage to wrangle himself into the Ivy League... fair enough. But that usually leads to some pretty big expectations and he's really floundered since then. Failed run for congress. Homeschooling kids with piss-poor information. Being a legal counsel for quack organizations, and also to the point of debating (poorly) against a congresswoman on television why vaccinations are bad. Seems to be employed as well by his mom's own major organization, which can't be good for the ego. Starts our beloved Conservapedia which is quickly mocked. (Remember Lewis Black of the Daily Show pissing on the site, and I recall Andy on talk pages on CP trying to downplay Comedy Central/The Daily Show as obscure, of all things.) And now, out of nowhere, someone from his old Harvard days -- back when his future seemed brightest -- comes in and takes the freakin' presidency, in what's clearly a vital time in American history. And he's beloved for it.

Seriously. His life is one long series of disappointments and crashing down rather hard. He isn't his mother or his classmate-turned-president or what have you. In retrospect, it's pretty easy WHY he ended up embracing YEC and his current wacko ideology; his political conservatism and religion were probably the closest things he had to mental comfort and stability he ever had in his life, so he went deeper into it. That's why I really wonder, if in his heart of hearts, he believes what he professes. To an extent, sure. But he has to have some deep, dark, cavern of his mind rationalizing all of this and wondering what the heck he's done with his life. Hasn't he been penning essays on aging lately? That can't be good. Maybe he will end up breaking down after all.

One last mental image I can see of Andy: him sitting at a computer late at night, the news turned on his TV listening to stuff about President Obama, while he quietly types at a computer on his article on the new president absolutely knowing he's probably penning some bullshit in jealousy. And probably sighing in a combination of bitterness and disappointment in himself afterwards. Photovoltaic Array 05:22, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Personally I think you're all reading a bit too much into this man's behaviour on an internet forum. Lots of people let themselves down when they argue on the internet - in real life I expect he's more or less normal. Genuinely.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 05:38, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Andy DOES believe everything he says, even (or especially) the contradictory information. He is not any different than he ever was, either. Andy's behavior is roughly the same as any generally rude person does with a megaphone, and a modicum of power. This is the disconnect between Andy the law student and Andy the CP admin - as a law student, he was made accountable to the school. As CP admin, he's accountable to none. -Lardashe

You know, that's what I've always been most curious about: Does Andy actually believe everything he says?

On the one hand it seems impossible on a lot of topics. Many of the 'facts' are obviously made up on the spot and he knows that, and when people point out that he's wrong it's so obvious that he's intentionally using diversion, censoring, or plain ignoring to get out of the discussion. So if he's intentionally doing this, HE MUST KNOW ON SOME LEVEL THAT HE'S WRONG.

But on the other hand, he can't believe that he's wrong, since that would make him a troll. And while I thought for a while that he may be, his background info obviously shows that he's not. This is all very serious business for him, so how the Hell can he reconcile being what he is with his obvious deceit? That's what interested me mostly.

And personally I think the answer is not so much that he went "insane" or something like that, not really. He's just been pushed too much in that obscure corner of his by liberal pestering and mockey and the betrayal of parodists that he isn't really listening to anyone anymore, it's just blind reactionary hatred. And weird as it is, it's not something rare, you see a lot of people doing it if they're backed into a corner or if they're attacked too much on some personal belief. So I think that would be able to explain how he can believe in what he's saying while still being intentionally deceitful.

And eht only way you would be able to get him out of that corner is if he would stop being attacked, so he would stop flinging back and actually take some time to look behind him to see the mess he's trying to defend.. But since he sees every happening that's not completely conservative as a personal attack, that'll never happen (and if it did, it's not like we'd stop bothering him, he's our favorite soap opera!) --GTac 14:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)

In short, I think his behavior has been reduced to a sports fan's behavior if you tell him that his favorite sports team is bad. It doesn't matter if you show data, he'll yell at you --GTac 14:45, 22 January 2009 (EST)

"Trent (I think it was him) said recently, I believe, that some of Andy's old classmates from Harvard couldn't believe what he was up to these days, and it seemed he was much different in his college days." This is very interesting. What's the story behind this information? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Handy edit button

Aschlafly is cemented into (political) place. The only way he can "move to the center" (i.e. left) is for him to create MOAR right. By embracing and creating things that are off-the-wall lunacy "new right" landscrape is created out of thin air. By viewing himself in that political landscape he can see himself as "centrist" without actually moving anywhere. CЯacke® 10:31, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure Schlafly is as "cemented" into place as you say, and this leads to a rather scary place. With his definition of "conservative" if you don't tick all the boxes, you're liberal. This is clear. As Andy hates "liberal" of any kind he has to be to the right of everyone else otherwise he's classed, albeit relatively, as liberal. So if he invents something more right-wing than him, he has to take that position so he isn't left of anyone! He seems to be driven primarily by the fear of being left than the comfort of being right. So he will do anything and everything to avoid being called liberal, even if sanity is the cost. ArmondikoV^pathetic 10:48, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Right but that assumes he actually believes all the crap he posts on his blog encyclopedia...I do not think he does, (if he did I would be surprised he could "remember" to breathe). CP is all inclusive of all right-wing views...anything that used to be conservative but is now not a "popular" idea, (slavery), is consigned to the depths of Hell, the liberal camp's territory. 11:16, 22 January 2009 (EST) CЯacke®

Iduan

So, TK listed the conditions for Iduan's parole:

• Don’t get drawn into disputes.
• Don’t be over-anxious for special rights and request them.
• Don’t get involved in argument-without-end on talk pages.
• Don't ask Admins other than TK to unlock templates and other locked pages.
• Don't post to Mr. Schlafly's talk page with requests.
• Do remember TK is your point of contact for items covered in the above "Don't"s.
• Do remember you do good and creative work, and comport yourself accordingly.

I read those as Be humble in the face of the Lord and His First Servant. And I miss something like

• Don't discuss Conservapedia on other sites.

Other items missing? And will Iduan be permablocked for a violation of a written rule - or an unwritten one? LArron 02:03, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I wonder how Iduan feels about most of his favorite users are on Andy's bad side or gone. Fox (only removed because it was a red link), CPAdmin, DanH, BethanyS, PJR. And he still thinks that he can be sysop some day (even after his nominations page was deleted and delinked). --Shagie 02:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)

What were the rules for TK's parole? - User $\pi$ 03:19, 22 January 2009 (EST)

We will never know. Probably. "Ok, welcome back."--Gulik 03:31, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I actually copypasted the text of it, though formatting was lost (I only added those "sup" tags to Geo's sig):

The operating authority for this case was originally Fox. Due to disruption, he has lost his Sysop status. Under the due deference doctrine, this leaves the matter open for any Sysop to review. I feel that the original reasons for this ban were insufficient and displayed malice. Some have argued that this user's conduct is terrible and he does not deserve reinstatement. I would argue that while this user's conduct has been abhorrent, especially in the matter of releasing information that was presumed to be private, multiple other users who have done far worse have received another chance. If our system is designed to be fair and just, he should receive the same as that accorded to any other user.

Therefore, I Geoff Plourde, release this user on parole to my custody and suspend the remaining ban of nine months contigent on successful completion of parole.

Geoff Plourde^Complain! 20:01, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Conditions
1. This user will strive to work productively and observe all rules.
2. This user will strive to maintain a line of communication between the parole officer and himself.

So yeah, it pretty much grinds down to "Welcome back! You fucked us all over, but you deserve as many chances as you want!" And even this parole note was removed a very short time later, if I recall correctly. --Sid 07:22, 22 January 2009 (EST)

TK's block log is fun to read: a lection in innumeracy.

There's a block by Fox for one year, on Jan 19th resp. Jan 21, 2008. It seems to be consensus that this block is legit, Geo.plrd. quotes a Stare Decisis.

On February 23rd, Geo.plrd states that two month of this block are done ((Stare Decisis) 12 mo-2 served)

On March 23rd, three months are served, so eight month are left 8 months ‎ (12-3) WTF? Two months were served, and ten months were left...

Is Geo.plrd. home-schooled?

LArron 12:05, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Ed's greatest qualities...

... as seen by himself:

If anything, I've tried to promote cooperation among writers. I've also insisted on accuracy and rationality, especially in the science and math articles; but there's still a long way to go. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:28, 21 January 2009 (EST)

No words, LArron 02:34, 22 January 2009 (EST)

The very epitome of self-delusion!  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 02:56, 22 January 2009 (EST)

No, This is the worst - from his Userpage

"one of the greatest and most influential Conservapedia sysops" - Anonymous

Ace McWicked^Revolt 03:28, 22 January 2009 (EST)

What? Anonymous said that about him? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:39, 22 January 2009 (EST)

He is one of the greatest and most influential Conservapedia sysops, he bullying and stupid stub articles are now standard among CP sysops. - User $\pi$ 03:31, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Reality: I alienate the only editors who know anything about math and science, constantly display my own ignorance of the most basic topics, randomly butcher articles. Send reality to Ed's internal reality filter. Output: I've ... insisted on accuracy and rationality, especially in the science and math articles.

How does one build a filter of such awesome power? Please Ed, let us in on the secret. JoeDuffy 08:57, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Not to mention the random quotes from a movie or book that he calls "new articles". wtf? also waaaaaay too misogenistic - Refugee^{talk page} 13:56, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Stats of RW and CP

For those interested in this stuff:

Conservapedia

RationalWiki

Worm has started his digs into the data of Conservapedia, the first result is here... LArron 04:53, 22 January 2009 (EST)

It's impressive that even with our copious numbers of joke blocks (30 seconds for "DANCE, MY PUPPETS" and so forth), we still get completely overshadowed by CP's serious blocks. Usually of people just trying to edit an encyclopedia. --Kels 09:50, 22 January 2009 (EST)

There are more daily editors to RW than CP. Now that is hilarity itself. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 11:54, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Navigating CP

Am I the only who can never find what they want on Conservapedia? I think I have worked out why. I had a look though there orphaned page list they have 4203 out of 29,693 pages. I thought a lot must be redirects but on the last page I clicked 15 at randomish and none were redirects. That works out that 14% of their content is not accessible without searching. I have always felt we should strive so that no page is more than 3 clicks from the mainpage, I would hate to think how long it would take to clean up the mess there. - User $\pi$ 06:27, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Only a minor note, but I don't think redirects are included in orphaned pages lists (I am willing to be proven wrong on this). Articles that have redirects pointing to them don't count as orphaned, though, so the number may be even higher than 4203 if there are pages with redirects to them, but no articles linking there. Dreaded Walrus 08:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, and I'd like to add that the inward links don't have to be from another article for it to be considered no longer orphaned. For example, a quick check now reveals that Governers of New Hampshire has only one incoming link, from userspace, yet is not included on the list of orphaned pages. It goes straight from Gourock to Graham v. Connor. So if you're looking for articles that can only be found via clicks from mainspace, the number is going to be even higher. Dreaded Walrus 08:15, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I think Google picks up all the articles after a while, via Special:Allpages. But yeah, if you're adding new pages on CP, try to add a couple of inbound links too; it'll make the lulz easier to find. (I'm guilty of insufficiently linking my new pages, myself.) --Marty 13:05, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Oops, never mind. Experimentally verified that Googling "Special:AllPages" doesn't get you to it, so they probably don't spider it. Even though I checked Wikipedia's robots.txt and didn't see it explicitly excluded, either... --Marty 13:12, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Some thoughts:

1. Keep in mind that a fully orphaned page can still be linked to from external sites, so a spider might find it through those means.
2. One word, which is also the likely reason why you'll still find orphaned pages via Google: Categories.
3. The orphan and the AllPages lists have a meta tag: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />, so those pages won't be indexed, and all outgoing links from them won't be followed.

I hope this either sheds some light or at least gives people more stuff to base theories on. :P --Sid 14:01, 22 January 2009 (EST)

My point is most things I have read here and Wikipedia was through following links constantly, not though searching. If it is not easy to find content who is going to read it. It is not much of an educational resource if 14% of its information isn't accessible. - User $\pi$ 17:27, 22 January 2009 (EST)

A good point, which gets even better when you look at the links themselves. Aside from the vast network of "Liberal = Evil = Atheist = Anti-American = Evolutionist = [etc.]" pages that form CP's main focus, most articles basically form small islands. In the worst case, two pages simply link at each other and are otherwise orphaned dead-ends (nothing else points at them, and they only point at each other). This is still enough to get them off the LonelyPages list, but they are still effectively unreachable. And while such islands also exist on Wikipedia, they are likely about highly obscure topics while Conservapedia only has islands for basically everything. --Sid 18:41, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Just for fun (what an odd definition of fun), I tried checking what links to the first 10 random pages. Here's the results:

Nuclear engineering - Engineering, TK Archive 9, and a redirect.

Indainapolis Colts - Various player pages and pages about various years' drafts.

Matsuyama - Six other Japanese cities, and a redirect.

Trial (one-sentence stub) - Far more articles than there are words in the stub.

Juan de Herrera - Architecture, Famous Architects and Jose Benito Churriguera.

Beach Boys - Hit Parade Hall of Fame

Reformation Terms P - All the other Reformation Terms pages.

Blue Chip Stock (one-sentence stub) - Economics Terms B.

Fight Bac!® Campaign - SSchult's page for Contest 3, and Team 1's strategy page.

Speaking in tongues - Pentecostalism, Iowa Alliance for Reformation

Make of that what you will. --Kels 20:28, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Obama Inauguration article

I know it's obvious, but in what way is this not a blog post? Seriously, these guys just keep on underlining how much of a sham their "encyclopedia" is. --Kels 10:41, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Seriously, another BHarlan WIGO?

You guys need to start a black list of parodists/posters who are not wigoable

I'd say that only Parodists that are sysops or if Bugler is mentioned again somehow should be mentioned. Obvious, non-sysop ones should be blown off. ENorman 15:31, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I agree.... BHarlan is an incredibly obvious parodist.... The true of CP, for me anyway, comes from people with real opinions.... When I want right wing parody, I'll watch the Colbert Report, he's a lot more entertaining SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 16:03, 22 January 2009 (EST)

There used to be a semi-rule that WiGOs should either document edits by established users, or at least endorsed by them. BHarlan is questionable in that regard. He's been around a little while, so he's not some newbie making his first edits. We should probably keep hiss stuff to a minimum for now, though if the usual suspects start backing him up it will make a bit of a difference. DickTurpis 16:09, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed, overt parody of the Bugler/BHarlan sort should not be WIGO'd, as it only draws Sysop fire (which is fine against real users), and doesn't reflect real insanity. However, if their actions are endorsed, supported, or whatever, it's fair, wondrous game. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's more like filtering out the too obvious parodists/nutcases and giving the less obvious ones more breathing space. Ever since Bugler imploded, it's been a free-for-all for people trying to fill the empty spot, so it's natural that some will be slapped down while others are promoted/praised. --Sid 15:54, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Karajou with the final word on Barack Obama being a Muslim...

"Case Closed." What will Andrew Layton Schlafly think? et tu, Karajou? TheoryOfPractice 14:44, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Aw man, you got me all excited there. But Karajou stamping down on some of the more rabid paranoia is still a start, so I approve. --Sid 15:24, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Related: TK apparently also grew tired of the "No Bible! Oh noes!" paranoia. --Sid 15:27, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Is it just me, or is that a really awkward place to say "lol"? --Kels 16:22, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, even they are getting sick of this? Think the only other time I was this surprised was when Conservative shut down somebody's argument against evolution and pointed out a quote mine ENorman 15:33, 22 January 2009 (EST)

You people, if those are even you're real names, are clueless. Cheif Justice John "I'll just wing it" Roberts had his fingers crossed both times "Obama" attempted to parrot The Oath so it doesn't count. I like to think of this as God's way of checking Obama's birth certificate. Guess what? He doesn't have one. I've just thought of a new conservative term "god checks birth certificates." Yes. It applies to everything. I won't continue this conversation until you repeat, faithfully, after me: "god checks birth certificates." ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 22:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Obama's infobox

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama

{{President |image=Obamaofficialfoto.jpg |seq=44 |term_start=January 20, 2009 |term_end=January 20, 2013 |party=Democrat |vp=Joseph Biden |previous=George W. Bush |next= |birth_date=August 4, 1961 |birth_place=Honolulu, Hawaii |death_date= |death_place= |spouse=Michelle LaVaughn Robinson |spouse2= |religion=Unaffiliated }}

But... This infobox is full of liberal deceit! It says that Obama is born on Honolulu, while it is know he falsified it, and censors the fact that Obama is a sunnit ! Barraki 16:47, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I am waiting for the wheel war to start over it. - User $\pi$ 17:22, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Room for multiple spouses? I suppose that might have been useful if Mitt Romney had gotten the nomination.... :D --Gulik 04:30, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Google Haz Improooveing!

Dont worry Ken, I believe you! Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:24, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Well, it is a bigger number now. Commodore Guff (if that is my real name) 19:16, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah but its for yahoo! and altavista. Never mind. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:58, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Hitler and Darwin, Sittin' in a Tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

LOVE.^{— Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs}

DUDE. AMAZING. Ken needs to (1) learn photoshop, (2) get better ideas, and (3) stop sucking. Before I feel sorry for him.0Diadochus 22:03, 22 January 2009 (EST)

No way you faked that. - User $\pi$ 22:04, 22 January 2009 (EST)

AWESOME. And it's the lead image on the evolution article (I got a screenshot). To think I was trying deep cover parody in order to do this sort of vandalism when Ken does it on his own. DickTurpis 22:06, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I can't believe it Ken has actually managed to lower my opinion of him. I used to think he was social deprived, childish idiot, I am now going to have to go through the dictionary and find some new words. - User $\pi$ 22:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)

URGENT TRANSMISSION TO MR. KENNETH DEMYER STOP THE ANTIEVOLUTIONARY JUNTA HAS A DIRECT ORDER STOP IT IS INTEGRAL THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY EFFECT PLAN R FOR ROBERT STOP INSTITUTE MOAAAAARRRR HITLAAAAAAAR!!!!!!!!!!! and please never STOP^{— Unsigned, by: DickTurpis / talk / contribs}

Honestly, I didn't believe this was real, until I looked at the evolution page. Sure enough. You just can't write satire anymore. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:34, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Seriously, there are no words. Although I am glad to see the return of parrot_Darwin. --Kels 22:49, 22 January 2009 (EST) [This parrot is dead!]

MOAR HITLER PL0X111 ENorman 23:16, 22 January 2009 (EST)

That picture is a beautiful, beautiful thing. But you know Ken. He can always go one better. 217.41.92.46 03:35, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Undercover Andy

Perhaps this has been discussed before. You've all seen the AAPS article about Obama supposedly using mind control, and you know how even though the CP's Obama article states "Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated...", the AAPS piece is unsigned, and incidentally Andy has connections with them- so the chances are fairly good that Andy wrote it, then self-cited, sticking in the "doctors" part even though it is anonymous (what was that about being "trustworthy" because you're all "real people"?). Well, if he did write it, it would appear that he's also self-commenting Let's see what "Andrew"-if that's your real name- said (emphasis added):

• "I analyze political speeches and marketing campaigns." If you want to call it "analyze"...
• "Instead of talking issues", i.e. "unsubstantive".
• "Symbols allow for a quick emotional association... the Nazis used the swastika and the communists used the hammer and sickle to rein terror over people." And CP uses the American flag to garner US patriotism and misplaced feelings of trust and honesty. Need I mention the Cross?
• "What is truly disturbing about Obama is his use of the red white and blue Orb..." Wow, a logo. Or is that the Ohio state flag?

I thought that some of these sounded Andyesque. Of course the writing is better, but of course it's not from CP. But then the grand finale:

• "What is needed is a comparison study. Are Obama supporters’ heavy television watchers? Are they heavier impulse buyers than other people? Are they prone to be emotionally disturbed and need assurance? The topic deserves further study."

If that's not our Andy, there must be something about that name. If only he had signed with first name, last initial, we might be more sure. Kallium^talk 23:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, that's "our Andy". Oh, and "Try to get just two Obama supporters to name three things Obama will do, and you will get a confused response..." - actually, an undecided voter stopped before going into the polling place in my town to ask supporters of both "sides" present what their candidate would do, and we were fairly coherent... ħuman 00:54, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Could that really be the real Andy, given the suggestion of a control study? 76.93.184.4 02:41, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Ken's fundamental misunderstanding

Awhile ago I started a project to do a side-by-side rebuttal of Conservapedia:Evolution which kind of ran out of steam. One thing I noticed was Ken was big on giving quotes by scientists that were taken out of context. All of them where basically saying that whilst evolution is fundamentally correct we need to change the way we view it is happening (mostly to their view). As far as I can tell Ken doesn't like this constant revaluation of the evidence and so I was wondering if his conversion to creationism was more due to a wish to grab onto a solid unchanging theory than an evaluation of the "evidence"? Ken can I have a gentlemen please? - User $\pi$ 02:14, 23 January 2009 (EST)

It's not just Ken, but PJR is at it too ([2], from WIGO). All that news story says is that a scientific theory was updated in the face of new evidence. (you might even say that the theory has evolved, ho ho ho) If you're reading Phil - dude, that's how science works!!! That's the whole idea!! alt 04:50, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The triumphalism in that diff of PJR seems really out of character. Or rather, it's something he usually hides a bit better, the whole "I'm defending my tribe" attitude that I suspect drives an awful lot of creationists. Not so much believing Creationism because of the evidence (even though no actual evidence points there), but because this is what the "tribal elders" (i.e., the priesthood) rest their faith on, and if that's wrong the whole thing is endangered. It's an emotional response, and folks like PJR just nail on the rationalizations like armour plate. --Kels 06:05, 23 January 2009 (EST)

You're right, that doesn't sound like the usual PJR. And I find this attitude especially troubling when basically the same happens in smaller aspects of Creationism, too (for example the Starlight Problem with its various failed "solutions" like "C-Decay"). --Sid 06:24, 23 January 2009 (EST)

That was PJR? Well that's a surprise. Not just in attitude, but in that the article isn't "news". I'd expect Ken to be 10 (or 150...) years behind the times, but not him. (To PJR: incorporating other biological phenomena that have been known on a smaller scale for decades isn't "reinventing evolution" by a very long shot. It's modifying a small piece of the story to fit new evidence. That's how it works. You sound just like Ken. I expected better from you, and frankly I'm very disappointed.) Kallium^talk 08:44, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Phillip, may I direct you to the last paragraph:

“”If he is right, the tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. "The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on."

This doesn't kill the theory of evolution any more than Einstein killed Newton's laws. When scientists recognize that the world is more complicated than once thought, in this case regarding horizontal gene transfer (which is a really cool thing if you want to read up on it), theories are necessarily modified or expanded to accommodate this. Sometimes this results in a theory being thrown out entirely, but this isn't one of those times. This, Philip, is the difference between science and dogma. Science seeks to reconcile itself with new data and observations, whereas dogma fights to suppress and discredit data and observations which run contrary to it. Take a look at the Lenski pages on CP for an example. And by the way, when I saw what you posted, I thought it was from Conservative. This isn't the style you want to adopt- you're better than that. Corry^{No, what I'm calling you is a television actor.} 09:59, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I think this hits on the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution - evolution is scientifically based, and so, if new evidence is presented, provided that evidence itself is sound, evolution is re-evaluated with that evidence in mind. This has caused details of evolution to become modified as more is known about them, and certain details that were thought to be true to be shown to be false, without disproving evolution generally, and creationists can't get their head around this idea, as, in their explanation of life's origins, their single source is supposedly the infallible and inviolable Word of God, so if any detail of that was ever proven, in their eyes, to be categorically wrong, then that would cast doubt on their entire source, and, by extension, the whole of creationism. Of course, in their eyes, due to their source being the Word of God, if the evidence is in conflict with their source, the evidence must be wrong, so it's not really possible to actually prove any detail of their source categorically wrong. Zmidponk 14:44, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Great article. So a once-useful, and profound, metaphor has been/is being cast away? Because more and more evidence is showing it to be too simplistic? Sounds like more evidence of the strength of science to me. And the Newton/Einstein analogy is very good. The tree still works well for puppies and kittehs, but the vast numbers of essentially invisible life forms/evidence require a more sophisticated model. I liked the line about the "tree" being a small offshoot of one part of the huge "web". ħuman 15:23, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to see PJR's response to that, honestly. I expect it to be full of the same sort of mental gymnastics that allows him to ignore evidence in the first place and buy the Creationist fairy tales. Not to mention Andy's predictable ire at his hero Newton being called out, that should be fun. --Kels 20:17, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The Newton/Einstein analogy doesn't work here. For a start, Einstein did "kill" Newton even if Newton's law is still useful. (To be clear, we are referring to Newton's law of universal gravitation being replaced by Einstein's theory of general relativity.) But more importantly, the analogy doesn't work because the sources and targets are not equivalent, i.e. evolution/tree of life and Newton/Einstein. What might work is to say something like "Like Newton's law, the tree of life remains a useful tool but has been replaced by something more complex and complete, much like Einstein's theory." Even then there is a danger for evolution. Because evolution, as a super theory or collection of theories, could then be shown to be equivalent to classical mechanics - that is so much of it has been replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics that it is now largely used as an approximating engineering tool. Ajkgordon 12:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)

The greatest irony to me whenever something like this happens is that this is exactly what Creationists a la Ken and PJR say evolutionary science doesn't do. They always claim that such scientists suppress data that alters current knowledge (as if they really don't care about an accurate understanding of physical reality), then present some new discovery or development while claiming that it overthrows all the independent lines of evidence, often as a non sequitor (i.e. a new phylogeny of a gene disproving the entire fossil record). Well guys, where do you hear about those new developments from? The same scientists! In my opinion that's the single greatest irony of them all. I find it entertaining to visualize as a dialog (Update: corrected 24 Jan with apologies to PJR):

• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: Why do you unflinchingly cling to your evolutionist dogma?
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: I don't. My understanding changes as new evidence is found.
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: Oh really? What about <insert 10 year old factoid>?
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: Oh yeah, we talked about that in grad school. It's standard knowledge.
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: Um, okay then, how about <brand new factoid about mundane detail>? It disproves all evolution.
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: It's not relevant to all evolution, it only matters to a few species and their social habits.
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: Then why suppress it?
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: It's not being suppressed.
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: Yes it is!!!
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: Where did you hear about it then?
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: Creation on the Web, of course!
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: They got it from a paper which has nothing to do with their claim.
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: They didn't get it from there because it wasn't published! It's suppression!! They discovered it and now they are being censored!!! How are you so sure it was published? Prove it!!!! But you can't, so how do you know?!!!!!
• Misguided Atheistic Evolutionist Career Biologist with Many Intense Years of Scientific Experience and Expertise: (holds up reprint) Because I wrote it.
• Young Earth Creationist-Fundamentalist with Ideological Objections to Evolution, Little Understanding of It and No Apparent Background in Scientific Research: *Poof!* in a puff of logic.

And, scene. Kallium^talk 21:31, 23 January 2009 (EST)

FredT

Is the FredT who's just done some vandalism on the main page at CP our old friend - who's been a bit quiet recently? Deleteing the main page is his style. Silver Sloth 06:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Linkie? - User $\pi$ 06:21, 23 January 2009 (EST)

No way that is their retired template? - User $\pi$ 06:22, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Oops - my stupidity - I misread 'Recent Changes' Silver Sloth 06:31, 23 January 2009 (EST)

(edit conflict) I don't see vandalism or main page deletion right now (I do see that TK decided to randomly delete my user/talk pages, though...), but I do see a block for "User page profanity/vulgarity", which doesn't seem to make terribly much sense, at least not enough for a deceitful "He has left and retired" template and a permanent ban. --Sid 06:31, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The only thing he did on the 23rd was put a quote on his userpage about the arrogant getting punished by God. I can see how that is profanity to TK.</cheapjoke> - User $\pi$ 06:35, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's probably more to do with disagreeing with TK on Main Page Talk. StarFish 07:51, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Somebody tell Ken!

Google puts an end to Ken's SEO tactics. Now users can customise their search results. Watch Ken's articles plummet down the rankings--PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:29, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Hurray, doesn't show up in my search results at all now. - User $\pi$ 08:55, 23 January 2009 (EST)

But search wiki only affects your own search results. Comments, however, can be viewed by any signed in user. CP and RW has already attracted a few. ArmondikoV^pathetic 08:58, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Amusing. When I got sick of waiting for WP to load so I could use the search box, I made an html thing on my hard drive with their searchbox code on it. And added Google's. And RW's and CP's (along with a handful of bookmarky "hot links"). Nice to see web 2.0 making that sort of thing easier for people. ħuman 15:25, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I did my part by removing it from my searches. It was 14 before the assassination. --Kels 18:31, 23 January 2009 (EST)

What I love about this is with a quick bit of typing, voila, the search engine result for their, um... charming atheism article now has a link to the refutation on RW. They can ban all mention of RW on CP all they like, but poor Ken has been forsaken by the evil librul Google, they don't mind us one bit.

Also, who wrote the comment about a free imaginary friend when we sign up to CP? 'Fess up, I want mah free imajinery frends rite now! -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 00:01, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Quick afterthought here, how long do we suppose it will be before sooperlawyer Schlafly sends a letter to Google demanding that they remove all the honest feedback slander about his blog wonderful encyclopaedia? -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 00:07, 25 January 2009 (EST)

The Lenski affair of 2009

I wish I were writing this to report on something that would become this year's Lenski affair. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Rather I was wondering if there will be a Lenski affair sized event this year. There are always possibilities, but I tend to doubt that Andy will put himself into a situation like that again. Any ideas on what windmills Andy might tilt at this year? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 09:46, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I think his anti-Obama railings could lead him into some interesting territory, e.g. if he actually tries to publish "Obama is a Muslim" stuff in a newspaper or journal. Whether he'd go that far with it I can't say, but I think it's possible. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:03, 23 January 2009 (EST)

If he could be persuaded to pursue the "Obama is not American because he was not born in the US and hence cannot be president" nonsense, then that would top the Lenski business in my mind. But I seriously doubt that he would go down this road. I'm tempted to suggest that we could try and encourage to take up one particular lunatic crusade but I'm sure that he'll do just fine on his own. JoeDuffy 11:20, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Thing about Andy is: he won't admit he's wrong. So all that's necessary is for him to make one of his pronouncements on some subject, any subject, that is manifestly deranged and let his "acolytes" persuade him to follow it up. Its best if it's something out of his sphere of common knowledge (Isn't everything?) because there' more chance of him talking really stupid. The Dawkins Professorship thing could have been as big as Lensky but failed somehow (Dawkins ignored him?). There'll be something in 2009, don't worry.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 12:03, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, Dawkins did respond (I think the thing only extended to his own forums however).

The Lenski affair I think, however, was caused by a few coincidences: Andy by his own initiative started a project that would reach more than just Conservapedia or its users, and the person he was poking with a stick happened to be somebody who had the knowledge, eloquence, reputation, attitude and time to pwn him to the blogosphere and back.

While the parodists did attempt to keep the fire burning, I think ultimately the thing would've turned out about the same due to Andy's behaviour of "never back down", so other than suggest a few things he could attack that would draw the attention of people to crush his arguments or media to let the world know about his antics, I don't think there's much we can do to cause one.

(Also, just wanted to add I'd have felt rather bad for trying to get Andy to waste the good doctor's time). NightFlare 12:24, 23 January 2009 (EST)

(undent) Speaking of ethics: Our non-U.S. readers might not know it, but CP's brand of Obama-bashing isn't all that far off the wall anymore. After the inauguration, "mainstream" conservative outposts such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc., have been basically parroting the Conservapedia talking points for real. "Obama's not a Christian... Obama never took the oath of office... Obama wants to free all the terrorists at Gitmo." I'm uncomfortable with the idea of pushing harder for the right-wing overthrow of the current U.S. government; there are more than enough right-wingers in the United States for someone with money or guns to take it seriously. To look at it another way, if you think idiots challenging Obama is epic lulz, you don't really need to encourage Andy Schlafly to do it; just turn on the TV. --Marty 12:53, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The media is different in that they're trying to get viewers so they'll hit points they know will strike nerves. Andy actually believes all this. The attention to Obama is no different than the attention Bush got after his elections. Jrssr5 13:44, 23 January 2009 (EST)

You want a new Lenski Affair? Give me his e-mail address, and I can arrange that. What should I bicker about? Therianthropy might be good, he'd really hate that. Not to mention I could get advice from both the sites I'm part of- and the Werelist has two evangelacal preachers there. Could be interesting. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistor^{is overworked and overbearing} 18:53, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Anti-Israel article on the main page?

Okay, I thought conservapedia was relentlessly pro-Israel.

But yet, on the front page In the News section, Joaquin Martinez compares Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. MDB 10:28, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I assumed the purpose of it was to point out how ridiculously anti-semitic the UN is for saying Israel may have done anything wrong in Gaza. Then again JM has been known to post things on the news page that are actually news and not "look how awful liberals are!" blog entries, so he might be stepping out of line here. No doubt Andy or TK will insert the necessary adjectives to make it clear that the UN is simply an arm of Hezbollah. DickTurpis 10:32, 23 January 2009 (EST)

As written the summary is shockingly neutral, simply reporting what the UN investigator said. The POV laden edits are surely in the mail (to paraphrase DickTurpis). JoeDuffy 10:38, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I was expecting "anti-Israel UN official outrageously said..." MDB 10:41, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Abortion is slavery!

Now, I can comprehend the reasoning that connects abortion with murder. But slavery!? [3] Damn those cotton-pickin' fetuses! - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 10:40, 23 January 2009 (EST)

How about a Jihad? StarFish 11:05, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The way the American Thinker article explains it makes some sense in a wonky sort of way (the unborn babay is treated as property of the parent & not considered to have rights of its own, hence it is slavery). It then goes on to say that abortion is "genocide" against the unborn, which is ridiculous. Insidentally, should we have an entry for American Thinker? CP link to it a hell of a lot; but beyond that I have no idea how popular or influential it is. Wikipedia have an article about it, so it's probably notable enough. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:13, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Abortion is fascism against the unborn, abortion is racism against the unborn, abortion is communism against the unborn, abortion is rape against the unborn, abortion is propaganda against the unborn, the more loaded words you insert, the better. NightFlare 12:27, 23 January 2009 (EST)

In a very twisted way it makes some sense. But if you outright ban abortion then you essentially have the same process in revese; i.e., the woman becomes the slave of the unborn child (or specifically, the slave to the system that forced her to continue the unwanted pregnancy). But I 100% agree that the motive is to add loaded words to it. ArmondikoV^pathetic 13:01, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, that goes without saying. I wasn't legitimising the argument, just saying there is a twisted logic to the slavery analogy. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:11, 23 January 2009 (EST)

So, if abortion=slavery, and slavery=freedom, then abortion=freedom?Z3ro 13:49, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Don't YOU love Big Brother?EternalCritic 14:12, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The "abortion = genocide" "argument" is of course the foundation upon which Brush Lintball built his ugly word for progressive women... ħuman 14:32, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Funny, I was under the impression that conservatives generally believe that children are the undisputed property of their parents. --Gulik 15:04, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, when it's convenient, that's true. ħuman 15:26, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Fools. It goes in turns. From conception to birth, the child is its own. From birth to 18, it's the parents' property. At 18, if black and/or poor, it becomes the property of the Dept of Defense. If female, it becomes the property of an eligible male at the first possible opportunity. If white, male, and reasonably well-to-do... it probably belongs to a corporation of some sort. If well invested, however, it may own some portion of itself in stock? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Lets hear it for Andy Pandy's mum!

The ever wonderful Phyrangula has come up with this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/monstrous_women.php

Well worth a watch though I have to admit I always thought Andy Pandy was a catholic rather than a follower of Knox. Mick McT 14:47, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I think Andy's the Pope of the First United and Universal Church of Hating Liberals. This whole "Bible" thing is just a front. --Gulik 15:16, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Trying for a better acronym... First United Church of Kicking and Hating Evil Atheist Demons... ħuman 15:28, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Is this seriously what fundy-loons actually believe? Somebody find this, and see if it is comparable to No Intelligence Allowed. ENorman 16:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)

From what I gather, it's worse. It doesn't even pretend to be operating from rationality. EternalCritic 16:37, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I tried to watch the vid, honest I did. The vomit in the back of my throat put me off thought.  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 16:45, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I might try to watch the video, but I don't think I can stomach it at the moment. Regardless, I'm sure it's much worse than Expelled. Other than the Nazi bit, Expelled was more annoying and whiny than offensive. DickTurpis 16:52, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Well, folks, looks like we have a new project: The Monstrous Regiment of Women ought to practically write itself... ħuman 16:56, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I always love it when

I find parody on CP that's been untouched, and unnoticed for more than a year. I get an awful joy out of it. EternalCritic 16:42, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, and you just want to shout about it but then you realise that it should really just be left under the radar... :( ArmondikoV^pathetic 16:55, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The question is, has anyone seen it? My favourite bits of parody are absurd additions to very popular articles which will never be fixed because no one will ever challenge the information. I call it Operation Silent Legacy. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 16:57, 23 January 2009 (EST)

The last time that happened to me I was able to identify the author and pmailed my congratulations. ħuman 16:58, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Some of my favorite bits (of my own) actually were challenged on talk pages, but CP doesn't have enough biomass for the talk pages to matter. (Many of my babies are coming up on the two-year mark.) I'm afraid I generally don't read enough pages on CP to identify parody inserted by other editors. --Marty 17:06, 23 January 2009 (EST)

This one was only touched by several editors, including being categorized by a current sysop. Its very well done. I doubt many people would even notice it. EternalCritic 17:29, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Thought that does beg the question; if the parody is so subtle no one notices it, does it even exist, or, more importantly, matter?Z3ro 17:30, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed, the ultimate goals of parody are three-fold: blatant, enduring, and popular. Naturally, the more popular the page, and blatant the parody, the less likely it is to endure, but that's the challenge! - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (EST)

My favorite parodies are the ones that are more subtle--the ones where you have to stop and ask yourself "Is this parody, or not?" BHarlan is too over the top for my tastes. There are a couple who manage to post articles which seem innocuous in and of themselves, but when you look at their entire body of work, it becomes clear that they're ironically poking fun at CP. --Phentari 18:04, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I love it when I create an absolute bullshit article about a non-existant historical figure or event, and earnest CPers edit and add to the article! I've got about a dozen floating around for more than a year. Czolgolz 20:26, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Once again, we see how CP shoots its own foot off. If they weren't so tyrannical about their precious '90/10 rule', it's possible that the more obvious hoax entries might get noticed, argued about, and fixed. But since none of the serfs there want to risk invoking the Wrath of Mod, and the sysops don't actually know everything (shock!), the joke entries stay forever. --Gulik 20:29, 23 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) In terms of the opening post from EternalCritic, I too share that joy... There's some really good ones I've been watching for months now, even going as far as to avoid editing them so they stay out of the recent Changes page. And Gulik, you're exactly right. I know my first rule of sock editing is unless it's spelling or grammar, I don't touch it if a Sysop has edited the page. Anywhere else, a bad faith edit will get you some polite warnings, but at CP, any edit that displeases Ze Establishmet will be dealt with at once. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:42, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Yep, that's a combination of CP's more unique problems indeed: On the one side, the sysops make edits that look like vandalism (especially the ones that openly violate the Commandments and MoS guidelines), and anybody who reverts or questions them will be hammered. On the other side, questioning a non-sysop's edit will screw up your "Not all of your edits are in articles, thus you talk, talk, talk!" 90/10 ratio, and you may be hammered at any time. But the first point means that few will be bold enough to remove the weird edit. So the safest alternative is to un-see any weirdness and just move on. --Sid 21:10, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, "Conservapedia:Un-see" is the best solution for survival in this brave new world. ħuman 22:04, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Dawkins

I haven't looked at that page in a long time, but I was just wondering.... Why is it that on the Richard Dawkins Biography page they have 10 pictures and only one of is actually of Dawkins and only another one or two can even be remotely linked to him? I'm counting Hitler as a link, I don't think the link is valid, but it's Ken. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:46, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Addendum... This is from Ed, but what the fuck is this? and this? This idiot actually thought you could regain powers at WP? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:48, 23 January 2009 (EST)

I find Ed at WP to be really irritating. Aside from doing his best to insert the wedge for various sorts of denialism, he has this habit of asking questions in his edit summaries like this and this which actually should go on the talk page, or aren't necessary in the first place. Maybe it's just because I hate Ed's online persona, but then again maybe it's because he's an irritating jackass. --Kels 20:58, 23 January 2009 (EST)

"...what the fuck is this?..." WIGOed a while back. Funny story: I had quite a shock when I clicked on that link, because with the rest of your comment, I just naturally assumed it was a link to Wikipedia's Gandhi article. I was like, "Whoa, Ed. Wow there." And then I realized that it was Conservapedia, and my heart rate went back to normal. --Marty 21:43, 23 January 2009 (EST)

On the subject of Ed, Wikipedia, and wedges, his most recent edit shows he still hasn't given up the fight. Dreaded Walrus 17:33, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Pi Dude, what's with the img=on tags? I saw you adding them twice today, so should we add them or not? The "rules" here aren't fully clear IMHO...

Sid: Do it as you always have. Pi is partially manually doing the work of the capturebot, IIRC. ħuman 21:52, 23 January 2009 (EST)

There is a glitch somewhere that is causing Pi's copy of the code to fail on page edits, it one of several things I will fix eventually...216.221.87.112 22:31, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks Trent. And thanks for simply expecting everyone to memorize your IP address(es) ;) I'm sure TK has, to guard against the silly sockpuppets you endlessly create on CP. But is logging in so hard? ;) ħuman 23:09, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Every time I get issued a new IP from my ISP I create a new CP account just for the hell of it. Once created I never log in again and never edit with it but I see how long it takes to be "blocked" after posting with my IP address on RW. It is rather informative in various ways. But anyway, my IP address redirects to my user name. I work from something like 15 different computers, I stay logged in on some, and others I don't. It is just the way things are. 216.221.87.112 23:13, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting, all of it. Especially redirecting your IPs to your userpage, I guess most of us just "recognize" the range. Informative, indeed. I wonder how TK will now try to disinform you? The battle continues... ħuman 23:30, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Well, apparently Crock o' Shite is an avid reader, and has blocked your entire range. How does that phrase about babies and bathwater go? --JeevesMkII 17:33, 24 January 2009 (EST)

"Ah, that baby was probably going to grow up to be a Liberal, anyway." --Gulik 02:40, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Range Blocks, Karajou and TK

TK's come-back brought a new vigor to the sharing out of range blocks. Amusingly, TK is more reasonable than Karajou, as he doesn't enact range blocks for an infinity period of time... LArron 08:52, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I think "more reasonable" is a very odd term to use. It's kinda like applying it to mass murderers, dictators, etc. After all, both TK and Karajou block insanely large ranges because of usually less than ten or so IPs, and "Yeah, but only for 1-5 years or so!" doesn't make things much better in my eyes. And on the other side, TK blocks tons more ranges.

But do I guess correctly that one month is the block between two dashed lines? If so, TK getting Block rights (December 1) really reflects in the graph. --Sid 09:08, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I can just imagine what joy TK takes from carpet bombing whole IP servers.-Diadochus 10:16, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Him and the sailor. You can almost see him going whheeeeeee-BOOM! as he clicks the button. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:28, 24 January 2009 (EST)

The range /16 blocks (white line) are quite en vogue nowadays. LArron 11:03, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia in the news!!!!

Anyone here read Wonkette? It's a kind of... ummm... wonky political blog, but it's widely read and well respected, and now it's taken a shot at Conservapedia for basically writing up a "how-to-assassinate-your-way-to-a-Republican-majority" guide. Lols.-Diadochus 10:25, 24 January 2009 (EST)

The list of editors should give you an idea of how serious it is. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:31, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, it's 99% parodists. Is Qwest a parodist though?-Diadochus 10:36, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I think Qwest is deep-cover, yeah. --Marty 14:30, 24 January 2009 (EST) [4]

The thing is though, if they claim that it was done by vandals or parodists, then they need to back up their words with action. User:QWest created the article, so supposedly he is a "political terrorist". But he's not been blocked. And the list of people who edited the article (which is pretty much "approving" it) are User:WesleyS, User:BHarlan, User:RodWeathers, and cp:User:DeanS. None of these are blocked, despite clearly not seeing the content of the page as inappropriate. Obviously, we believe many of these are parodists, but without CP taking any action (particularly against QWest, who created it largely in its current form), it seems like basic damage limitation, to be honest. Dreaded Walrus 17:44, 24 January 2009 (EST)

Well, without Wonkette, User:QWest would be a well-respected conservapedian, as Tony Sidaways shows here. LArron 17:59, 24 January 2009 (EST)

I suspect QWest (is that even its real name?) suicided by tipping La Wonkette off. PS, we WIGOd this days ago... ħuman 21:48, 24 January 2009 (EST)

That's something that occurred to me as well, there was a WIGO pointing out their hit list just a few days ago. Funny how it's only when a third party gets involved that they're so quick to cover their tracks, I guess they know they couldn't fool us with their "It's vandalism I tells ya!" story. Of course, it could have started as parody, but so did every second article they have over there, and I'm sure that CP would have no objection to any of the Democrats on that list being unable to complete his or her term. Oh and by the way, people from Wonkette are looking at us (a link to this section appeared in their comments) so everyone hide and pretend we're not home! *hides behind Human* -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 00:20, 25 January 2009 (EST)

BHarlan even added it to his list of pages he claims to have created.

I love Teacake's poor attempt at a cover up - why not just delete it, Terry? And block those who worked on it... oh wait... DeanS did too. Now you have a problem. I wonder if Wonkette's good showing in the 'best blog' contest had anything to do with it? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 06:45, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Obama's faith

Just read this charming exchange, and it struck me just how baffled they are that there are people, even calling themselves Christians, who don't obsess over the bible to the degree they do. Sure, most are parodists, but Andy and PJR are in there, and they don't seem to comprehend that faith isn't an "on/off" sort of thing, you can have degrees, and varying reasons for belonging to a faith. --Kels 12:40, 24 January 2009 (EST)

For people whose faith is incorporated into every part of their life, it is difficult to imagine that things are different for other people. It's usually called empathy, and those at Conservapedia will have none of it.Z3ro 13:00, 24 January 2009 (EST)