Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive119

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>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <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)

Just a little bit of plagiarism

Original entry by cp:User:FranL about nightjars:

Nightjar refers to an order of birds comprising of a number of species that are typically active at twilight and night, including such oddly-named members as the frogmouth and the pootoo. Of ten resembling owls in both appearance and habit, the two orders are thought to be distantly related.

Wow, something new, I never heard about nightjars, seems to be an interesting topic. TK steps in and improves the introduction:

The Nightjar's [sic] are a family of night-flying aerial insectivores scattered around the world with most species concentrated in the tropics and particularly in open county, including such oddly-named members as the frogmouth and the pootoo. Often resembling owls in both appearance and habit, the two orders are thought to be distantly related.

Wow, again, this TK seems to be a man of many talents, with arcane knowledge about night-flying aerial insectivores, vulgo birds. Not:

The Nightjars are a family of night-flying aerial insectivores scattered around the world with most species concentrated in the tropics and particularly in open county. One of the most widespread Neotropical nightjars is the Pauraque (left).

Follow the link, they have nice pictures - perhaps these can be ripped off, too?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Feel free to add to our Conservapedia:Blatant plagiarism article. A quick peruse will show you that TK is actually one of the biggest offenders. Considering that he doesn't really contribute much to articles in the first place, his original main-space contributions are microscopic. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:08, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Wow (again :-) in comparison with the other articles, the Nightjars are only a minor offense. But perhaps, cp:User:Hsmom will ask him about it? My contempt for TK gets the bigger the more I get to know about this individual. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:16, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I keep forgetting that many editors here don't know all the history behind these loathsome characters. TK's protestations of innocence over the UCLA article for instance (an excellent job by Lily in highlighting the similarity) was the reason for his disappearance from CP. At the time he wasn't a sysop so he couldn't abuse his powers to cover up his misdeed. I don't think it would get so far nowadays when he can just eliminate any opposition. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:30, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The opposition had been dead meat back then, too. TK always had the backing of several major players: Geo.plrd, JM and Ed especially. Combined with the big drama about people making completely baseless attacks, nobody stood a chance. Wasn't the entire AFD deleted very quickly? --Sid 16:04, 23 February 2009 (EST)

UCLA: What a fascinating read! - I didn't know about this whole affair: I became an editor at CP on June 19th, 2008. TK wasn't around then, but the place got unfriendly to me even though - and soon enough. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:12, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Just signed up after stumbling upon this discussion. At risk of losing my CP account, I'll introduce myself as the one who wrote the nightjar article in question. I changed TK's edits to the page shortly after he made them because they were factually incorrect (and the bizarre phraseology noted above didn't run too smoothly either IMO). It hadn't occured to me that he might have lifted the text from another source, and rather carelessly at that (note that he reproduced the obvious misspelling of 'country' as 'county'). What I found particularly conspicuous was that he made the edits shortly after removing a comment I made on Phillip J Rayment's talk page criticising his (most) recent attack on poor Phil. Being a self-conscious soul, I wondered if the sudden change to the article was a strange, veiled effort to undermine me. Hmmm. I'll be keeping an eye on this fellow. Franno 18:00, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Methinks you'll be keeping an eye on him from here. You just got yerself a bannination by posting here. _and marmite 18:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Oh dear, I hope you guys are a bit more accomodating. After a number of pithy but nonetheless informative (I hope) edits and almost total avoidance of argument, all I can say is that I wouldn't join any club that wouldn't have me as a member.Franno 18:27, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, here we'll probably make you a sysop before blocking you. ħuman 20:25, 23 February 2009 (EST)

And now TK's baleeted the Nightjar entry, with the bizarre reason that it was the user page for about 40 or so people. Which is about as strange as anything I can think of, honestly. --Kels 20:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Looks like he was probably pasting in the deletion reason on a dewandalling spree and forgot this wasn't one of them. ħuman 20:26, 23 February 2009 (EST)

No, strangely enough [1] that was the only deletion to use that reason. Weird. ħuman 20:28, 23 February 2009 (EST)

It's TK's catch-all for "This is a page that X touched, and I got a bad feeling, so I'll just put in a vaguely fitting reason, knowing full well that nobody will be dumb enough to question me" - see also this message from when he went on his "Must destroy anything RonyB touched" spree. --Sid 20:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Well, it's the typical MO for the lying Master of Deceit - he's been caught cribbing stuff again, but this time he has the powah to hide the evidence and kill the witnesses. As far as human beings go, he is utterly despicable, in fact, I don't see him as human at all. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

So TK has 1) Banned me, a user who demonstrably had no interest in parody or vandalism on the basis of being within a certain IP range and 2) removed a relatively informative and accurate article because he was foolish enough to make contributions that were plagiarised/utter bollocks? Yeah, definitely an asset to the site. Franno 14:48, 24 February 2009 (EST) 13:25, 24 February 2009 (EST)

TK has no interest in Conservapedia - all he's doing is playing his powergames on a wiki whose owner refuses to look at what's happening. Totnesmartin 19:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Another one bites the dust...

...goodbye, TomMoore... --Sid 17:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)

and a new blocking reason: being blocked before ne bis in idem , anyone? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:12, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Time to declare another night of blunt knives, I think.-Diadochus 17:24, 23 February 2009 (EST)

As long as you're blocking everyone with a presence on RW, TK (except yourself I notice), what about our old friends DLerner and Iduan? Let's not forget them. Not to mention Tony Sidaway and HenryS. Get blockin' kiddo. DickTurpis 17:26, 23 February 2009 (EST)

If being blocked before is a valid blocking reason, there are only two block periods; none, or infinite. This site is growing rapidly! Z3ro^talk 17:30, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Kill DinsdaleP, TK, kill him! I was never quite able to ban him as long as I wanted. 17:49, 23 February 2009 (EST)

With his spear and magic helmet? --SpinyNorman 20:00, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Wonderful! And it's Wagner! 20:47, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I've posted repeatedly using my account with the same name as the one on RW. Only been blocked once by a parodist. Directly challenged Andy several times. To anybody reading this from CP, I'm ashamed you let me live this long. So tl;dr bring it bitches! ENorman 18:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I've been repeatedly surprised at your success in challenging Andy and staying unblocked. Quite an anomaly, indeed. ħuman 20:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The site('s block list) is growing rapidly! --Gulik 18:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I better request my password so I can start editing again in my eminently reasonable fashion. I never had the pleasure of TK's acquaintance, I am curious.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:35, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I still laugh at how TK ignores the statement by PJR that he in fact has an account at RW. I believe that Ken and Ed have ones too. Of course, TK can't harm Ed and going against Kenny does nothing, since the psychotic little fuck helps bring the site down on his own. ENorman 23:12, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ed barely used his account (IIRC - the last major event I can remember was when he posted on CP about those Buddhist Riot Monks), I think. Ken however (as "Newton") was a regular for a good while, pimping "Conservapedia's Atheism article" like whoa and telling us that we could never prove he's Ken because he never admitted it. I think he stopped when he realized that the nofollow property of links here nullified his Search Engine pimping intentions.

Of course, all of this completely disregards the often-cited "How CP differs from WP" difference: We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.--Sid 06:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Too late, Tom. TK banned you again. Did you honestly think that a puny Bureaucrat could overrule TK's decision? --Sid 06:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Come on CPWebmaster, are you gonna let TK punk you like that? Yeah, probably. Z3ro^talk 09:39, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Oh noes - AndyJM commits wiki suicide, by referring to one of Foxtrot's efforts as "tripe". He's right, of course, but we all know what happens to that kind of people on CP. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:51, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Lordgodawmighty, that's one horrifically moronic article: "main form of treatment [for dementia] is heavy sedition [sic] with...lithium." What the...?--WJThomas 10:44, 24 February 2009 (EST)

My experiences with Conservapedia (and they're not good..)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

This an account of my own, very recent, experiences with Conservapedia. While it probably won't be new to a vast majority of you here, who are aware by now of it's very narrow viewpoint, it may be an interesting case study and proof of continued ridicule:

I decided to create an account on Conservapedia, to argue my own viewpoint and refute the terrible bias against articles such as Wikipedia. Now, I am aware, this was utterly in vain. Perhaps I felt a bit of sympathy, who knows?

My first account was entitled 'MasterOfHisOwnDomain' and everything went smoothly with the account creation. After several minutes however, I found my account had been suspended permanently and told me to contact the administrator who had carried out the action. Apparently, the 'Real first and last name initials' which had been deemed 'optional' during the creation process, were heavily enforced. Fair enough, I assessed. Now as Conservapedia follows a policy of no anonymous contributors, I was obviously unable to actually make clear my predicament without forming another account.

After creating a second account with the name 'Masterofhisdomain' I immediately went to the talk page of the Administrator 'JPatt' and explained my predicament, suggesting that the account creation's listing of initials as optional should be changed. By this time I had outlined my political and religious views on my user page, revealing myself to be a liberal and agnostic (and English..)

Following this I decided to get involved in some of the debating topics which was my orginal goal in joining the pedia, mainly revolving around the topic of Homosexuality. I largely refuted a lot of horrible comments about Homosexuality being a disease and needing a cure, something which I thought even the Admin at Conservapedia might appreciate.

How wrong I was.. Within about half an hour I returned to find my user page gone, for a second time in two nights. Apparently this second account was a 'sockpuppet' of my original 'MasterOfHisOwnDomain'. Luckily I thought, I left that comment on one of the Administrator's talk pages. When I went to check on how it was progressing I found it to be deleted. Upon further inspection I found all of my edits to the debating topics to have been deleted, which is neither a warranted or helpful action. Just as a I came to create a further acount and explain this to someone else, I realised that I had been I.P Banned.

Numerous counts of over-reacting and abuse of Administrator privileges? Yes. Conservapedia ensuring its followers stay in the dark of general ignorance. Further proof.

For visual proof, if proof were needed, of my problem, I took a screenshot of the edits made by Admin TK. Notice especially the blatant deletion of my explanation (first revert) to another Admin.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain 17:57, 23 February 2009 (EST)

You're agnostic, liberal, anti-homophobia, a foreigner, didnt use the FirstnameLastinitial format, made a second account, dared to post your opinion, accuse them of bias, and asked for clarification of the rules? Say something supporting evolution and you've covered almost every silly reason they might ban you. Well done! 18:05, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I'd point out that both your names are pop references to masturbation or . . er . . the lack of masterbation so the whole banning thing was not at all surprising. Congratulations either way. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:12, 23 February 2009 (EST)

If I can discuss your points first Publius: You're probably correct on all first four points (although foreigner..? I'm from England, which isn't exactly the furthest culturally from America) but the others I refute. The Initials policy is as clear as mud, and I took optional to mean you have a choice in whether or not to include initials.. The second account was made because otherwise there was no way of contacting Administrators and sorting the problem, again a fault with the system. Bias, I don't really think so; although you never saw the edits I made they were generally very neutral, my intention was never to go in and accuse anyone. I don't know whether your Well Done comment is sarcasm, but I'm assuming in the context it is, in which case why are you bothering to reply to my experiences?

Sheesh, I realise that both the names used are often regarded as references to masturbation (I've seen Seinfeld), but it's not exactly as blunt as 'MasturbationMan' is it? I don't really think in the end the username came into the equation, and as well a simple request for a name change would have sufficed. No need to rampage across my edits and IP ban me.. MasterOfHisOwnDomain 11:18, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, Publius was being sarcastic. As to why, I don't know, I suppose it's a more amusing way of explaining what could get you banned at Conservapedia. NightFlare 11:38, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yep, 'tis sarcasm. The point being that while nothing you did was deserving of a ban, and you're perfectly right on all accounts, none of that matters at CP. There are the "Conservapedia Commandments," which don't matter, and the "Secret Hidden Conservapedia Rules," which result in most new users getting blocked or leaving in disgust. People have complained about the whole name scheme for months, to no effect, contacting admins is typically impossible and no one cares, and neutrality is scheming liberal bias. 12:38, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Okay I see. Apologies, I thought the tone was a bit aggresive and responded accordingly, a misinterpretation on my part Publius. I agree with all your points wholeheartedly, and even I was surprised at the level of hostility at CP when I joined. Thanks for responding everyone, much appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain 10:48, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I always thought that their hidden username rule would scare off real new editors and only the parodists would get in (since they know about it). Nice to see it confirmed! --GTac 11:11, 25 February 2009 (EST)

"MasterOfHisOwnDomain", I looked at your contributions and you're "sources" are ungrammatical, so admit it, you're an Obama supporter. You also clearly deny that chivalry helps resist genocide. Believe what you like, but Evolution conflicts with logic, science, and Christianity. By the way, note how few liberals take the World History Midterm Exam. Being a liberal means merely pretending to be smarter, and it doesn't help that strategy to display one's actual knowledge. Go back to Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"So yeah. He can't lift rocks either."

Addison deletes the various "debate" contributions of one cp:User:NewJew (not me), carefully preserving them for posterity in the deletion log. I lol'ed. --Marty 22:55, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Sure God can create rocks heavier than he can lift. What do you think Black Holes are? ENorman 10:36, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Ministry of Truth at work

The recent efforts to delete tons of history (user pages, sub pages, sysop contest pages, etc.) basically drove CP against a wall, leading to sysops having to do insanely much maintenance just to remove all traces of their history removal (Wanted Pages, especially).

Yep, much easier than just leaving pages that never hurt anybody. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth, Jessica! --Sid 07:00, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Just goes to show the lack of wiki-knowledge of the so-called admins. hey Crockoshite - check the "what links here" before you go on your next censorship spree. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:15, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Why is Jessica helping them? The rest obviously don't seem too concerned with it. I so want to defend her, but she has to realize that she's just enabling them at this point. I still don't know why anyone would want to stay involved with those folks. Even if you agree with their politics, their viciousness is toxic. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:26, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I really want to assume good faith and say that she's just interested in damage control at this point, but she was also quick to follow the others' example of mindlessly deleting history, so I almost fear that she evolved, too (see this section for reference). --Sid 07:38, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I think Jessica is caught between trying to do the right thing and following the directives of the leadership. I'd put her squarely in the middle of the camp of people who believe that CP could be a decent project if the people in charge acted decently, and that she hasn't given up on that yet. I think if someone actually put up a serious attempt at professionally-run conservative wiki encyclopedia, CP would be reduced to Andy and Ken, with people like Jessica and PJR being the first to move on. --SpinyNorman 09:06, 24 February 2009 (EST)

(And you as well, Dinsdale?) As many people have pointed out over the years, the idea of a "conservative wiki encyclopedia" simply doesn't make sense. Wikis by their very nature tend to conform to the consensus viewpoint. If you want a consensus view, go to Wikipedia. If you want an echo chamber (which isn't as truthful, but reflects your own belief system to a greater extent), then probably you don't want an open wiki. --Marty 22:24, 24 February 2009 (EST)

How is the Conservapedia Bible Going ?

Anyone know what is happening to the Conservapedia Bible according to AS ?? I am looking forward to seeing (perhaps not reading) a Bible shorn of its 'liberal' bias ? At least it will make God and Jesus etc get more in line with the Christian conservative agenda . Perhaps the Conservapedians will start their own church soon. --Rovander 07:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Until now, the only work was done by cp:User:DeniseM - one verse is translated so far. I suppose that Andy is waiting (and perhaps praying) for a high-school genius to complete the project all by himself. As he told cp:User:BRichtigen who called the project a little bit to ambitious: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:58, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Of course, it could be just another Andy project that fell by the wayside (could he have ADD? or just be alcoholic, as TK alluded to), like the teenagers thing (ok, that was Bugler, but Andy seems to have forgotten that too). I have the feeling Denise has left after her last tiff with Andy and he showed her what an idiot he really is. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

looking through Denise's contribs, it seems that she actually knows something about linguistics & has become tired of Andy's ignorance and given up. _and marmite 10:29, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I was on RW's "differences between conserv & WP" page, and it said that CP claims to have more experts and not run them aside. From your comments about Denise and other people's comments about Math articles, I giggle every time I read that. I do think this project will be a bit slow, if the translator in question must ask permission from the great AndyEtAl to use each word they choose. wouldn't it be easier at that point to say "Andy, you do it".--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 10:32, 24 February 2009 (EST)

The closest thing CP has to an expert at the moment is RJJ, and it seems they're doing their damnedest to hound him out. How does Andy manage to promote all the closet liberals to sysop anyway? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:39, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Ok, I don't know how I missed Denise's work, but she TOTALLY schooled Andy on "language". Making him look the fool he is. Though, I enjoyed the old revisions better, as they show great insight into how the man thinks the world came to be. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 10:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Andy keeps forgetting that if he's going to rely on child labor to do the heavy lifting for him, he's got to be supportive instead of critical. --SpinyNorman 12:12, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Help anyone?

Apologies in advance for the naiveness of this question, but I've just been blocked on Conservapedia by TK for 'abusing multiple accounts', the others being two I've never heard of. It said I could contact TK about it, but after a brief search I can't find any emailing function or anything like that.

I was in the middle of quite an interesting discussion about hell with PJR, and I'd just spent some time composing a real slam-dunk of a response, and now I don't get to show it to him. :( seventhrib 10:24, 24 February 2009 (EST)

You can log in and go here to e-mail him, unless he's disabled your e-mail, in which case I'll give you his address - not that it will help. His boast about unblocking the most users is just another of his lies. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:31, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Chances are they have an IP address remotely similar to yours, or he just felt like unpersoning you and needed a semi-viable scapegoat. ENorman 10:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

BTW, you've just knackered your chances by posting here, you know that, right? _and marmite 10:45, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Nuthin. Just get the 'you've been blocked by TK' message again. and Toast: you're right. fuck. I guess I'll just finish my discussion with Philip in 2014. seventhrib 10:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)

PJR reads here assiduously, so you could post here, if you really want to continue your "discussion". _and marmite 10:53, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, he can ignore you here just as well as there. Welcome. Neveruse513 13:01, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I have PJR's email (I think I got it from the SDG), he has said that if anyone wants to debate by email he is quite happy to do so but doesn't want to post his email openly. However as he has given permission for anyone who has his address to pass it on, send me an email and I'll let you know. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:06, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Delusions of competence

I was AFK when this was discussed (last week?) but what the Hell is Andy thinking of? Getting his "course" recognised by the state!!! Has he ever got delusions of competence? No-one on CP seems to have come right out with the phrase: "Andy you're talking bollocks" as far as I can see, but surely they must be able to see that he is. Sorry for rehashing old news but FUCKING HELL! _and marmite 10:43, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Parodists want him to fail, and the Idiots who are not parodists don't know that "imaginary numbers" aren't evil, and buy the idea that first you have to have a word, and only THEN does the concept come along. ;-) But as someone interested in Education, should he get anywhere with this, I have a long letter ready in my head to say "go read Rational Wiki". ;-) --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 10:51, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Just send a printout of Andrew_Schlafly. _and marmite 11:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I get the feeling that if the state of New Jersey (NYSE: SHTHLE) ever finds out aboutit (Schlafly "teaching" chil'ren) not only would they shut his class down but maybe try to get him to refund some $$$. 10:54, 24 February 2009 (EST) CЯacke®

I think that "delusions of legitimacy" is closer to the mark. We all delude ourselves to some extent about our own importance in the world. But every now and then events force us to consider our achievements objectively. I know that in my case (and I would imagine in most of our cases) the results are usually sobering and occasionally slightly depressing. In Andy's case the result must be crushing. With the exception of opening jars and peeling potatoes, the man has failed at everything he has put his hand to. Being legitimized by the state (careful with those irony meters) would go a long way to convincing him that he has worth as an educator.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:03, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I honestly don't think it's gonna happen. He fails under almost every criteria. I'm not too hot on some of the technical requirements, but I did some quick checking on the curriculum requirements, and there's no way he comes close to meeting them. As long as they actually check the curriculum that is... Worm ^{(t | c)} 11:14, 24 February 2009 (EST)

(undent) Here's a measure of Andy's success as an instructor - how many of the kids he's showered with grades of 95 or more have actually contributed any meaningful content to Conservapedia? My understanding was that the site was founded in part so that students would learn through their contributions in building it. Hijacking by Ken and others aside, it appears that Andy has abandoned this goal in favor of using CP as a blog, and just uses his courses as a the homeschooling equivalent of a diploma mill - "If your tuition check passes, so will you". --SpinyNorman 12:17, 24 February 2009 (EST)

You can kind of forget about his ineptitude at homskolling, if you remember that all these kids are going to be from affluent middle class homes (the kind that can afford to commit their children to miseducation by the Assfly, the rest of the world being far too poor to buy cheap boots as it were) since doubtless at least some of them are getting a decent education otherwise (at least on of his former protégés went to Brown, which means they probably have some real book learnin', though you have to wonder about the poor saps who go to such enlightened institutions as Liberty university and Grove City college, etc.) and the ones who are completely fucked by the homskolling experience still have sinecures from mummy/daddy to look forward to. After all, it worked out OK for the Assfly.

The horrible thought of the Assfly teaching failing kids out of some horribly misplaced sense of charity (go volunteer to look after kitties, you arsehole. Yes, you come home smelling of cat urine and with a bunch of probably infected scratches, but if you fuck up the worst that happens is you accidentally lose a fucking cat.) is really horrifying. Well, anyway tick tock, Assfly. Two days to get that application done and in the post. I guess you just can't be bothered with all the hassle of officialdom, eh? Just like how you run your blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:29, 24 February 2009 (EST)

This is exactly right. His students don't contribute (Addison aside), nor does his family, beyond the occasional Roger edit, and he has all of a few dozen contributers, half of which are parodists and re-re-categorizors, yet he continues to assert that it will top Wikipedia in a few years' time. I'd love for someone to do an analysis of, say, two weeks worth of edits. How much actual content is added. Ie. quantity of encylopedic text added to the thing (new stubs, expanded non-essay articles). Also, how many regular contributers actually are involved (as Ed, Ken, TK, and Dean clearly don't count) 12:46, 24 February 2009 (EST)

He claims that he's gonna send it tomorrow, but daren't post it on the net 'cause of teh "liberals" thereon. The other one's got bells on Mr S. _and marmite 19:01, 24 February 2009 (EST)

My guess is that this is the last we will hear about it. Rather then another Lenski affair, it will turn into another FBI situation. Never spoken of again and those who ask about the outcome will be banned.--ScottA 19:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Surely once the form is submitted a simple FOIA request could generate a copy. Andy does realize things like this become public information, right? (Like his beloved US govt. glossaries) ħuman 19:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Andy "or just be alcoholic, as TK alluded to..."

What? When? Where is this gem posted--the old SDG? TheoryOfPractice 10:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)

In an IM conversation, posted by Jazzman here. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:02, 24 February 2009 (EST)

A Funeral is Announced

Conservapedia is dead!

There are (almost) zero actual contributors.

The number of new articles or constructive additions to existing articles is virtually zero.

Existing articles are either polemics, crap or parody.

The "management structure" _(heh) is ludicrous.

If this were Roe v Wade, the court's decision would undoubtedly be to allow a peaceful decline into oblivion.

Doctor TK has virtually completed the job that RW started.

All that is left is to decide the actual time and place of the interment

Who will mourn its passing?

_and marmite 13:04, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Does "mourn" mean to run around screaming "I Win, I win!" Cause if so, I'm guessing many will do this "mourning" thing. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 13:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I wrote a special template for that sort of mourning:

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:10, 24 February 2009 (EST)

It's so much fun to watch now. They're all so paranoid/stupid/insidious that it's virtually unpossible for new editors to establish themselves. cat-cat-cat-ban! cat-cat-cat-ban! Neveruse513 13:12, 24 February 2009 (EST)

How would I go about seeing if my IP has been banned on CP? -Lardashe

Try to create an account or edit a page. If your IP is banned, you'll get a message that you've been blocked even if you're not signed in. Neveruse513 13:17, 24 February 2009 (EST)

"Reports of my Death have been greatly exaggerated." --Samuel Langhorn Clemens. TheoryOfPractice 13:19, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Well... I've never made an account, and I only get a Log In button at the top, no create an account option. Going to that page doesn't offer the means of creating an account either... -lardashe

You should still be able to log in even if you are blocked, you just won't be able to edit. Sometimes they switch off account creation and forget to turn it back on. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

It's a little known fact that Mark Twain stole that joke off Jesus at a party. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:22, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Now I have no purpose other than attacking Andy and his few goons left...At least I'm not attacking innocent children anymore--Nate River 15:14, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Same here. Now it's invite only. This saddens me greatly. RationalWiki will die if Conservapedia dies, we need each other for survival, the boycott proved that. We're dying, as Conservapedia dies. While our enemy dies, our life force slowly leaks away. . . we've got to do something. We need a survival plan. Somehow, someone, by hook or crook, must restore Conservapedia's create account function. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 19:13, 24 February 2009 (EST)

We'll get by. Lots of things were set up for a narrow purpose, which when fulfilled, freed them up to do more stuff. Foe instance, the Church of England, which was set up to allow Henry VIII to have a divorce. If CP dies it'll make a big hole in us and a lot of people will leave, but not everyone. AOTW will probably pick up steam (it's a scribble in the margin currently, but only because there's a bigger fish to fry), and almost every non-CP related article needs improving. There's a ton of scrappiness here. Or we can all hang out in the saloon bar and talk bollocks. Totnesmartin 19:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

No sign of life or intelligence.--Nate River 21:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Conservativemdm

Whoever you are, you're a genius. Neveruse513 13:31, 24 February 2009 (EST)

My memory needs a joggin'

Someone on CP posted a suggested news story implying that Dawkins is ducking from a debate with Ray Comfort by insisting on a $100K donation to his charity as a sign of good faith and seriousness. I responded by pointing out that Comfort has promised serious debate in the past only to fall back on his standard "Are you a sinner?" sermon when he's given the publicity and airtime (this was the so-called debate between Comfort and Kirk Cameron against the Rational Response Squad on 20/20. Neither side represented their positions well, I'm afraid). What I recalled, though, is that Andy was challenged to an open, public debate last spring, and his response was to insist on a good-faith fee to be paid up front as a sign of seriousness by the challenger. I couldn't find links to that exchange - can anyone help out? --SpinyNorman 16:17, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yes that was AmesG/Caius, but he's withdrawn from here to concentrate on his status as a celeb-blogger. However, I'm sure his email is still active if you would like to contact him for details. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Googling "Ames, Schlafly, Debate," gives these results: "Challenge Accepted" and then a postmortem.-Diadochus 16:26, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for both responses. Ah, Ames, you are missed. I'm not surprised that he's moved on from RW though - discussing the inanity of CP can be like discussing Roadrunner/Coyote cartoons - it's fun to laugh over specific incidents, but it's not like the overall story will ever change. --SpinyNorman 16:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

THat's a pretty good comparison --GTac 03:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Since Ray Comfort is one of my specific targets of ire, I have been posting updates over on clogs. Go see for yourself... Ray's actually doing the ducking (by running away from Examiner because they won't moderate comments) and calling Dawkins a coward at the same time. He makes mention of the 2001 debate with Ron Barrier to try to save face. My gut feeling is that Barrier initially withdrew PRECISELY because of the copy of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists Comfort sent him prior to the original debate forum. I can just picture him (Barrier) going "This is absolutely ridiculous! A publisher actually touched it? I can't engage in a battle of intellect with an unarmed man! It would be... IMMORAL." So Ray blows the chicken whistle in the court of public opinion, Ron has to save face, Ray flies into Orlando at the expense of American Atheists, Inc. and everyone had a good laugh mocking him at the debate. It's what you call a win-win situation. The Foxhole Atheist 14:56, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Uncle Ed's perving again

Pardon me while I vomit _and marmite 18:15, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Uncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanunclean. (Toast, I'm thinking we need to make Comrade Ed Minister of Youth on the SROC page). --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 18:28, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Eugh. Pseudomonas 18:32, 24 February 2009 (EST)

EC) Good idea: Make it so Mr Yossarian. _and marmite 18:35, 24 February 2009 (EST)

need Brain Bleach. Now. Also, I guess the moonies are all vehemently homophobic, but have no problems with pedos? ENorman 18:37, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I've seen that link before on CP, but I can't remember when. It made me puke the first time round. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:24, 24 February 2009 (EST)

And quoting the Indigo Girls. Wow. TMI, Ed, as always. --Marty 22:39, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Wait...Ed likes the Indigo Girls? HEAD A SPLODE! If that's one of their songs, it has to be a cover. There's no way Ed "Beware, You May Be Evil" Poor could possibly think the Indigo Girls are anything but destined for the darkest corners of hELL. Unless he gets off on their being lesbia-- uncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanuncleanunclean. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 02:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Robert WDP

I don't know what his long-term purposes of the site are, but he made genuine SUGGESTED factual contributions and he's getting a telling off from TK. Worse yet, he retorts as well. How long will he last?DSFARGEG 18:41, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Methinks that Economist is actually the parodist, Robert's just being truthful. _and marmite 18:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

liked this line I found when reading Robert's comments on the "history" lesson.... "First both the United and States developed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to shoot each other with nuclear arms". wonder how they will shoot eachother?--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 19:24, 24 February 2009 (EST)

It's funny because the guy is trying pretty hard to be civil in the face of teh Assfly's wanton ignorance, but I'd say he has no more than a day or two until he get's the ol' unjustified 90/10. Definitely very fun to watch, though. Neveruse513 13:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Content Creation at CP

Inspired by the funeral announcement, and earlier musings about how much actual content is created at CP, I've done a quick runthrough of the edits in the last 24 hours (not representative, a week would be needed for that), to find out how much added content is encyclopedic, that is, not homework, lectures, vandalism, reversions, moving, deleting, categorization, sorting, essays, debates, (history's) mysteries, and the like.

24 hours saw 238 mainspace edits (this is lower than the week's average of ~340, as weekends see spikes in lectures, homework, and mysteries/Andy's sunday essays).

This includes 24 vandalism+reversions, 11 homework, 5 debate, 4 essay, 2 deletions, 1 protection, and 1 move.

Already, we're at 190 prospective edits, of which 25 are new pages. Alas, removing janitorial edits, linking, redirects, and single-word edits, we're down to 58 content additions, ranging from clauses, to single sentences, to actual pages. 14 new pages were created, 5 about baseball by a single individual. So far as I can tell, I've written more in the course of a day doing a research paper than the entirety of CP. 19:52, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Now, compare that to Wikipedia, from 01:40 - 01:45, only five minutes, there were over 500 edits. A higher percentage were vandalism —as WP is easier to vandalize and more used by the most likely group of people to vandalize (teenagers), that makes sense—, but there was also a higher percentage of content addition. Wikipedia is 'growing rapidly', Conservapedia is not. Icewedge 20:52, 24 February 2009 (EST)

In all fairness, wiki has a gagillion users and covers every topic under the sun. Curious, how many "legit" edits (by your same def) are here at RW?--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 20:58, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Almost none! :) _and marmite 21:03, 24 February 2009 (EST)

The site is growing rapidly! Evolutionists beware! --GTac 04:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing Unique Editors at CP

Accounts Created at CP

File:Ppd-Conservapedia-20090000.png Edits per Day at CP

I'm just up-dating my stats: Here is a pic of the number of unique editors which make contributions on a given day. Using these numbers, I think the funeral announcements are premature... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:58, 25 February 2009 (EST)

And another one, showing how many accounts (blocked and otherwise :-) are created per day at CP. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:13, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The third one shows the edits per day at CP. As minor edits - and categorizations - are included, it doesn't say that much --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I really like the fact that you can see that week at the end of January when teh Assfly killed the server... The Foxhole Atheist 16:26, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The only problem with these lovely graphs is they don't distinguish between "real" editors, and, um, short term "visitors". ħuman 20:01, 25 February 2009 (EST)

That is more a problem of Conservapedia than of my lovely graphs (thanks). To automatically distinguish between these two groups would imply the existence of objective criteria. But I can hardly imagine a place where rules are applied more subjectively than Conservapedia (sorry, Kim Jong Il). The German language knows the term Willkürherrschaft - the reign of the caprice. It describes a state without rules - or where existing rules are executed arbitrarily. IMO, an apt description of Andy's way of governing his site. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Account Creation

Sometimes, I get the impression that TK is just flipping a coin to decide whether a newbie is banned or not... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:50, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Andy to seek SES certification; how we can fight back

Hello all! Thanks much for the kind words above. I am in fact retired, but because I followed Andy's SES application on my blog, I thought it important to speak to you all over here. As I recently detailed, Andy could not live up to the legal requirements that attach to SES providers, much less deliver a subjectively excellent education. I think we need to push back on his application. I've used NJ's contact us form to ask where I can send any damning information; I suggest you all do too.

Oh, and with that I'm going to poof out again. I'll have a post on this in the morning, feel free to contact me there :). <3 to RW...-caius (soldier) 19:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Also, regarding the fact that he is not posting the "completed" ap on line (to save it from liberal vandals, of course), can we do a FOIA request after it is filed to get a full copy? ħuman 20:03, 24 February 2009 (EST)

FOIA is serious. I don't know how hard it is to draft that, but that'd be a MAJOR undertaking.-Diadochus 20:58, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know who told you FOIA is serious, but it's not, if this is a governmental process. A foia request amounts to "We would like this information, based on this reason. We have been in contact with this school for X years, and wish to petition against their certification blah blah blah... If you all really need such a letter, I'd be happy to write something. (sans typos)--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 21:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

FOIA isn't serious at all. It's a law that mandates that government officials make available public documents to anyone who asks, a simple "sunshine law" that people use all the time. ħuman 21:16, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yep. we get hand written requests, vague requests, etc. We take them all seriously if they 1) are specific, and 2) do not involve private info. "Specific" is easy, "we want his application". private info would be "we of course understand that any reference to income, cost/profit, or particular insurances will be redacted"... --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 21:37, 24 February 2009 (EST)

FOIA / Open Public Records Act

I've done a bit of looking. FOIA only applies to federal agencies. The New Jersey Department of Education is a state agency. Fortunately, New Jersey has a similar law, called the New Jersey Open Public Records Act. The SES application says, on page 17, "SES provider applications fall under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). Should an application be requested under OPRA, the NJ DOE will redact those portions deemed to be confidential, proprietary, or sensitive financial information." Lots of useful information about submitting an OPRA request is at OPRA Central. I think it would be useful to read the application before writing to the DOE about it. --Too tired to log in 23:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I'd worry about turnaround time. They probably won't do it within a week, but certification might be over by then. Sorry to Human for mischaracterizing FOIA, I'm obviously not a lawyer so I have no clue :). I think we should try to get his application though.-Diadochus 00:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

FOIA request from the state (which are mostly based on federal regs as a minimum standard) have strict "timeliness" guidelines. In Colorado we must reply to RFI applications within 3 days, to tell the person when records will be made available, what the cost is, and what can and cannot be privileged. From there, we generally have 48 hours to compile (or make available) records requested unless reasonable limitations exist. (Documents over 2 years old, for example, are housed in a warehouse in Kansas (I kid you not). So turnaround shouldn't be a problem, since I can't imagine that they could review even a well-managed application for accreditation so quickly. The catch-22 of course is that there is no mandate that they must *provide* you the records... merely make them available for inspection. That means that someone has to go on his or her own time and look at the records. Does anyone live near that set of offices?--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 01:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Here is the info on filing an OPRA request, and a form for submitting a request online. These are the folks who are in charge of enforcing the OPRA law. Here is a toll-free hotline for folks who have questions about filing an OPRA request. My research implies that reasonable requests must be filled in 7 days. It looks easy. I'm sure someone here is up to the task. If you file a request, please let us know and post the info here. Assuming, of course, AS's SES application gets submitted in the first place.--Too tired to log in 17:39, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Letter

RationalWikians, I recently sent this letter to the Education Comissioner. I have decided to post it here for access.

To whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention that a man by the name Andy Schlafly has applied to recieve SES certification. In part due to my concern about the "Educational" quality of Mr. Schlafly's programs, I am contacting you to protest administering SES certification.
There are several factors I could fit into this message, but I suppose I will start with the ones on the top of my head. For starters, Mr. Schlafly has no degrees in any of the fields he has taught in so far, (U.S History and presently, World History), and further, he does not have a degree in education. When asked to release information regarding any credientals, he has refused to respond.
Furthermore, for a course aimed at High School level chilcren, Mr. Schlafly has asked questions and accepted answers that would be the laughing stock of any self respecting school, including "What do you find most inspiring about Christopher Columbus?"
furthermore, Mr. Schlafly has expressed skepticism about commonly accepted statements, decrying the Vikings as being a "Liberal attempt to rewrite history". He futher believes that Vikings are an attempt to deginerate the accomplishments of Columbus.
Mr. Schlafly has also shown himself to believe that Boys are superior academically to women, even to the point of administering seperate exams to boys and girls taking his class.
For these, and many other reasons why I feel Mr. Schlafly should not recieve SES certification, I ask that you go to
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Andrew_Schlafly
and read the information contained there.
I hope you take this letter seriously. Mr. Schlafly, while entitled to his beliefs, I do not feel is qualified to teach them, particually when they are as incorrect as they are.
Thank you for your time,

---

------

P.S, contact by email would be the best way to reach me, or you can leave a message on the main page talk section.

That is the letter in its entirety. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate!

I thought it was just Leif Ericsson's reaching America, not the Vikings in general, that Mr. Schlafly thought to be a liberal myth. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:18, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Please tell me you spellchecked it before sending it. _and marmite 20:20, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I did indeed spell check it, and found six errors, not including Schlafly. I ran it through [2], and probabally should have copied the corrected text, don't worry.ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate!

Eggsellent. _and marmite 20:29, 24 February 2009 (EST)

What an eggscruciating yolk! Anyways, I think the letter could use some improving. We should remember that these officials have no idea about who RW or CP is, and for all they know we are the crackpots. That's why I think sentences like the following should be edited or removed:

Furthermore, for a course aimed at High School level chilcren, Mr. Schlafly has asked questions and accepted answers that would be the laughing stock of any self respecting school, including "What do you find most inspiring about Christopher Columbus?"

Having a question like that doesn't have to be that bad, there are way worse things he did. And to be honest, I'm afraid it would seem overly critical, condemning him to be ridiculous on one question, which would make them question our honesty and motives and disregard our criticisms.The vikings example seems fine though, and pointing out his sexism is great too. I think the question could be replaced with a worse one though, perhaps one of those retarded question, the answer of the student, derisive comment from Andy and finally the insane grading? --GTac 04:17, 25 February 2009 (EST)

For awhile now, I have been a member of a group that monitors the activities of Andrew Schlafly and his "encyclopedia". We may joke around about what he and his administrators have done, but one thing we can agree on is that his SES Application is a crock at best. We have noted grade inflation (in one occurrence giving 5/10 to a student who refused to answer), taking away points for arguing a different viewpoint and so forth.

It is impossible for one to question Mr. Schlafly about these and other accusations. He will only respond on his website's, "Conservapedia", talk pages. His email is disabled. On Conservapedia, one must register first before being able to edit any articles or talk pages. If a user attacks the content or beliefs of the site, or even questions them, an administrator will post a reply followed by a ban from the website. Mr. Schlafly is fond of saying "You would understand if you open your mind" while doing this.

Mr. Schlafly is also very critical of public schools, yet he states that if he gets SES certification, he would tutor remedial students from local public schools. He states that the public school system is a tool in liberal brainwashing and even dismisses the universally acknowledged superiority of smaller class size.

In conclusion, Mr. Schlafly runs a diploma mill. Please, with a sincere heart, I beg of you to not only deny his SES application, but also run an investigation on his "classes".

Any ideas how to improve mine?--Nate River 21:05, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Certification does not require someone take a "neutral" position on topics you and I find logical. What you need to understand is that your letter comes off as semi petty "I'm not conservitive". The very nature of these programs are to allow people with vastly different ideas be able to teach kids the way they want. What you need to emphasize is how his courses HARM students in an education sense. I would highlight 1) factual errors, 2) lack of emphasis on traditional writing skills, 3) assumption that "yes" is a qualified answer to a quetions. And i would do much more to highlight his teaching weakness. I know we hate that he is an extremist, but he has a right to be, and parents have a right to have students taught by extremists. However, they have a right to be taught accurate facts by qualified teachers as well. Does that makes sense? Making this an "us / them" argument might make the state consider that such a conservative approach is important for conservative students. making this a "he sucks as a teacher" appraoch will get him dumped.--~~~~Insert non-formatted --~~~~text here

No offense intended, re: the letter above, but I hope you didn't send it with all those typos... ħuman 21:17, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Not yet, just getting some feedback first--Nate River 21:24, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry, I didn't mean yours, and my question was already covered above. Nevermind :) ħuman 23:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yeh I prettu much agree with what human stated there. --GTac 04:28, 25 February 2009 (EST)

To whom it may concern,

I understand that you will shortly receive an SES provider application from Mr. Andrew L. Schlafly. His suitability for this role may be examined in detail on his online "teaching resource", conservapedia.com. If you require any further laughs, make the silly bastard submit to a teaching observation or two.

Enjoy!

--Robledo 21:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Against

I don't think that we should be protesting or sending letters at all. By all lights Andy's application is guaranteed epic fail. Submitting ad hoc, free form criticism will only gives him a legitimate case for claiming discrimination. Just sit back and enjoy the lulz when he is thrown out on his ass.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I agree, partially. Any criticism that we send should be primarily in Mr. Schlafly's own words, with very little commentary of ours. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, i used a lot of quotes in mine.--Nate River 22:56, 24 February 2009 (EST)

But the remarks about crocks and diploma-mills, and the calls for State investigation of his classes, must go, however desperately deserving of them Mr. Schlafly is. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:09, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Don't worry, I took out those remarks. My new version was longer with actual quotes, links etc, though I did finish calling it a diploma mill (but with good evidence.--Nate River 23:36, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I hope you put "diploma mill" in quotes, since he ain't offering no diplomas... just, as said above, "if the check passes, so does your homskolled brat." ħuman 23:51, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I would hope that if any of us were to submit complaints, etc against Andy's application, that they would be well-written, concise, not blatantly anti-conservative, and stick to the points at issue. Which are: i) total lack of factual accuracy; ii) dismissal of expert, qualified opinion; and iii) education using blatantly politicized opinion. All other issues are utterly, totally, irrelevant. This includes whether or not you think the man's mad as a balloon, or crazy right-wing. If parents want him to tell them the Moon was made by God, that's their call. But if he teaches that the Moon is made of cheese, that's a problem. DogP 23:58, 24 February 2009 (EST)

(ui) If you use quotations by Andy, perhaps the random bashing of public school children that he peppers in. They would probably find his open hostility to public schoolers germane. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 00:01, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I also supplied two homework answers to the same question. Both got full marks, but one was two lines long and the other was like 10. I stressed how Andy prefers short answers, sent the link for said quote, and encouraged the commissioner to A)Look at Andy's tests and B) Look at his students answers. Following that, I used the Andy quote about how his students could take the AP exam after finishing his course. I also sent in the -5 for the non-answer. And diploma mill was in quotes.--Nate River 00:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Simple solution

Simply encourage whoever is to review Andy's application to create an account and spend a week or two in the environment of the wiki that Andy would be using the teach the students. Let them see Creepy Ed and Closeted Ken. Have them argue about some simple point of historical fact or basic math with Andy. Let TK range ban them and conduct out of wiki conversations with them. That's all that need be done. --Shagie 15:48, 25 February 2009 (EST)

That is if CP will allow new accounts. A lot of people have only been seeing Log In only lately...--Nate River 21:13, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I managed to open an account there. TK blocked it rather quickly, but. . . --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 21:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Based on your IP, or did you do something stupid?--Nate River 21:21, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Outed myself as a parodist. Playing the really short game. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 21:22, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Figures--Nate River 21:31, 25 February 2009 (EST)

What do you wish would happen to CP?

I've been wondering, what is it that you wish would happen to CP? From personal observation, the most common stances:

• I want CP to die, to simply vanish and become a mere memory on the internets.
• I want CP to be fixed, to turn into a reliable source of conservatives' point of view.
• I want CP to become crazier, to dispence even more lulz than it does now.

I've noticed that I've all held these positions at different points in time, so... what's yours? NightFlare 20:27, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I want us to conquer CP and turn it into one of our outposts. Vini, vinci, vedi, or whatever. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 20:29, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Number 3 The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 20:35, 24 February 2009 (EST)

• Become crazier, so nobody takes it seriously but other conservatives are not so motivated to make a replacement as they would be if it just died. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:37, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't mind if number two happened, but I don't see it happening, I forsee escalating levels of number three before number one occurs. ^{Deadly wheels} Painkiller 20:45, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, but turning it into an outpost (secretly) to spout parody would be good. No one would know, that would be the point. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 20:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Number 3, definitely. But I'd also like Schlafly to be put out of the education business, and CP not used to teach kids lies. But I'm all for a CP that is full of crazy mad lulz all day long. DogP 20:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Or do a TK and set up a puppet government. Without the puppet realizing it. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 20:52, 24 February 2009 (EST)

(undent)

See here _and marmite 20:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I fully agree. He's really got no chance, based on some very superficial problems, but i can't wait to see what his excuses are.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 22:13, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I always imagined Andy's epitaph to contain the last words they found on his suicide note. "God is a Liberal" ENorman 23:27, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I used to believe that option 2 might one day become possible. However, it has now become so firmly established as a brand name - think "Thalidomide" - that it will never be viable for rescue. So option 3 is where I cast my vote. Nobody takes it seriously, no self-respecting parent would use it as a resource, etc. Funnily enough, I was contacted by CP sysops (a few months ago? I don't really recall) and asked if I would proofread and help with the Hebrew translations submitted for their excruciating Bible project. I turned them down flatly, and also pointed out that I wanted it to carry on being full of crap, hatred, lies and misinformation so that people could see it for exactly what it is. Long live TeaCake, the single most productive and effective member of RW we have! Fox 05:38, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I guess my answer is the second one, "I want CP to be fixed, to turn into a reliable source of conservatives' point of view." I'd probably have some very basic political disagreements with them, but if it was intellectually based and open to debate, I'd have no issue with how its run. CP, though, is.... effin' bizarre.

The basic problem with option 2 is that an Encyclopedia cannot be from a conservative point of view. An Encyclopedia needs to be based on factual statements... So what determines the political standpoint of a fact? "Richard Nixon was president, but resigned rather than face impeachment hearings over his role in the Watergate cover up." Is that a liberal fact or a conservative fact? The most telling thing about Conservapedia is Andy's infamous comment to the newspaper... Something along the lines of "we have basic ideology that we follow, beyond that we welcome the facts" (quoting off the top of my head, by not be exact). An Encyclopedia cannot let any political leanings come before the facts. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 12:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

"Richard Nixon, one of the greatest 20th century Presidents, was hounded out of office by the mainstream press and Democratic congresscritters over a petty burglary he had no part in..." There are many historic issues that I see presented in sometimes radically different ways, so the "conservo-pedia" might be a viable possibility. Of course, CP is we know it has utterly failed in doing this. ħuman 20:23, 25 February 2009 (EST)

At first, I thought number two. But Andrew Schlafly doesn't deserve to be responsible for a genuine encyclopedia. Conservatives deserve it, but Schlafly and his cronies do not. Number 1.-- JArneal 02:00, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I'd go with #1. Sure, it will mean tough times for RW as we lose our cheap and easy source of visitors, but I think we'll survive. We might actually become better with the endless CP-centricism wiped out... ħuman 02:27, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Is that a roundabout way of saying you don't want me here? I have to admit, I am a useless refugee... Anyway, the end of CP obsession would undoubtedly make this a more intellectual place. It's too bad that as things become more intellectual, they become less entertaining. There just aren't that many things funnier than Conservapedia.-- JArneal 03:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

World History Lecture Twelve

This seems to be one of the worst. cp:User:RobertWDP and cp:User:CWaddell have pointed out some of the errors on the talk page, but frankly, it would be easier to just enumerate the few correct lines in the lecture (at least, Andy sees fascism and communism as antagonists).

But - just for fun - here are a few other mistakes. Feel free to add!

• Hitler quickly solidified power for the Nazis. Calling himself Der Fuhrer, Hitler began in 1934 to murder hundreds of Germans who had opposed him. — Hitler started to murder his opponents after the Reichstagsbrand, i.e., in February 1933
• Hitler developed a secret police known as the Gestapo, and also a special, black-uniformed public police known as the SS. — The SS was founded 1925 and was a paramilitary organization
• In 1933, the Nazis began passing laws taking away rights from Jews, and on Nov. 9, 1938 the Nazis conducted a massive pogrom in a thousand German towns that attacked Jewish people in their homes and destroyed their businesses. — shouldn't the destruction of the synagogues (1,400 of them) be mentioned? Hmmm?
• Both nations [i.e., Japan and Germany]had become dominated by non-Christian belief systems. — That's quite a surprise - Germany still was dominated by Christian belief systems, Japan OTOH never had been so
• But by March 1940, the massive Soviet army had taken Finland. What a surprise for all the Finnish ducks...
  
• The Germans nicknamed this the “sitskrieg” (sit (wait) – skrieg). — The German nicknamed this the Sitzkrieg (Sitzen (to sit) - krieg (war)). Sitzen and warten (to sit and to wait) are different.

There are dozens more! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:36, 24 February 2009 (EST)

But by March 1940, the massive Soviet army had taken Finland. Oh, wow. A little duck told me that Finland actually won the Winter War. That little duck wasn't wrong, was it? --Marty 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST) Maybe if the Finns had had Christopher Columbus on their side...

"Massive Soviet army taking Finland" makes it sound like it was some nice stroll for them through wintry wonderland - and just isn't true. Yeah, soviet army had bigger numbers, but failed to advance too far in Finland. (If Soviets had taken Finland, what the heck was the Continuation War for? The Red Army gloriously attacking countries they had invaded? WTF?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (EST)

A new invention, radar, saved the British. The British Royal Air Force (RAF) began tracking incoming German airplanes and started shooting them down. Also, the will of the British to survive deprived the bombing campaign of victory. Reminds me of this bit of Dave Barry. Can you imagine the plucky young RAF officer who was the first to realize, "Hey! We should start shooting these guys down!" Also, the writing style of Andy deprives his lecture of reading with a straight face. --Marty 22:54, 24 February 2009 (EST) Russians never surrender

Although I suppose posting here will end my CP account right quick, just wanted to say I am trying to point out the facts that are completely, 100% wrong. That is, no one can accuse me of pointing out that Phillip II was most certainly not king in 1638 simply because I am an evil liberal. There are a lot more things I disagree with, but at the least if these kids are going to be using these lectures, they deserve accurate dates. I have nothing against the kids stuck using the class, so might as well fix the undeniably wrong. --CWaddell 00:34, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The eggstreme Right is never wrong! But yeh, the gross factual errors (he could've looked those up on WP!) and the fact that he won't correct them are the biggest insult to education, and most worrying. But as Marty pointed out, his use of language is what tops it, it makes it read completely like a 16yo's ravings. hell, just at the very beginning, I was already cracked up at the "Often symbols are used for the purpose of mind-control, like the swastika in Germany. Special salutes are also required". First there's that mind control again, apparently a symbol==mind control? Does that mean the christian cross is guilty too, or CP's logo? No wait, a special hand gesture is required too.. Phew, dodged a bullet there! --GTac 04:42, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Like aah ... say ... placing the hand on the heart while the National Anthem's played? _and marmite 04:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)

• Hitler was about to make his big move. He demanded that Poland give back a former German seaport known as Danzig. — Danzig (Gdansk) wasn't Polish at this time, it was a Free City
• Poland refused and prepared to defend against a German invasion with courageous soldiers on horses. — and therefore, Poland couldn't give it back

BTW, it's Führer or Fuehrer, not Fuhrer --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:10, 25 February 2009 (EST)

• Hitler felt he could capture Leningrad, but Russians never surrender and they lived on rats rather than give their city to the Germans. — Historical fact! --GTac 05:39, 25 February 2009 (EST)
• Poland refused and prepared to defend against a German invasion with courageous soldiers on horses. — From wikipedia: Myth: The Polish Army fought tanks with horse-mounted cavalry wielding lances and swords.
      Although Poland had 11 cavalry brigades and its doctrin] emphasized cavalry units as elite units, other armies of that time (including German and Soviet) also fielded and extensively used horse cavalry units. Polish cavalry (equipped with modern small arms and light artillery like the highly effective Bofors 37 mm antitank gun) never charged German tanks or entrenched infantry or artillery directly, but usually acted as mobile infantry (like dragoons) and reconnaissance units and executed cavalry charges only in rare situations against enemy infantry. The article about the Battle of Krojanty (when Polish cavalry were fired on by hidden armored vehicles, rather than charging them) describes how this myth originated.

Really, Andy, get an education! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:25, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I think what insults me the most as a student of history is that even after pointing out specific errors that would take two seconds to correct, Andy cares more about rewording Lecture Five to make Renaissance Humanists seem like evullll atheists trying to destroy the good memory of the glorious Christian era. No mention that the dude who coined "Middle Ages" worked for the pope; that wouldn't work with the "humanists = evil Christ haters" theme. Also I think TK thinks RobertWDP and I are the same person or somethign weird, but whatever. --72.216.20.242 07:30, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Aha! Andy's being sneaky again...

Check out the SES talk page. Quoth the Schlafly: "I would post our entire completed application publicly if there were not so much liberal vandalism on the internet."

In other words: he's setting up a back door.

"The evil atheistic public-school liberals denied my totally-complete application, even though it had everything required!"

"Uhm...Mr. Schlafly, the application you have online has critical flaws. You never once referenced the state standards, you provided none of the accreditation information asked for, and you spelled your own name wrong on two occasions."

"That's not the REAL application! We had to hide that to protect it from liberal vandalism!"

"Couldn't you just lock the article?"

"Why do you hate Jesus and America?"

--Phentari 23:21, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Naw, he just didn't bother to post the "finished" version because he knows, well, for once, that we would pwn him by sending in a clear and concise rebuttal. Yes, the "not posting due to liberal vandalism" is transparent, since we all know he could lock the page from editing. The "vandalism" he means is, as it always has, other people contrasting his claims with facts. ħuman 23:57, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Makes sense. Enemies are always easy when they are in the dark. Andy might actually know something about strategy, or maybe backstabbing--Nate River 00:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Oh boy, the crazy arsehole has actually gone and done it (allegedly.) I can't wait to get hold of the application and the state's response to it. I wonder how long their review process takes? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:00, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Also, he will be denied, and he will blame this on liberals. He doesn't need to set up an escape route for that, this is Andy we're talking about! It's as obvious as 2+2=4. --GTac 04:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Five gets you ten he never sends it. _and marmite 04:58, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I'll take that bet, and add another ten that he never sends it, yet claims he was denied by liberals anyway. Z3ro^talk 11:34, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I see your 10 minute block, and raise you to 20 minutes that he did sent it, but will get shot down when it is looked at. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate!

Lecture 14

Andy knows something I didn't know: "The United Nations promotes abortion worldwide through its U.N. Fund for Population Activities. Even though the world population will peak and begin to decline in the 21st century, the promoters of abortion continue to demand more and more killing of unborn children. This is promoted using taxpayer money. The United Nations also pushes its pro-abortion agenda through the World Health Organization (WHO). (my emphasis). Dunno where he gets his info, but if it's true it'll be contraception & death by HIV that'll do it (IMHO). _and marmite 05:16, 25 February 2009 (EST)

'Tis de rapture. Although I would have thought it would be a sudden decline. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:24, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Why do liberals hate babies so much? --GTac 05:41, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I think that (maybe depending on your specific Rapture flavor) there will be the reign of the Anti-Christ after the Good Guys get raptured, so I gather that a buncha more people are gonna get killed then. --Sid 05:51, 25 February 2009 (EST)

It sounds like he's confusing the rate of population growth (which I believe is scheduled to peak this century) with net population growth. Klapaucius^{Esteemed Constructor} 06:01, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I love how the hardcore pro-lifers think that people have abortions just for the sake of killing babies, and that is their sole goal. ENorman 08:16, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Wait, it's not? Libruls like you always deny the existence of evil. Haven't you learned anything from those old cartoons? The villains are evil merely for the sake of evil! That's why libruls want to kill babies, so they can laugh maniacally over it. --GTac 09:30, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Prolifers also act as if women are capricious and waffeling in their pregnancies (especally late term ones that require "horriffic" measures). We apparently just wake up one day and decide out of the blue that we don't want our 5 month pregnancy to continue. and oh yes, 24 hours of thinking (cause we didn't start to wonder about what we would do the day we first had sex, or at the very least the second we suspected we were pregnant) is necessary for us, cause you know, we women are fickle. :D Gotta love them and their mindsets. Oh, that Governor last night, Jindal, (like Palin, and also. They don't think rape is a good enough excuse to have an abortion, cause gosh, it's just 9 months out of the woman's life. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 10:28, 25 February 2009 (EST)

"Innovative Aspects"

Andy has added what he terms "innovative aspects of the course" to the dreaded SES application.

Let's take a look at them in turn, shall we?

• give the lecture before the students read the same material
  • "Innovative" perhaps, but stupid. If you read the material first, and then attend lecture, you can ask questions about the reading during the lecture.

Since when does Andy want anyone asking questions? --Gulik 19:57, 25 February 2009 (EST)

• use model answers based on student homework
  • Not bad, but hardly innovative. For years, teachers have shared the students best answers with the class.
• encourage students to post their answers public, for feedback that is also public
  • I suppose you could call it "innovative", because most teachers would recoil in horror at the thought of public grading. I think its possibly illegal, at least at the college level. My professors were only allowed to post grades by social security number, not name, and I understand that now violates Federal law. They certainly didn't post detailed analyses of your exams.
• admit that many questions remain unanswered, and encourage students to address the unsolved mysteries
  • "Innovative"? Andy, teaching "students to address the unsolved mysteries" is generally what goes on in advanced science classes. Plus, many of Andy's so-called "mysteries" are really some wacky ideas he had that he wants echoed back to him, "Was there humor before Christianity?" being a classic example.
• teach students to recognize bias and deceit
  • Certainly a good thing, but once you learn Andy's definition of "bias" is "disagrees with Andy" and his definition of "deceit" is "saying things Andy doesn't want to hear", you realize that he's talking political indoctrination. Remember Andy's standard logical progression
    1. Person X disagrees with Andy
    2. Andy is a conservative
    3. Only a liberal would disagree with a conservative.
    4. Person X is a liberal!
    5. Liberals use deceit!
    6. Person X is a liar!
    7. Andy wins the argument. Case closed.
• grade homework in the same order it is completed, to encourage early completion of assignments
  • That might actually qualify as "innovative", though I don't think its that big a deal, especially when you look at the cursory grading Andy does. He probably grades the entire stack of exams in one evening, while watching "Hannity!" (and muttering about Hannity being too soft on the liberals.)
• awards for best work and most improved
  • They call that "innovative"? Teachers have been giving gold stars or the like probably as long as there have been teachers. And, from experience as the fat kid at summer camp years ago, I know "most improved" means "kid we felt sorry didn't get any other awards".

MDB 08:56, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Nice play-through! Also, what awards? I never heard about students getting awards? --GTac 09:34, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Some of them have been awarded the prestigious position of being a sysop at CP! What could be better than that? alt 13:21, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Being eaten alive by rabid weasels? MDB 13:30, 25 February 2009 (EST)

If I were being eaten alive by weasels, it probably wouldn't concern me over much if they also happened to be rabid. The prospect of dying painfully in a few months time would rather be cancelled out in my mind by the painful dying I'm doing right now. </pedantry> --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:52, 25 February 2009 (EST)

But if you can fight off the Weasels, you're safe if they're not rabid. With rabid weasels, not only do you have to fight them off, but then you have to get rabies shots </smarmy jackass> SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 14:10, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, cause if I managed to fight off a pack of rabid weasels, a rabbies shot is sooooo bad. Z3ro^talk 15:00, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I am being attacked by a pack of rabid weasels. Help me. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 19:39, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I agree.... Nice to see you so conciliatory Zero SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 15:06, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The scary thing is that he plays the game well. He is vague enough, yet uses enough "educationiony sounding" words, that without seeing what his lectures are like, you could buy into the idea that this guy is a really solid teacher. He wants to engage the students with ideas around Galileo, not just names and dates. Wow, I"d have loved to have a prof do that. Andy *does not* do this anywhere in reality, but he says he does. He suggests his kids come out of his class able to synthesize materials and be critical. Again, something that looks great to people trying to certify courses. Yet again, the real materials do not do any of this. If we do not already have copies of Student's answers archived, and more importantly, copies of the comments Andy makes to those students, we should. Cause I'm not sure this program requires copies of tests given, but it would be quite enlightening for the SEC to see that Andy's idea of a good answer is that "China is better cause it has more inventions", and "The Greek language allowed Jesus to teach new ideas". To which he responds "Inspiring!"--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 17:11, 25 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) I have never dealt with New Jersey, of course... But my school had to do a similar application for The Colorado Education Commission (CEC) and I assure you, they will look right past the educational language and vague words and look for the meat. It's not there, and they will deny the application as a result. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 17:19, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I know nothing about US politics & stuff, but have a feeling that a lot of state jobs & so on are political rather than on merit (?). Is there any danger that they might say: "look who it's from - the son of the great Phyllis, it's bound to be OK" ? _and marmite 17:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Except they're looking for something like a 1 inch binder full of class details, and Andy's going to turn in, what, three pages? There's only so much you can stretch for politics. Z3ro^talk 17:36, 25 February 2009 (EST)

And I would tend to suspect that Education and Education management (if that would be the term) typically attracts people with a more liberal bent who will say "Schafffwhat?? Hell No!!!" ;-)--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 17:50, 25 February 2009 (EST)

There might be some danger of preferred treatment, if Phyllis had any political clout. It seems to me that while the far-right pay her homage, neither she nor Eagle Forum has any real pull with those in power. Also, see Andy's epic fail at politiking...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 19:33, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Have I got this right? On the application he talks about giving his classes at "Public Schools" after the close of a normal day. Aren't Public Schools supposed to be dens of iniquity and the source of all known evil in the universe? Mick McT 04:11, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think Andy, if he even goes through with it, is hoping to reverse the liberal indoctrination by sharing his own worldview with these students. What gets me is that, as I understand it, this is an application to teach remedial classes for underperforming students (who might well be unmotivated or lacking in confidence) & he thinks that public posting of homework answers, grading and feedback is a good selling point. Not just public within the class, but public on the internet, at a site that is a major target for ridicule, trolling and vandalism, in the mainspace of a wiki, where anybody can click "random page" a few times & be looking at somebody's homework. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, time to bend over

It'll be amusing to see Ed simply back down from his clearly liberal assertions about Obama's non-Mulsimhood, agree to change the article, and apologise to Pop. Stand by for the groveling to commence. Alternatively, of course, an even better show may be coming our way. DogP 13:01, 25 February 2009 (EST)

What did Schlafly give up for lent?

Discuss. I was HOPING it'd be Conservapedia, but no go :).-Diadochus 19:40, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Andy couldn't live without CP... The general idea (at least in practice) is to give up something you like, but that you can live without.... I have never met anyone who gives up something intrisically linked to themselves... An ex of mine tried to give up makeup and lasted like 3 days. Andy probably gave up gerbils :-) SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 19:42, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Is he a Catholic? I always thought that Lent was a Catholic thing...and the Fly seems to have the old timey Puritan beliefs.--Snotbowst 20:18, 25 February 2009 (EST)

He's Catholic - in theory anyhow. _and marmite 20:26, 25 February 2009 (EST)

He was raised Catholic, so the RCC certainly "claims" him as an adherent. However, I think he was basically "born again" as they say, and has adopted many evangelical protestant positions. I guess the real key would be to find out what house of worship he belongs to/attends. And he could never give up teh gerbils. They say that once you go rodent, you can never unasplodent. ħuman 20:37, 25 February 2009 (EST)

It's not just Catholic. They were big on it at my C of E primary school. Totnesmartin 05:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

True, but doesn't C of E = ((RCC + divorce) - Pope) in reality?

Favicon

Theirs has disappeared from my (firefox) tabs (RW & WP still there) _and marmite 21:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Favicon shows up for me on Firefox and Opera. User:Ttony21/sig2 21:50, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Strange, possibly censored bythe liberal transatlantic intertubes. _and marmite 21:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I see it from here, Crusty, Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Ed essay WIGO link

There's a link in there of the form "cp:Conservapedia:Commandments|Second Conservapedia Commandment" (in double brackets of course) and it is coming out borked. What rule does it violate? ħuman 22:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The Second: "Always cite your sources." There is only one reference in the essay and they still have not managed to put in a references section to display it. (Assuming that you are talking about the essay, that is.) ListenerX^TalkerX 22:56, 25 February 2009 (EST)

No, my question is about the link. It appears wrong, and links to "Conservapedia.Commandments" if you look at it. ħuman 23:05, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Oh. As I recall, it linked correctly to the commandments page when it was put in (although I did not put it in, since internal links do not show up in Best of Conservapedia). ListenerX^TalkerX 23:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Hmmmm... I suspected that it needed to be an http link to work right, but I was too lazy to try it. ħuman 23:28, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Do not attempt to embarrass a boy

Andy's Moderne Rules of Chivalrie are back! It never gets old, does it, Andy? --Marty 23:41, 25 February 2009 (EST) On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare.

Well, since these are the real rules of Chivalry maybe he should remind the girls that if the boy is a Knight, they are to offer themselves, sexually, without complaint. even if he doesn't want to marry them, and especially if they, themselves are mere peasants.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 00:04, 26 February 2009 (EST)

From the same diff: "...the wealth and highly trained soldiers made possible the Crusades to recapture Jerusalem..." ħuman 00:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)

And that whole paragraph before The New Chivalry edit is hilarious. ħuman 00:22, 26 February 2009 (EST)

That kind of crap is why I follow the tenets of Bushido.--Nate River 00:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Which Andy mentions briefly, mostly centered on self disembowelment--Nate River 00:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)

What, exactly, is "humorous" about warfare and weapon development? Free Trade Economy, where you too can be a serf and possess nothing, do your lords bidding, marry who your lord wishes, and basically live as a slave. thems were good times, those.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 00:35, 26 February 2009 (EST) (edit conflict)

Social structure with no ladder. Born a peasant, die a peasant. Man, what a life!--Nate River 00:39, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Note the section extolling feudalism. I have never seen anything like that before. Feudalism was good? What is more, what Andy is extolling isn't even really feudalism. Feudalism is really just a politico-military arrangement between the aristocracy of a country typified by overlapping pledges of military obligation such that lower level aristocrats had to lend military aid to higher level aristocrats if called upon, in return for recognition of right to rule a portion of the upper level aristocrat's nominal domain, with the king or emperor theoretically at the head of the feudal network. It really is a system that was necessary at a time when the institutional infrastructure was too weak to allow central control of large territories, and the barbarian tribal system of governance precluded a fully empowered monarch. What Andy is praising is really manorialism, which was an economic system in which serfs with no political power or legal rights were really the property of their local lord, to whom they owed a set amount of their produce in return for the privilege of being the lord's property (which is kinda reminiscent of CP, now that I think of it). Even cursory reading of the history of the Middle Ages makes this clear, but we all know that Andy isn't much for the whole business of informing oneself before forming an opinion or inflicting it on others. Kaalis 01:40, 26 February 2009 (EST)

What a bizarre view of the crusades this warped little man has. When an enemy was captured you treated him with good sportsmanship? What the fuck? Does Andy think they got a nice round of sandwiches and a lie down while waiting for their relatives to send ransom? Yeah, and good luck with the sportsmanship if you were a peasant, since you were poor the best you could look forward to is execution out of hand. He makes it sound like a jolly game of cricket on the village green, rather than blood up to the horses bridles, etc. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The Albigensian Crusades were quite brutal and those were against fellow Christians (although the Church my not have regarded them as such). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:54, 26 February 2009 (EST)

That's where that classic quote by the Pope(?) comes from - just before they pillaged one of the cities, "Kill them all, God will recognise His own." --PsyGremlin_Whut? 02:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think that occured with the suppression of the Cathars (although that may be the Albigensian Crusades, I don't really know). Also, hasn't Andy ever heard of those mass executions by King Richard and whoever he was fighting (Saladin?)? I think that originally they were negotiating the release of prisoners in return for a piece of the true cross, but in the end both sides killed all the prisoners anyway. EddyP 06:12, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I wonder what Andy is going to make of the fact that the leader who acted most honorably during any of the Crusades was Saladin, a Muslim? And what about the Fourth Crusade? The Crusades were set in motion by appeals from the Byzantines for help in repelling the Turks from Anatolia after their invasions of the late eleventh century, after all, and the Fourth Crusade ended up seeing western soldiers sacking Constantinople and briefly destroying the Byzantine empire. Were it not for those honorable knights of the cross burning Constantinople's libraries, we would likely still have the complete works of the likes of Aeschylus, Euripides, and many others. Kaalis 02:25, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Oh for a time machine! Send the baʃtard back, aʃ þe peaʃant his anceʃtors doubtleβ were, and ʃee what he þinks of it! (Baʃtard) _and marmite 02:48, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"Be appreciative when girls bake cookies for the entire class." What about when boys do it? "Stand up when a girl or woman enters the room." Why??? The misogynistic side of Andy never fails to annoy me - while I can ignore most of the political and religious nonsense. Worm ^{(t | c)} 04:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

... and, it's only girls who need to "Be respectful of your parents' wishes". Boys, premusably can do as they please. _and marmite 04:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

In Andyland hat translates something like "Marry who we tell you to marry." I wonder if little Phy knows what lies in store for her? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:08, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Well, boys don't need to be told since obviously if they disobey their parent's wishes, they're taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. Girls just get off with a light admonishment, presumably. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Head A SPLODE! This blatant sexism in Andy's classes is EXACTLY what should prevent him from getting that SES bullshit. Chivalry IS dead, in the sense that it was a term for something GIVEN to females with the appropriate reciprocation of favor and grace FROM them in return. What's wrong with a concept like the 12 points of the Boy Scout law, or Nate River's favor of Bushido, or for FUCKALL'S SAKE Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure's moral of "Be excellent to each other."? Asexual, moral, and WAY more concise than the bible. KISS. Teh stoopid... It burns. The Foxhole Atheist 10:47, 26 February 2009 (EST)

(Unindent) Slightly off topic, but just above his glorious rules, I see this line:

On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare.

I read on expecting this to be explained, but then he just says was apparently because each lord developed their own army. I don't see the connection, and I don't see why it would be hilarious when they started using catapults.. "Hey people in that city, you think those walls will protect you from looting and raping? WELL THINK AGAIN, oh-ho-ho!" or something like that? --GTac 05:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"Each lord developed their own army"? Doesn't Andy know that one of the main reasons why the feudal system existed was because it was too fucking expensive to keep a standing army? In times of war each Lord would be expected to provide a few Knights (who owed their land to him) and some archers (a large amount of men in England were capable bowmen both for war and for practical purposes). EddyP 06:16, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm very puzzled as to what's so humorous about catapults and battering rams as well. If anything, the catapult was one of the many things throughout the history of warfare that made it even more brutal and bloody than it was already, especially when they cottoned onto the idea of doing things like catapulting dead and rotting animals into besieged castles to cause disease, catapulting fiery projectiles to cause maximum casualties amongst the defenders and catapulting the decapitated heads of any captured enemies (or any killed from sorties out of the castle) simply as an early form of psychological warfare. Zmidponk 16:36, 26 February 2009 (EST)

While we're speaking about this, would you expand my little girl article ? Barraki 11:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

On middle ages torture, I don't know when the term (which according to Andy must predate the idea) "drawn and quartered" was originated, but I do know that serfs were the luckiest in war, cause they were just killed out of hand, the insignificant curs they were. Soldiers were usually tortured by being burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, beheaded (understanding that the concept was to lay the still blinking head to see it's own twitching body), and other lovely methods of enacting pure acts of "joyous" revenge. Andy needs to read some of that thar' liberal Foucault. Treated with respect, indeed....--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 13:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Arm Wras'lin

Something I found strange and have kinda stuck on lately.... Andy constanly uses the example of girls, don't try to embarrass a boy, if you beat him in arm wrestling etc etc.... I think that's a very strange example.... I mean, how many people go around have co-ed arm wrestling tournaments... So I'm willing to bet (5 will get you 12) that Andy got beat in arm wrestling by some girl he was crushing on in his younger days (probably while in college) and it has dominated his adult life.... Any thoughts? SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 13:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Quite possibly. It happened to me though, and I didn't take it that hard (although maybe the mental stress is just waiting to rise to the surface). I'll take it at 3 to 11. EddyP 13:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)

That was my thought, when this list first was generated. Cause it's such a specific example. That or one of his "boys", whined to him they were beaten by the girls, and Andy exploded in unfinished emotional trauma from being a weirdo/geek/nerd/no-friend/no-dates type in his school years.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 13:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)

(edit conflict - hulk smash!) I can picture that happening to him actually. It fits with his general mien of "never quite made it." Totnesmartin 13:35, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I bet not, SirChuck. More likely it's a reference to an incident in homskolling class. Bethany beating up Nathaniel H, or something like that. --Marty 21:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Rise of Islam on CP

Was just reading up on some world history of Islam on CP, and it amuses me:

Islam is different from Christianity in being having a military/political viewpoint in addition to a set of religious beliefs.

Yes, TOTALLY different. Christians NEVER mixed themselves with politics or the military!

Islam's religious beliefs are set forth in the "Five Pillars of Islam" and moral commands set forth in the Qur'an (Koran). The Five Pillars of Islam are these:

1. Submission to one god, Allah, whose prophet was Muhammad. This is simple and powerful: submit. It is easy for everyone to understand quickly.

Once again, TOTALLY different from christian's one god and his son. You're not supposed to disobey those either and you're supposed to address him as your Lord, but it's DIFFERENT, you know?

2. Prayer to Allah five times a day while facing Mecca. This is more than many Christians pray.

Wait, so is less prayer good or bad?

3. Fasting for the entire month of Ramadan, whereby no food is eaten during daylight hours in that month. Fasting strengthens the body and soul.

That explains why Andy is so weak! He is so bad at fasting that in his religion he EATS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF HIS LORD!

4. Almsgiving: Muslims must donate to the poor.

So I guess they are also more charitable than those pesky atheists?

5. The Hajj or pilgrimage at least once during a Muslim's lifetime to Mecca, where Muhammad himself made a hajj from A.D. 629 to 632.

Hey this differs from christianity! I'm not really impressed though, since apparently made his pilgrimage IN Mecca... and it still took him 3 years. How can you take this long when you're already there?

Furthermore, I'm glad Andy included the following in his lecture on World History:

A newspaper article described how three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Somalis, many of them Muslim. As Muslims, they do not believe in allowing alcohol in their cab. About three times each day, a Muslim cab driver refuses a customer because he notices that the customer is carrying alcohol. "It is a religious issue," said one Muslim cabdriver. "I cannot force anybody to change their belief, but not in my cab. I don't want the guilt. I just want to be an innocent person." A flight-attendant described how she mentioned to a cabdriver to be careful with her suitcase because it contained wine. The driver then refused her service, and told other cabdrivers. Four other cabdrivers then refused her service. "What's going to be next?", she said. "Do I have to cover my head?" But a Muslim cabdriver responded, "According to Muslim law, a Muslim driver cannot question a person's faith or beliefs,” he said. "It's not a matter of the person, it's what the person is carrying."

Honestly, where did that come from? Is it supposed to illustrate that Muslims are against alcohol? Isn't that pretty much explained by stating "alcohol is forbidden in the Islam"? Or is it supposed to be some snarky comment on how Muslims inconvenience other people because it goes against their personal beliefs? Cause that would be ironic.. --GTac 06:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I was more impressed with the "being having" line. Andy for SES approval! wooooo!-Diadochus 10:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)

His (or one of their) arguments was that as a business person in a thriving city, they should be forced to carry people with alcohol (and dogs, by the way) if the person is not drinking and the alcohol is closed. Of course, this comes from someone who thinks that a pharmacist does not have to give me a drug that could literally save my life, cause it might kill a baby.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 13:13, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"as a business person in a thriving city, they should be forced to carry people with alcohol" — I'm on this side. At the very least, I think we can agree that it's a dick move to sit in the driver's seat of a taxi in front of an airport and randomly refuse service to people who have places to go. If the driver put a sign in his window (readable from at least a few yards away) that said "NO DOGS OR ALCOHOL ALLOWED", that would be okay by me — as long as it was still reasonably convenient to find a non-fundie taxi nearby — although I'm sure plenty of Americans would still want to sue his ass. In a perfect world, of course, you wouldn't get a job as a taxi driver unless you were willing to, you know, drive people around in a taxi; but that's a matter of individual dickery and not for the courts to decide. --Marty 21:42, 26 February 2009 (EST) same deal for pharmacists, FYI, except that you have to account for that it's usually less convenient to find an alternative pharmacist than to find an alternative taxi driver

Yeh it's ashame that the chronicles of the annoying taxi drivers is part of the official world history of the islam - oh wait no it's not. --GTac 04:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

TK: More trolling

So Ed Poor's just restored some semblance of sanity and removed the 'liberal' category from gay-hating nutter Fred Phelps. Thing is, that category was originally added by TK. What possible reason could he have for doing that, other than to make Conservapedia look stoopid?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:18, 26 February 2009 (EST)

When Fred Phelps ran for election, he was a democrat candidate. Shirley, one of his daughters and a de facto spokesperson for the WBC, said in an interview before the election that she supports the Democratic Party, though she added that she didn't like - and certainly wouldn't vote for - any of the current candidates. That doesn't make Phelps or his church liberals, but if CP wants to grasp at straws, it may be the best they have. --Johann 10:25, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Ed is walking on thin ice these days. First he incorporates liberal lies in to the wiki, now he seems to be suggesting that it's possible to be neither liberal nor conservative. Time for Andy to crack the whip...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 10:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I find the WBC very interesting. They're what you get if you take Christianity but leave all the nasty parts in. I enjoy bringing up them or their beliefs if I'm in discussion with Christians, because even their most repellent ideas have got scriptural backing, and this makes liberal Christians squirm. All this cozy, fluffy business about God loving everybody, loving the sinner but hating the sin, or wanting everyone to be saved so that we can all live together in heaven happily ever after, it's all lovely but it's not authentic. God as described in the Bible is actually an absolute cunt.--Johann 11:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Neither liberal nor conservative? So wait, what are you proposing here? Some kind of... middle ground?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)

For Phelps, they need an "insane people" category. Seriously. I've read numerous articles that have convinced me Phelps is not sane, in a sense that a mental health professional would use. Probably the only thing that's kept him from being committed is that the entire family is full of lawyers. He's one himself, albeit disbarred. MDB 11:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Johann, I don;t know if you know it... But you just hit on one of the main poltical and philosophical critiques of Christianity.... The new testament has a very sudden and very dynamic shift in God.... Even early Christian artwork and iconography show the shift.... There's a good little conspriacy theory that says the early Christian Church purposly rewrote the character in the new testament to make it easier to convert Jews who were sick of the whole jackass God thing. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 12:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Well, CP does have an article on moderates: "Often a politician who is an anti-conservative will describe himself as a "moderate" as a way of appearing more reasonable to the public. The liberal media will also use the term "moderate" as a more popular label for themselves and their friends than the label liberal is."

So sure, they won't have problems calling Phelps a moderate - since moderates are simply deceitful liberals and anti-conservatives. --Sid 12:36, 26 February 2009 (EST)

TK put the categories back in and then protects the article. --Sid 19:37, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Medieval Communism

While modern communism (in a sense - what we think of as communism is really "Sovietism" and Stalinism) dates to Marx in the 19th century, there were antecedents in the Middle Ages. Monasteries practiced communal ownership that really equates nicely to true communism. Further, if one, and by one I mean Andy, defines communism as any economic system in which the government commands and controls the economy on a very fine level, then the Byzantine empire was communist from the time of the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Western Roman Empire through pretty much to its own destruction in 1453. The Byzantine bureaucracy closely controlled all aspects of economic activity in the empire, even setting nearly all prices on a day to day basis for several centuries. As the Byzantine economy was easily the largest, most advanced, and strongest in the Western world for almost a thousand years (and indeed rivaled in the world only by the Islamic Empire at its height and China), then what does this mean for Andy's ideas that anything other than absolute free market capitalism leads to inevitable and rapid decline and collapse? I am sure that it doesn't help Andy's point about feudalism that the Byzantines were not feudal by any stretch of the imagination until after 1204, and somehow maintained the highest rates of literacy in the West. Kaalis 12:05, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think Andy defines communism as "they hate freedom and wealth, grrrrrr". All your liberal facts just get in the way of his "truth". --GTac 12:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) As capitalism had not developed at that time, that is hardly a fair comparison. ListenerX^TalkerX 12:33, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, I fully agree. Capitalism as a concept cannot be applied to any economic systems prior to the 18th century, so such comparisons are inherently stupid. I just think it is remarkable how stupid Andy's ideas are on so many levels. Kaalis 13:13, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Andy is the master of Fractal Wrongness--coming up with statements so stupid and counterfactual that the harder you look at them, the more levels of wrongness you can find. --Gulik 14:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I don't completely agree about monasteries being communistic. They involved communal living in the sense that they were somewhat like individual communes, & that monks renounced individual money & property as worldly trappings, & worked together to cultivate the monastery's land and produce. However, the Catholic Church was, & still is, very hierarchical, & this included the monasteries. Their wealth & best produce filtered up to the heads of the monastery & ultimately up to bishops, cardinals & the Pope. Needless to say, the discipline within monasteries was also fairly harsh. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:27, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Ooooh, that monastic discipline line cries out for a made-up Monty Python quote! ħuman 22:31, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Feudalism, some more...

This is weird--I get why Andy digs feudalism: everyone knew their place, and the Church had a strong hand in running the show. mostly, everyone knew their place. But as a "trained economist," to quote TK, and a conservative, Andy should be totally against the feudal system; one, because it discouraged the creation of a class of people invested in private property, a touchstone of conservative ideology, and two, because feudal lords had certain responsibilities toward the serfs. Not freely-given charity, but the obligation to provide their social inferiors with certain things--not a particularly conservative notion...TheoryOfPractice 12:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think that conservatism's position on ownership (or at least paleoconservatism's position) is grounded more in "Thou shalt not steal" than in "Thou shalt make an Ownership Society." ListenerX^TalkerX 12:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Capitalism is grounded in the consumption of commodities, which implies rights to ownership of those commodities. TheoryOfPractice 13:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Are we talking about this sort of commodity, or this sort? ListenerX^TalkerX 13:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Conservatives are more interested in their own ownership; with that in mind, feudalism makes total sense. An elite few own everything, everyone else is lucky to get scraps from the table. All the rest of that charity/religion/capitalist is just a smoke-screen. Z3ro^talk 13:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's wistfulness for a golden age that never was really made me think of the poem Miniver Cheevy. Any fans here?-Diadochus 14:08, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Eh, the problem is just that he doesn't actually know what he was talking about. He mistakes a system of obligations and relationships for one of property, and seems to think that "ownership of land" in 1100 is the same as "ownership of property" in 2009. I'd say feudalism is the exact opposite of free market, unregulated capitalism, but it's really not even fair to compare them. Not that it's ever stopped Andy before. --CWaddell 17:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I can't believe im getting sucked in, but your lecture was wonderful, and assfly's response priceless, but even better was Dean's censoring of your "correction". You just can't make shit like this up.-- -PalMD ^{--Unhand me, scoundrel!} 19:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe Andy likes feudalism so much because he would be a minor aristocrat (rich family) and Obama would be a serf. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 20:40, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think even in a feudal society, Obama would still end up being King and Andy a toilet-scrubber, or lance-sharpener at best. And toilet-scrubbing in the middle ages was much nastier work than it is today. ħuman 22:35, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry, but Corry was right -- Andy's from a well-connected family, Obama is not. If there's one thing feudalism did not support, it was social mobility. Which probably explains Andy's apparent longing for feudalism -- "if we didn't have that darned social mobility, I'd have my rightful seat in Congress, and Obama would be the nothing I am now." MDB 08:26, 27 February 2009 (EST)

If it wasn't for social mobility, wouldn't the Schlaflys be low-significance descendants of European immigrants? the senate would be packed with the descendants of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, with the early Dutch colonists (a Roosevelt or two?) making a strong showing. Or would it be full of transplanted english aristocrats? Totnesmartin 12:56, 27 February 2009 (EST)

You're right, TM. When I look at the US Senate, it always makes me so happy to see some many African-Americans, Jews, Latin Americans, Asians and North American Indians; the Senate really reflects the ethnic and cultural diversity of this vast country. And the fact that the gender ratio of the Senate so closely reflects real life, and the strong contingent of tradesmen and other working-class people in the Senate make me realise just how much social mobility there is in this country. Americans should be proud. TheoryOfPractice 13:03, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Yes of course there's racism that keeps "people of colour" down - what I'm saying is that the European immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th century have been able to progress up the ladder. Totnesmartin 13:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Well, some of the men have, but many are still working-class/working poor. And comparatively few of the women. TheoryOfPractice 13:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Sadly that is true of every country - there are no countries with sex equality among the higher-ups, and the few working-class/poor HU's are still news stories when they make it, anywhere. Totnesmartin 13:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'm most disappointed in the fact that there are no openly gay Senators now that Rick Santorum is gone. Corry^{Tobias was a never nude, which is exactly what it sounds like.} 16:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Constipaedia down?

I can't access it...-Diadochus

Same here--Nate River 14:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Aye. --Sid 14:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Haha, way to go Andy. Maybe he DID give up Conservapedia for Lent, or at least maintaining his servers.-Diadochus 14:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Can I get a close-up .png of this one, l'Aaron? The Foxhole Atheist 14:33, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Bad news, it's working again. --Gulik 14:49, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I was praying that it would never come pack. What a senseless waste of time that was. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

CPalmer stands up to TK

Thank you, CPalmer. I really was serious. @TK: You want power. I want you to have power. Please unblock me. See, then, when I get block rights, and lots of other parodists get block rights, you can eventually become admin, and then. . . --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 16:08, 26 February 2009 (EST)

...probably just me, but I'm never sure if you're being sarcastic, CUR. Also, TK is an admin. I think you mean bureaucrat. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 16:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm still all for cratting TK. I'd love to see him do his song and dance here, especially with all the resistance he'd meet. It would be very entertaining. Neveruse513 17:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)

You only say that because you didn't see what happened last time we let TK in here. Of course, these days we lack Bohdan, so we could probably make a quicker decision to exile him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'd boot TK off this site quick as Jack Robinson if he showed up again. He's completely destructive and out for his own ends. Totnesmartin 18:05, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, but I meant CP make him have power over user rights. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 18:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Oh I seeeee. Yes, more power to TK at CP, deffo. He's destroying that place better single-handedly than us lot put together. In his own way he's a master. Totnesmartin 19:06, 26 February 2009 (EST)

If only he would use his powers for good instead of evil. --Gulik 19:29, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry, CPalmer. You got banned by a **** --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 19:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

It's just for a day. That's little more than TK's way of saying "Hello". ;) --Sid 19:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)

srsly, you guys that afraid of TK? What could he do as a crat that wouldn't be any more of a bother than the odd vandal we get? Would reverting his shit be any more of a hassle for you crats? Would it be any less entertaining? I don't see what damage would be so bad. Maybe you guys think he could get in your head like he does with people at CP. I dunno. I think it'd be fun. So maybe he hassles a noob. So what. <unban> "Don't mind TK, he's our resident psychopath. Grab a mop."

What might be fun would be to have him be a crat from a special bin...let TK make a couple decisions a day and we can have a laugh over it. You guys make him out to be the boogie man. Is there some record available here documenting the shit he fucked up?^{— Unsigned, by: 74.215.126.65 / talk / contribs}

As a crat: 1: decrat every other crat; 2: desysop every sysop: 3: go to town on every article & Mediawiki namespace. 'Nuff? _and marmite 21:16, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hear, hear. --"C, U R^{the boorish, browbeating road.} 21:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Oh that TK. A ban for reinstating someone's civil and relevant question on a TALK PAGE? Wow, you never cease to amaze! tealish^??!!!1 20:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The trick with Tk is like making sure he can't poison people who don't know better. To those who aren't aware of his evil, he's like Wormtongue, or Benjamin Linus on Lost: a corrupting influence who seems good at first, but by the time you know better, you're in too deep. Vandal binning is probably the answer, unless he's used e-mail to spread his lies here like he does over there.-Diadochus 20:37, 26 February 2009 (EST)

That's his method: divide (by muttering Wormtonguelike in emails) and conquer. _and marmite 21:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, to address 74xxx: when TK is around here, he bahaves in a smarmy, partly likeable manner - especially to the newer editors who really don't know who or what he is. Then when a more experienced editor jumps on his shit, he has an "army" of people who sympathize with him. He also uses private communication channels as much as possible to further building this base of sympathy. Oh, and he blithely and blatantly lies about his "enemies" as well. Now, sure, he can't "break" the wiki, anything can be undone or restored via database backups, etc., but what he does, or tries to do, is wreck the community. ħuman 22:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)

TickMatt 05:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I don't like TK having power at all. If he has set out to wreck Conservapedia, he's basically just a high-profile vandal. All the crazy shit he does isn't even funny, it's just malicious. Andy is funny. TK's a wanker. Conservapedia would be a significantly lulzier place without him. seventhrib 08:07, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'm just fucking fascinated. You guys seriously fear TK. Props to him. 207.67.17.45 14:20, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I don't fear TK. I just think (with good reason) he's an asshole, and he causes far too much aggravation. No lulz, just a total pain. --Kels 14:41, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Homework Four

I'm more than sure that there is plenty to nitpick in this week's set of question, but this stands out, I think:

“”7. Challenging question (choose "a" or "b"): (a) all of world history so far in this course can be attributed either to God paving the way for Jesus, or the devil creating obstacles for Him. Discuss. (b) there should be an entire course taught about Christianity overcame the anti-Christian Roman empire. Discuss why.

The first one is fairly obvious and shatters all standards of WTF: I know that CP is Christianity-centered, but going this far really surprised even me.

And then the lovely detail in the second part: "Discuss why." "No you're not allowed to argue against this! It's logical! Deny it and deny logic! You're clueless! Minus 2! Godspeed!" *hiss* *fume* --Sid 16:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Wonder what Andy would do if he ever had a non-Christian student?--Nate River 17:02, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Fail them for not conforming to his world view. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ my sig is my own opiate!

No comment about the appalling grammar, AGAIN?! "There should be an entire course taught about Christianity overcame the anti-Christian Roman empire". The missing 'why' must have fallen out of Schlafly's pocket on his short commute to work. DogP 17:28, 26 February 2009 (EST)

For a god who values our free will above the imperative to make his own existence a believable and credible proposition, El Arsefly sure seems to believe Yaweh interferes in events an awful lot. Anyway, there's some real gems in the homework answers this week that I won't talk about until they get marked. Some are so shiny that I suspect some of you guys have homskollar socks. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:35, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I'm sure there are some socks among the students, both to make a few reasonable points and to see just how much bullshit Andy accepts as model answers. About the messed-up grammar: My internal auto-completion parsed that as "about how Christianity overcame", but I didn't read the lectures, so I'm not sure about the context. And always remember: Proofread carefully to make sure you didn't any words out. ;) --Sid 17:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

How can a teacher accept that he makes such blatant grammar mistakes. If he isn't that good at spelling, proofing, etc., then have someone do it for him. But I would be appalled if, as a parent, this was what came home as "homework". Maybe these parents simply aren't involved in their children's education.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 18:03, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think my favorite one is: 6. Current events question: What about the decline of the Roman empire reminds you of the United States today? (Possibilities could be: in-fighting for government positions like the Illinois Senate seat, moral decay, economic decline, weakness to attack by foreign enemies, etc.) "You don't think in-fighting in Illinois is like Rome? You obviously did not read the lecture, -1, 99/100."--CWaddell 19:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Y'know, I find it ironic that good right thinking conservatives like Andy constantly accuse liberals of "hating America", but yet, they constantly imply that America is just a few decades years months weeks days hours minutes seconds away from utter moral depravity, being sacked by the Visigoths, and complete collapse into a collection of tribes and tiny nation-states. Hey, this liberal loves America enough to believe the best is yet to come. MDB 10:38, 27 February 2009 (EST)

"Discuss why". Okay. Um. "Creating such an insightful course would increase the prominence of homeschooling in the public eye and put all conservative non-Wikipedia educational websites in the radar for all of the great milquetoast teenagers in the conservative Christian anti-abortionist governments." ...this wouldn't fly, would it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)

...so who are the NON-parodists?

Okay, okay--we all know we're not supposed to out parodists. At this point, though, I'm starting to wonder if there are ANY genuine rank-and-file members at all. It sometimes seems like the only "true believers" are Andy's Sysops, and not even all of them.

So: what do you think? Who, if anyone, is seriously trying to improve Conservapedia among the rank-and-file users? --Phentari 18:33, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Is is really that difficult to believe there are that many batshit insane people on the internet? Learn the Facts first and then maybe we can have a logical discussion. The truth is that "Phentari", if that is your real name, is a member of a vandal/parodist site and is only here to start trouble. Jorge 18:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)

You forgot that I deny obvious truths, such as the connection between believing that Barack Obama is a legal citizen of the United States and breast cancer. --Phentari 18:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe all of Conservapedia is just the world's greatest example of Poe's Law at work. Andy could be the greatest parodist that ever existed! User:Ttony21/sig2 19:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

He's definitely not a full-on parodist. I think probably believes the majority of this shit. But I do believe some of it is just the asshole lawyer in him. "Who's right? Well, who's paying me?" Not exactly, but I think most of it he just wants to argue. 74.215.126.65 20:21, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Addendum: "He just wants to argue and win". He couldn't do that on WP, or TO (or anywhere else), but on CP, amazingly, he always somehow manages to "win" all the arguments he is in! ħuman 22:51, 26 February 2009 (EST)

He's just way better at arguing all of a sudden, that's all. Rejecting liberalism will do that. --Kels 23:06, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I have an account at CP where I make informative edits to non-controversial topics, but only to balance my 90/10 stats so that I can question things on talk pages. That's not parody, but is it a blockable offence at CP? --Johann 07:13, 27 February 2009 (EST)

WesleyS isn't strictly rank-and-file, but clearly isn't a parodist. Also PhilipV?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 07:38, 27 February 2009 (EST)

There are a few of us who keep the criticism irregular and make real contributions, but only so we can entice Andy and his dregs to make all kinds of arguments that show them to be even greater (and therefore funnier) loonies than has so far been shown, without getting infinite bans. Bil08 14:25, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Ironically, I only use(d) my account there to make what could be called "substantive" edits, on non-contro articles. Seriously - never bothered to argue with Andy, that sort of thing (ok, I did claim that Obama wasn't a Muslim once, and that cost me a day or so). I am currently blocked for six months for a "silly editing pattern"... ħuman 20:53, 27 February 2009 (EST)

More Ed on WP

User #188 has rarely seen such an uninformative article. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 20:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Man, Ed's every bit as much a POV-pushing douche on WP as he is on CP. Only difference is, he doesn't have power over there any more, so he's stuck having to be more subtle when he's trying to, say, insert his personal opinion into the Tale of Genji articles, or his general science-denying under the guise of "allowing minority opinions". --Kels 20:42, 26 February 2009 (EST)

There are days I like the wiki "anyone edit" format, and days I despise it. the "snow" example is one. If that is ed, asking for a list, then he's totally out in left field, not understanding at all what the actual debate is; why agglutinating languages do not actually have other words for snow, but it just "seems" like it to our ears, etc. Yet there he is, saying "damn it, i demand answers - answers that people who have PhD's still argue about. I want precision and concise answers to complex and unresolved questions, i want them now, and i'm going to hold my breath till i get them!" --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 21:07, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I recall Stephen Fry (excellent man!) on QI slamming the 347 Eskimo words for snow myth. _and marmite 21:10, 26 February 2009 (EST)

10 second summary:

WP:There is a myth that Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow, but it is not true.

Ed: I want to know the hundreds of Eskimo words for snow!!! WHY WON'T YOU TELL ME!!!!!!!!!!!

DickTurpis 22:04, 26 February 2009 (EST)

My favorite part is the EC that Yossie copied above... "User #188..." what a tool. Oh, and there are many far-worse articles on WP. ħuman 22:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)

After cp's "2 meters": "Pot; meet Kettle". _and marmite 23:01, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know, 2 meters = 78.74 inches still contains more information tells than this. - User $\scriptstyle \int _{-1}^{1}1/{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 23:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

*cough* Hey Wikipedia User #188! Slashdot User #2428 thinks your Conservapedia UTF-8 article was a lil' bit rewrite-worthy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 05:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)

(UI) @Godot: I reverted him when he tried to edit the article. It's amazing how badly he misses the friggin' point. @Human: that "User #188" business is priceless, isn't it? I'd start calling him that, but that'd just inflate his already bloated ego. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:10, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Where, if anywhere, did JPatt go to school?

Count the typos/grammar errors in this awful little diff.-Diadochus 23:59, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The trouble with counting errors in people's posts is that you never know if that error you found really has three or four errors within it. You know, like an error within an error. I lost count after 5. JPatt's poor education is a tragedy, really (not really).-- JArneal 00:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

This is why I keep hoping he's a parodist. Because if he's not, he's just confirming so many stereotypes about fundamentalist Christians, that it should be scary for Andy.-Diadochus 00:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)

He had better be a parodist or my desk won't take any more head smashing.[3] --Shagie 01:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)

He was probably educated in Ohio. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

*headdesks* Somehow, this exchange makes me believe he's not a parodist. Or he's just another kind of parodist. This really looks just like genuine stupidity. And they made that guy sysop (and thus right by default in all content questions, thanks to TK's Etiquette Guideline additions)? --Sid 06:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)

JPatt files for Divorce

JPatt has posted this lovely little bit of cut and paste where the original author, and presumably JPatt, files for divorce from America.

To which I say, "Fine! Toodle-oo! Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out!"

But I'll add a few provisions to the decree. We get the blue states, you get the red ones. We'll take the economic and technological powerhouses. Yeah, you get most of the oil producing states, but we get the states that produce computers and software. See how much oil you can sell when we cut off your internet access. And the blue states are the ones that pay more in taxes than they get back, so you'll immediately be running a helluva budget deficit. Yeah, I know Reagan taught deficits don't matter, but we'll see how long you hold to that idea. (And oh, by the way, his grave is in one of our states. We'll allow you to visit it to genuflect as often as you require, but there will now be an admission fee. And considering your currency will be in free fall pretty quickly, we want payment in gold.)

You don't want immigration? (Yeah, I know, you claim its about illegal immigration, but occasionally your more obnoxious spokesmen let it slip that its really that you just don't like foreigners.) Cool! We'll get all the high tech workers coming out of India and the rest of the world now. (Well, you're not going to need many, except for petroleum engineers.)

We also get the entertainment industry. See how long your citizens put up with the lack of American Idol and the latest tough guys with guns movies.

Speaking of the entertainment industry, Limbaugh lives in Florida and his studios are in New York. Hannity is entirely out of New York. Michael Savage is out of San Francisco. Based on the last election results, those states are ours, so they're going dark immediately. We'll probably replace them with NPR. If you really piss us off, we'll put on Pacifica Radio so you can finally learn what a real "liberal media" would sound like.

You say you'll keep the Judeo-Christian values. Well, you can have your interpretation, we'll keep ours. We'll keep caring for the poor, love one another, and all that stuff. You can have "hate the homos". It won't matter anyway, since they'll probably all flee to us anyway.

We'll keep our environmental regulations, too. Right now, I'll grant you've got some of the most beautiful regions in the country (I'm partial to the mountains myself), but see how much tourism you get when the Great Smokies really are smoky.

Oh, and we get most of the great schools (from kindergarten to post-grad) in the country, too. Yeah, you'll probably kick our asses in college sports, but our students will actually be getting educations.

Have fun! I wish you well. Maybe you'll find a new spouse soon. Personally, I'm going to be calling Canada to see what they're doing Saturday. You'd be better off calling around the Third World -- none of the industrial democracies is going to want to have anything to do with you. Maybe you can hook up with Iraq -- you've been telling us its a paradise now, so you'd be perfectly happy with that, right? (Yeah, that's what I thought.) MDB 07:22, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Ahu. This "essay" has been spread far and wide: Example Google search --Sid 07:35, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I figured it probably wasn't new. But I thought I'd contribute my own rebuttal. MDB 07:40, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Just mentioned it to back the point that it's very likely that Jpatt didn't write it himself. :) --Sid 07:47, 27 February 2009 (EST)

He doesn't claim to have written it himself -- he credits someone named "John Wall". MDB 08:04, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Well, essay space isn't normally for reposting stuff you just found somewhere (since it's technically not public domain, I think, and even then it wouldn't hurt to point it out), so authorship is kind of implied. But that's just me splitting hairs, I guess. --Sid 14:14, 27 February 2009 (EST)

The scariest thing about all that, is that I'm fairly convinced our JPatt isn't a parodist - which is either very sad, or very scary - I can't decide which. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)

You know what, they can divide up the country precisely as stated in the original essay. Sure, they can have the rich, the army, wall street, the big corporations. They can have the oil AND silicon valley. Because leave those idiots to run a country and we'd STILL end up better off in 30 years time, and wouldn't have to worry about conservatards getting into positions where they can affect the world.Bil08 14:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)

It's funny, "we" have been offering them this divorce for years, if not decades. It took Obama winnowing down their territory to make them yelp. ħuman 15:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'd give The Republican Republic of Jesusland 20 years at most before it either devolved into a banana corn republic, or started pillaging its neighbors. --Gulik 16:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

One of the circulated response articles can be found at [4]. Or it might have been the other way around (the red was a response to the blue). Either way, it is not good. The US is better than the sum of the states. To try to split it down the lines one way or the other and say "we are better than you" doesn't serve anyone well. It creates additional polarization. The thing to realize is that it isn't "red or blue" failing but rather "red white and blue" failing. If there was to be a hypothetical split, both sides would be worse off than before. --Shagie 03:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Mystery: Did RobertWDP just commit wiki-suicide?

• "The way this apparent mystery is framed is also counter-productive. It is framed as if there are only two possible choices, liberal or conservative."
• "I was somewhat shocked by the fundamental mistakes underlying this apparent 'mystery'."

Andy will have a field day once he wakes up. --Sid 08:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Saw that - after barneying with JPatt on Global warming. Think Robert wants to be kicked out - martyr complex or something? _and marmite 08:04, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Andy warns Robert in traditionally strange style. Really only a matter of time. --CWaddell 12:34, 27 February 2009 (EST)

In the same breath (actually, a few posts earlier :-) , Tony Sidaways was - well, not blocked - but at least godspeeded --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:43, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Given the fundamentally ADD nature of Andy's dedication to the different issues/causes/mysteries/arguments that he puts out there and then forgets about after playing with them for a few days, he must hate it when someone drags up stuff that he assumes has been conveniently forgotten about. TheoryOfPractice 12:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Andy can be such a snide prick without even trying at times, can't he? ħuman 15:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Improvement of Lecture 5

On Feb 25th, 2009, 8h 25, cp:User:RobertWDP stated a list of 25 suggestions/corrections for lecture five. cp:User:Aschlafly answered one day later:

Thanks for your suggestions. I reviewed them carefully, accepting some and changing the text, while rejecting others.--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

So, let's see how many were accepted - and which were rejected:

1. "Both the beginning and end of the Middle Ages occurred in what is now Italy" I think the exact meaning of this sentence needs to be clarified. REJECTED
2. I think you have chosen a somewhat extreme interpretation of why the term 'middle ages' is used. I do not think it was intended as a derogatory term by most. REJECTED
3. I'm quite certain the claim that "Except for the Carolingian court of Charlemagne discussed below, there was no kingdom in Europe from the fall of Rome to A.D. 1000." is incorrect. Whilst the Carolingian empire was certainly one of the most notable there were certainly others. REJECTED
4. The phrase "but they were constantly cooperating or arguing with each other" seems ambiguous. ACCEPTED
5. Simply as a suggestion of my own, I think it would be much easier to simply state how much older Christianity roughly is than Islam rather than using a percentage. REJECTED
6. The date of the battle of Yarmouk (636 AD) should be specified. ACCEPTED
7. "causing concern by the Sunnis" should read "causing concern amongst..."ACCEPTED
8. You suggest that Sunnis are viewed more favourably by the west, although I would rather not dwell on generalisations, it should be noted that Bin Laden's group is entirely Sunni, though of course very much a minority group amongst them. REJECTED
9. I'm not sure what is meant by saying that Shi'ites "slashing their forwards" REJECTED
10. The part concerning the 2006 election and Keith Ellison needs updating. REJECTED, but changed Koran to Koran (Qur'an)
11. You mention that "western Europe was declining" at one point without clarifying in what respect there was a decline. REJECTED
12. The most recent data suggests that Russia now has the 9th largest population rather than the 8th. ACCEPTED
13. I would disagree with the characterisation of the Saxon rule of Britain as being chaotic, I think it was much more stable than many others. REJECTED
14. The Picts did not really settle in Scotland, they were a distinctive group that emerged from the existing population and dominated for a time. ACCEPTED
15. Saxon's generally cremated their dead, as the term pyre itself implies, and did not simply leave the bodies for animals as you suggest. REJECTED
16. You incorrectly state that the peasants in the Feudal System were not bound to their Lord. In fact they had to swear an oath to the Lord and were bound to them, or perhaps more specifically, to the land. The Feudal System was a massive system of oaths and mutual ties which form are what held it together. REJECTED
17. It would be more correct to refer to the 'invention' of the iron plough rather than its 'discovery' REJECTED
18. You state that the serfs paid rent in the form of food. This was not universally true temporally or geographically. Generally early on the serf's rent was paid as labour on the lord's own land as opposed to that which was given over to peasant subsistence farming. This developed into a system of paying rent in the form of commodities, such as food, and eventually money. REJECTED
19. You are incorrect in stating that everyone under the Feudal System had the ability to buy/sell land. REJECTED
20. There was in fact a form of centralized government but it was nowhere near as powerful as it became in the centuries that followed. REJECTED
21. You should clarify your definition of 'useless lands and forests'. I assume you mean this from a purely economic perspective in the context of the time. REJECTED
22. The sentence "On the humorous side, it became popular to use battering rams and catapults in warfare" is puzzling in my opinion. corrected by cp:User:ETrundel
23. You suggest there were frequent battles between rival manors. For one thing, a manor was generally the fief of a single knight and as such battles on this scale were unlikely. Although there were civil wars of course, you unfairly characterise this as an inherently unstable system. REJECTED
24. I think you need to clarify for where the 'invasions stopped' REJECTED
25. I disagree with you statement about modern property law being based on the feudal system. This system did not recognise the concept of 'private property' and in many ways was almost the complete opposite of today. The private property system was developed by monarchs, particularly following the plague which decimated the population, thus reducing the rent they received. This, along with more expensive military technologies led to the need to increase income, which they did by creating laws regarding personal property and collecting taxes on the back of this. As such, private property was in fact one of the things that led to the collapse of the feudal system. REJECTED, of course

So, some: 6, others: 19 --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:53, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Re: point #17. Andy agrees wholeheartedly with this student's oversimplified world view (see response to question H5). Looks like new CP policy to me. Anyone feel like doing a search/replace for invent/discover?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 09:41, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Wait, didn't Andy have a bug up his ass about another student calling it a "yin-yang"? --Kels 20:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Basically avoided changing anything substantive. The six are grammatical oddities, a date, and population rankings. The rejected are dramatic errors of understanding on the basic level. Changing those would be admitting he doesn't know the information and is unqualified to teach it.

The invent/discover thing is really strange - reminds me of Clerks II "god created man, and man created the transformers, so the transformers are like a gift from god."--CWaddell 12:27, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I hate you Andrew Schlafly. You are uneducating your own students. I hope there is a Hell. Just so you can burn in it for poisoning impressionable minds with your jingoistic and fundamentalist nonsense, you shit.DSFARGEG 18:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Yin-yang. Didn't Andy take of points from another student because he didn't use the real terms?I think it was that guy who answered "unproven" on one question and got -5--Nate River 20:43, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah Kels, I just pointed it out. Guess Andy doesn't mind IF you suck up. Reportable concerning his SES app?--Nate River 21:02, 27 February 2009 (EST)

100 years ago

Look at this ancient TK edit. Looks like he made a comment, then added a fake 'you're right' from Andy after it (only written in TK-speak)!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:35, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I think he's actually quoting Aschalfly rather than impersonating him. A Delicious Cake 11:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Logical, except why is "Schlafly"'s comment timed at 3min after TK's?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Looks/sounds to me like Terry (isn't that a girl's name?) is quoting an email or IM from Andy (AS was online and editing at that time, according to CP logs).--WJThomas 12:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Terry is very much a chap's name, short for Terence (and variants). Fretfulporpentine 13:14, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Terry's also short for Theresa or Teresa, I have it on good authority. _and marmite 14:22, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Also, why are both comments timestamped at least 25 minutes later than the time they were actually posted by TK? Posted 19:04, with timestamps 19:29 and 19:32 respectively. --Marty 13:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I think it might be a bug of some sort. See Tracy C Copeland's edit of the same page. A Delicious Cake 13:43, 27 February 2009 (EST)

"The mistakes could have been innocent, of course." - you can't imagine either of them saying that these days: it would have to be an attempt at liberal deceit or some such. Cantabrigian 13:55, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I vaguely remember this issue. Unless I'm mistaken, this is indeed a quote of some other comment. Gimme a moment to dig. --Sid 14:17, 27 February 2009 (EST)

There you are. It was an exchange that ended with the words "Would you consider granting me sysop status, at least long enough to complete the Reagan and Thatcher articles, and then judge for yourself if I deserve it? I emailed you about this from within this system, are you still not getting them?", which is amusing on so many levels. --Sid 14:21, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Red Light States

Something tells me that we won't see this nice news item on CP's main page: [5]. --Just passing by 14:04, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Hehe, I love the almost instant analysis by commenters completely overlooked (presumably) by the "scientists": "The study just shows that red staters are too dumb to know how to get their porn for free." I LOLed, thank you. ħuman 15:40, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Agreeing with Andy

I came across this comment of Andy's from way back as he debated the relative merits of Wikipedia vs. Brittanica, and you know, it's hard to disagree with him - although his grading of WP as an 'F' is overharsh. However, his point is well made, and entirely fair - Wikipedia changes too much and is too unreliable for education. And he's right - the destruction of the public's opinion of Brittanica is indeed a real loss. Of course, if he thinks WP is unreliable, how on earth he thinks CP can be any better is beyond me. But the question is - would an article of things we agree with Andy on be entertaining? DogP 20:29, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Here's the things Andy and I agree on: Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and I hurt people ENorman 21:10, 27 February 2009 (EST)

BONK! --GTac 05:22, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I'm a force of nature! BOINK! If you were from where I was from, you'd be BEEPing dead!--Gishin 17:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I think the main problem is that Britannica and other Awesome Encyclopedias seem to instantly go all "HEY WE COULD SHOW YOU PREMIUM CONTENT BUT LET'S FORCE YOU TO SIGN UP FIRST!". I just tried to check the Axiom of Choice topic in Britannica and could only get a glance before a huge "SIGN UP NOW? Y/Y?" floating thingy blocked out the entire thing. Yep, that would totally be my first choice when looking something up. Uh-huh.

Aside from poking such non-content aspects (even though accessibility is a major factor for most people, and Wikipedia is awesome there, especially with wikilinks and nav-boxes), I will of course agree that info in Britannica (aside from current events) will be more reliable than on Wikipedia - or at least just as reliable. And I fully agree that Wikipedia should not be used for education. I wouldn't base a lecture on a Wikipedia article. But that's not what Wikipedia is there for, either. There is a reason why articles are supposed to give their sources and why only notable/reliable information should be given prominent screentime. Wikipedia is a great starting place to get a first impression of a subject and to find more sources on it - sources you should check out if you're seriously interested in the subject and/or want to use it for research.

That's something Andy and his goons will always conveniently ignore, and it's where CP went wrong: The rules for sourcing, notability and reliability aren't optional or liberal. They exist so people can doublecheck any claim made. That's why you shouldn't use dinner conversations as sources. That's why linking to a random quotemine page isn't really cutting it. That's why opinions (or as Andy calls them: "insights") should be left out. Wikipedia is not a research facility and it's also not a Think Tank or a blog.

</rant>

About the final question: I think it would be entertaining to contrast the things we can agree on (which are quite a few basic concepts, actually) with how Andy completely runs down a cliff from there. Example: "Keep an open mind" is very good advice, and I will readily agree with Andy there. However, Andy then started to quantify open-mindedness with a test in which "open-mindedness" equals "agrees with Andy's wild views" and/or "did not do the research". Another example would be that the origin of the Moon (Except for some RW founding members, very few will remember why I bring this up in particular.) isn't completely researched and that there are open questions about the current consensus. But Andy basically starts with "If your theory doesn't involve divine intervention, it's wrong" and then tries to build a scientific article on that basis, featuring his usual "Scientists just make shit up and then hope that nobody questions it" rants. --Sid 21:27, 27 February 2009 (EST)

See, I disagree on your views of wiki vs. (at least hard bound or DVD) traditional encyclopedias. Encyclopedia simply cannot content as much info as a wiki. They are restricted by article size, page size, and ultimately book size. But more importantly, they are restricted by "expertise" size. They generally are 1-2 years behind professional views due to the time it takes to make and compile info. they almost never present alternative views, critical views, or cautionary views of a topic unless it is virtually impossible to discuss without those alternatives. Take for example the topic of the Linguistic model of the Sapir Whorf studies. Wiki devotes sizable entry to the general concepts of SW, and has 2 links you can read for particular information. It includes the "traditional take" as well as 1, 2, or 3 critical challenges (depending on who is currently writing... "wars" always change how that article looks". AND there is a "talk" page, which a reader who is more knowledgeable can go and find out more. Britannica has 1 page, it is the standard linguistic view of SW, includes a bit of how the SW was created, and maybe one slight challenge to it. The idea of "expert" is going to be redefined as we move into a world where more people's ideas are expressed and tested, and more people are able to challenge the "norms". That's a GOOD thing for real education, real history and real science. By the way, wiki has pages devoted to sesame street! that's never going to happen in Enc. Brit.! --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 21:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Your answers are interesting, but I have to run an errand. Please continue to discuss with an open mind. DogP 21:54, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Mh, excellent points, especially regarding the various points of view and the importance of keeping up with current developments. Wikipedia is excellent at gathering and aggregating information from various sources, and it's very true that it connects people and subjects ideas to more public scrutiny than before. I got the feeling that I want to say more, but it's past 4am here, and I'll be out most of the day tomorrow, so this general agreement will have to do the trick for now. --Sid 22:08, 27 February 2009 (EST)

1) I also hate it when people call Wikipedia "wiki". This is a wiki. So are many other sites. There were wikis before wikipedia. 2) Encyclopedias are only "educational resources" at the middle school level. You can't write a paper in "high school" citing only 'pedias. Just as is the case with WP. ħuman 23:50, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I agree that Wikipedia isn't an academic source. I was a lib'rul arts major in college, and one of my sci/eng friends took a lib'rul arts class with me, and I remember reading his final paper. He cited Wikipedia. I couldn't talk to him for a week.-Diadochus 01:01, 28 February 2009 (EST)

The fact that Wikipedia articles often have a list of original sources has been a boon to me; it has been a genuinely useful tertiary source for me whilst writing my thesis. I'd never use it as a secondary source though. alt 04:56, 28 February 2009 (EST)

At my last college course we were told that Wikipedia was a good souce. So I looked up Protest songs (the subject at hand) and found it was crap - protest songs began in the sixties, apparently. I left the course (as did two-thirds of the students during the first term) and got wiki-ing. Anyway, Wikipedia is in no way a reliable source, the arguments piss me off so much I hardly bother with it now, but the external links are really useful. Totnesmartin 05:51, 28 February 2009 (EST)

It's a source source. That's its best use. Just use it like a better filtered version of Google to find reasonable sources, not to quote as itself. (Although watching creationists squabble can be fun) _and marmite 05:56, 28 February 2009 (EST)

That's a good way of putting it. It's also a good source to see what the "in fighting" is, about any topic. But I think for most "day to day" uses, it's one of the easier ways to find out things you aren't very educated on. When you all bring up something like the "axiom of choice" or Godel's Therom, I can at least find out what the underlying premise is. Or if I'm reading a paper on Lakota Linguistics, and someone mentions a similar vowel shift to that of the Fulani people, I can run and look up said people to at least know who or what they are. Pretty "first grade" stuff, but when you need to know that kind of basic, Wikipedia is pretty straight forward. By the way, are most of you active editors at Wikipedia, for your area of interest or expertise?--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 13:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I have mined over 300 commas to use here on RW, so, yeah, I guess so. ħuman 14:57, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Hey, almost as impressive as Ed.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 16:37, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Tmtoulouse and I can sometimes be spotted at the Conservapedia article (him) or its talk page (me). Totnesmartin 18:44, 28 February 2009 (EST)

AP exams

CP's article is illuminating in that it gives a list of the exams with links, not to anything relating to the exams, but to CP's "article" on the subject. The first (Art History) is "covered" by four paragraphs! (The second (Biology) is, in contrast a wonderful and comprehensive treatment of the subject with almost 3000 characters.) Heaven help Andy's pupils (again!) _and marmite 01:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Shows how much Andy knows on the subject...those poor dumb bastards--Nate River 01:37, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I feel so sorry for those students. Hopefully when (if) they go to a good college, they will recieve a genuine education. The only problem with a genuine education for them is that it may force them to wake up from Andy World, and such a devastating shift in their world view may harm them psychologically. It actually makes me wonder how Andy was able to stay in Andy World all the way up to this point. -- JArneal 01:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I feel really sorry for ... Etc 07:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Huh? What brought that on? MDB 09:12, 28 February 2009 (EST)

That's just what I was wondering. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:14, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Ouch? Oh, I get it. Czolgolz 09:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)

• facepalm* duh. don't do things like that after I've spent the afternoon drinking teh beer and watching teh cricket.--PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Then could someone explain it to me? MDB 09:28, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, wait.... checks source code.... Andy you're a jerk, a total kneebiter. MDB 09:29, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry :-) Etc 10:33, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Wait, what did I do? Z3ro^talk 09:44, 28 February 2009 (EST)

The hell did I do? --CWaddell 10:35, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Nevermind, too early. Z3ro^talk 10:01, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Nearly caught me there Etc. But I'se a She. _and marmite 10:00, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I imagine a few of us have that issue. I was like, "I'm sure Etc. knows who I am, there's something fishy here." --Kels 10:57, 28 February 2009 (EST)

LOL! Sorry for the trolling, I just couldn't resist that impulse. Just for checking who has drunk enough beer (and I didn't mean to discriminate against female users somehow, just couldn't come up with a gender-neutral phrasing). Etc 10:33, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Ummm, what did I do? Kaalis 11:24, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, okay. Funny. Kaalis 11:38, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I strongly agree, Anonymous user is an asshole. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Reticulating splines 11:41, 28 February 2009 (EST)

That's what I actually wished for, just a lot of people agreeing with me, that would have been hilarious :-) Etc 18:28, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Hey - I resemble that remark! (before coffee, anyway) Clever. --SpinyNorman 11:59, 28 February 2009 (EST)

WTF?! Troll war! Not. DogP 13:10, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry, just saw some comments regarding me on here...did I do something wrong??? Jammy 13:14, 28 February 2009 (EST)

No, it's the {{USERNAME}} template/myName trick that inserts your name into the text. -- Nx ^talk 13:21, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Sighs. got me. I just had a fight with Hubby, so was really in a self-pity, "the world hates me" mode, then i read "you all hate me.";-) Evil! I'z gots to learns me to do that kind of evil thing. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 13:23, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Lol, thanks for making me look like a naive moron on the talk page now then :) Jammy 13:24, 28 February 2009 (EST)

My instant reactions were, in order: 1) 'hey wow, someone's mentioned me by name on here!' 2) 'oh wait a second, it's for something bad.' 3) (considerably later) 'oh, it's that username trick'. You'd think I'd be watching out for that now since that time I thought Andy Schlafly was on RationalWiki having a go at me personally on a page he'd created solely for that purpose. seventhrib 13:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I got totally psyched by this trick the first time I saw the quote generator in use. Apparently, this was also a great way to use it :-) But seriously, sorry if anyone got offended. Etc 18:28, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Ace McWicked is not an asshole. He is just misunderstood. Ace McWicked loves all, his heart bursts with emotion. Ace McWicked's weather report calls for gusts of feelings. Ace McWicked^Revolt 20:20, 28 February 2009 (EST)godamn fucking stupid. I have been tricked!!

Awesome! But I think this has gone far enough, I'm removing my original post now. Etc 06:03, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I think Ed Poor is kind of like a volcano of stupid

He lies dormant for weeks and weeks, maybe occassonally a spurt of lava, and then, BOOM. Millions are killed.-Diadochus 13:13, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Looking at his contributions, what the hell is this? It certainly doesn't do what Ed thinks it does. -- Nx ^talk 13:16, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Ha. [ I think Ed is awesome. ] See it in action here. --Marty 13:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, I get it now, it's in the edit comment. Ed is awesome (hover to show hidden text) -- Nx ^talk 14:01, 28 February 2009 (EST)

For my next trick... guess what this template does! --Marty 14:14, 28 February 2009 (EST)

He sure did manage to save some typing there. He used it here, I'm guessing it's spam filter avoidance. -- Nx ^talk 14:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)

But consider this for a moment, Ed Poor actually thinks he is right in what he is doing. It can be an admiriable trait, and I rest assured that Ed believes that his actions are for the best. The next consideration is that he has been raised in an environement where, even though his actions may be harmful or funny, he personally does not realize or recognize it. -- 16:39, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Jess says what we're all thinking. She reverted it back, but that made me laaaaaugh. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 18:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)