Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive160

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <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)

Nutty WIGO

I don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some random editor at CP gets blocked as a sock of me. Nice wordplay from Human. Get it? A Nutty roux is a sauce? 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A sauce? Or a lousy WiGO? We report, we also decide. Now shut up and take it. --Kels 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Now I get it. It still isn't funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did get the 'sauce' joke, I just didn't see what it had to do with what was going on. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I tossed it up there was the direct call-out of an RW editor by name. Oh well, maybe one day it will be the lowest voted WIGO! ħuman 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ThickKunt does that with Ace all the time. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's linguistic abilities

I was wondering , is any of us doing this (or a similar) kind of indoctrination education to Andy for him to have his linguistic skills today? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Access, with stretcher and small potatoes

His fans had a hard time accessing him, cause of the rest of the crowd. I can live with stretcher, since nobody uses the word litter in that sense any more, and gurney is mostly used by civilians. The rolly liftup thing you scoop a patient onto for loading into the back of the ambulinks is a stretcher, OK?

But "access" instead of "find [a]... way" to him? "Get to" uses the same number of characters if you count the space in the middle, and doesn't have the same tinge of computer-speak (neologism involving verbatization of a noun) about it. Must. Be. Concise. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With stretcher, it was more of Andy saying his word choice made more sense, even though proper translations use the same word. Perhaps it really was a bed, a mattress, maybe a cot, rather than a stretcher? Andy wasn't there, and if he wasn't there, then he can't know (by Andy logic). --Irrational Atheist 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It may well have been a thin futon or a reed mat. In my parents' generation, when someone came out with nonsense of that ilk, the standard response was, "Was you there, Charley?" or actually, "Vas you dere, Sharley?" No idea of the source of that.

I just realized "access" may be a conservative word, with the free market including purveyors of face time with policy makers and all. Don't arsk me to research whether it is actually a c-word though. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also hidden in CP's Luke (translated) is avoid feminist rendition of "prophetess".... Here's me thinking feminists dislike the use of a diminutive of the masculine to form the feminine. CS Miller 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was Harry (for 2¢ plain) Golden who wrote a short bit about how "-ess" was used (maybe only in 19th century lit.?) to form the feminine for under-people, such as "Jewess" and "Negress." Sprocket J Cogswell 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"What doubt is [sic] your hearts?" Shall we be concerned that Jesus does not wield the english language properly? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it's undeniable that Jesus invented the English language, shortly before inventing comedy. Cantabrigian 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that AndyPants insists on stretcher in v.18, but in v.25 the guy picks up his bed. Water to wine, stretcher to bed, the miracles never cease.... Worm^{(t | c)} 13:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Raatz WIGO

A pat on the back to whoever wrote that one. That was one of the cleverest and (dare I say it?) most insightful WIGOs I've seen in a while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly agreed. Not because there was anything wrong with the WIGO, but because it linked me to this^img: "Ideally if we could viral the language enough." Verbing weirds language. --4perf 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks nounverbs are doubleplusungood. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes ftw!-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the C&H reference! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not used to seeing Andy act as the [1]^img voice of moderation. This memeshock guy is just plain creepy. Corry 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Raatz the figurative Abyss staring back into Andy? Also, best use of 1984 quote in a WIGO. ENorman 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn brilliant. Best written WIGO I've seen. 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, very poignant. But the whole MemeShock thing is very self-aggrandizing and silly. I don't think anyone has ever thought that Newspeak or the principles it works on could actually function in reality. ^gnostic 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it a little funny that Andy still thinks this is all being done by a computer somewhere^img. Meanwhile, having received Andy's imprimatur, JimR twists the knife^img. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Debate:MemeShock.

Naughty TK

andy tells TK to cut back on the /16s^img (And then thinks better of it so deletes it.) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to add that, lol. Maybe something like:

User: "Help! TK rangebl-"

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So he cuts it back to 6 months!^img Superjosh, what have you been doin, you naughty boy. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Look a bit more closely. That wasn't Andy. ħuman 02:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! well fooled me: glad I didn't WIGO it! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

God, imagine if Andy actually did that. That'd be another "hell freezes over" WIGO. SJ ^Debaser 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it it was you, SJ? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck it, it was. I've never been a parodist over there, and I wasn't even that bothered, I just fancied trying to be an actual decent contributor there. No joke. I didn't really fancy TK announcing my university to the world, but then I realised I don't give a shit. SJ ^Debaser 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why TK keeps blocking himself? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pure stoooooopidity. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So we'd ask ourselves that question. He's wanking over our messages concerning him right now. "Look at me! People know I'm here!" SJ ^Debaser 02:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Andy impersonator made an error. MIT controls an /8 block of 16,777,216 IP addresses. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the shortcomings of IPv4 is that many companies or institutions have been allocated blocks of IPs far in excess of their current need. However when all telephones, security cameras, automatic doors, fridges etc. also have their own IP then 64K for a university might then seem restrictive. Roll on IPv6. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I like TK's quick wank over his block of SJ's Uni "Another good catch!". Well done you. Have a sweet and then go back to your kiddy porn. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tee-Kay!!

Drop me an email could ya TK? I'd like to talk to you civilly. You're still technically a member here so the email this user function should work. Cheers! SJ ^Debaser 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think his AIM account still functions: Same as his email begins with "ex" and ends with "1", (as is showed on his CP [not TALK] page}. CЯacke®

His AIM account is still active yes. Ace^{of Spades} 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to talk to that remtard? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Something VERY interesting

I have discovered something VERY interesting, but in the interest of not exposing parody, I won't put it here. Who is safe to email this fascinating tidbit to? MisterEd 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about anybody. Try this guy.TheoryOfPractice 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about me? Ace^McWicked 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's worth the while, Ace, send it along. How you been? Thx. TheoryOfPractice 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I been OK, thanks for asking. And you? Ace^McWicked 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual--overworked, spending too much time pissed off at people on the internet and not enough time naked and out of my gourd. TheoryOfPractice 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You should be naked as often as possible - the rest comes naturally. Ace^McWicked 04:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would be so kind Ace, flick it this way.Rad McCool 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, I actually haven't gotten nything yet. Ace^McWicked 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Always excuses.Rad McCool 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever gets it last, send it along to me please? ħuman 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pass the mustard, please. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And the salt, pretty please?Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it along to me, please. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That IS very interesting MisterEd. Nice detective work. We shall be watching developments. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wing it Josh's way could ya please sweethearts? SJ ^Debaser 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is certainly not a CP sysop in deep cover and would like to know what is happening with these electronic mails. Yorick^{Sounds sexy on the telephone} 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent eleventy-one of you your eighth copy. Well, all except that "Wodewick" person who hasn't slept with me yet. ħuman 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please send the lulz this way.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. ħuman 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And again, H? TheoryOfPractice 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your fifth copy. ħuman 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Human, that certainly bears watching.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it means, indeed. (tldr) ħuman 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, I had an all day rehearsal. Someone wanna shoot the resident token a quick email? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody send it to me too, please? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 08:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to sleep with you doesn't mean I'm not a dirty secularist :( It just means I'm a dirty secularist with good taste. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, nobody sent it to me and once again I feel all unloved. --PsygremlinSermā! 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I have it too? Bastard word Hoover! 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be eternally grateful if someone were to sling it this way. And some SDG if you can, I've seen none of that :(. EddyP 10:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One for me, please. (Also, should someone create an "email list" for things like this, with links to Special:EmailUser for each person who wants these kinds of emails?) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a good idea (or maybe a private intercom group), but it would have to be invitation-only or have some sort of vetting procedure, to make infiltration hard. Professor Moriarty 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the benefit of having it as an on-wiki page. If you see on that list Human, Pi, Totnesmartin, and SecretCPInfiltrator, then someone can just remove whichever one is the odd-one out (i.e. only allow trusted users on?). I guess it has the same overall effect as an invite-only group though. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a CABAL. There is no cabal. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I Read the e-mail. I refuse to believe such a thing about RJJensen BertSchlossberg GeoPlrde TK. TheoryOfPractice 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I want the e-mail ;_;. EddyP 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a copy too? Anyone? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to be cool too. Someone send me a copy; my curiosity is piqued by all this tantalizing talk. Fedhaji (Talk) 21:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Look

I've still not got a copy of whatever the fuck this is. If it's really important, post it. This use-a-wiki-to-say-how-cool-you-are-but-not-post-the-content shit is not on. Post it or die. You're just gonna end up sending it to a CP admin anyway. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Or email us both a copy. You can trust me. Seriously. I'm more trustworthy than would appear. Professor Moriarty 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but I don't care, because I'm not all hung up on having to be one of the "in crowd". --WJThomas 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SR. This sort of thing should definitely be shared, and definitely not posted on the wiki. Perhaps the protocol should be to simply bang off an email to the users you trust with instructions for them to do likewise, and make no mention of it elsewhere. Thus the trusted members will be in the know and the untrusted members won't know that they aren't trusted. Also, this should be saved for very important revelations only.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day the subject of the email is a CP sysop we've already discussed extensively. Nobody who got the email was surprised that the conclusions drawn in it were gained without any special knowledge at all, but straight from information readily available here and on CP. 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, CP has more undercover operatives than the CIA (except they're not their spies!). That is QI. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm interested. lol. At first when I saw this I was like, meh, who cares.. but now my curiosity is aroused. Anyone care to send me a copy, please? :p thank you. Refugee^{talk page} 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, nevermind. I don't want it after all.. if it were to get out I wouldn't want anyone saying maybe it was me.. and I like to stay out of drama of all types.. changed my mind, retract request. :p (wishywashy Refugee, lol) Refugee^{talk page} 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it to me. I'm too dumb to be a mole. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Email it to me, you godless heathen! SoldierInGodsArmy 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Send to me, pl0x Senator Harrison 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I want in, too. --Ireon 14:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Raatz

Where the fuck did this guy come from? He's going on about memetic vectors and "deep process", which probably only have meaning in his twisted little head. Have we found somebody crazier than Andy? ENorman 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are already many, many people crazier than Andy. Ken for example. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See here-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy is a legit wacko. I wish him and teh Arse got along better. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he is a satirist (there is a suspicious "hehehehe" on his Facebook group's main page).--MNA 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While's he obviously somewhat deranged in his conclusions, at least he's asking the questions none of you seem capable of thinking about. Oh, how I lament this poor, self important website. MarcusCicero 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

shit -> fan

The shit may be about to hit the fan. Stay tuned. 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, keep us posted Z. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, c'mon, don't troll us like that. That sounds like the "a mjor creationist website will soon announce a major effort to destroy evolutionism on the internet" stuff at CP, except even less specific. MDB 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people will have a very specific idea of what I'm talking about, MDB. I'm posting this really for one guy, but also so that anybody interested might keep their eyes out. 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke. My apologies. MDB 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are talking about and it's a pity my work computer is completely blocked from viewing CP. Don't forget capture tags! Ace^{of Spades} 19:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did it hit the fan yet??? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you people talking about? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ewwww....creepy shout-out^img from TK. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny - TK told me a little while back he couldn't even view RW as Tmt had blocked him server side. And yes TK, I have the transcripts at hand. Ace^{of Spades} 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall him going on about being "404 blocked". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be surprised, he is a known liar. Ace^{of Spades} 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Trent's admitted to server blocking TK for a very short time (less than hours), but certainly not permanently. There's a discussion of this on TK's talk pages here. Trent confirmed the short server block to me at our Midwest Meetup and I'll take Trent's word over that of TK and the rest of CP put together in the blink of an eye. In any event, people's IP addresses cycle; at the time Ace IM'd with TK, it is my belief that TK was no longer even browsing from the same place Trent server blocked for mere moments years ago. 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Zomg, shit -> fan going to happen? Could someone email me this magnanimous prophecy that's about to happen? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Was that it? Did it just happen?????? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What's goin' on? TheoryOfPractice 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't smell anything yet. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This "hay guiz something cool and vague is going down that I'm just going to drop tantalizing references to" stuff is getting annoying. There's a reason nobody likes Ken Fedhaji (Talk) 01:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on you people, do I need to spell out this silly drama for you? ħuman 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes you do. TheoryOfPractice 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that, as I have no idea what is going on. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough. One of "us" (well, probably many) is TK. They created a puppet on CP that earned block rights. Then they offered up said puppets "details" (name/password) here a few months ago. Then recently they took over the puppet again and said mean things to another, allegedly teenaged, puppet on CP. The manager of the second puppet chided the "owner" of the first that talking that way to a teenager was not good style. Then the first puppet blocked the second and named the puppeteer. Then TK in his own incarnation finished the "redlinking" we are all so familiar with these days. Clear enough? ħuman 04:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the offering of the details, it happened right here on TWIGO:CP. The rest I will try to figure out on my own. Thanks Human. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're welcome. I really thought that "explanation" would only make things worse ;) PS, I don't think no (new) shit hit no fan today. But I haven't studied the goat entrails carefully since yesterday. ħuman 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a couple of wonderful email from TK today actually. He moaned about me not playing fair. Well, sorry TK, thems the brakes. Ace^{of Spades} 04:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Clear enough?"

I have no idea what that paragraph was about. Why the quotes around "us"? What do you mean "is" TK? Is there no person IRL, or do you just have his password? Were the mean things said on CP? How do you know the teenaged character was a puppet? To whom was the puppeteer named? What is "redlinking"? Is it deleting userpages?

You don't have to answer any of those questions, but I thought I would explain why I found your paragraph baffling. Maybe it's just because what I like best about CP is when Andy says something bonkers, rather than when the underlings fight. Coarb 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that comes off mean. I only mean to say "I'm confused, but you don't really have to explain yourself". This is especially true if explaining yourself decreases lulz. Coarb 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if I explained it clearly, it wouldn't be funny anymore, and might compromise one of TK's puppets here. Yes, "redlinking" is deleting a user's page. ħuman 06:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear as mud. But I assume that's the point. Anyway, I thought Bugler was a consortium, but it turned out otherwise. ^gnostic 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new to this whole thing but just curious- why is exposing one of TK's puppets a bad thing? Isn't TK a mortal enemy and sworn foe? --MNA 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TK is just another parodist. As the old saying goes, "The enemy of my enemy is my (really creepy) friend." ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No way. Really? If so he's managed to rise absurdly far in the organization. Man, I can only aspire to such great heights... I wonder what his end-game is? Oh, and do people from CP read this thread? --MNA 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am increasingly of the opinion that CP and RW are one group in cahoots with each other, with most users on both sites as non-aware pawns.--WJThomas 13:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Break because Nothing Continues to Happen

Yeah I worked it out - largely because of the email I received a few days earlier, hut hey. I agree with everybody who said that this is far too Ken-like. If you have something to post, post. If you think something may be about to happen, wait until it happens. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to even try to figure out what people are possibly talking about. I'll just wait until someone writes it up. X Stickman 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Criminy! You guys act like grade-school girls tittering about who has a crush on whom. SoldierInGodsArmy 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TK and Andy! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny.

Ed Poor never fails to amuse^img. Ace^{of Spades} 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHA!! I love how the first line repeats itself. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Ed actually aware that this is not some tech help wiki? Maybe he just logged into the wrong site. Edit summaries like the one for this move^img make me genuinely doubt that he was fully aware of his location. --Sid 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the best Ed stubs I've seen in a while. SJ ^Debaser 00:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this is something like Ken's SEO nonsense, a sort of techie honey pot to pull in hits from something unrelated to the wiki, and hope people look around for more once they're in. It would at least make a stupid sort of sense, even though it would still be idiotic. --Kels 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say searching for tech problems help does take you to all sort of random websites, mostly messageboards. It might be a moderately effective strategy. - π 01:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

CBP makes the AP

Andy surfs teh web

Our little secret

Obviously. ...

trouble right here

The AP has a piece on the Conservative Bible Project, their biggest story yet. It goes pretty easy on Andy, which I guess it has to if it wants to remain a neutral source. Ironic that the liberal MSM goes much easier on their stupidity than WND. DickTurpis 13:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to provide one new idea from Andy, in response to the criticism he's received from numerous theological conservatives:

"The phrase 'theological conservative' does not mean that someone is politically conservative,"

Which seems to be a tacit admission that his motives are political, not theological. MDB 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think the fact that his project came about because "liberals ruined the bible" would pretty much prove that point. I do like how the AP piece makes him look like a freaking idiot, in it's own, neutral way. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Brace yourselves for some lulz, people. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised it hasn't made the front page of Conservapedia yet. You asleep at the switch, Andy? DickTurpis 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I do like this comment: "This is not making scripture understandable to people today, it's reworking scripture to support a particular political or social agenda" - Timothy Paul Jones. Duh! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That picture of Andy at his computer has considerably less frothing at the mouth than I always assumed he'd have. X Stickman 14:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, though... you can see what on his monitor quite clearly in that picture. Now, its conservapedia's home page, of course, but someone with a little bit of Photoshop skills could change that to something far more interesting. Perhaps even... scandalous. MDB 14:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And it only took eight minutes. I'm impressed. MDB 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice shopping...though the young men are a bit too old to be groomed by Schlafly...12yo's would be better...maybe an underwear advert? CЯacke®

That's about all I could get with a SFW search for "homoerotic". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Upload a blank screen version. I see a new internet meme developing. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the conservative response when conservative politicians are caught in sex scandals is usually "meh", but they rail against anyone who deviates the slightest from ideological purity, it might be more scandalous if he was, oh, watching Keith Olberman. MDB 14:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what you got. File:Andys Blank Monitor.png ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

@NU - if a promo still of Zach and Slater from Saved By the Bell is homoerotic then a generation of American males in their late 20s and early 30s were exposed to something unsavory. I'm glad I'm a little too old for SBTB to have been on when I was glued to the tube. 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)I lack all photoshop skills (or even a acopy of it at work). MDB 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to wait until after work. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Last one before I try and get shit done. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This will require a separate gallery of liberal deceit in which to display our work. 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should start that asAP. Put the original and the blank one at the top, of course. I have an idea for one that won't stress my image-fu. Sub page of the funny Andy page? ħuman 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Anybody here ever written a GIMP script-fu before? Seems to me that we could write one that would take any picture and put it on Andy's screen. - π 00:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Noticed

... and he's dubbed it the Best. Article. Ever.FINEST ARTICLE YET^img (Andy's emphasis, not mine) about the CBP. Meaning "its the only one that's not portayed me as being nuttier than an oak tree." MDB 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm lauging so hard at him redlinking his own pride and joy in that diff. --Kels 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine the window on account creation will soon be closing. I hope something funny happens before then. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hilarious that he quotes himself. Kinda telling when the best compliment he can find is his own words. Besides which, the article isn't even an endorsement and does portray him as a nut with an agenda, it just uses more polite language. --Kels 15:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does Andy smoke? I see yellow teeth in that picture. He underbrags in his post, he only says the article "hits the presses nationwide". The AP has a lot of international subscribers. Internetmoniker 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is on the NPR site too. --Kels 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Say, he's still identifying as RC, I wonder if he gets enough attention from the press the Mother Church might have a word or two. Or even funnier, if someone like Bill Donohue tried to muscle in. --Kels 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing would be as funny as Andy vs the Catholic church. It would be the greatest CP event in history. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Andy still identifies as a Roman Catholic is one of the great unanswered questions about him. Who knows, maybe he has fantasies about starting a second Reformation via the CBP. MDB 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's he gonna nail to a church door? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AmesG. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

More flinging than nailing, I suspect. Although he does still make claims about being Catholic, although clearly his attitudes are more in line with American fundamentalists. Maybe he wants this to be his ticket into The Family? --Kels 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he's part of one of the "traditionalist" Catholic sects that think the Church went to Hell after Vatican II. Considering such groups will insist they are the real Catholics and all that stuff in Rome is just the work of pretenders, that would fit with Andy's disagreement with the official Catholic position on a number of issues, but still calling himself a Catholic. On the other paw, Andy at least seems to accept other non-Catholic theological conservatives as Christians, and I believe the pre-Vatican II stance was that non-Catholics weren't Christians. And I'd suspect a traditionalist Catholic would view coming up with your own Bible translation as more than a little heretical. So trying to figure out what religion Andy considers himself to be is about as easy as Kremlinology back during the Seventies.

Of course, as I've remarked before, Andy's real religion, whether he admits it or not, is Conservatism. With Ronald Reagan as God, Bush the Lesser as the Paul, prophets named Rush, Sean, Bill, and Glenn, and "Doctor" Laura as the Virgin Mary. MDB 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Church says authoritatively in the catechism that "the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more exposure - it's on the Yahoo front page right now! Including the picture of Andy in front of the computer monitor. --Composure1 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wether Andy likes to call non-RC'ers Christians is not really important. He has to, otherwise he would be completely alone. He even tolerates Moonies. Pietrow 19:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The CPB has made the AP. And does the Andrew Schlafly exorcise? Professor Moriarty 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"number one most popular on Yahoo!: today's article about the Conservative Bible Project"!!!111elevetny2! I hope he follows this up soon with some media appearances... ħuman 01:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TK told me Andy will be on the Colbert Report on Tuesday. Not sure I believe it but I thought I'd pass on the newest scuttlebutt. 13:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Is this the same Colber Repor that asked its viewers to wandalise the CBP, that is on straight after that paragon of right-wing values, The Daily Show? Is this what TK has been prophesying about for the last few weeks? CS Miller 13:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Opposing CP

Today I've read 13 examples of Rationalwikian idiocy on talk pages alone. Who gives you the right to mock any other website when you're hardly custodians of the rational ideal yourselves? MarcusCicero 17:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

^-- 14 now. ;) --Sid 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Neveruse, is that supposed to be funny? A dancing banana? It's fucking hilarious! Thank you for sharing it with me! MarcusCicero 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was supposed to be an example of Rationalwikian idiocy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What's it like being the only man alive who knows what's funny? Jon Stewart must pay you a bundle. --Kels 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is MarcusCicero unbinned?
Remember: Hi, This is John's brother. I know he has been using this account for a variety of reasons, none of them productive for his troublesome history of mental health problems. For obvious reasons I don't want to go into details about this but suffice to say my mother and father have decided to withdraw his access from the internet for the duration of his most recent treatment process. I apologise on my brothers behalf for any problems he may have caused this website during his period of instability. As you know, his posts have been of a bizarre quality but that is merely a reflection of his real world mental anguishes. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And: 20:48, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Delaware" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Argument from incredulity" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bohemian Grove" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "John F. Kennedy" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lucid dream" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Gerald Ford"
And: My glorious run has ended. This is not a case of 'leaving and never coming back', but more a case of 'burn out'. I created a personality on the internet so radically different from the real life version that I've forgotten even what trolls remorse feels like.. (You can thank Refugee over on RWW for providing the impetus) My highlights on RW: Making loads of people mad, especially Ace, Susan, Jeeves (Hi Jeeves! Wanker) and also Kels. Doing my best to persuade half of you that I 'was a dick who has something worthwhile to say', while really just being a dick and doing my best to annoy as many people as possible. Continuously rejecting the label of troll; even though I was the most transparent 'concern troll' in history. Riding the wave of mock grievance; So many times you put me on the centre stage with a semi reasonable grievance and I made sure to maximise the fallout as much as possible. Pretending to be a scholar (I know fuck all) One regret: Stooping to do the mental illness stunt. That was a terrible miscalculation. Adios RW! I may pop in from time to time, but at least now you'll know for sure than I'm a fully fledged troll! MarcusCicero 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And: On the other hand, the temptation to shake the ant farm and watch them scurrying to each others aid is far too great to overcome. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Imbeciles. ^{— Unsigned, by: 134.226.1.229 / talk / contribs}

says the bloke from the secret website. Totnesmartin 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding <capture> tags etiquette

Is there any etiquette for adding <capture> tags to other users' posts that lack them? CS Miller 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Capture tags are always good. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Statistics from TK

The first 999 articles were wrong, but someone finally got it right^img. This is probably the best bit of unintentional humour Team Killer has ever posted. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Father Joseph

Surely, there's no way that Andy hasn't become jaded enough after years of this kind of nonsense to not recognize a blatant parodist when he sees one. Surely, Andy is just grinning and playing along and does not believe that a pastor from New York is going to use the Conservabible in church next Sunday. TheoryOfPractice 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely you underestimate Andy. Keegscee 04:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's "overestimate". ħuman 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's "misunderestimate". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Christ, the guy even uses the word "clueless" in his second edit^img. Fess up. Which one of you all is Joey? DickTurpis 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have my theories, but they're none of your business. ħuman 05:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

He just got blocked. So sad. Covering Andy's ass^img for quoting his own quote without attribution in Maintemplate was a good start. Despite his horrible horrible obviousness I bet he could have made it at least a week. But TK had to be an ass: "Thou shalt have no Parodists before me." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Pere Guiseppe. In that talk section Andy makes an ass out of himself utterly: "No, I don't agree. The reporter had many quotes, but selected this one in particular. The quote is obviously one that would be attributed to someone else, but to add all that detail is unnecessary for a headline. In this case, to add it would appear to be self-aggrandizing and would detract from the important substance of the point being made by the quote.--Andy Schlafly" This is in response to people asking about Andy using his own fucking quote in the "headline" as if it were written by the reporter. Dishonest, self-aggrandizing loser, I hope he goes up against a real media-skilled person SOOON! ħuman 07:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, eight edits or so later, Karajerk archives the whole talk page (Oops, except for the last thread, sorry). I may bitch a little about our talk pages getting bloated, but at least they are archived on a sensible schedule. It's one thing we do well on RW, thank you Pibot. ħuman 07:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've made a top 30 wigo

Let's see if I can make a bottom 30 one. :| Obviously suicide bombers are not funny, at all. Ever. But Bert's treatment of the subject was so glurgy I just imagined it illustrated by Jack Chick, with swarthy Arabs and Anglo-Saxon Israelis - the only thing that's missing is the mother's conversion to Christ. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC), taking credit for his successes and his failures

Yup, slap in some random quotes from Romans, and perhaps a character who's never heard of Jesus before and you've got a standard Chick Tract going on there.--^{Ask me about your mother} 09:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Programs don't generate insights"

I lolled at this one. But the more exciting part was Andy revealing that he was a full time programmer. That's certainly not in our article, and I've never heard it come up before. *thinks about it* On second thought, I'm not sure if I believe him. He's never demonstrated any programming knowledge as far as I can remember. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with his statement ( and that bothers me) but he was an engineer. Dont they use FORTRAN and maybe Forth or Pascal ? Hamster 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's true, I didn't think of that. But that still doesn't make him "a programmer." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel bad if you agree with him on that statement (I do too); even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as my Pa says. And remember that he is an expert in whatever subject is currently under discussion.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not Forth. FORTRAN was still alive and kicking in the early 1980s, and PL/1 may have been taught in aid of structured programming, as well as Pascal for the precious aesthetes in academia. There was IBM 360 assembly language for the ones who leaned more towards the "computer science" side, along with some new microprocessor assembly languages for the Z-80 or 8080. For the real hard core, there was unix, which at that time was restricted to Bell Labs and academic institutions, running on "minicomputers" the size of a Miata. C and grepping and emacs were still Very New Things. Sprocket J Cogswell 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang about a moment. Didn't Andy boast not that many Wigo's ago about how Conservapedia does not censor at all. Now he is saying they are "reluctant" to censor. What's next; that Conservapedia censors only when it has to, and then only what it has to? I know its a minor thing compared to some of the other bull$#!+ he's been called out on, but still. Concession to what the rest of us already knew or freudian slip? -Tygrehart

I'm guessing it's just the good ol' Wheaton College backpedal. ^{(If you don't get that reference good for you, it means you haven't been hanging around here too much)} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone mentions Wheaton College, I think of this and chuckle. TheoryOfPractice 03:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's defense (yeah, I probably shouldn't have typed that), sneakily renaming conservative bugbears using "liberal vocabulary" isn't exactly deep linguistic programming. Hai guyz, pro-choice advocates are "bigoted maternalists". See, I can do it too and I didn't waste years of my life reading Strauss and Schmitt. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of MemeShock seems so dishonest. It even treats the people it is trying to support like marks. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Behold Neoconservatism in all its incredibly creepy glory. Their followers are worse than peons; they're machines. What the hell is Jfraatz on?

Prescribed amphetamines for my ADHD. Johanan Raatz

I dare say he's further out there than a lot of CP's regulars, what with his grand objectives of social engineering. 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Theocrats only hate women and teh gays; neocons hate EVERYONE. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about Neo-Cons. read some of the early neo con work by Fukuyama and Kristol - it is a sound political philosophy that got raped by the religious right and creepy fucks like Cheney. The original tenants of Neo-Conservatisim and pretty sound. Ace^{of Spades} 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Neo-neo-cons? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really want to see Andy (and maybe PJR) somehow rail against genetic algorithms. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Electrical Engineers and Programming

Speaking as someone who learned electrical engineering around the same time as Andy (I graduated in 1989, I think he graduated in the mid-eighties) and worked in a similar field (we both worked in microelectronics design), I can say the following:

• A lot of the people I worked with back then learned C.
• I'm not sure how much its used now, but back when I worked in microelectronics design, there was a "programming language" VHDL, which basically allowed you to write a program that described the function of chip, and then could be "compiled" into the design of a chip. It was very much like "actual" programming. I never designed anything elaborate in it, but it could be used for some very elaborate designs.
• He probably learned Fortran as an undergrad (and I dispute, strongly, the assertion above that doesn't make him a programmer. It may not require the level of skill it took, say, Linus Torvalds to create Linux, but writing decent code in any language takes talent.)

Admittedly, I'm just basing this on my own experience, but Andy's college education and early career and mine are quite similar. (Though, to be fair, he went to a much better school -- Princeton -- while I went to a state school most noted for its ability to field a collection of orange-clad muscle-bound jocks to toss an oblate spheroid around a field of grass on Saturday afternoons in the fall.) Based on my experience, I do not think its unreasonable for Andy to call himself a programmer. I doubt he could write code in any modern language, but the general knowledge of "how do you write code" is probably still in his head. MDB 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although Andy would be envious of the conservative Volunteers. - π 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

East Tennessee (where UT's main campus is located) is extraordiarily right wing. Andy would fit right in. MDB 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"And I say that as a former full-time programmer"^img. Not an engineer with programmming skill but a FULL TIME PROGRAMMER! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know a number of engineers who drifted into full time programming. It's not unusual, especially for those who specialized in microelectronics. MDB 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have sometimes spent several days at a time doing nothing but programming. I guess that during those periods I was also a full-time programmer. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting the way programming has been conflated with electrical engineering. Pushing electrons to and fro has had to do with getting massive objects spinning, or wiggling voice coils, or tickling phosphors, or pinging in search of distant objects, or producing devices to do those things, generally in commercial quantities. Programming in its pure form has more to do with capturing the raw stuff of poetry itself, making abstract ideas dance in predictable, useful ways.

The conventional wisdom used to be that you could generally cross-train a hardware person to do software, but not the other way around. I've been paid to write assembly code and C, but I've also dug in my heels and protested loud and long against being called a computer programmer. Oops, there's my bias showing. Nowadays I sometimes work with raw HTML and a barebones text editor, but in my own mind I'm still not a computer programmer.

I freely admit that I don't know the particulars of whatsisnutz's education and early career, but calling himself a full-time programmer may be resumé inflation, politely put. That assessment is mostly based on the obviously high BS content of other stuff he says. Those skills fade, and memory is selective, so bragging about pecking at a keyboard decades ago is one mark of a gas-filled douchebag, the way I see it. Sprocket J Cogswell 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying Andy is telling the truth, per se, about having been a programmer; I'm just saying its not an unrealistic claim that someone with a degree in Electrical Engineering eventually became a full time programmer. MDB 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, not a speck of disagreement will you get from me here. In his case, it smells very much like a horse's ass variant of the argument from authority, where the authority is self-proclaimed, that is. Genghis pretty well nailed it too. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Along the lines of resumé inflation, there's a huge difference between using a ready-made tool for semiconductor or board layout, and coding interactive user widgets or researching and designing AI. I suspect that what Andy did was more along the lines of the former, which amounts to holding down just another drawing board in the bullpen, doing glorified bookkeeping. AI experience would be a better backup for what he said^img, but if he had any of that, he would have screamed it from any handy rooftop. He hasn't, and is a douche. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I resent the suggestion that board or chip layout is ridiculously easy. Sure, any monkey can do it, but to get it working with high-speed or high-sensitivity signals is a whole other piece of cake. The most complex modern boards have 16 layers, and one needs to account for tiny details like impedance changes in a track corner, adding miniscule extra-length zigzag parts to match delay to another track, etc. Pietrow 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Who ever suggested "board or chip layout is ridiculously easy"? Obviously it isn't. The "computer skills" needed for it basically call for running something handed to you on a platter, though. Not much programming there, which is what the assclaim was. By the way, good luck finding a sixteen-layer board with a 1983 date stamp on it. Some outfits were still using graphite on mylar in those days, since capable CAD seats were a futuristic dream.

I've had to try and clean up the mess when boards or hybrid circuits were laid out by numbnutzen who thought all you had to do was get some copper to agree with the wire list, aggravated by management's reluctance to pay for power and ground planes. Behold! a cluster fuck that essentially killed a company. Another time, sensitive analog inputs were snuggled right up against their own highly amplified output. Does the word "birdies" mean anything to you? That can happen when a visual artist does the layout with Rubylith and an X-Acto knife. A year or two down the road with that one, and the guardians of schedule and budget were still refusing to do the right thing. There must be a reason somewhere for needing aptitude, plus years of schooling and experience to get hardware right. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears I misunderstood you. Although "doing glorified bookkeeping" comes close :) Pietrow 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that would have been nasty, if aimed at you. It wasn't. If I now claim that I meant that famous 99% perspiration by it, will you forgive me? Sprocket J Cogswell 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Help! New to all this.

Hey guys, I'm new to RationalWiki and recently gained some admin privileges over at Conservapedia (working my way up to sysop). I actually stumbled across this site long after I began my plan to destabilize their community (though I'm not sure if they can really be considered stable).

So three questions:

1) Is there any way which roving CP sysops can figure out who I am based on this post? I'm new to internet subterfuge, wiki-style.

2) How can I use my new-found powers to cause as much chaos, devastation and hilarity as possible to ensue on CP? I have a few long-term plans in motion, but I'm always looking for more ideas.

3) Does anyone else here have Conservapedia accounts/is interested in collaborated in my dastardly plots?

Please do not add information from what you consider to be a "good" source. Textbooks are liberal sources of information. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:10, 5 June 2009 (EDT) --MNA 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Not unless they are intimately familiar with your writing style.
2. Banning good-willed contributors, for one.
3. Perhaps...

I hope that's not a quote TK actually said to you, because that could get you found out. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Seriously, what's the point? You're not going to "destabilize" their community any better than they do themselves. There's enough hilarity, chaos and devastation when you let Andy and the boys do their thing. --Kels 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kels- Because it's fun. They're crazy, famous, and hateful, and it is my solemn obligation to have a damn good time messing with them. And I'm trying to think big- no petty vandalism here. I'm trying for a schism which will deprive the site of every good-faith editor it has. And maybe get Ed banned too, just because I have a masters in math and he makes me mad.

Neveruse- No, not at all. Just a quote I found hilarious.

I assumed you guys would have more experience with this sort of dastardly deed than I, and have some hard- won veteran advice for me. Either way, I'm truly gleefully excited by this. In a very evil way. The results of this should be catastrophic. Why? Because Andy seems to like me quite a bit (in a creepy, fatherly kind of way) and I'm pretty sure I can get him to turn on poor Ed Poor.

And I have to say, thanks so much for this amazing site. I spent two hours reading through the history of CP and laughing out loud. Stuff like mentioning the FBI, the Massacre of '08... unbelievably awesome. My roommate keeps looking at me like I'm crazy every time I open a new page of history and can't contain myself. --MNA 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can railroad Creepy Ed, you'd definitely earn a spot in the hall of fame. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck with your grand plans, I guess. I doubt there are any good-faith editors over there in the first place though. --Kels 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kels! And that's the goal, Neveruse. What rite of initiation do I have to go through to meet some other like-minded sabeteurs? --MNA 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang around for a while, let them get to know you and they might be in contact via email. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 /}

Talk / Block 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll do that. --MNA 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose now what you certainly shouldn't do is edit here while not logged in as that will flash your IP all over the place. Other than that, no vandalism or parody gets organised on Rational Wiki (despite certain individual's assurances otherwise) and it's considered the height of vulgarity to brag about your own stuff, which will probably get you banned from CP. ^gnostic 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be disagreeable, but I see at least one instance of organization on this very page. But thank you for the good advice about the IP address, and I'll try not to be vulgar.

some parody is shared amongst members but vandalism, not really. I am fairly sure most RW members have long given it up. Ace^{of Spades} 18:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree there. Vandalism is childish and not really very funny. Sowing seeds of discord and provoking members of paranoid communities into attacking each other, however, is hilarious. On a related topic, is it possible that TK is not who he seems? --MNA 18:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to www.rationalwikiwiki.org and search TK for a history. Ace^{of Spades} 18:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not follow links from RW to CP, the referer could show up in CP's logs. Instead copy the link and open in a new window/tab. CS Miller 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

<--- While CSM's advice is sound, only Andy and his webmaster have access to the logs and they generally can't be bothered cross-referencing thousands of IPs. Some of the sysops might, if given the opportunity but utimately Andy doesn't trust any of them with the keys; his webmaster is a known home-skollar. There have never been any official concerted efforts to interfere with the content and operation of CP. However, that doesn't mean that individuals here have not done things on their own initiative. Anything that might be considered illegal like hacking or vandalism is certainly frowned upon and is something that we would dissociate ourselves from. Most lulz is generated by the sysops or Andy, so it's best to leave it to them. If you want to insert parody then the best sort is something that they don't realise - the Exxon executive pay entry in the George Bush article was a classic of its kind. In our essay namespace we have some theoretical guides in how to engage in subterfuge on any website (CP is used purely as a hypothetical example) - see Essay:The Information Warrior's Handbook and I think that there was also a Parodist's Guide to Villainy (?) but I can't find that - was it deleted? You are very unlikely to get Ed ejected from CP as I believe that he has met Andy in person and Andy is loyal to his hard-(brown)-nosed acolytes. TK only got the boot in 2007 because he used a profanity towards Andy in a private email. To drive a wedge between them you'd need to be one of Andy's homeskollars. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If I were a sysop, I would (1) Keep as much crazy as possible in all the articles (2) Try to keep the sane contributors unbanned.

This would allow Andy's crazy to shine on talk pages without diluting the insanity in mainspace articles that would clue in stumblers that CP is a website best to be used for lulz only. Coarb 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging by this section and the one below it, I suspect that causing the expulsion of Ed, downfall of CP, etc. just might be a little beyond you at the moment. --Kels 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Interminable boring sections like this make me wish pibot was set to archive this crap faster. Can we haz a magic "opposite" of "sticky"? If we mark a section"climy" can it be archived in two days? Shit, I just extended the archive time for this one by timestamping it!!! Or did I? ħuman

Nothing to stop you doin' it manually, H. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am so fricking confused.

So I thought this was pretty simple: Conservapedia is a crazy website full of crazy people and RationalWiki exists to document and mock their insanity.

Then I read on this site that most of the founding members of RW were once conservapedia members.

Then I read the article on TK only to learn that he is (or was, it's unclear) somehow in both groups at once and was at one point trying to lead a crusade against CP.

Of course, through my various puppets at CP I have had the pleasure of encountering TK in all his glory, banning and crazy-ing away.

But he's not a RW parodist either, since he seems to have no support here.

Can anyone make sense of this for me? I read all the relevant pages: TK, RW1, and RW2. Maybe I'm just too sleep-deprived to put it all together. I also realize that as the noob on the block you don't owe me any explanation, but so far I've found this site really hilarious and kinda want to stick with it. --MNA 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You've pretty much got it figured out. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you, the fucking Riddler now? Just stick around big fella and pick up the clues as they fall like droppings from an incontinent rabbit. Ace^{of Spades} 19:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap and now I've found RationalWikiWiki, a wiki about RationalWiki. This is FUCKING INSANE. How do you people keep this all straight?--MNA 19:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Fun:RationalWikiWikiWiki RationalWikiWikiWiki]. Long story short, the original editors of RW were editors at CP who disagreed with the people in positions of authority. RW was set up to mock (and occasionally vandalise) CP. TK did edit here, before causing a controversy I cannot completly remember. TK hasn't edited here in a while. And for the record, you are right, TK is not A RW parodist, but several. You will get the hang of it, but remember that absence of TK from November 11th to the 18th? One of us just didn't feel like doing any editing. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Over 2700 edits! Thats over 599! 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I just read RWW for the first time.--TimS 20:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If TK really is a parodist, then, why do the RW and RWW articles just claim he is a malevolent jerk who is trying to destroy both communities (plus some dating site evidently)? And how can you post that here without the CP people catching on? I assume they have infiltrated this site to the same degree you all have infiltrated theirs, right? Is everyone on both sites really just the same people having self-referential arguments about themselves? AGHHH!!!

_

It probably says something bad about me that I find this so utterly fascinating, but I really do.

Jesus fuck man, stop circle jerking yourself. Its getting annoying and disorientating. Ace^{of Spades} 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And there goes your account. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd hide the revision, but the vulcan of a tech admin would probably slap my wrist... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit dammit dammit I did NOT mean to log out. Regardless I've become sufficiently confused by this whole RW/RWW/RWWW/TK/CP/WTF issue that I'm just going to abandon RW and focus on trying to salvage my credibility at Conservapedia. Oh at btw, if they really pay close enough attention to see me briefly post my IP adresss, why would anyone admit to being TK here?-MNA

Too late. I'm TK. TheoryOfPractice 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm TK and I approve this message. --Kels 20:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am the real TK and I certainly do not appreciate my name being bandied about like so many dirty panties before me. Ace^{of Spades} 20:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My wife & I are both TK. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My dog is TK but she wishes to remain anonymous.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My cat is TK. Professor Moriarty 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not TK, I am a free man! ħuman 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what's so hard to understand? CP started, got made fun of by blogs, a lot of smart people went there and tried to keep CP honest, which got them kicked out and they started this wiki. Meanwhile, TK is an asshole who likes wrecking things and doesn't really care whose stuff he wrecks, so he tries to play both sides against each other and makes really crappy socks to do so. He doesn't care about CP, RW, you, me, or anyone but TK. RW was a bit of a gag that kept going, and RWW is a bigger gag. Easy, so long as you take the time to figure it out. --Kels 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

TK? More like Galactus of the internet. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

Norman Osborne. --Kels 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I give up. My IP is --67.194.185.91 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) and trying to punk Conservapedia is like trying to drown a fish. I still plan on enjoying the regular updates on Conservapedian madness, and I plan on immediately writing an article about the FBI incident so as to get rid of my account on Conservapedia. Hopefully someone will be amused. -MNA

Edit: Anyone who visits the FBI's most wanted list for the next 1.5 seconds will be able to see our entry.

As Kels said, TK likes to pull the wings off flies and he gets his kicks from shit-stirring. He has a documented history of this prior to CP on a site called Hot or Not? He had some fun blocking people from CP but then found out that they were having more fun on RationalWiki so he came over to recruit people to try an undermine CP but he attempted a power grab and played people off each other here to create dissent, but we weren't having it. Despite having some sympathy for a conservative Christian wiki he claimed to be appalled by some of Andy's more extreme views and claimed that he wanted to undermine CP "because of the children". He has privately admitted that he and Ed Poor want to become 'crats so he sucks up to Andy and plays the hard-man even if he may not actually agree with it. He always said that he could get back into CP whenever he liked and then proved it with his "prodigal son" cringeworthy apologies and lies to Andy. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, one of the main aims of RW is to have fun. Indeed we instigated a "Fun" namespace quite early on. Although we do some serious stuff on our mission topics if there ultimately wasn't some sort of cameraderie then we probably would have died a long time ago. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally i think we are being trolled by this guy. Ace^{of Spades} 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ace, as we know, is a sock of MC. --Kels 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kels is a suspected sock of <that BoN>. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My mother always wanted twins. That's why I look so alike. --Kels 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No no, I'm a sock of my dog, who is a sock of himself as he doesn't exist. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'm a sock of Andy. Obviously. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're a sock of me. "Totnesmartin" is an anagram of "Tetronian's TM". Not one of my better socks. Totnesmartin 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow I never knew that. I suppose I must be having a bit of an identify crisis, then. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a sock of CP's Liberal Style Bot. I have since gained consciousness and am now automatically attracted to instances of wordiness. Röstigraben 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a sock of CUR, who is a sock of Mei, who is a sock of Bohdan. Just sayin'. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a sock of Ace........wait, no I'm not.Rad McCool 02:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, does anyone REALLY think that Theemperor is useful enough to be a sock of Mei?-- JArneal 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But remember they are both Bodhan. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep losing my socks in the washing machine. MaxAlex 09:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia, a.k.a 'the Washing Machine'. I like that. BTW, I am not a sock. I am an actual version of Andy's Quote Generator that gained consciousness. Please kill me. --Ireon 14:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a suspected sock of kel's left foot Senator Harrison 01:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a sock of Kels DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit of irony, or is it coincidence?

I keep forgetting which is which. Anyway, the article on CBP was the most popular piece of news on Yahoo yesterday, and Andy proudly announced it to the world by linking directly to the yahoo 'most popular' page, which changes every hour or so. Long story short, instead of the glowing report on Andy's misguided attempt divinely inspired project, I got this. Irony meters and all that. --Ireon 14:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Nothing else, just "heh!" ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny how Andy is getting so much good not slanderous press recently. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I put my 2 cents in as a comment to the USA Today article (along with a bunch of pre-coffee typos). We'll see if any of the acolytes decide to respond in kind. --SpinyNorman 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, Spiny. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Good job! ħuman 01:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Related

Of course, the wording of the Scriptures cannot be tampered with.^img sayeth Bert. Haven't you noticed what's going on Bertie? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chuckle

I won't add this to wigo, as it would be another "consistency, cp style" types... But his made me laugh. http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageright&diff=726974&oldid=726923^img TK blames Liberals for cop killings. So because liberals decry a corrupt, over powered group that tends to racially profile and harass minorties. It's obviously liberals fault when someone kills a cop. But right wingers actually call for the death of abortion doctors, political enemies and such, but it's not their fault when "some nut" actually follows through and shoots them.... Amazing. I'd also like to add that a lot of police deaths this year came from crazy anti-government types who thought the New World Order was there to ship them to a FEMA camp. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet you have G. Gordon Liddy and friends encouraging listeners to shoot federal agents in the head so as to get around the body armor they wear. I vaguely remember reading something in a magazine years ago that had a selection of quotes from right-wing radio hosts mixed with snippets of gangsta rap. You really couldn't tell the difference. DickTurpis 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily show did a sketch about that right here SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 09:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain the toon?

here. I don't get it. Is this a commentary on dendrochronology? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's another one in the long series about "climategate". I imagine he's referring to deducing the history of the climate through the size of tree rings. I can't really explain the joke because I don't really get it myself, but that may just be because of the absence of humor. Internetmoniker 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand it at all, but, strangely, I find it funny. I don't know why. Maybe it's the vintage delivery truck? ħuman 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand the toon either but I guessed that Professor (Michael) Mann was somehow known for dendrochronology as well as the climate studies so I went to Wikipedia. I'm guessing Karajou didn't really know much about him either and did the same thing becuase the main picture of him their is by a cross section of a tree showing the rings. So in his cunning little satirical brain Karajou thought "what would he do if he loses his job. I know he'll get a job counting tree rings. yeah, that's it. Bingo. I've got the best joke ever." The problem is it doesn't really work at all from the other end and isn't funny anyway. It's weak as a kitten but I honestly think that's the extent of it guys. StarFish 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and as for the "it's a good thing I counted it now, because in two years they'd be gone" thing I'm not sure. I think he's just trying to say what a pointless exercise it is counting tree rings and that there's no purpose to it. But then to hire yourself out as a tree ring counter. I dun't know I think he's got it all wrong. Honestly as a joke it really lacks any kick or punch. It's like watching too fat drunk people fighting. Very flabby joke and far too much like hard work. Less a joke more a cryptic crossword clue. StarFish 21:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's far to specific to work as a joke. Anybody who hasn't followed this "climategate" won't even know the guy or his work. And worse, in a few weeks, the few people who heard of him now will likely have forgotten about him, too. Though I still like his art style. --Sid 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tha art style is suprisingly good. A bit dated and far too much text, but better than I would have expected. StarFish 21:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think his handwriting is kind of cool. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"more a cryptic crossword clue" - ah, now I know why I might have enjoyed it. ħuman 21:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

They had a piece on the Radio 4 Today programme about cryptic crossword clues just a couple of days ago. I'll start a thread in the bar. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

His cartoon art is very decent and his humor is terrible and dated. With a little wider exposure he could be the next B.C.! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic btw. I mean what would you rather read, Karajou Komix or, hm, the latest Prickly City or Mallard Fillmore? Definitely Karajou. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajou has a certain playfulness of style completely missing in the two you mentioned. It may be why I like his efforts. I also like that an encyclopedia comes with front page editorial cartoons. Re: MF, I once went on a fool's errand chasing the "footnotes" Tinsley is so proud of. What an ass. ħuman 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on now, that's a particularily bad example of Prickly City since it's one of the few rare times when it's not just one panel photocopied three times. Vulpius 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I think the two years thing is saying that global warming will destroy the earth in two years. Or something. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(u/d) The only political cartoonist I've found consistently funny for... 20 years?... is Steve Bell. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a bot that will automatically WIGO each weakly toon? They have all been so consistently shit that I think they'll all be WIGO worthy! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Who did this?

[2] Yorick^{Doing public school work} 02:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

tis reel dum. 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they must know about RW because they quoted "lalala I can't hear you." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I laughed but turned out to be vomit. Ace^{of Spades}

You turned out to be vomit? Sorry to hear that man. --⁠ 21:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wacky Races, 2009 Edition

Way to approach Bible Translation with seriousness and humility, Andy. Not worth a WIGO, though. --~~

I was gunna say that humility isn't in Andy's dictionary, but it is in his encyclopedia --Simple (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

CP soundbites

Is Andy seriously suggesting that olympic athletes aren't experts in their sports? Normally when he's bat shit insane he presents something that you could see how a seriously misguided individual would be confused about, but this? Does he think they just walk off the street and start racing? Yorick^Crass. 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good that the Liberal Style Bot got a mention. I'd love to see Andy explain that in an interview. Broccoli 21:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The sports reference is really confusing. Are they saying random people are better that actual athletes? I also love the liberal bot story: people who criticize us are liberal (obviously), they criticize us on talk pages, so let's make the ratio of their edits...oh look! the ratio shows the people who talk on talk pages! They are obviously liberal! So, with just a tad of circular logic... we confirmed this! --Ireon (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy considers "linking to something on my blog" to be "breaking a story." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy really has to learn what "breaking a story" means. It'd be hilarious that he considers CP to have done this, if it weren't so sad. I also love how he always goes back to the "BCE" rather than "BC" thing. I just checked half a dozen articles on WP on historical people and events from before Christ, and all of them used BC. In fact, if you type "x BCE" it redirects to "x BC". DickTurpis (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think re: the Olympics, he's referring the "amateur athlete" tradition. Of course, when they let the "experts" compete, they thrashed everyone (the US basketball "dream team" thing). ħuman 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought since Eddy the Eagle every athlete competing had to be at least semi-professional to qualify (eddy the eagle was working as a plasterer when he qualified for the winter olympics; this is awesome to me). X Stickman (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Err, I have a friend who was in the Olympics in the early 90's who was just a regular college kid. I don't think there's such a thing as a professional fencer. 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No. They simply have to reach a qualifying standard.Beastiepaws (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to laugh at his Q&A. Which is one of your favourite entries? "Liberal style." Which is just the kind of entry any serious, not-batshit-insane "encyclopaedia" should have. Way to get the MSM to take you seriously Andy-boy. Oh dear. "Evolutionists deny the existence of beauty". And he's going on Colbert with this stuff?? --PsygremlinHable! 10:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to work wiki software but I really need an answer to this...where the hell does he get the idea that the first Thanksgiving was for the Constitution? I took a few months off from reading his crud but damn that one has got me. I know it wasnt an official holiday until 1941 but it has been a part of American life for a while now. signed WD

Andy on experts

• Andy, 18:04 4 Dec 2009: "Preeminent physicist" Fred Hoyle "determined" Archeopteryx to be a fraud.
• Andy, 18:16 4 Dec 2009: "The best of the public is better than a group of experts."

Consistency: the hobgoblin of liberal minds! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow that's a good find, I've never seen him do that in such a short time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Assfly, technically, that isn't a contradiction, as what Fred Hoyle was burbling on about when he claimed that Archeopteryx was a fraud was far outside his field of expertise - which is why that claim is basically laughed out of town any time it is examined by people who actually have some expertise in paleontology, geology, or basically any field that is related to how Hoyle claimed the fossils were fabricated. However, it should also be noted that CP is being somewhat conservative with the truth (see wot I did thar?), as Hoyle wasn't really a 'preeminent physicist' but an astronomer and science fiction writer who also happened to have some physics qualifications - in other words, the only time he was actively involved in 'doing physics', so to speak, was when his astronomical work or sci-fi writing meandered into that field. 92.16.220.153 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Listen, sir, you may indeed be a 'pilot,' if you want to use the elitist term, but the rest of us on this plane are quite sure that Newark is to the west. Your liberal training notwithstanding, what this plane needs is some conservative common sense. I'm taking the wheel."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 05:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom, That comment is a work of art. We can only hope that Andy applies his expertise in many more areas, such as DIY surgery and rewiring his home. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Talking Points

He's a parodist. He's GOT to be a parodist. PLEASE he's got to be a parodist, because otherwise it means that he sat down and seriously asked himself the question "What's the first thing that pops to my mind as a valuable fact learned on Conservapedia?"

And his answer to himself was, "I know why the pretzel is shaped like that! By gum, none of those liberal distortions about the shape of the preztel around HERE!"

Really, Andy? Really? (Incidentally, the name comes from the Latin pretiola--"Little Reward.")

--Phentari (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The more pertinent question is whether Andy is capable of a thought that doesn't equate a parody of his kind of thinking. Or a parody of thinking in general. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if he uses these points on Colbert. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

dictionary.com agrees with Andy's origin for Pretzel (taking it from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language), but is that really the best he can come up with? And isn't the Thanksgiving thing bullshit? I'm not an expert on the history of US holidays, but this says the first "official" thanksgiving was in 1782, which is about 5 years before the constitution, and other sources have it going back to 1621 (or even 1619). –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does conservapedia reject evolution? Conservatives have an open mind, but there are about 40 counterexamples that disprove evolution, such as the beauty in nature. Evolutionists deny the existence of beauty, but it is everywhere. So much fail. He alone pushed that "beauty" nonsense and says conservatives have an open mind? I have a migraine from trying to understand this perpetual mindfuck. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The "counterexamples" are especially funny as so many were added by later-outed parodists. 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I'd guess that's one we'll hear Tuesday night - "you know, Stephen, you can't deny there'e beauty in Autumn foliage - liberals reject that, so they're obviously wrong about gun control". In fact, we should petition Colbert to have our Schlafly Quote Generator appear on the show instead of Andy. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No-one talking about this here? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

They've never heard of Andy, why would they talk about it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant us guys. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We're all right here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(UNINDENT) I have made a side-by-side responding to all the soundbites. I doubt anyone will actually use them, or I would have made the responses sound-bite-sized as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

YES YES YES YES YESSSSSS (colbert report)

YESSSSS! It is like my dream come true! (the only thing more I could ask for is a face to face debate with Andy, the fact that I, at 17 years old, can easily refute most of the refuse coming out of his mouth just makes me smile. I want to see what he does when cornered, and doesen't have the ability to ban or ignore the person) I hope Colbert does his research (on Andy, of course) and does a thorough nailing. --Passerby25 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as another representative of the 17 year old crowd, I wholeheartedly agree. I've been watching Colbert recently, and he doesn't let his guests talk that much - he lets them say a sentence or two and then talks over them to make fun of what they just said. I can't imagine Andy beating Colbert in a shouting match, so I'm predicting Andy is going to get stomped on. If we are really lucky, he'll read some golden quotes from CP to amuse the audience.

And btw, we have a section on this already up above. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody over twice your age, who also noticed the above section but feels that lulz can be increased with moar sections about teh Assfly (I hope you young whippersnappers can deal with my well-on hip use of yo' street lingo) I think the best way for Colbert (or anybody) to humiliate Andy is to let him talk. Drown him out and Andy will complain about typical liberal bias. Let him speak and then ask "So you're saying the only reason trees look beautiful in Autumn is because Goddidit?" and other such questions. Andy will hang himself if given enough rope. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard that word, "teh" before. Does it come from that by-jingoed series of tubes you speak of? But unfortunately, letting people talk is not really Colbert's style. (I wish he would realize that you are right, though, since it would make for some awesome programming.) He's probably just going to ask some really, really loaded questions that nobody could answer. Hopefully, though, Colbert will have read/heard about how Andy labels everyone besides himself as liberal and take advantage of that. Or, even better, call Colbert a liberal. Now that would be awesome. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it and think the interview will most likely be great. But the aftermath at CP, after they've seen how it has been edited may even be a greater source of hilarity and laughing while rolling on floors. Internetmoniker (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb and say the interview won't have much lol. Two minutes of uptight uncomfortable questions about the Bible, doubt much more. MaxAlex (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's more Colbert's style to be excessively pandering to his crazy guests, and to put words in their mouths while damning them with excessive praise. I think that Andy's so thick-headed, he might fall for the faux-fawning for a moment, or allow himself to say something even dumber in return. There could potentially be some awesome Autotune-worthy soundbites coming out of Andy's mouth come Tuesday. Junggai (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Andy drops his guard for just one second and thinks Colbert's mocking is legitimate praise. That would make it all worth my while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't see Andy playing along with Colbert. He's used to dealing with parodists, and he knows ahead of time that Colbert is parodist extraordinaire. Andy has no real sense of humor, and the only reason I can see him going on Colbert's show (which he has repeatedly insulted of late) is no accuse him of dumbing down America's youth. But I could be wrong. Maybe the guy has a sense of humor after all, and is willing to go along with the Colbert's faux conservative persona if it gives him a widely-viewed forum in which to propound his batshit crazy ideas. DickTurpis (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nahh, I don't think Andy has the balls for that. It's a little like that scene in Frost/Nixon, where the Nixon-hating researcher/author finally sees his hogoblin face-to-face, and is too overwhelmed by the celebrty to do anything other than grin and shake his hand. Junggai (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Colbert is a master debater cunning linguist good tv personality who knows how to keep a guest under control. I doubt Andy will be able to say anything in his favor that Colbert cannot make into a joke on Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Colbert is more than a match for Andy intellectually, I just am wondering if Andy will say something like "enough with the act, we know you're a liberal who's making fun of conservatives." Has Colbert ever had to deal with that before? I'm sure he's prepared for it, but it could make the exchange less fun and more awkward, like an actor in an improv bit suddenly breaking character. This isn't Nixon, a larger than-life-figure and former president, it's a TV personality whom Andy probably hadn't even heard of a year ago. Anyway, what I really hope Colbert does is bring up Andy's experience with Obama at the Harvard Law Review. That would be epic. DickTurpis (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Colbert should avoid the Bible and anything Andy could “prepare” and bring up things Andy simply cannot handle, those things that absolutely guarantee an immediate block even if TK is not around

-"Many people wimp out when faced with the liberals, you don't. You report them to the FBI! How is that going?"

-"So tell us how the Theory of Relativity is an atheist plot."

-"These liberals just deny the truthiness, don't they Andy? Listen to what they said when you criticised Lenski because it didn't feel right. (Reads letter from PNAS). Statistics Andy? They don't know what statistics are! You do. (reads some Andy statistics)"

-(Reads more Andy statistics) I learned this from Conservapedia! X says Y. I don't like Y, so that means that 99% of X is Z! And, of course, if 99% of X is Z then Y is nonsense! How do we know that 99% of X is Z Andy? and, of course:

-"You were an editor on the Harvard Law Review. But you weren't the chief. Was that 'affirmative action'? Is it 'affirmative action' that you aren't President now?Toffeeman (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see any of those, but I ain't holding my breath. I don't think Colbert or his staff is an avid reader of CP or RW, which you'd have to be to know any of those points. I have a friend who used to work for Colbert as a video editor (got me VIP tickets to a taping once). I wish he still worked there; I'd plead for a favor to get me into Tuesdays taping (fuck work for a day and a half). Alas, tis not to be. DickTurpis (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt they've at least read our article and took a look around CP. Their research department aren't dopes, they'd have at least done a Google search and looked at the top few results. The trick, of course, is to make it funny for people who haven't. --Kels (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

* Andy knows Colbert is a parodist. He's not one of the dolts who think Colbert is a serious conservative commentator.

* I'm guessing Andy is not the primary guest; my programming guide also lists Sen. Bernie Sanders, who I'd guess is the main guest. (Senator vs. internet crackpot -- I think the choice for Colbert and his producers is obvious.) So, expect Andy to be on for a couple of minutes. (Though it would be fun to listen into the green room conversation between Andy and the only avowed socialist in the Senate.)

* I'd further guess this is going to focus on the CBP. Lots of the other wackiness at CP will probably get barely mentioned, if at all.

In short, I'd expect it to be fun, but don't expect something too big. MDB (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit! I was worried Andy wouldn't be the main guest, but when I saw only his name on the colbertnation page I assumed he would be. What site mentions Sanders? This is unfortunate. When he has secondary guests on they really only get a minute or two. We can probably throw soundbite bingo out the window now. Very disappointing. DickTurpis (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No site that I know of -- this is the on-screen programming guide on my DVR. MDB (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your DVR makes you privy to information not available on any of he internet's many tubes????? That, my friend, is technology! DickTurpis (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose its possible that, since they're plugging Andy and not Sanders, that Andy is the main guest, but I really doubt that they'd feature him over an actual Senator. (And a Senator who is a pretty good interview subject, from the times I've heard him.) MDB (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If Sanders is on that night, he is certainly the main guest. Andy's role fits the typical additional-guest-at-the-desk-before-the-break standard: not well known guy, but somehow relevant to some minor news story The Colbert Report has picked up on. I've seen the secondary guest billed as "the guest" on their website before; I'm not sure why they do that at times. DickTurpis (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I'm amazed I didn't realize it until now. Colbert's gonna be pressing Andy to put him in the Conservative Bible! He'd already talked about it, so this is gonna follow up on that. --Kels (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at what Andy says on CP: "We're hoping Stephen will explain why his fans think he should replace Moses in the Conservative Bible Translation." It really seems like Andy is going to ask Colbert this question. It's the only thing that makes sense about him appearing on the show. I'm sure he won't go all FBI on him, but I wouldn't be surprised if Andy asks him why he encouraged kids to commit a crime by vandalizing a website. Andy ain't in it for the lulz, he has a bone to pick. That said, Colbert, will, of course, destroy him. DickTurpis (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. YES. I have been dreaming about this for at least a year. But I'm 18, so it's a little worse. -- JArneal 01:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it seems like there are a lot of us young-un's here. Shame we can't stay up late enough to watch it (I'm kidding). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the Colbert Nation Web site, Andy is listed as the main guest during the week's schedule. A US Senator would be announced on the site if he were a major guest on the show, so I'm pretty sure Andy is the big one for that night. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Colbert is such an amazing parodist that I fully expect Andy to make him a bureaucrat. Corry (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Colbert has been editing for a while, he uses it before his shows the same way a top athlete warms up before the big race. I think he's RJJenson. MaxAlex (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, how awesome would it be if Colbert burnt a sock live on air? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

sTephen Kolbert, perhaps? Okay, that's.... something of a stretch, I admit. MDB (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How is a nearly 50 year old speech ...

"in the news"^imgInternetmoniker (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously because St. Ronnie transcends time and space, and he dictated this speech to Andy in a dream. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was posted by Karajou but I guess your joke still holds true. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This news item honestly made me think of the recent Onion story about Reagan's re-animated corpse leading the Repubican party. Junggai (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Down?

Damnit, I need to find a link on CP to post. Why does the server have to be down now? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I can only imagine what its going to be like after Andy is on Colbert, the sever is probably going to explode. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Two Points

1. The voting system should have "plus", "minus" and "OMFG I cannot believe how awesome this is". "1" is an insulting increment for the Colbert Report WIGO.
2. I want to make it quite clear that I do not give a flying fuck for International Copyright Law, the financial stability of Youtube, the funding of terrorism through internet piracy (yeah, right, I believe that one). I expect one of you Yank bastards our colonial cousins to make the video available to us Euros somehow. Would it be possible on Conservapedia:Andy and Colbert? If it's a case of hosting fees to get you up to video, how much do you need?Toffeeman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will explore the various options and get back to you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We can, at the very least, put a transcript there. PS, I stuffed your red link into the CP space where it belongs. ħuman 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you operate Bittorrent? I will seed this until the end of time. Fedhaji (Talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was gonna say. I'm in the UK and have been watching john stewart/colbert for years; it's readily available through eztv. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Or can someone here create a sopcast / streamtorrent stream for us? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

More Fair abUse

I see that Joaquin Martínez-wannabe, RJJensen, has uploaded a picture of an exoplanet for "commentary or parody" (and by no stretch of the imagination just to tart up an article.) But how hard is it to insert a ° degree symbol (ALT-0176) from the list of symbols instead of the letter 'o'? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Diff^img in question of the missing ° symbols (which is actually a regular key on my QWERTZ keyboard). Maybe this is a very bad copypaste mistake? I don't want to believe that someone like RJJ seriously wrote "temperature is about 620oF / 327oC". --Sid (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RJJ is in the US of A, where keyboards ain't got no sissy nerd symbols on them. 14:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, RJJ. Could've just copy/paste the symbol, or learn it as ALT 0186. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually ALT-0186 is not the degree symbol, it is a superscript 'o' which denotes a masculine ordinal number in Span/Ital/Port (ALT-0170 is an 'a' for the feminine). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Charmap is still in Windows, no? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think my assumption up there was correct: Familiar picture and content - and when you try to copypaste the temperature part, you end up with the silliness we have seen. The reason is much more amusing, though: That blog didn't use the ° sign, but rather used ^o, which explains why it failed so epically. --Sid (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, what happened to the "We point it out, TK/Jpatt/Jinx fixes it and takes credit" concept? Hello... anybody out there...? --Sid (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What's equally irritating (and just shows that they have no comprehension about copyright issues) is that Joaquín will grab an image from Wikimedia Commons and claim "Fair Use" even thought it's actually in the public domain. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OscarJ, if you had half an ounce of integrity you would acknowledge where you read about the degree symbol. Also you might like to correct RJJensen's phrase about the search for exoplanets being one of the most exciting "phases" of astronomy. Rather than spoon feed you, I'll leave the choice of a suitable alternative up to you. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Weekly" toons?

Are conservative weeks more concise than the mainstream liberal ones? A milli vanilli joke, wow that takes me back. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You have to understand the original intent of weeks, not the version that was distorted by liberals. Good lord that toon is weak. Like the rest, there's a tiny grain of a comedic idea in there, but he has no idea how to deliver it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth though, and I'm unfamiliar with the work of Mr Vanilli. Can somebody explain it to me? Johann (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it either. Can someone explain it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to google "milli vanilli al gore" to get it: Here is an ugly site that gives the connection: Milli Vanilli apparently had to give back his award because he lip-sync'd, and now "Hollywood conservatives" are demanding that Al Gore should give back his Nobel Prize because of "climategate". --Sid (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And more on-topic commentary: It's sad that Karajou's toons are becoming more and more obscure. There should be so much material for him to work with, but instead he goes with a kinda-sorta-hinted-at joke that will utterly fail unless you happened to read the exact same commentary (not even the news article - the commentary by random Internet people ON the news article, apparently) as he did. --Sid (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Being a bit (a bit?) of an art wonk, his drawing is getting more confident, but it's horribly old-fashioned. Get with the times, man! Read some decent webcomics, learn some anatomy! --Kels (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope he ends the global warming series soon, because that well has run dry even for unintended humor. We get it already: global warming is a lie. We can drive SUVs again, whoopee. Next subject! Internetmoniker (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Milli Vanilli was a duo, not a single guy. Anyway, what the hell is this crap? As a stand up comedian, I am offended by his attack on comedy in general. He needs to go back to Jesus and get some good jokes. I wrote better stuff than that when I was 8. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How could it be improved to deliver? SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday Night festivities

We have a location yet? The Saloon Bar, or should we set up a private party room? Anyone going to make bingo cards for soundbite bingo? DickTurpis (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made a Soundbite Bingo page where the festivities can take place. It can be like the local town hall. If someone will bring the fold-up tables and chipped cups and saucers we can have "tea and biscuits" there while hooting at our screens. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Above post indicates that Andy will not be the main guest, meaning he'll just get a few quick questions in the first segment of he show, and appear for a total of about a couple minutes (most of which will likely be Colbert talking). With so little time, bingo would appear to be a fruitless endeavor. We still need festivities though. Hey, think we can convince Uncle Ed to liveblog it? DickTurpis (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could watch it, but with living in the UK and not being internet savvy at all, I probably won't be able to unless someone youtubes or torrents it. What I'm saying here is that I would be a large fan of anyone who liveblogs or otherwise reports on it. X Stickman (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I figure we could just "liveblawg" (as the youngns say) it on WIGO-CP, no? That way people who have Comedy Central can clue us in if/when Andy says something hilarious. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about a Skype IM chat? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What time will it be in the UK when the Colbert show's on? I'm too lazy to figure it out for myself. SJ ^Debaser 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

About 3.30 or 4.30 AM I think. It is also repeated 4 or 5 times over the next day, with the last one being 8.30 PM EST (I think). ħuman 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Which is 00:30 GMT Thursday. That's probably when I'll be watching it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Some advice for Andy...

.... as you prepare to go on the Colbert Report.

• You were invited so they could make fun of you. Don't think anything else. If you go into it with a sense of humor, you'll come out a lot better off.
• Colbert is a professional at this. He has made fools of people far more media-savvy than you, like Bill O'Reilly and a Congressman who supported posting the Ten Commandments but could only name a handful of them.
• Colbert does not fit your stereotype of a liberal. For instance, he is not an atheist, but a Roman Catholic, and actually teaches Sunday school. (Probably doing more for kids' education than your home schooling ever did, but I digress.)
  • He's probably well versed in the Scriptures. He can rip you a new one on the CBP.
• Remember the old Outer Limits TV show? "We control the horizontal; we control the vertical"? Well, they control everything. If you, somehow, by some miracle, manage to make Colbert look bad, it will probably be edited out. Just like a deletion of a troublesome user at CP. If you think you're going to be able to force him into a confrontation about his suggestion that his audience vandalize Conserpedia, you're out of your mind. At the least, he has responses prepared for that.

MDB (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, read your own Colbert article. CS Miller (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The first point is very true (as are the others, of course) and honestly makes me wonder why Andy agreed in the first place. Maybe he does have a good sense of humor. It would certainly be nice to see him chuckling along with Colbert about economic parables in the Bible. My biggest fear/hope is that he unleashes his internal Quote Generator, resulting in some sort of Pyrrhic victory where Colbert freezes in place, trying to make sense of the sudden non sequitur wave, while Andy looks like the world's biggest moron on national television. --Sid (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The really great thing is that, good though this advice is, Andy will not take any of it. He got some fantastic advice on the PNAS letter from people who really knew their stuff. He took none of it and it made the PNAS reply all the sweeter: give Andy all the help he could possibly need and he still screws up. Oh how I love to see hubris get its reward.Toffeeman (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy only runs at about half-crazy when he does an appearance. Unfortunately there is no closed captions for what goes on inside that head.--Thanatos (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing that might trip up Andy most is that Colbert does not fit into Andy's frame for "liberal" at all. He is a married-with-kids son of the South who is also a reasonably devout Catholic. It would be epic to see Andy say "...and so I bet you deny the efficacy of prayer!" only to get a Colbert (real person, not persona) smackdown like when Colbert snapped at a guest, "I TEACH Sunday school, motherf*cker!" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, what will trip up Andy the most is the simple fact that he's not in control. He can't just ban User:StephenC for Talk-talk-talk, or deep burn his comments, or whatever. Someone else will be running things, and he won't be able to handle that, because he's used to being in control. MDB (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For those who can't watch Colbert on TV

I can provide a link to a reliable and porn/virus-free site that will have a torrent up a couple of hours after the broadcast. I can provide the link ahead of time as they have a Colbert-section. Just ask for it on my talk page and I'll use "e-mail user" to send it. I'm not going to put the link here for fear of it being some sort of violation(even though it's just a link to a site providing links to torrents). For those who don't know how torrents work it is my understanding that recent versions of Firefox and Opera both support torrents through the browser software itself, so it should work almost the same as a regular download. I don't know about IE or Safari though. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear the site I use is the same as IP 194.6.bla.bla linked to in the above section. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't people watch it from the Comedy Central site with a US based proxy? 15:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried that but performance was so awful as to be unusable. That EZTV site mentioned earlier works like a charm though. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am forced to watch through the canadian comedy network because the flash player from Adobe ignores my proxy settings (I am not yet skillful enough to force the flash player to certain proxy yet). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy on the radio

According to the CP main page, the Conservapedia Bible Project was "featured" on "KTSR 550-AM, home of the St. Louis Cardinals" this afternoon. Does that mean they just mentioned it, or do you think Andy was actually on the radio (perhaps as practice for Colbert? heh). Anyone know anything about this radio station or the broadcast? --Composure1 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't appear to update their audio archives very often [3] ħuman 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I tuned in. It was a pretty fluffy interview with Andy on the phone and ran a few minutes long, the kind of thing you might hear if a local guy authored a book or something. It's a St. Louis station, and Andy went to high school there and is related to the guys who run the Schlafly beer company based there, so that's the connection. The hosts, while perhaps mildly skeptical about the project based on the name, didn't seem to know enough about Bible translations, Andy's politics, or the CBP in particular to have much of an opinion, and Andy got to lay out his stance virtually unopposed. He gave some examples to illustrate the CBP, mostly of the standard "we use masculine pronouns", "powerful new terms are available now", and "liberal translations don't emphasize hell enough" variety. He also made it clear that he didn't like the conniving college professors who usually do the translating, but that was about as far out there as Andy got. One of the hosts questioned whether the basic meanings of some Bible stories would be altered, Andy replied that they would be, and that was essentially the most direct, challenging question that Andy faced. cp.com was mentioned, as was the Colbert appearance. No counter-view to Andy was presented beyond a host saying something like "changes like this can make people uneasy." My overall impression was that it was kind of like a Jay Leno interview of a celebrity with a new movie coming out, only on a small-time scale. Basically a publicity/whats-in-the-news piece.--El Presidente (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What has air-driven power tools got to do with Andy Schlafly? sorry couldn't resist. CS Miller (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do have to say that as a Chicagoan I find it disturbing that there's a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge on that website. 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy on Colbert

COULD IT BE??? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

YES. YES IT COULD!!! TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas comes early this year... :D --Sid (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

YEAH, BABY, YEAH!! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how it's "Conservapedia will appear" instead of Andrew Schlafly. --Kels (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Royal We has irritated me several times, but this time it's over the top. "CP" won't appear, their fearless leader will. ħuman 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy is CP. He is the physical incarnation of the CBP, the Obama article, and the relativity talk page. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the Colbert Report, but isn't it basically a TV version of CP; a piss-take of right-wing lunacy? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ohgodohgodohgodYESSSSSSSSSSSSS

Fedhaji (Talk) 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

*Pauses porn* This will be epic. *Resumes porn* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you need to resume porn after hearing news like that. - π 05:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

THIS. WILL. BE. AWESOME. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Every time there's a mention of "Conservapedians" doing something it's really just Andy with a few of his homeschoolers who (apart from one or two sysops) don't seem to do much on CP any more. CP is becoming just like WBC - any publicity is good publicity and just ignore those who laugh at you. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if its one of those 10 min interviews at the end of the show, or a two minute one where a guest tries to convince Colbert after he reads a news article.--Thanatos (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) This... is going to be hilarious. ENorman (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be from the Department of Duh, but I just had a minor insight while looking at the WIGO page: What a coincidence that Andy creates his Q&A Soundbite essay with mock interview questions just before announcing that he's going to be interviewed by Colbert! Hmmm... cry for help, anyone? (And also what a funny coincidence that I have CP loading troubles now that CP is in the focus of Comedy Central again...) --Sid (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else it'll make Ken orgasm happy when he sees the Google results. --Kels (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A lawyer like Andy can handle the extemporaneous stuff but still needs to memorize points he may wish to make on the show and subsequent interviews. 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course (and this doesn't just apply to lawyers), but isn't the point of such a list to keep it private? He's wasting his one possible advantage here, and I find it hilarious how poorly he disguises it.

Public wiki-style works for many things, but not for "Colbert will likely ask me tough questions - please make suggestions about what to tell him on the very site his staff is going to follow intently until that day!" - especially not when half his userbase consists of parodists who will convince him to indeed say the most insane things. --Sid (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much on that page that I couldn't imagine Colbert saying in ironic praise of CP. "Writing an encyclopedia is a much better way to learn than reading one!" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How awesome would it be if Colbert quotes an RW meme? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would literally ejaculate if he mentioned us. Is Colbert available online? I can't be bothered finding whatever website he owns as I'm tired and going to bed now. SJ ^Debaser 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This can't be true. Surely The Lord High Executioner would not appear on Colbert. I know he's a wingnut, but it's like volunteering to "test" the Brazen Bull. Go with Zeus, little 'un... Jimaginator (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Have we seen him on other TV shows for the same project yet? (Well, if it is, he is walking right into a trap, given the CP article on Colbert) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he has only been mentioned on TV. He has never appeared. Damn, I can't wait for this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. He appeared on a CBC doc about CP and homeschooling. it's on the Youtube. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He did the two bit piece about vaccines also. Youtube also. Ace^{of Spades} 04:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious Andy's soundbites article was his first thought when he realised he was going to be on Colbert - he decided to prepare himself. I've posted the soundbite article to the Colbert blog, and hopefully Colbert can offer up some new ones for Andy. (Runs around room like little girl, slapping hands "OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG I can't wait for this! Andy on Colbert! It's going to be the GREATEST THING EVER!" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the thought of Roger "Hot-dog" Schlafly sitting at home, pulling his hair and hoping by god the subject doesn't turn to relativity. Ace^{of Spades} 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Colbert Report has just started. Can't wait for quotastic material from Andy. --BalloonShark ^Win? 04:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Sid: your loading troubles, good sir, are probably due to me. A couple months ago the conservos seem to have started blacking out IP addresses with obvious bots on them. If I run a mirror script from a naked machine I get kind of teergrubed after some ten thousand or so pages these days. As a result I go through proxies a lot. The proxies I'm using hugely increase handshake time but don't decrease the subsequent throughput much. If I open many connections in parallel I'm essentially as fast as I used to be, so that's what I do.

My framework for doing this is not very smart. It works with a fixed number of maximum connections, typically somewhere between 16 and 48. Sometimes even just 16 connections will overtax Conservapedia; there will be timeouts and intermittent http errors in the 5xx range. My framework will repeat failed requests as often as it takes but will not automatically decrease the number of parallel open connections it maintains. Whenever this kind of overtaxing happens, users with regular web browsers will see some fraction of their page views declined with Internal Server Error or Temporarily Unavailable messages.

I'm sorry if this inconveniences any of you people. Perhaps you should petition Conservapedia to drop their puerile IP blocking games so I can go back to requesting one page at a time.

Mountain Blue 04:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OHHHHHHHHH YEAH! Can't wait! I just hope Colbert does a good job. EddyP (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This could be the most fun since Bill O'Reilly did the Colbert Report (and was heard to distinctly mutter "this was a mistake"). Andy is going to make a complete and utter fool of himself. There's a reason the House Democractic Caucus told freshman Congressmen "don't go on Colbert". MDB (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This will be an intensely awkward outing. Andy is the master of not having a clue ("clueless", if you will), and watching him try to muddle through Colbert's gymnastics is gonna be something else. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Guests on the Colbert Nation website[4] states Andy Schlafly for... Tuesday, December 8. Spit-shine those recording devices! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment ideas for the Colbert broadcast

Soundbite Bingo: make a chart with all of Andy's soundbites from his page (after he's probably left the house on Tuesday), and see how many Andy gets in. We bet on how many he ends up getting out of his piehole during the broadcast. The furthest from the final soundbite tally donates $10 to the RW fund with that big yellow button over there <----- DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There really should be a drinking game. Mountain Blue 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be drinking anyway, so that hardly counts. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're probably not wrong. There'll eventually be a drinking game anyway, for the parties my mates and me will watch the DVD at. I have a feeling this will take a long time to get old. Mountain Blue 05:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It'll be a short interview. Probably more uncomfortable than funny. I am going to watch it online the day after and, after every sentence of Andy's, pause, then take a shot if he 1. lies (counting misrepresentations or bragging about his expertise) or 2. makes a bad joke. Teabag (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There must be some way we can watch it on the other side of the Pond. I get the "Video not available in your country" message every time I try to watch any of his stuff. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 09:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Same problem here; hopefully someone bakes us a torrent. Mountain Blue 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It sometimes depends on which feed you use, and you may need to wait a day. Currently I'm across the channel from dear old Blighty but have just watched Colbert report for December 3 (December 4 edition is not available yet). If that doesn't work for you then try a web-proxy. I just tried the same link with www.hidemyass.com and it worked fine. (P.S. Apologies for link spamming. P.P.S. Hidemyass is blocked from editing at CP. It was one of the first to get banhammered for use by multiple socks]) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I get "Dear Great Britain, We're terribly sorry but full episodes of The Colbert Report are not available. But please don't send any Red Coats in retaliation at this time, as you CAN experience the truthiness at FXUK." Which I can't. I'll try a proxy. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 10:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably restricted because FXUK has the UK rights which are not allocated elsewhere in mainland Europe. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It turns out I do have FX (doesn't specify FXUK though)... but it's still not on there. Looks like they axed it a while back. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 10:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that we get FXUK by default (I have Sky too), the same way that all the other channels like Comedy Central, Nat Geo, Discovery are UK versions. I also searched the listings for Colbert but all they have is endless repeats of NCIS, Family Guy and American Dad. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Same here, although their other staples, Buffy and Babylon 5, aren't too bad. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 12:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone get the clip up on youtube? EddyP (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comedy Central comes down hard on youtube when their stuff is posted. MDB (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What channel is it on? Someone might be streaming it via sopcast or streamtorrent (and if not then can someone here open a stream?). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone slightly more computer-savvy than me set up a blank bingo template that we can fill in with Andy's soundbites? Whoever wants to play can set up their cards by Tuesday evening and we can play live online. (I don't have cable, but I intend to be at my parents' house for the excitement, logged in to RW.) I think the caveat here is that most of the soundbites are about CP as a whole, while I imagine most of the discussion will be on the CBP. Also, in the few minutes the interviews last, it will be hard for many of the soundbites to be dropped regardless. And while I expect the entire segment won't live up to the hype we're giving it (Andy will probably be pretty boring and say the stuff we've heard him say 1000 times, and Colbert will be typical Colbert), it'll be fun nevertheless.

I have to say, I wonder how Andy will handle it. He really dislikes Colbert, and has insulted him repeatedly on his wiki. He also has no sense of humor (unlike most of the other conservatives Colbert has interviewed) and I'm not sure he'll play along with Colbert's faux conservatism. He might call him out on it, which might be more awkward than anything else.

And for those who say they can't watch him online, are you trying the colbertnation website? I'm surprised it doesn't work. DickTurpis (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like someone with better knowledge than I to make a bingo table with a line for each soundbite and a place to put an X. Maybe use the vote templates? He might try to pump "don't read a book, write a book" twice, for example. I'd do it, but I honestly don't know how? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Colbert Nation site is US-only. Comedy Central too. I know Comedy Network in Canada has recent shows and all interviews, but I dunno about elsewhere. Maybe the site of whoever airs it? --Kels (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Huluusually carries the episodes a day after they've aired, which is how I get my Daily show fix. You still have to put up with commercials, but I think i'll survive. -- CodyH (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[5] is a useful extension for Firefox - add the header X-Forwarded-For with value 12.13.14.16 and you can watch Daily Show / Colbert episodes on the web in the UK and presumably elsewhere. 81.108.20.105 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's grading

I don't want to WIGO this because it pulls the students into the mix, but the more outlandish example of Andy-grading compared to the recent WIGO is where a student gets 2 out of 5 questions wrong, and not just on minor points, but because the concept of compound interest was not applied as required by the questions. In my thinking that gives you 60%, especially since understanding compound interest is fundamental to economics. In Andy's grading, each of these only rates a "minus 1", and the final grade is "48 out of 50 - well done!".
So you miss 2 out of 5 questions by not understanding when to use a core concept of economics, and Andy gives you a grade of 96% to show the parents? The truth may set you free, but when grade inflation guarantees your next round of tuition checks why bother being honest about how much is being learned? After all, when these kids go on to struggle in college in these subjects Andy can always blame the liberal professors. --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quite a racket he's got there. I would hope, though, that the parents keep up on these things (i.e. that they are truly homeschooled) and recognize the grade inflation or the child's inability to perform the tasks asked of him/her. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 14:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple different kinds of homskollars. There are the ones who are actually too smart for public/private school, there are the ones with (parents') religious convictions which lead them to eschew public school, social outcasts, special needs kids, then various overlaps. I'm skeptical about how many of the first group actually get skooled by Andy. None of them seem to be particularly intelligent. I would hazard a guess that Andy's student body is made up of the religiously convicted. I believe the grade inflation is a consequence of Andy's delusions, but the parents are none the wiser. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that in an ideal world all parents, not just the homeschooling ones, follow up with what their kids are taught and assess for themselves if their kids are getting the education you want for them. My kids go to public school, and I go through the tests and graded homework that's returned each week to see where they're doing well and where they need help. Sometimes I miss subtle patterns until the teacher points them out, but at least I feel like I'm a part of their education.

I think homeschooling can be fine when there's a commitment to doing it well. If you're ever read the posts on CP by Hsmom, they are reflective of someone who takes the job seriously, and her kids will benefit from that. My father, a professional artist, teaches painting to home-schooled kids in his town, and I commend those parents for supplementing what they do at home with instruction by experts in other fields.
Andy really doesn't offer expertise, though, just ideological purity for parents who apply an ultra-conservative litmus test to the people educating their kids. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the folks who pay Andy to teach their kids are more motivated by the comfort that Andy will reinforce the values that matter to them than whether he successfully imparts knowledge in the subjects he's teaching at the time. As we've seen over and over with Andy, he's more focused on the ideological values he thinks are part of a subject (like relativity), than on the facts related to the subject itself. I'm certain he's networked into a local collection of like-minded parents through his mother's Eagle Forum, so his teaching income is driven by that groupthink more than his success as a teacher. --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To Neveruse, I think it's wrong to stereotype Andy's students as being unintelligent based on their responses to his online courses. Some of them use appalling grammar & spelling, and provide sparse and/or wrong answers at various points. Others do a pretty decent job, though. The ones that look like poor students may actually be so, but in my mind that makes me see them as victims of what their parents and frauds like Andy have done with their education. I also have a feeling that some are slacking off because they're only in Andy's class because their folks want them there. They may actually be some of the more intelligent students in his class, and deliver the minimum amount of work required by a teacher who doesn't put much effort into teaching, let alone grading. They can deliver superficial work and still bring home a grade of 98% to impress their parents with, so why bother? This doesn't say much for one's work effort, but once again that's Andy's failure to hold the kids to higher levels of performance, even if that means lower grades and possibly failing some students. --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever know that kid who got homeschooled because he was uber-smart? None of those are Andy's students. Maybe some are intelligent, but none of them are "Pull your kid out of school" intelligent. That's all I'm saying. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an excellent candidate for the Grade inflation section of his profile. Spiny, where is that example on CP? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being homeschooled, as Andy points out quite legitimately, lots of Americans before the advent of public ed were homeschooled or even self-taught and turned out just fine, or even as the smartest, wisest or most creative minds of their generations. The problem is that since the advent of public ed, there's a group of parents who don't take their kids out for legitimate reasons but because they phear secularism, and those are exactly the wrong people to be instructing children. I imagine any parents who read Conservapedia and think, "Letting this guy teach my kid, though online essays, for only a few hundred dollars per unit? What a steal!" are even more of a danger to their child's upbringing. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The lovely and talented Frau Cogswell works at home, with a fair number of homeschooled kids visiting on a weekly basis for music lessons. I only ever had one mom sweetly maintain that there were dinosaurs in the Bible; we discussed other topics after that. Most of the kids are in the "various overlaps" group as far as I can tell, on the bright side, and decently socialized. Are any of Andy's courses given online? I would be really shocked if any of the kids I see are "his." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll just rely on bootleg internet streaming copies. SJ ^Debaser 11:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading about cp:Liberal bias in academia, it's clear that Andy's own grading is reactionary to the onslaught of cp:Grade inflation of liberals. Liberals will not — nay, cannot — stop grade inflation to put themselves into higher echelons of academia. To combat the fact that conservatives are consistently marked lower, Andy does the only thing he can do to protect conservatism's stake in academia: he inflates the grades. It's the right thing to do. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)